That Obama eligibility issue could come back again

[Svartalf]

dupe

Sure you're one, you believe in that corrupt system don't you?

[Coito ergo sum]

dupe

Sure you're one, you believe in that corrupt system don't you?

[Coito ergo sum]

Dude - for the love of fucking god damn mother fucking Christ.

Pay the FUCK attention.

This is NOT my position: "...your notion that "natural born citizen" is synonymous with "citizen"..."

Not - NOT

NOT

Fucking NOT!

My fucking position.

Natural born citizen is not the same as "citizen." Got it? Got fucking IT!!!!!?????

Good.

Your position is still wrong.

You want to bet on the outcome of the court cases?

A "citizen" can be (a) natural born, or (b) naturalized.

Nope. A "citizen" can be either a "citizen by birth" or a "naturalized citizen" and may be a "natural born citizen" if, but only if both of that person's parents are US citizens.

That is not in accord with the plain meaning of the words. If they wanted to include a requirement having to do with the citizenship of the parents, they would have said so. They didn't. You cited the rules of statutory construction, and that's one of them.

A Congressman need only be a fucking god damn motherfucking "citizen" because a Congressman can be fucking god damn mother fucking naturalized.

Yup, and therefore he is a "citizen," but he's not a "natural born citizen." He's a naturalized citizen.

He was never naturalized. Naturalized means that he was naturalized by the Immigration department or rendered a citizen by act of Congress.

He was born a citizen, which makes him a natural born citizen instead of a naturalized citizen.

If he was naturalized, the federal government would have a record of making him a citizen. They didn't. So, he's either a natural born citizen or an illegal alien, since the immigration service never issued him a visa.

The word "natural born citizen" is used instead of just "citizen" because a "naturalized" citizen can't be fucking President.

There is no conflict.

Right. And neither can a citizen with one parent who is not a US citizen, which is what status as a "natural born citizen" requires.

Other than pulling that out of your ass, you have no constitutional provision, no interpretive case law, and no federal statute that supports your cock-a-mamy theory. Without it being a defined term in the Constitution, and without there being any basis for claiming it says anything but its plain meaning, it means what it says - a person was naturally born a citizen. Anyone not naturally born a citizen must be naturalized. That's why it's 'naturalized' instead of natural born.

When there is no special definition in the law for a term, the term is construed according to its plain meaning. That is one of the primary maxims of legislative drafting and legislative interpretation. The plain meaning of natural born, means that you popped out of chick's vagina - i.e. that you were "existing in or caused by nature; not made or caused by humankind." See - that's different than "naturalized" because a "naturalized" citizen is someone who fucking well became a motherfucking god damn citizen "made or caused by humankind." Born means that you were born.

Wrong. That interpretation defies logic because all persons are "natural born persons"

Citizens that are not natural-ized are natural born. It's as simple as that.

and no one at the time of the drafting of the Constitution even considered "created by man" as a possibility for a child, so that's a vacuous argument.

Dude -- something is fucking wrong with you.

"created by man" doesn't mean in vitro fucking fertilzation or manufactured humans. It means that the fucking god damn CITIZENSHIP STATUS is conferred by man - not by natural birth. For the love of Christ!

"Natural born" has specific political meaning separate and distinct from "citizen" or from "citizen by birth" or "naturalized citizen."

Stop saying it has a separate meaning from citizen or naturalized citizen. Of course it fucking does. We have already agreed on that.

"Citizen by birth" however is the same thing as natural born. Cite your authority for it meaning something different.

As the Vattel theory points out, the status of a child under English Common Law was highly complex and highly dependent not only on where the child was born physically, but also to whom the child was born, and what the political status of both of the parents were when the child was born.

Oh, you rely on English common law:

Slam dunk: "Natural-born subjects are such as are born within the dominions of the crown of England" - William Blackstone's Commentaries on the Laws of England, the definitive recitation of English Common Law at the time of the Revolution. http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders ... hips1.html

You lose on English Common Law.

Some children were citizens but not subjects, some were subjects, and which was which is a complex political matter determined by the political affiliations of the parents and the location where the child was born. So, a child could be born to two British subjects anywhere inside a British Empire territory and would be a British subject with duties to the King of England and the English state but could also be a CITIZEN of, say, India and not the United Kingdom. Or, a child could be born to a British subject father and an Indian mother and be a British subject, or born to a British subject mother and an Indian citizen who is not a British subject and NOT be a British subject but still be an Indian citizen because under English law, status as a British subject devolves from the father, not the mother (or did at the time, which is what's important).

Blackstone's Commentaries on the Laws of England supports my position. I cited that above. The Vattel Theory has no application in our law or English common law.

