Birthers' newest claim: Obama not a 'natural born citizen' because father was Kenyan UPDATED
UPDATE: The Supreme Court rejected the claim today without comment. [H/t marionetta]
We've always said that wingnuts never, ever give up. And that would be especially true of the wingnuttiest of the current crop, the Birthers -- because their theory has been so manifestly disproven so many times that you'd think they might have a clue by now. But no.
Now they're expanding their theory. They're arguing that Obama, per the constitutional requirement that he be a "natural born citizen", is disqualified from such status because his father was a British subject of Kenyan birth.
What's really funny about this theory is that these fetishists of all things from the Founding Fathers would thus have disqualified one of the leading founders, Thomas Jefferson, from the presidency.
What's perhaps not so funny about it is that the Supreme Court has this case on its docket.
Unsurprisingly, the wingnuts at WorldNetDaily are all over the story:
The Supreme Court conferred today on whether arguments should be heard on the merits of Kerchner v. Obama, a case challenging whether President Barack Obama is qualified to serve as president because he may not be a "natural-born citizen" as required by Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 of the U.S. Constitution.
Unlike other eligibility cases that have reached the Supreme Court, Kerchner vs. Obama focuses on the "Vattel theory," which argues that the writers of the Constitution believed the term "natural-born citizen" to mean a person born in the United States to parents who were both American citizens.
"This case is unprecedented," said Mario Apuzzo, the attorney bringing the suit. "I believe we presented an ironclad case. We've shown standing, and we've shown the importance of the issue for the Supreme Court. There's nothing standing in their way to grant us a writ of certiorari."
There really shouldn't be much to worry about here, truthfully: the lower courts have all tossed out this suit, and indeed the Third Circuit Appeals court ordered Apuzzo to explain why he shouldn't be sanctioned for filing a frivolous lawsuit (an order that was later vacated.
On the other hand, considering that these appeals were tossed not on the merits of the case but on the lack of standing that Charles Kerchner actually had in filing the suit, and the fact that the Roberts Court has shown a disturbing tendency to liberalize standing when it suits the conservative wing, maybe we shouldn't be so blithe.
And what's the basis of their theory? Back to WND:
Apuzzo is arguing the "Vattel theory," which asserts that the term "natural-born citizen" as used in the Constitution was defined by Swiss writer Emer de Vattel. Vattel, whose work, "The Law of Nations," was widely known and respected by the founding fathers, used the term to mean an individual born of two citizens.
According to Apuzzo, Congress and the courts have addressed the question of who can be an American citizen, for example regarding former slaves, Asian immigrants, and American Indians. However, the term "natural-born citizen" has never been altered.
"The courts and Congress have never changed the definition," said Apuzzo. "The founding fathers understood that the commander-in-chief of the armed forces needed to have two American citizens as parents so that American values would be imparted to him."
Apuzzo said the Supreme Court had clearly accepted Vattel's definition of "natural-born citizen" in "dicta," or statements made in opinions on cases addressing other matters. He cited Supreme Court Chief Justice John Marshall's opinion in the 1814 "Venus" case, in which Marshall endorses Vattel's definition.
This is pretty odd reasoning. Especially when you consider that the same standard would have disqualified Thomas Jefferson -- whose mother, Jane Randolph Jefferson, was born in London, England:
According to the Jefferson family bible, she was born 9 February 1721 (o.s.) in Shadwell parish, Tower Hamlets, London. The parish register of St. Paul's, Upper Shadwell, notes her baptism on 25 February 1721 as the daughter of Isham Randolph (1687-1742), "mariner" of Shakespeare's Walk (literally around the corner from the church), and Jane Rogers (1698-1760).
None of this has slowed Kerchner -- a retired Naval Reserve commander who lives in Pennsylvania -- and his attorney, Mario Apuzzo, whose blog is something of an Information Central for the case. Here, for instance, are the questions Apuzzo is arguing before the court:
QUESTIONS PRESENTED TO THE U.S. SUPREME COURT:
PETITION 10-446
1. Whether petitioners sufficiently articulated a case or controversy against respondents which gives them Article III standing to make their Fifth Amendment due process and equal protection claims against them.
2. Whether putative President Obama can be an Article II “natural born Citizen” if he was born in the United States to a United States citizen mother and a non-United States citizen British father and under the British Nationality Act 1948 he was born a British citizen.
