Now for the politics of it all because the rule of law seems to be long gone.

By making a deal with the devil candidate Obama over such an important rule of law you allow him to commit any breach of law he decides to because you broke the law in making the deal. To this day McCain speaks highly of Obama and supports most of his policies. He, McCain, is a powerful man in DC so underlings will toe the line with the exception of a couple of "Wacko Birds" who take their oath seriously. But they are not enough.
The problem with now allowing a GOP ineligible candidate is that AII S1 C5 is forever gone. Notice without even hinting he was running the libs marched out to declare Cruz eligible. They don't care if he is running or not they just want to legitimize Obama's presidency.
The only hope we have in preserving the Constitution is to have a successful challenge to the term of art natural born Citizen" while Obama is still in office.
Having said that I will now go buy a PowerBall ticket!

Ziiiinnngggg!!!!!!

You have -with logic, rationality and facts- shown that Obama is not eligible to be POTUS..

Kudos

I wonder what the Weigantian Peanut Gallery will say to THAT!? :D

Whereas such limitations would be inconsistent with the purpose and intent of the `natural born Citizen' clause of the Constitution of the United States, as evidenced by the First Congress's own statute defining the term `natural born Citizen';

They are clearly referring to the 1790 Naturalization Act where it states;

And the children of citizens of the United States that may be born beyond sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born citizens;

This provision was removed fives later because congress could not make a law to define what was a natural law. This is why again when debating the 14th they made it clear what was a natural born Citizen in debate of the language.The part they did get right was the two parent rule. But why would the Senators not make the leap to realize Obama's dilemma of a one parent Citizen? I submit a deal was made to ignore this fact and go along with the narrative of him being "native" born.SR511 also states that McCain was born on a military base.

Whereas John Sidney McCain, III, was born to American citizens on an American military base in the Panama Canal Zone in 1936.

He was born in Colon at the Colon Hospital which IIRC is about 40 miles from the military base, but either way it was not on a US military base.George Rommney's eligibility was hotly debated as well because he was born in Mexico. There where scholars and congress critters who came down on both sides of the issue but Rommney left the race before it was resolved. If we are to follow the rules of jus sanguinis and jus soli then it generally accepted to mean sovereign territory by two of its Citizens. A place like Guam might be considered if, like in McCain's claim, born on a military base. Being simply born in Guam does make you an NBC. International waters or airspace is generally considered to be the country of the craft's registration.Now to get to our pResident. According to the British Nationality Act of 1948 Barack was born to a British subject and therefore became a British subject at birth. Don't take my word for it you can read right from the Obama campaign!

“When Barack Obama Jr. was born on Aug. 4,1961, in Honolulu, Kenya was a British colony, still part of the United Kingdom’s dwindling empire. As a Kenyan native, Barack Obama Sr. was a British subject whose citizenship status was governed by The British Nationality Act of 1948. That same act governed the status of Obama Sr.‘s children.
Since Sen. Obama has neither renounced his U.S. citizenship nor sworn an oath of allegiance to Kenya, his Kenyan citizenship automatically expired on Aug. 4,1982.”

Sneaky....The Kenyan constitution does state that if you do not denounce your other citizenship and sware an oath to Kenya then you citizenship does in fact expire. But they give you a two year grace period so the date Aug 4, 1982 should read Aug 4, 1984. Big deal Greg...Well it is.Enter the British Nationality Act of 1981.

Every person who—
(a)under [F105the British Nationality Acts 1981 and 1983][F106or the British Overseas Territories Act 2002] is a British citizen, a [F107British overseas territories citizen] , [F108a British National (Overseas),] a British Overseas citizen or a British subject; or
(b)under any enactment for the time being in force in any country mentioned in Schedule 3 is a citizen of that country,
shall have the status of a Commonwealth citizen.

The UK was terminating the title of "subject" and replacing it with "Commonwealth Citizen" in this act. So the date above is relevant because the commencement date of the BNA 1981 was Jan 1, 1983 while Obama was still considered a Kenyan Citizen thus being a British Subject then became a "Commonwealth Citizen" of the UK.We have a Brit in the WH!Now to address the "birther" issue of being born somewhere else besides the US You are correct in citizenship transfer by a single mother. She must be a US citizen and have resided in the US for a minimum of 5 years before her 19th birthday.

