« Fan Mail in the American News | Main | Everyone’s Opposed to ObamaCare. Even Obama! »

Wednesday, May 12, 2010



Countdown to a birther posting: “but he could end all this by just showing us the birth certificate:”

5 . . 4 . . 3 . . 2 . .

George Mason

It may not matter if Obama was born in Hawaii or Indonesia, his mother was an American citizen, he is therefore, an American citizen. The problem with the Cory's of this world is that they try to cram all opponents to Obamas policies on to the "birther" bandwagon. Very much like putting all the people who opposed George Bush into the "911 Truther" basket. It is both simple minded and insulting.


...thanks for all the fish. :-)

At no point was Woster asking for Nelson's opinion as Secretary of State. As a candidate for U.S. House, Nelson has a role as leader of public discourse. Nelson knows this myth is part of the public discourse. Nelson has a responsibility, as do the rest of us to call baloney baloney when we hear it. Instead, he chooses to give baloney free rein with weasel words. Nelson took a simple question with a simple answer ("Baloney -- Obama is a citizen. Let's talk real issues.") and turned it into pander-fodder for an unsavory audience of rumor-mongers. His answer is instructive to voters (the lesson they draw is open for debate).

Just curious: could I make a comparison here between your defense of Nelson's answer as perfectly professional and the heat Dukakis took for answering the death penalty question with a technocrat's answer instead of a more personal expression of rage over crime? (I'm not ready to make that an issue: I am sincerely curious about your professorial opinion.)

GM, I don't need to lump every Obama opponent into the birther bandwagon. R. Blake Curd clearly denied the myth, and I won't try to twist his words to say the opposite. I can find plenty of other issues to criticize him on. Yours is the error, GM, in trying to lump me into a category of your wishes, a category in which I don't fit.


(...or at least a category of which I am the sole member. "Cory's of this world"? Where? ;-) )


I believe there is plenty of evidence which suggests Obama was indeed born in the USA. However, I still am not convinced that he is a "natural born citizen". At least not in the sense the framers of the constitution defined the term. Obama was born with split allegiance to our country, that is exactly what the framers didn't want in a president. There is a mountain of historical evidence, which makes my case. For anyone interested in a historical perspective, do a search of the following terms: "undead revolution natural born citizen" you will find an amazing amount of historical documents which support this theory.


Marty, serious scholars don't put the term "undead" into their search engines.


Anyone who want to research the meaning of the term "Natural Born Citizen" in the Constitutional context only needs to look up the the Supreme Court decision in the Wong Kim Ark case back in 1898. doing so, you will find the following:

"It thus clearly appears that, by the law of England for the last three centuries, beginning before the settlement of this country and continuing to the present day, aliens, while residing in the dominions possessed by the Crown of England, were within the allegiance, the obedience, the faith or loyalty, the protection, the power, the jurisdiction of the English Sovereign, and therefore every child born in England of alien parents was a natural-born subject unless the child of an ambassador or other diplomatic agent of a foreign State or of an alien enemy in hostile occupation of the place where the child was born.

The same rule was in force in all the English Colonies upon this continent down to the time of the Declaration of Independence, and in the United States afterwards, and continued to prevail under the Constitution as originally established.

. . . . . The term "citizen," as understood in our law, is precisely analogous to the term "subject" in the common law, and the change of phrase has entirely resulted from the change of government. The sovereignty has been transferred from one man to the collective body of the people, and he who before as a "subject of the king" is now "a citizen of the State."

Big Bird

Most people have not researched Emerich de Vattel, The Law of Nations, International Law and natural-born citizen status. Obama does not have to be born in the united States to be natural-born. He was a illegitimate child due to a sham marriage (His father was still married when he married Ann Dunham). Polygamy is against the law in Hawaii. That alone makes him a natural-born citizen because of his illegitimacy. Research it.

Here is some help for your research.

The American Law Review (1866-1906); Sep/Oct 1884; 18, American Periodicals Series Online
pg. 831http://lawyers.law.cornell.edu/lawyer/mr-paul-rolf-jensen-79510/contact

The Law of Nations, Book I, CHAP. XIX.

International Law: Private and Criminal by Dr. L Bar page 99, § 31

Private International Law and the Retrospective Operation of Statutes
by Freidrich Carl Von Savigny page 90, Look under subsection Birth (origo, Nativitas)

and 7 FAM 1133.4-3 Birth Out of Wedlock to American Mother

George Mason

Cory; Old boy, somehow I missed Chris Nelsons "birther" tendencies. So obviously anytime this subject comes up we must turn to you for the interpretation. Your capacity to uncover the malice and evil intent are quite impressive. We assume that it was delivered with a baleful stare as well. You did however uncover a couple of Chris Nelsons fellow travelers among this blogs readers.


"At no point was Woster asking for Nelson's opinion as Secretary of State"

Seems to me that when a question is asked of the man who IS the Secretary of State, regardless of whether he is also running for office or delivers pizzas on the weekends, you are going to get a response from the Secretary of State.

It's pretty thin to criticize the Secretary of State for responding as the Secretary of State.


Chilidog: What number have you reached now?

Marty: Serious scholars prefer the term, "zombie."


I don't see how Nelson's answer is anything close to Dukakis's.

Questioning someone's qualifications for a job - even the job of President - is nowhere near as reprehensible a crime as rape or murder. There is no need for Nelson to express similar outrage at such questioning because it is not as outrageous.