3. Whether putative President Obama and Congress violated petitioners’ Fifth Amendment due process rights to life, liberty, safety, security, tranquility, and property and Ninth Amendment rights by Congress failing to assure them pursuant to the Twentieth Amendment that Obama qualified as an Article II “natural born Citizen” before confirming his electoral votes and by Obama refusing to conclusively prove that he is a “natural born Citizen.”
4. Whether Congress violated petitioners’ rights under the Fifth Amendment to equal protection of their life, liberty, safety, security, tranquility, and property by investigating and confirming the “natural born Citizen” status of presidential candidate, John McCain, but not that of presidential candidate, Barack Obama.
As Eric Zorn observes, these folks seem to think the Supreme Court is going to validate their effort to have a sitting president declared ineligible. Lotsa luck with that. But then, these are people with a real Magical Thinking problem.
Idiot...
Don't try to confuse the issue with half-truths and gorilla dust.
it's something else. The Wing Nuts are not going to stop until Obama vacates 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.
They don't care about governance, or the economy or anything except getting the Black Man out of the White House.
Of course, Obama is not helping matters by proposing the Federal Government workers take a freeze on their pay....but still.
I mean, seriously?
Say what you mean. Mean what you say. But don't say it mean.
Yes, rightards, the man is black. Get the fuck over it already.
The birthers have been pushing this line for a while. Once this approach gets batted down they'll come up with something else.
Why stop with choosing just one President?
without comment.
From CNN: http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/11/29/scotus...
Thank god, this actually had he a little concerned. If it were any other court than the one with Thomas and his TPWife I would laugh at the idea :)
which means we get an update soon?
Yep. Already a line in blue and a big note in the headline.
Rinse and spit.
“Why would anyone with a functioning brain believe this guy?”
Some guy with an eating disorder
Kerchner, a retired military officer who describes himself on his website as a "genetic genealogy pioneer,"
Oh, and I'm sure his genes are the standard bearer.
NOW, am I allowed to call this asswipe an Aryan, Nazi sympathizing, white supremacist lowlife?
"Ironic, isn't it Smithers? This anonymous clan of slack-jawed troglodytes has cost me the election, and yet if I were to have them killed, I would be the one to go to jail. That's democracy for you." --Mr. Burns
to find a theory to latch onto.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iGk7Io4chO8&fe...
“Why would anyone with a functioning brain believe this guy?”
Some guy with an eating disorder
Translation: RACIST.
Sounds an awful lot like someone who believes we should return to the days of miscegenation laws and the "one drop rule".
Never trust anyone who insists that patriotism requires you to blindfold yourself with the flag.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rzic86OWnS8
Diabolus est Deus Inversus
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7YBeepShsgo
Hasa Diga Eebowai
based on your wussy ass link. Here's the REAL American version.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N3T5WFG3zcA&fe...
“Why would anyone with a functioning brain believe this guy?”
Some guy with an eating disorder
The implications of this claim are breathtaking. In order for me to be a citizen, both my parents had to be at the time of my birth. In order for them to be citizens, the same rule applies. You wouldn't have to go back very far before you'd have cancelled the US citizenship of a big percentage of the population.
much logic and common sense here. Better pull back a little or you'll lose the Birthers altogether.
LOL
got "lost" long ago, in the intellectual gobi desert that passes for right-wing thought. anyone who seriously (as opposed to for political purposes) believes this whole "birther" nonsense should be adjudicated mentally incompetent.
Anchor babies being caught up in the crossfire is a nice side-effect, in their eyes.
Wouldn't this disqualify nearlly all of the founding fathers of having been American, since their parents were from England? A number of presidents had foreign born parents- Thomas Jefferson's mother was English, Andrew Jackson's parents were Irish-Woodrow Wilson had a foreign born parent- there is some suggestion Chester Arthur was born in Canada.
This is just more of the same from the Republicans; hatred. Last week they took a break from preaching hatred of gays and immigrants to spew hatred of Native Americans. Now they're back on hating immigrants.
They hate everyone, and this gives them a new excuse to hate immigrants.
Barack obama is 100% American. The fact his father was not born in the US does not somehow invalidate his citizenship.
My grandparents were from Italy- does this mean my father, who was born in Boston, was not really an American?
one of them was delivered by caesarian?
If you need funds to pay for essentials, you have a revenue problem
If you need funds to pay for frivolity, you have a spending problem
...was born an British citizen in a British colony.