Well, I am happy that you came back and responded, so allow me to continue your welcome here. And again, sorry for the initial delay...

You raise several interesting points, and several interesting court cases. First, the bit about the Indians -- that's a good and relevant point, as they (along with ex-slaves) were born in the USA of parents who were born in the USA. Hadn't considered that aspect of it, personally.

But I have to ask, point-blank, what's your opinion on Obama's eligibility, given that he was born in a US state (Hawai'i) of an American mother and a non-American father?

But while you provide fascinating documentation of the "within the jurisdiction of" clause (this was, I assume, when the whole concept of "embassies are actually 'foreign soil' legally" was being developed among the international diplomatic community -- which is just an assumption on my part, feel free to correct me if I read that wrong), you don't proactively define what it means vis-a-vis the territories and possessions of the United States. So let me repeat the unanswered questions:

Also, how would you define "US Soil"? Would Mitt Romney's grandfather have been qualified (he was born in the Utah Territory, before statehood)? Would McCain? Would a Puerto Rican or someone born on Guam? How about someone born in a US Embassy abroad? Or perhaps someone born on the high seas, in international waters?

What, exactly does "jurisdiction" mean? Since you seem to know what you're talking about on the subject, I am interested in your take on all of those. I find them lodged in misty vagueness in my own mind, if truth be told.

I am going to have to look up the reference to your quote which begins: The object of the Fourteenth Amendment, as is well known..., for some needed context. It seems to be suggesting something, but I'm not sure what, exactly, so I'd like to read the whole opinion.

Since we're getting into the weeds, for a long slice of American legal history, citizenship between one American and one non-American seemed to be determined awfully arbitrarily -- it mattered (a lot) whether the father or the mother was the American parent, which seems inherently discriminatory these days. In actual fact, it seems backwards, logically. The mother is the easiest parentage to prove, after all, and yet was legally discounted, whereas the father is merely deemed to be parent based on what the two parents said (not medical proof, to put it another way), but the law was backwards on the issue.

If Obama had been born somewhere outside Hawai'i, for instance, the laws at the time stated (I'm doing this from memory, forgive me if I get it wrong) that for him to be granted automatic citizenship, she would have had to be a native-born American and had to have lived 5 years in America before her (?) 19th birthday, which she fell short of by a few months. So should that hair-splitting (assuming, for the sake of argument, that the birthers are right and he wasn't born in Hawai'i) determine his eligibility for the presidency?

Anyway, like I said, glad you responded, and I will bookmark this comment thread to refer to (especially for those case citations you made) the next time the whole Ted Cruz/eligibility question comes up. I truly am interested in the legal history, here, because I feel that far too many people are brushing it aside.

At heart, I love a good constitutional debate. Call me a sucker for the love of argument, if you must.

Heh.

-CW

"Oh no, I've gone cross-eyed..."
-Austin Powers, THE SPY WHO SHAGGED ME

:D

I find no fault with the introductory clause [S 61 Bill], which is simply declaratory of what is written in the Constitution, that 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….

The above quote was made twice on the floor of congress during debate of the 14th without a single objection.In Minor v Happersett the supreme court entered into the record the language of the 14th and then in it's decision said this;

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.

Interesting also are some more comments in WKA case.Mr. Justice Miller, indeed, while discussing the causes which led to the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment, made this remark:

The phrase, "subject to its jurisdiction" was intended to exclude from its operation children of ministers, consuls, and citizens or subjects of foreign States born within the United States.

The real object of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution, in qualifying the words, "All persons born in the United States" by the addition "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof," would appear to have been to exclude, by the fewest and fittest words (besides children of members of the Indian tribes, standing in a peculiar relation to the National Government, unknown to the common law), the two classes of cases -- children born of alien enemies in hostile occupation and children of diplomatic representatives of a foreign State -- both of which, as has already been shown, by the law of England and by our own law from the time of the first settlement of the English colonies in America, had been recognized exceptions to the fundamental rule of citizenship by birth within the country.