So, the Vattel theory says that in importing the concepts and understandings of British common law regarding citizenship, the Founders first rejected the "subject" classification and transformed it into the "citizen" concept, and then used the notions of national affiliation and loyalty to the United States as considerations in limiting qualification for President to only those citizens who were born of two US citizen parents, in order to reduce the potential for foreign influence upon the President, something that was well known in English history as the English monarchs commonly married off their crown princes and princesses to foreign princes and princesses precisely in order to bind the two nations together through foreign influence of the spouse upon the other.

It's evident that the Founders chose to avoid this potential by restricting the Presidency to natural born citizens, as distinguished from ordinary citizens by birth or naturalized citizens who might have foreign parents who could exercise undue influence.

You're just wrong about English common law.

If you have a source other than William Blackstone, and other than your anus and colon, please cite it.

Thus, natural born citizen means that you popped out of a woman's vagina as a citizen. Other, manmade, means were not required to make you a citizen.

There is nothing in the plain language of the fucking words that refers to the fucking parents. There is nothing in the word natural, or born, or citizen, that states or implies anything to do with their parents.

There is when you view the phrase according to the meanings and understandings OF THE TIME. What you think today is utterly irrelevant. What's important is what the FOUNDERS understood the words "natural born" to mean, and that meaning is not, evidently, what you think it is.

According to William Blackstone, the meaning and understanding OF THE TIME was precisely as I described. Do you have any actual citation that is part of US law or English common law?

Now, if you feel like claiming that there is a specialized legal meaning to "natural born citizen" that is not in accord with the plain fucking meaning of the words, then please, by all means show it.

That's what I've been doing.

You haven't. Every bit of US law you cited and English common law supports my position.

The only thing you've cited otherwise is inapplicable scribblings by someone named Vattel, who was a Swiss writer who dealt with the Civil Law, not common law, legal concepts.

Again, you lose. We didn't base our law on Roman and French civil law.

Note - you claimed that there were two disparate terms int he Constitution -- one was "born citizen" and the other was "natural born citizen." You claimed that. You're fucking wrong about that. Admit it.

No, I said several times that in the Constitution itself only two terms are used: "Citizen" and "Natural born citizen."

That makes my point, since a Citizen can be either (a) natural born, or (b) naturalized. No other terms are used because no other terms are necessary.

Another slam dunk.

That fact alone proves that the two terms are not synonymous.

Hey -- please check my previous mother fucking post.

OF COURSE THE TERMS ARE NOT SYNONYMOUS. WHO SAID THEY WERE SYNONYMOUS.

Citizen: A person either natural born or naturalized.

Natural born citizen -- a person born a citizen.

They do mean two different things! Of course they do!

There is no conflict here.

Are you trolling?

Note that "naturalized citizen" is NOT used in the Constitution anywhere,

Naturalization is. Article 1, Section 8. They naturalize citizens according to Congress' power to do so.

so your reference to that term is spurious.

No, you're allegation is spurious, because the Constitution most certainly does use the term naturalization. You only naturalize citizens - there is no other use for the word.

There are two terms used, and they are, according to the canons of statutory interpretation, different terms.

Obviously - nobody said they were the same.

Since your argument that "natural born" means "not artificially created"

You can't be this dim.

Not made a citizen artificially -- i.e. by naturalization. That's how you make someone a citizen when they fucking weren't born that way.

I feel like I'm banging my head against a wall.

is spurious because there was no such thought in the minds of the Founders,

Of course there was -- why the fuck would they put the power to naturalize citizens in Article 1, Section 8, if the "Founders" didn't think that you could make people citizens by naturalization?

it means something else. Since the Constitution does not itself define or mention "naturalized citizen" that too is surplusage.

Not it isn't, because they do mention Naturalization in Article 1 Section 8.

There are citizens and natural born citizens. That's it.

Right - All natural born citizens are citizens, but not all citizens are natural born. Those that aren't are naturalized in accordance with Article 1, Section 8.

How one becomes a citizen is not really relevant,

Not relevant -- it's crucial. If you're naturalized in accordance with Article 1 Section 8, you can't be president.

and I only include it for clarity. Under the Constitution, a naturalized citizen is still just referred to as a citizen, not as a naturalized citizen.

Where the Constitution uses the term Citizen, it includes both natural born and naturalized citizens. There is never a thing that a naturalized citizen can do that a natural born citizen can't. So, of course that's why the Constitution just uses the word citizen when one can be either.

In the qualifications for Senator it says one must be a citizen for nine years prior to taking office. It does not say, but merely implies that a naturalized citizen is eligible, and that is true.