Our first seven presidents were just like Obama's father: born as an English citizen in an English colony.
According to their "theory", only those whose parents were both born on or after July 4, 1776, in the United States of America (or should that be 1783 when the Constitution was ratified?) could rightfully be Commander-in-Chief. Washington couldn't technically be CiC. He was born a British citizen, in fact, he served in the British Army as a young man. I haven't checked all the bios of our early presidents, but, "logically", if you ascribe to their "logic", how long was it before our presidents could actually be CiC?
If your father's father, the Italian immigrant, had not yet become a naturalized American citizen when your father was born, then your father was born with DUAL citizenship -- American by birth on the soil and Italian by the blood of his father. And your father could not be asked to choose one or the other. Any country, such as the United States, which bestows automatic citizenship by birth on the soil, must recognize that the blood country may also consider the person to be it's citizen.
Washington and John Adams SR, possibly junior as well.
precedent. Stare dust-to-dustus.
“Why would anyone with a functioning brain believe this guy?”
Some guy with an eating disorder
Technically (which is where the lawsuit stems) both parents would have to be born in the US after 1776 (or 1789 depending on your criteria). I think you would have to go all the way to James Polk (1845) to find that.
validating Vattel would put up on the slippery slope to Sharia law.
“Why would anyone with a functioning brain believe this guy?”
Some guy with an eating disorder
Now the birthers will have to go back to the investigation into what type of underwear the president wears and whatever kind it is, how it makes him unable to be president.
Say what you mean. Mean what you say. But don't say it mean.
Nose bones are jewelry. Any other questions?
“Why would anyone with a functioning brain believe this guy?”
Some guy with an eating disorder
Nope! On this subject I think I'm good. So they can investigate what type of nose bone he wears. They can speculate that instead of getting an elbow to the mouth he had his nose bone jewelry removed.
Say what you mean. Mean what you say. But don't say it mean.
I agree this is a ridiculously stupid argument to make. But I just want to point out that the provision does not say that the parents had to have been born in the United States, it only states that the parents be American citizens. So if two parents immigrate here legally and become citizens, then their children will automatically be US citizens. That's what they are saying. So I don't know if Jefferson's mother became an American citizen, but if she did (and I assume that marrying Peter Jefferson would have done this), then TJ would be a legitimate president according to the Birthers.
Having said all that, I don't think the law supports this notion. I don't think "natural born citizen" ever mandated that the parents be American citizens. And I certainly don't think it requires both parents to be Americans. Obama's mother was American, raised him in America, he lived in America for decades, he is obviously an American.
made her the same English born British citizen she always was.
And just what "provision" are you referring to which mentions the word "parents"?
“Why would anyone with a functioning brain believe this guy?”
Some guy with an eating disorder
I don't know offhand what the status of British colonials married in America was. I would assume they would have become American citizens when the United States as a country was formed. I could be wrong. By provision (an incorrect term, you're right), I'm referring to Apuzzo's argument which assumes that "natural born citizens" involves the parents being citizens, which as others have pointed out is entirely incorrect historically. At any rate, the Birther claim is wrong on so many levels, we just need to be sure that our refutations are correct. I don't think claiming that Jefferson would be disqualified is correct, so I recommend deleting that portion of the post or else Birthers will use it as ammunition.
No one who was a citizen of the U.S. at the time of the adoption of the Constitution was disqualified, because of the bold text below:
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.
I am aghast at the ignorance of this simple provision in the Constitution here right now, and was cringing so much I had to register to correct y'all. You guys really need to familiarize yourselves, because you don't want to go up against even the birthers while your arguments are packed full of straw.
Here:
http://www.usconstitution.net/
It’s appreciated, beneficii.
It should be pointed out as well that John McCain was also qualified to be POTUS – though he was born in the Panama Canal Zone. Even if Obama were born in Kenya (which he wasn’t), he would be equally qualified.
The rest is just noise. As PoP says…
SQUIRREL!
...on American soil, end of argument!
Mickey: "It was an epiphany. Do you know what an epipany is?"
Keoni: "NOT NOW MICKEY!"