The object of the Fourteenth Amendment, as is well known, was to confer upon the colored race the right of citizenship. It, however, gave to the colored people no right superior to that granted to the white race. The ancestors of all the colored people then in the United States were of foreign birth, and could not have been naturalized or in any way have become entitled to the right of citizenship. The colored people were no more subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, by reason of their birth here, than were the white children born in this country of parents who were not citizens

In Luria v. United States.

Under our Constitution, a naturalized citizen stands on an equal footing with the native citizen in all respects save that of eligibility to the Presidency. Minor v. Happersett, 21 Wall. 162, 88 U. S. 165;

Just to cite a few. In all throughout different courts there have been 27 justices to cite the meaning of the term of art "natural born Citizen" as meaning being born of two citizen parents.

As for our current pResident, if we believe the narrative put forth he was born a British subject.

Glad Jefferson won that argument?

In it's long long long history, St Augustine (established 1565, Nation's Oldest City) has changed so many hands. French, Spanish, English, Spanish again, Colonials, America...

With my luck, we'de be under Cardassian rule by now if Jefferson had his way... :D

I agree, that is pretty classy! Leave it to the Canucks... hey, if an embassy can be "native soil" of another country, why not a hospital?

Michale -

I know you were being facetious with the "13 colonies" bit, but there was a huge (I mean HUGE!) political stink when Jefferson bought the Louisiana Purchase. "It's not in the Constitution!" the "strict constructionists" of the day cried. If they had gotten their way, the United States would STILL just be the original 13 colonies, the lands they had claimed to the West (but to the East of the Mississippi River), and the Northwest Territory. Call it the 13 original states, plus Mississippi, Alabama, Tennessee, Kentucky, Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Michigan, and Wisconsin. Oh, and Maine (used to be part of Massachusetts), Vermont (used to be part of New York), and West Virginia (used to be west Virgina, if you can dig that creative use of capitalization).

That would be it. Nothing to the west of the Mississippi, no Florida (you'd still be in New Spain), and of course no Alaska or Hawaii.

Glad Jefferson won that argument?

Heh.

-CW

Now THAT is just classy.....

I disagree about McCain's eligibility. He was born in a US Possession. US Territories count as the US for citizenship. I'll even include US Military Bases as US territory.

I'll give you the US Possessions.. But military base?? I think that's a close call.. Now Embassies?? That is, ostensibly, US territory, so it COULD count as "natural born"...

But, to throw another wrench at a monkee, all of those would be considered "man made" by gregnh's definition..

My brain hurts...

"That's why I don't like to talk about Temporal Mechanics. It gives me nose bleeds"
-Geordi LaForge

I seem to have heard that a wing of a Canadian Hospital was given to The Netherlands during the war so that the heir to the Dutch throne would be born on Dutch "soil". The Dutch, equally gracefully, gave it back a few days later.

I disagree about McCain's eligibility. He was born in a US Possession. US Territories count as the US for citizenship. I'll even include US Military Bases as US territory.

But Canada doesn't count. gregnh's point is about the phrase "natural born". Canada is in no way US soil.

But I'm agreeing with Ann Coulter. How's that for "the world turned upside down"

Using gregnh's rather strict definition of POTUS eligibility, McCain and Cruz would NOT be eligible for POTUS..

But Barack Obama would!!!

Howz THAT for karma, eh!? :D

Fair enough.. However, after reading what I posted, I wanted to qualify it as such:

And the Right Wing nut jobs are just as representative or NON representative of the Right as the Left Wing nut jobs are representative or NON representative of the Left.

.... as that reflects better what I wanted to say...

However, that smacks too much of "moving the goal posts" so I'll own the quote as it was originally written.. :D

As I am wont to do.....

"Welcome to the party, pal!!!"
-John McClane, DIE HARD

And let me say that you have definitely added a new facet to the discussion. And did so in a completely logical and rational manner.

I am not sure I buy into it, because it invokes the "creator" concept which, in turn, would lead me to the question, "what if their isn't any 'creator'".

In other words:

"There is no fate, but what we make"
-Linda Hamilton, TERMINATOR II

When one takes the "creator" theory out of the equation, then all that is left is statutory or man-made laws..

Regardless of all that, awesome first comment...

CW,

Somehow, I just knew that Demolition Man quote would appear here. Truth be told, I threw that reference in just for you...