That's because, dummy, a Citizen can be either natural born or naturalized, and either kind of Citizen can be a Senator.

But the qualification for President excludes everyone except a natural born citizen from eligibility,

Right - no naturalized citizens. That's the only other kind of citizen.

and since the Constitution itself does not define the term, as the Supreme Court said, it's necessary to look elsewhere for the original meaning, understanding and intent of the phrase, and the most compelling evidence in the record contemporaneous with the drafting of the document that points to the understandings of the Founders and ratifiers is the Vattel theory.

No, the Vattell theory is a Swiss legal scholar writing his opinion on the "Law of Nations" which he based on the Civil Law concept derived from the french and roman law.

We use English common law here - and you admitted that above - and Blackstone sides with me, as does the plain language of the Constitution.

This is just repetitive stuff.

You're argument is so wrong that you continue to misrepresent my statements and then attack them.

Even after I stressed in in a profane rage email above you STILL keep alleging that I am claiming that Citizen and Natural born citizen mean the same thing. I have not now, nor have I ever, made that allegation. So, if you don't stop fucking saying that I am making that allegation, I'm just going to have to move on from this conversation. It's becoming plain that you're doing it on purpose.

[Seth]

That is not in accord with the plain meaning of the words. If they wanted to include a requirement having to do with the citizenship of the parents, they would have said so. They didn't. You cited the rules of statutory construction, and that's one of them.

But it's the "plain meaning" of the words in 1797, not their plain meaning today. And that is the nut of the Vattel theory argument; that the meaning of "natural born" meant something different from what you claim it means today. And this is precisely why a valid legal controversy exists that makes the case ripe for federal court consideration.

Other than pulling that out of your ass, you have no constitutional provision, no interpretive case law, and no federal statute that supports your cock-a-mamy theory. Without it being a defined term in the Constitution, and without there being any basis for claiming it says anything but its plain meaning, it means what it says - a person was naturally born a citizen. Anyone not naturally born a citizen must be naturalized. That's why it's 'naturalized' instead of natural born.

So you say. First of all it's not my theory, it's a theory that's been floating around for 230 years. I'm just pointing out the theory involved. Second, your notion of "plain meaning" is not determinative. Only the plain meaning to the people who ratified the Constitution, or who wrote it, is important. And that's why it's important for the courts to determine the legislative intent involved.

"Citizen by birth" however is the same thing as natural born. Cite your authority for it meaning something different.

Cite your authority for it meaning the same thing. You can't. You have none. There is not a single case or regulation that says that "citizen by birth" and "natural born citizen" are synonymous.

As the Vattel theory points out, the status of a child under English Common Law was highly complex and highly dependent not only on where the child was born physically, but also to whom the child was born, and what the political status of both of the parents were when the child was born.

Oh, you rely on English common law:

Slam dunk: "Natural-born subjects are such as are born within the dominions of the crown of England" - William Blackstone's Commentaries on the Laws of England, the definitive recitation of English Common Law at the time of the Revolution. http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders ... hips1.html

You lose on English Common Law.

"Subjects" =/= "citizens" under English Common Law, so no, I don't lose. The details of that argument can be found in the previously cited briefs. One can be a citizen of an English protectorate without being a subject of the British crown,

Some children were citizens but not subjects, some were subjects, and which was which is a complex political matter determined by the political affiliations of the parents and the location where the child was born. So, a child could be born to two British subjects anywhere inside a British Empire territory and would be a British subject with duties to the King of England and the English state but could also be a CITIZEN of, say, India and not the United Kingdom. Or, a child could be born to a British subject father and an Indian mother and be a British subject, or born to a British subject mother and an Indian citizen who is not a British subject and NOT be a British subject but still be an Indian citizen because under English law, status as a British subject devolves from the father, not the mother (or did at the time, which is what's important).

Blackstone's Commentaries on the Laws of England supports my position. I cited that above. The Vattel Theory has no application in our law or English common law.

Subject =/= citizen. And you're begging the question, which is, as the Supreme Court said, that the meaning of "natural born citizen" cannot be found by recourse to the Constitution itself and we must therefore find it elsewhere, and because the meanings and understandings of the Founders who wrote and ratified the document control what the term means, the contemporary recitation of the Law of Nations by Vattel, which was a common and popular work at the time with which the Founders and Ratifiers were familiar, sheds light on what the original intent of the Founders was. It may be that it's not conclusive, but that's what makes it a controversy ripe for decision by the federal courts.

If you have a source other than William Blackstone, and other than your anus and colon, please cite it.

I have done so previously. Your ill-tempered eruptions do not convince me of the need to do so again. Since you have lost control of yourself and are resorting to personal invective, I'm done discussing the subject with you.