I'm not defending the birthers here, but Dave N is wrong on Jefferson. In the beginning our presidents didn't have the "natural born" rule apply to them since none would have been able to serve. As per wiki:
The grandfather provision of the "natural born Citizen" clause provided an exception to the "natural born" requirement for those persons who were citizens at the time of the adoption of the Constitution. (The first several Presidents prior to Martin van Buren as well as potential Presidential candidates such as Alexander Hamilton were born as British subjects in British America before the American Revolution and this grandfather clause would cover them.)[1]
And when arguing against the birthers, we cannot be wrong on important points like this. That the definition of natural born would disqualify the Founders is irrelevant, because of the Constitution's grandfather clause. The argument is bullshit, and in response the birthers would just lick their chops and chew us out (rightly for it).
The reason the whole Vattel theory is BS is because American law on this subject is derived from English law, which also has it that natural born citizens are those born in the country, as written by Sir Blackstone in his "Commentaries on the Laws of England." There were some Founders that did want to change the understanding of natural born citizen to those born in America with 2 American citizens, but there is no evidence whatever that the understanding of the law actually changed. The understanding of the law has instead been that those born on American soil and subject to American jurisdiction are natural born citizens.
Any of the Founders are bad examples.
The actual language of the clause also addresses a residency requirement of 14 years.
The Constitution was adopted in 1787.
I pledge allegiance to the Constitution of the United States of America, and to the republic which it established, one nation from many peoples, promising liberty and justice for all
Where is the pesky grandfather clause 4Liberty dreamed up because it was in Wiki.
“Why would anyone with a functioning brain believe this guy?”
Some guy with an eating disorder
Here, I bolded it for you:
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.
Here is a good copy of the Constitution, and it gives good notes on it:
http://www.usconstitution.net/
Try to familiarize yourself a little bit more with the document; Lord knows we have too many of that posting here today.
the provision says nothing about grandfathers. Or grandmothers.
Or papas. Or mamas. Or trains. Or prisons. They might be in country and western songs, but not the constitution.
“Why would anyone with a functioning brain believe this guy?”
Some guy with an eating disorder
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vAOVRkSCWmg
(where is ysb when you need him?)
You've got it.
“Why would anyone with a functioning brain believe this guy?”
Some guy with an eating disorder
lol
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ETO3YfDKEI4
Diabolus est Deus Inversus
No matter. The tea-baggers aren’t going to let silly things like facts get in the way of their beliefs.
The cons would be pleased as punch if they could disqualify Jefferson as an American, which in their eyes would invalidate any ideas he had concerning the foundations of this country, specifically separation of church and state.
Let's clarify a few things. While the Birther argument is preposterous, we should be clear on the facts on which the argument is based, for easier refutation.
Article II of the US Constitution states: "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." As the Founders were Citizens at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, they were exempt from being natural born citizens to be eligible for the presidency. So arguing that the Birther theory would invalidate Jefferson's presidency gets us nowhere.
The Birther argument is that a "natural born citizen" must be born in the US of two parents who were citizens at the time of the birth. So someone born in the US, whose parents are citizens at the time of the birth, can be a "natural born citizen" (and therefore eligible for the presidency) even if one or both parents are merely citizens but not "natural born citizens." In other words, if you are born here, and both parents are naturalized citizens of foreign birth, you are eligibile for the presidency but your parents are not. So, if Obama's father was not a US citizen at the time he was born, their position is that Obama is not eligible for the presidency. Again, everyone born here whose parents were citizens but not born here are still eligible for the presidency, so arguing that those people are no longer eligible gets us nowhere.
The real refutation of the Birther argument is that the courts have held that the citizenship status of the parents is irrelevant. "Natural born" means born here. The rest is noise.
Exactly right! Nicely written!
English common law has always been jus soli ("right of soil"), while most other countries have been jus sanguinus ("right of blood"). Vattel was a Swiss writer who was describing the laws of different countries. There was one historian who was a founder that supported making America jus sanguinus, but there is no evidence America ever did, and the 14th amendment pretty much locks in the jus soli concept. Also, there are as you said the court rulings.
Kerchner, again, is an idiot. Vattel didn't 'codify' US law. He was a theorist of international law- who died in 1767.
Don't try to confuse the issue with half-truths and gorilla dust.
Part of the reason they included Natural Born citizen, was because otherwise the Founding Father's, being born essentially British (in a British colony), wouldn't be qualified. Then they would have to wait for the first generation born in this country AFTER the Revolution becomes at least 35 before they even had a president.
If you started counting at 1776, that means no president until the earliest 1811.