I have to admit, it did have a kind of -Red Flag In Front Of A Bull- feel to it. :D

The more I thought about this issue while writing this, the more questions arose about what is and what is not "US soil" so I'm interested on someone else's take on it.

My first inclination (following gregnh's lead with regards to "natural" law) would be that "US Soil" would be such that was "US Soil" naturally. Thinking it thru, I realize how unwieldy that would be, because of the "creator" issue mentioned above and because of the fact that where does the line stop at "natural". The 13 original colonies??

So, just going with my gut....

"Yea, well right now, Mac outranks your gut"
-Jeff Daniels, SPEED

.... I would say that any state or territory that has official recognition passed by Congress of same would constitute "US Soil"...

The downside to this is that it would disqualify children born to military parents stationed overseas and a whole host of others as well...

So, I have no good answer..

But I AM pretty damn pleased with myself for that Movie Quote Tri-fecta!! :D

Oh, you bet I'm going to mention that in Friday's column. Best example I've ever seen of a quantification of the Obama Derangement Syndrome.

Heh.

Michale -

Either side has nut-jobs.. This is undeniable...

And the Right Wing nut jobs are just as representative of the Right as the Left Wing nut jobs are representative of the Left.

OK, I think I'm going to have to bookmark this comment, so I can cite it later when you attempt to paint all Dems by the idiocy of a few.

:-)

Don't say I didn't warn you, when it happens.

-CW

You write:
There are laws written to govern every situation - except one. The only situation not covered by positive law is when a child is born in a country, and both parents are citizens of that country. Why? Because no law is required, the child is a citizen ‘naturally’. Both sides want to ignore this FACT.

But what about the 14th Amendment, which begins:

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.

This was indeed positive law, made necessary by the Southern states which were attempting to strip citizenship from people born here to parents who had also been born here.

The definition of citizenship to those naturally born here was not immutable, the rights were being denied because the Southern states were attempting to change the definition on the fly. The Constitution was indeed amended to reflect a federal definition to trump the state definitions. The only reason the states tried this is because it wasn't specified in the Constitution. They certainly didn't see it as a "natural law" which is why it had to be written down and adopted in the 14th.

Also, I'm unaware that the Supremes have ever ruled on the matter, relating specifically to presidential eligibility. Do you have a case I can look at? Just because I haven't heard of it certainly doesn't mean that it doesn't exist.

I'm interested in your last bits -- do you think Cruz is eligible? Also, how would you define "US Soil"? Would Mitt Romney's grandfather have been qualified (he was born in the Utah Territory, before statehood)? Would McCain? Would a Puerto Rican or someone born on Guam? How about someone born in a US Embassy abroad? Or perhaps someone born on the high seas, in international waters?

The more I thought about this issue while writing this, the more questions arose about what is and what is not "US soil" so I'm interested on someone else's take on it.

-CW

Somehow, I just knew that Demolition Man quote would appear here. Truth be told, I threw that reference in just for you...

:-)

-CW

gregnh -

Welcome to the site! Your first comment was held for moderation automatically, my apologies for the delay in posting but we have to do this to cut down on the comment spam.

From now on, you should be able to post comments and see them appear instantly, as long as you post only one link per comment, at most (multi-link comments are also automatically held for moderation).

I'll address the content of your comment in a minute, but wanted to first extend a welcome to the site.

-CW

It's really no different than the Left nutjobs who called Bush a war criminal, etc etc....

Either side has nut-jobs.. This is undeniable...

And the Right Wing nut jobs are just as representative of the Right as the Left Wing nut jobs are representative of the Left.

Agreed.. But tell that to the fanatics... :D

, he does shoulder a share of the blame for not paying attention to the PDB on August 6, 2001,

He shoulders as much of the blame as Clinton and all the POTUSes (POTUSii?? POTUSuim??) before him that never recognized the threat that Bin Laden and Al Qaeda presented..

Hindsight is ALWAYS 20/20... Nowhere is this more true than in the field of Counter Terrorism..

It's easy to look back and say, "we should have caught this" or "that should have been a red flag"... But, more often than not, there were very logical and rational reasons for what was missed.. It's only in hindsight that these things take on significance...

define "blame him for." any assertion that the attack was his doing lies squarely in tinfoil hat territory. however, he does shoulder a share of the blame for not paying attention to the PDB on August 6, 2001, when his vacation was more important than a warning from the CIA. a more diligent president might or might not have prevented the attacks from happening; we'll never know.