That's because, dummy, ...

[/quote]

Shame on you. Reported.

[mistermack]

Any fool can see what "natural born citizen" was meant to mean.
It meant someone who qualified as a citizen at the time of their birth.

As that clearly applies to Obama, this issue is a dead duck.

[apophenia]

If there's real money involved, put me down for $500.

[laklak]

Good idea, I got a fin burning a hole in my pocket.

[hadespussercats]

Coito, this post contains personal attacks.

This is a reminder from the staff to play nice.

[Tyrannical]

Any fool can see what "natural born citizen" was meant to mean.
It meant someone who qualified as a citizen at the time of their birth.

As that clearly applies to Obama, this issue is a dead duck.

And, what qualified you as a citizen at time of their birth back then
Can Congress through legislation change citizenship requirements that alter the intention of the "natural born citizen" clause? Not without a constitutional amendment.

So under that interpretation, Obama's father being a foreigner grants Kenyan citizenship to Obama. Obama is not a US citizen at all because his father was not.
Then citizenship laws were changed, but it can not change the Constitutional requirement. That makes Obama naturalized at birth, but not a natural born citizen as required.

[Coito ergo sum]

"Citizen by birth" however is the same thing as natural born. Cite your authority for it meaning something different.

Cite your authority for it meaning the same thing. You can't. You have none. There is not a single case or regulation that says that "citizen by birth" and "natural born citizen" are synonymous.

The English common law, which you acknowledged applied, a la William Blacksone's Commentaries on the Laws of England.

The plain language of the US constitution which does not use the term "citizen by birth" at all, so interjecting a term into the document that isn't used to create an ambiguity violates those canons of statutory construction you cited.

The terms used are "citizen" and "natural born citizen." There is no issue of whether born a citizen is the same thing as natural born citizen. In the usage in the Constitution, Citizen is used in the section on qualification for Congressmen. They don't have to have been born here. They can have been naturalized, and become a Congressman. A President, though, must be born here. Natural born citizen is not defined, and therefore we use it's plain meaning. A person born a citizen has natural citizenship and not natural-ized citizenship. That is what the words meant at the time. Now, you want to interject the parents' citizenship into the mix, and all you can do is cite non-US law to support the proposition. You don't have a single comment from the Constitutional convention. There is no legislative history. There is no writing, not even a letter, from any Founding Father that supports your position. You support your position with a Swiss philosopher positing one point of view about International Law from the perspective of a Roman/French Civil Law, and not an English Common Law, background.

As the Vattel theory points out, the status of a child under English Common Law was highly complex and highly dependent not only on where the child was born physically, but also to whom the child was born, and what the political status of both of the parents were when the child was born.

Oh, you rely on English common law:

Slam dunk: "Natural-born subjects are such as are born within the dominions of the crown of England" - William Blackstone's Commentaries on the Laws of England, the definitive recitation of English Common Law at the time of the Revolution. http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders ... hips1.html

You lose on English Common Law.

"Subjects" =/= "citizens" under English Common Law, so no, I don't lose. The details of that argument can be found in the previously cited briefs. One can be a citizen of an English protectorate without being a subject of the British crown, [/quote]

There wasn't such a thing as "citizen" of the United kingdom or England under English common law at the time. There were only subjects.

Cite your English common law authority please. I quoted Blackstone, the undisputed foremost authority on English Common law at the time. You've said "previously cited briefs." Bullshit. That's diversionary, cowardly crap. Quote the source and cite it.

Some children were citizens but not subjects, some were subjects, and which was which is a complex political matter determined by the political affiliations of the parents and the location where the child was born. So, a child could be born to two British subjects anywhere inside a British Empire territory and would be a British subject with duties to the King of England and the English state but could also be a CITIZEN of, say, India and not the United Kingdom. Or, a child could be born to a British subject father and an Indian mother and be a British subject, or born to a British subject mother and an Indian citizen who is not a British subject and NOT be a British subject but still be an Indian citizen because under English law, status as a British subject devolves from the father, not the mother (or did at the time, which is what's important).

Blackstone's Commentaries on the Laws of England supports my position. I cited that above. The Vattel Theory has no application in our law or English common law.

Subject =/= citizen. And you're begging the question, which is, as the Supreme Court said, that the meaning of "natural born citizen" cannot be found by recourse to the Constitution itself and we must therefore find it elsewhere, and because the meanings and understandings of the Founders who wrote and ratified the document control what the term means, the contemporary recitation of the Law of Nations by Vattel, which was a common and popular work at the time with which the Founders and Ratifiers were familiar, sheds light on what the original intent of the Founders was. It may be that it's not conclusive, but that's what makes it a controversy ripe for decision by the federal courts.[/quote]

No, you don't "find it elsewhere." You find it in the plain meaning of the words used. Not in the arcane legal theory of a Swiss legal scholar.