Diabolus est Deus Inversus
I can't believe we are actually giving this serious discussion.
Say what you mean. Mean what you say. But don't say it mean.
Privatization of the TSA? Marissa Tomei impressions? Pear propagation?
“Why would anyone with a functioning brain believe this guy?”
Some guy with an eating disorder
the supreme court declined to do just that.
Hasa Diga Eebowai
sounds french to me, don't trust 'em. but seriously, this is insane; there are so many valid reasons to attack obama, if they are so worried about following the constitution how about "congress shall have the power to declare war" for starters? i haven't seen an actual declaration of war in my lifetime, and i damn sure have seen a bunch of wars.
You're right about the the war thing, but not that it's a valid criticism of Obama. The Constitution doesn't say "Congress shall have the power to allow a President to continue fighting a war that was already going on when he came in to office."
we wouldn't be in this mess if it wasn't for the wars. no, these 'birthers" are weird, i think they are just violent, angry at the way things are, and blaming all the wrong people.
SQUIRREL!
Say what you mean. Mean what you say. But don't say it mean.
squirreled away from public view, Missy.
“Why would anyone with a functioning brain believe this guy?”
Some guy with an eating disorder
Bullshit.
Snark
Squirrel.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yj3QAzSWVA4&fe...
This would be your snark:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_r4tbZz5wdk&fe...
“Why would anyone with a functioning brain believe this guy?”
Some guy with an eating disorder
I heard it last summer when the whacko General guy refused to acknowledge Obama's legitimacy and court-martial proceedings began. they're hanging their hat on his father's citizenship in order to challenge the 14th amendment as a whole. Undermining Obama is just a side benefit.
When the 14th amendment was ratified, all this hand wringing about reading the minds of the founders was rendered unimportant. It doesn't matter if both or neither parent was a citizen- if you were born on U.S. soil, you are automatically granted citizenship.
That is what "natural born" citizen has meant for the last 145 years, according to the constitution.
seems to me they concider it to be a 'goddamn piece of paper'.
A shame the Democrats don't point out how Republicans are trying to shred the Constitution- god forbid they offend the Republicans..
But not the right to run for president.
Diabolus est Deus Inversus
Since all of us have at least one ancestor not born in the United States, does that mean we're all illegal? I mean, my great-grandparents were both born in Yugoslavia, which means my mother wasn't a natural born citizen, which means I'm not. Or am I? Fucking teabaggers, always confusing the shit out of me.
I don't think it matters unless you are the first black president elected to office in the US.
But how many people who voted for Obama were legal citizens? That could be the next "squirrel" moment.
Say what you mean. Mean what you say. But don't say it mean.
I'd rather have a Moose and Squirrel moment.
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00465I1BA?t...
"Ironic, isn't it Smithers? This anonymous clan of slack-jawed troglodytes has cost me the election, and yet if I were to have them killed, I would be the one to go to jail. That's democracy for you." --Mr. Burns
http://www.plumdragonherbs.com/catalog/produc...
http://www.themoosestore.com/images/bag_moos_...
Oh, you said moment, not movement.
“Why would anyone with a functioning brain believe this guy?”
Some guy with an eating disorder
Sadly our friends across the pond see the lunacy of FOX and the Birtherbots, and think we all must be that way....paranoid and ignorant.
America is coming off as a dangerously paranoid country- not the sort of mental instability you want in a nation that has the largest nuke arsenal on the planet....
And the same nation that gave Palin a shot at being one heartbeat from the button for that nuke arsenal.
Say what you mean. Mean what you say. But don't say it mean.
a racist, fascist party
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xmziaVS5R50&fe...
“Why would anyone with a functioning brain believe this guy?”
Some guy with an eating disorder
The SCOTUS refuses to hear the case?!?!
RELEASE THE OILY TAINT!!
"Ironic, isn't it Smithers? This anonymous clan of slack-jawed troglodytes has cost me the election, and yet if I were to have them killed, I would be the one to go to jail. That's democracy for you." --Mr. Burns
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=On3mrKW-Nk0
“Why would anyone with a functioning brain believe this guy?”
Some guy with an eating disorder
I wonder when Native Americans see bigoted white Christians talking about "foreign invaders", and villifying immigrants- how do they react? These same right wingers aim their hatred at Native Americans, even though their ancestors were here long before the Euro caucasians. Right wingers are the first to justify the seizing of Native American land, and further marginalizing their culture.