JL

Today's gem.

A survey of Republicans in Louisiana asked: Who do you think was more responsible for the poor response to Hurricane Katrina: George W. Bush or Barack Obama?

Twenty-eight percent said they think former President George W. Bush, who was in office at the time, was more responsible for the poor federal response while 29 percent said Obama, who was still a freshman U.S. Senator when the storm battered the Gulf Coast in 2005, was more responsible. Nearly half of Louisiana Republicans — 44 percent — said they aren't sure who to blame....

It actually explains a lot. Like why the lunatic wing think that it was Obama who was responsible for the $1t debt before he became President. Their level of insanity that the nut-jobs have managed to drill up over Obama means that basically anything bad that happened in the last 20 years = Obama's fault.

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”

That is a form of natural law. So, the term ‘natural born citizen’ means EXACTLY what it says, a citizen at birth according to natural law.
OK - what is a citizen by natural law? Remember, a natural law is one that is unwritten. So a citizen by natural law, would be a citizen that would require no man made ‘positive’ law to be a citizen. So, when is someone a citizen without need of any positive law? When they can be nothing else. Does that sound familiar? Ever heard someone answer a question with the word ‘naturally’, because the answer could be nothing else? “Does Monday come after Sunday? Naturally!” Who can be nothing other than a citizen at birth, and therefore requires no positive law?
There are 4 basic variables governing citizenship.

1. Born in or out of a country.
2. Both parents are citizens.
3. One parent is a citizen.
4. Neither parent is a citizen.

The first (where born) is combined with the other 3 to determine whether or not a child is a citizen at birth. There are laws written to govern every situation - except one. The only situation not covered by positive law is when a child is born in a country, and both parents are citizens of that country. Why? Because no law is required, the child is a citizen ‘naturally’. Both sides want to ignore this FACT.
Maybe where a person is born shouldn’t really matter. I’ve seen many immigrants who are much more patriotic than natural born American’s. But there is a process to go thru if that is the case, and that process is the Amendment process. But that probably wouldn’t go through. So what do they do? They simply ignore that part of the Constitution. The real danger is what part do they decide to ignore next?
'Natural Born Citizen' simply means, a person born a Citizen according to the law of nature.

What is important about the 'law of nature'? There is a legal term Jura naturæ sunt immutabilia - and it means, "The laws of nature are unchangeable".

The Congress CAN NOT declare a person a 'Natural Born Citizen', because they CAN NOT change the definition, it's immutable.

The idea that Ted Cruz meets the NBC clause is ridiculous, Ted Cruz is a US citizen NOT by natural law, but by statutory law, as written in the Immigration and Nationality Act (either section 301, or section 320).

Just look at the titles of the chapters those sections are in! The title of the chapter section 301 is in - CHAPTER 1 -- NATIONALITY AT BIRTH AND BY COLLECTIVE NATURALIZATION. We know that Cruz was not considered a 'US National', he is a Citizen, so his citizenship would be from "COLLECTIVE NATURALIZATION". The title of the chapter containing section 320? CHAPTER 2 -- NATIONALITY THROUGH NATURALIZATION, that says it all, all persons who are 'citizens at birth' through these sections, are citizens "THROUGH NATURALIZATION". Also, these are not really 'Citizens at birth', the are 'Citizens BY birth'. There is a BIG difference (and you will notice that Cruz 'spokespeople' will always say 'by birth'), persons who automatically acquire Citizenship via section 320, are not actually a US citizen until they move to the US and establish permanent residence.

That is why it was always clear that you must be born on US soil to be president, because ALL US citizens, born outside the US, even if a citizen at birth, are 'naturalized US citizens', and NOT 'natural born Citizens'.

"I have, in fact, perused some newsreels in the Schwarzenegger Library, and the time that you took that car..."

"I don't wanna know. President..."
-Demolition Man

I doubt there will be a "birther" movement that tries to keep Ted Cruz from running,

It wouldn't surprise me.

There are still many on the Left who blame Bush for 9/11...

Never underestimate the depravity of the political fanatic.. :D