If you have a source other than William Blackstone, and other than your anus and colon, please cite it.

I have done so previously. Your ill-tempered eruptions do not convince me of the need to do so again. Since you have lost control of yourself and are resorting to personal invective, I'm done discussing the subject with you.

You haven't done so previously. You obfuscate and prevaricate. You continually falsely proclaim that I've propounded positions I don't propound. I am sick and tired of that. That's not "discussion" -- example - when you constantly tell me that I'm wrong for equating "Citizen" with "Natural Born Citizen." I never did that, and I've clarified it for you not only several times, but in very loud and invective terms because you apparently couldn't be arsed stop telling me I said something I didn't. You're either really not getting it, or you're being completely mendacious. Which is it?

That's because, dummy, ...

Shame on you. Reported.[/quote]

Sorry, I shouldn't have called you a dummy when it's just as likely you were purposefully fabricating.

[Coito ergo sum]

Coito, this post contains personal attacks.

This is a reminder from the staff to play nice.

Did anyone ever tell you that you were cute when you're droppin' the mod hammer?

[mistermack]

Any fool can see what "natural born citizen" was meant to mean.
It meant someone who qualified as a citizen at the time of their birth.

As that clearly applies to Obama, this issue is a dead duck.

And, what qualified you as a citizen at time of their birth back then
Can Congress through legislation change citizenship requirements that alter the intention of the "natural born citizen" clause? Not without a constitutional amendment.

So under that interpretation, Obama's father being a foreigner grants Kenyan citizenship to Obama. Obama is not a US citizen at all because his father was not.
Then citizenship laws were changed, but it can not change the Constitutional requirement. That makes Obama naturalized at birth, but not a natural born citizen as required.

There's a complete lack of logic there. That conclusion doesn't follow from the arguments at all.

It was a time of huge immigration. If they wanted to deny citizenship or the chance to be president to the children of immigrants, they would have said so.

You're trying to make something out of nothing. You can't ignore what they DIDN'T say, and they DIDN'T say that children of immigrants were not natural born citizens. Any sane court would have to conclude that if they did want to exclude the children of immigrants, they would have SAID SO!
And the words "natural born" clearly refer to people born in the US, or who qualify in some other way by birth.

[Coito ergo sum]

Were Washington, Jefferson and Adams "Citizens of the United States at the time the the Constitution was adopted?"

Hmm... there appears to be a legitimate question here.

One - we don't have any birth certificates for them.

Two - they were definitely, indisputably, not born in the United States, and not born citizens of the US, since they were born when there was no US at all.

Three - after the US became a country, they were never naturalized or otherwise made a citizen by the federal government.

Apparently, it was just "assumed" that they were citizens.

They certainly were not natural born citizens under the Vattel theory.

They ought to be retroactively stripped of their citizenship, and their Presidencies expunged from the record.

[MrJonno]

A law which no one actually can work out what it means until a judge rules on it is actually a pretty moronic law

[Coito ergo sum]

A law which no one actually can work out what it means until a judge rules on it is actually a pretty moronic law

I think that to generate confusion on this one has to add complexity that isn't there.

To be President one has to be a natural born citizen.

To be a Congressman one has to be a Citizen and have been a resident for a certain number of years, but one can certainly have been born elsewhere.

If one is born a citizen, then one is a natural born citizen. If one is not born a citizen, but later becomes a citizen, then one is a natural-ized citizen. I.e., citizens from birth are natural citizens, and if you have to be "made" a citizen, you become "naturalized." The Congress is given the power under Article 1, Sect 8 of the Constitution to enact uniform laws regarding Naturalization (i.e. - congress says who is and can become a naturalized citizen).

There is no special legal meaning given to natural born citizen in the constitution, so as with any legal document the words are intended to mean what their plain meaning would indicate, and it is not to be assumed that the drafters intended something opaque. They intended their words to be understood, is the assumption.

So, what is more likely - that the writers of the Constitution were adopting the view of a Swiss/French Civil Law scholar, who did not have the US in mind at the time he was writing his material, and did so after the Constitution was written anyway, so the writers of the Constitution could not possibly have relied upon that Swiss/French scholar when coming up with the provision? Or, that they intended what the words plainly indicate -- if you're born a citizen, you're natural born. If you're made a citizen later, you're naturalized. If you want to be President, you need to be the former. If you want to be a Congressman, you can be either the former or the latter.