I think the Republican Party is little more than a white supremacy party...
They're trying to say mother's don't count.
Diabolus est Deus Inversus
Prior to the Cable Act of 1922, an American woman who married a foreigner lost her American citizenship and could not pass her American citizenship to her offspring. But this does not apply to Obama because
1. He was born after 1922 AND
2. He was born on American soil
The rules of citizenship have long been established. They are Jus soli and Jus sanguinis. The law of the soil or the law of the blood. If you are born on American soil or to American parents you are considered an American citizen. A military base overseas is considered US soil as are airplanes and ships of US registry, Hence the concern that McCain wasn't born in America. He was born on an American military base in Panama and born to American citizens. There is no question of Obama's citizenship, he was born in Hawaii to an american citizen in an American state. All of the rest is just bullshit smoke and mirrors.
John McCain was not born in the US Canal Zone, he was not born in the military hospital in the Canal Zone, he was born in the civilian hospital in Colon, the capital of Panama outside of the Canal Zone. He is however a "natural born" US citizen because he was born to a US Citizen - just like Barack Obama.
He's a dingleberry?
Diabolus est Deus Inversus
Who knew Bill and Hillary would be so incompendent to let a "foreigner" get elected? As far as the right wing crazies go they are evil incarnate or were before Obama showed up, These people are the biggest bunch of sore losers on the face of the planet.
...energy is needed. Like putting an end to republican't obstructionism. AND if they want to go after a president, what can't it be w for his war crimes, trashing of the Constitution and killing the economy.
I hate to see energy wasted!
Mickey: "It was an epiphany. Do you know what an epipany is?"
Keoni: "NOT NOW MICKEY!"
Hawaii became a state Aug. 21, 1959. Obama was born Aug 4, 1961. Therefore Hawaii was already the 50th state of the United States for almost 2 years. Obama was born after Hawaii became a state, so that makes him born on American soil and a natural born American because he was born on AMERICAN SOIL; thus making him an American citizen. Hello.....Done.
Andrew Jackson (1829-1837) is the only president born of two immigrants, both Irish. Presidents with one immigrant parent are Thomas Jefferson (1801-1809), whose mother was born in England, James Buchanan (1857-1861) and Chester Arthur (1881-1885), both of whom had Irish fathers, and Woodrow Wilson (1913-1921) and Herbert Hoover (1929-1933), whose mothers were born respectively in England and Canada.
I just noticed something inteersting in the picture
The quill has a metal point
They whittled the point and notched it themselves
Okay interesting to me.
Diabolus est Deus Inversus
The Supreme Court is supposed to consider the reasoning of some foreign writer??? Intellectual consistency has never been the teatard's strong suit.
How can a whole subset of Americans be SO wounded by the election of a half-black president that they will go to the most extraordinary lengths to try to figure out a way to oust him?
I guess they'd like to try something more violent and direct, but since they are ultimately great cowards, physically and mentally, they imagine they can can outsmart several hundred years of constitutional law... and a specialist in Constittutional Law..
Real sad cases.
MyMy
Well, you know, they DID get the Supreme Court to select the idiot, George W. Bush, didn't they?
... is a 'natural born' citizen? As opposed to what? Something Frankenstein created? Something a teabagger conjured up?
If you need funds to pay for essentials, you have a revenue problem
If you need funds to pay for frivolity, you have a spending problem
This argument was settled years ago, before Obama was born. Under US law,child born in the US is automatically a US citizen, no matter what the citizenship orimmigration status of the parents. The one and only exception to this is if the parents are foreign diplomats.
Prez Obama, when he was a kid, was nominally a British subject until age of majority, whereupon he had to swear allegiance to the British Empire. He had dual citizenship, one by birth in the US to the US, and by virtue of his father being a British subject.
Next, I'll bet the Tea-Tards will claim Obama Sr was a diplomat.
So an American GI who brings home a 'war bride' and has a child is denied citizenship for his child if the wife has not gained citizenship yet.
At this point, if having one parent who's not a U.S. citizen were enough to disqualify you as a "natural-born citizen", then probably a good ten percent or more of the people in this country would no longer be considered citizens!
This argument also fails to take dual citizenship into account. Technically, it's possible for people to be citizens of more than one country -- because even though the United States does not recognize dual citizenship for naturalized citizens, this is not necessarily true for natural-born citizens and it also doesn't change the fact that many other countries do recognize dual citizenship.
Never trust anyone who insists that patriotism requires you to blindfold yourself with the flag.
It would be way more than 10%. Think about it. If any of your great-great-great-great-great-great grandparents was born before both of his or her parents were naturalized, that 6-times-great grandparent was not a citizen but presumably never asked to be naturalize because he or she was born here. That means none of that person's 8 kids were citizens either, nor were any of those 8 kids' kids, etc. And neither are you, even if all your other 6-times-great grandparents were citizens.
Pay closer attention to the argument. Kerchner/Apuzzo are only arguing that Obama is not a natural-born citizen because only one of his parents held U.S. citizenship -- but regardless of whether they're willing to acknowledge him as a natural-born citizen or not, they would have no grounds whatsoever for denying him or anyone else like him the right to become a citizen through the process of naturalization (although it would still mean that he couldn't be president). That's beside the point from their perspective because their argument stems exclusively from their reluctance and refusal to recognize Obama's presidency as legitimate (which is why they're grasping at whatever straws they can reach, no matter how flimsy, in an attempt to justify this belief) -- and it is beside the point to some extent because Obama has always been a native-born citizen according to the terms of the Fourteenth Amendment and therefore had no motivation to apply for what he already possessed! However, even if a person were required to prove that both parents were U.S. citizens in order to qualify as a native-born citizen (which is not the case), this wouldn't be enough to prevent the children of naturalized citizens from qualifying. If a person had to prove that both parents were native-born citizens in order to be considered a native-born citizen, I dare say that you'd be right...especially these days, we'd be a nation in which hardly anyone would qualify!
Never trust anyone who insists that patriotism requires you to blindfold yourself with the flag.
are very sore losers. And stupid.
NOBODY 2012
Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz .
Insanity , it is what it is , there is no understanding it .
1. There are real legal distinctions between types of citizenship. The Constitution refers to naturalized citizens, natural born citizens, and citizens at time of the Constitution's passage.
2. All of the chatter above about various early Presidents not being eligible under this particular Birther's theory is at least as wrong as the Birther's theory, because the Constitution explicitly specifies citizens at the time of passage as being eligible for the Presidency.
3. This particular brand of Birtherism does not argue that Obama isn't a citizen, it argues that he is not a "natural born" citizen. The argument does not unravel citizenship multi-generationally because of that.
4. What "natural born" meant was a matter of some legal dispute for decades because the Constitution did not define it and there was not total agreement in case law. This was supposed to be fixed by the 14th Amendment.
And THAT explains why the nominally less insane members of the GOP are still not willing to fully reject this crap. For 112 years, case law has consistently come down on the inclusive side of interpreting the 14th Amendment, which clearly declares a broadly-defined birthright citizenship. This has been a nuisance to the Nativist/Racist Right ever since. The rational argument -- the one that fits with repeated refusals as in this case to grant cert by SCotUS -- is that the 14th ends all of the arcane argumentation over classes of citizenship that came before and defines how the phrase "natural born citizen" should be interpreted simply and inclusively. The Birther argument is that the 14th carves out an extra bit of baroque detail in citizenship, and leaves "natural born" meaning what some Swiss guy defined it as in the 18th century. If they could get this foothold on limiting the 14th, it wouldn't just get Obama out. That is a big Birther fetish, but the rest of the "sane" Right would then also have a foothold for larger long-term nativist action or (more likely) a trumping issue, akin to how they've used abortion.
So Bill, is the argument that Obama is a citizen because he was born in the US, but is not a "natural born citizen" because his father wasn't a US citizen, and thus is not eligible for the presidency? Or am I still mixing that up?
We're the truth tellers here. We have to have our facts straight. The founding fathers were exempt from the "Natural Born" citizen clause. Remember, the constitution says:
"No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; 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."
Jefferson would have been fine. That's the only correction I have for David Neiwert. Other than that, He's right about everything else.
this shows you how ignorant they are of history. both of andrew jacksons parents were what was once known as ulster-irish (n. ireland). they were as american as, say, fetticini. this law would also apply to jackson, and to jefferson, whose mother was english born and about 1/2 the signers of the constitutions. lets call it what it is, it is obama's skin color they have a problem with, not where he was born and which parent was or was not american
Comments are closed on this entry