He has not sided with the birthers. Rather, he has done the opposite by saying that he is satisfied that the president was born here. His answer was a professional answer that took into consideration the dignity of others on both sides of the aisle.


This is great! My commenters are the best on the web!

Cory: At worst, Secretary Nelson gave a "technocratic" answer to the original question when he should have given a political answer. Birthers are not serious people because the question of Obama's birth is not a serious question. Public officials have to answer such people all the time, and Nelson's comment was typical strategy. Yes mam, it would be a scandal if the President weren't legally qualified for office. No mam, the South Dakota Secretary of State can't send a team down to Hawaii to look at the birth certificate.

I repeat: nothing in Secretary Nelson's comments remotely suggests that Obama wasn't qualified for office. He explains that Obama was legally on the South Dakota ballot. As to Chris Nelson's own opinion, he has now stated that. I realize that the Cory's of this world desperately want to find something stupid or disqualifying in his comments. Sorry.

Miranda is right, as usual. The question Michael Dukakis was asked, and which he answered so anemically, was a serious one: should we put vicious murders to death? The question Kevin Woster asked was perhaps reasonable enough. If Nelson or the other contenders had endorsed the birther, that would have been news. It was not in itself a serious matter.

I am grateful for the interesting discussions of "natural born" citizenship, but I tend to agree with George Mason. If one of your parents was a citizen, you qualify as a citizen. Aristotle remarked that, as flutes may be defined as something made by a flute maker, so Spartans may be defined as something made by a "Spartan maker". He was kidding, but as usual with a point. No one here has mentioned that John McCain was subject to his own "birther" controversy, as he was born in the Panama Canal zone. I think that's right?


And least we forget there was also the Chester Arthur, Evan Hughes, George Romney, Barry Goldwater and Lowell Weicker "natural born citizen" controversies. It's ironic that all these men were Republican so it appears the Democrats are more adept at sharpening their long knives then the Republicans. :)


DonCoyote, you left out the VPs, Charles Curtis and Spiro Agnew. both of whom were born to Non-citizen parents. (although in Curtis's case, his mather was more native than most).


Thanks to donCoyote and Chilidog. The "birther" charge is clearly not new. It is unlikely ever to be important.


Chili, Agnew's parents were citizens at the time of his birth.

Re: the Wong Kim Ark case...

CHIEF JUSTICE FULLER, wrote the following about that case:

The proposition is that a child born in this country of parents who were not citizens of the United States, and under the laws of their own country and of the United States could not become such

-- as was the fact from the beginning of the Government in respect of the class of aliens to which the parents in this instance belonged -- is,

from the moment of his birth a citizen of the United States by virtue of the first clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, any act of Congress to the contrary notwithstanding.

Book I, c.19, § 212.

"The true bond which connects the child with the body politic is not the matter of an inanimate piece of land, but the moral relations of his parentage. . . .

The place of birth produces no change in the rule that children follow the condition of their fathers, for it is not naturally the place of birth that gives rights, but extraction."

Before the Revolution, the view of the publicists had been thus put by Vattel:

The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country of parents who are citizens.

As the society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers


btw: Chester Arthur was indeed a usurper (simialr to Obama) & he knew it. His father was not a citizen, until after his birth and Arthur hid this fact, hindered investigations, even burned paper work, before he died. Recent investigations have determined this to be true.


I find it interesting that ALL these eople & so called legal scholars have not picked up on the irony of the quote they continually use from WKA:

. . . . . The term "citizen," as understood in our law, is precisely analogous to the term "subject" in the common law, and the change of phrase has entirely resulted from the change of government. The sovereignty has been transferred from one man to the collective body of the people, and he who before as a "subject of the king" is now "a citizen of the State."

Now what does that mean in legal terms? Let's see. 1st you have to actually know the legal definition of analogous:

analogous: Similar in function but not in structure and evolutionary origin
then take a look at it's opposite term:

synonymous: Having the same or a similar meaning; Equivalent in connotation
and then know the actual legal terms for English law at the time:

jus commune/natural/original common law vs. jura corona, or lex prerogativa/feudal/statutory law)

Then put these terms with the WKA quote and what you get is:

“The term “citizen,”(jus commune/natural/original common law) as understood in our law, is precisely analogous(Similar in function but not in structure(meaning) and evolutionary origin (jus commune/natural/original common law vs. jura corona, or lex prerogativa/feudal/statutory law)) to the term “subject” (jura corona, or lex prerogativa/feudal/statutory law) in the common law, and the change of phrase has entirely resulted from the change of government.”

Thus when the founders & framers changed the form of government, they also changed the form of citizenship. Form being the meaning (how citizenship is derived) of the term not the function (political rights with the state/nation). The court by using "analogous" was stating that the definition/meaning changed but not the function. One can not use the exact same meaning of a "subject" to define what a "citizen" is as their origins are not the same. One being natural and one being statutory.

Citizen and person are synonymous terms.* Citizen is analogous to subject at common law.-Morse (1881)

Chief Justice John Jay’s opinion in Chisholm v. Georgia, the first great constitutional case decided after the ratification of the Constitution of 1789:

[T]he sovereignty of the nation is in the people of the nation, and the residuary sovereignty of each State in the people of each State…[A]t the Revolution, the sovereignty devolved on the people; and they are truly the sovereigns of the country, but they are they are sovereigns without subjects…]

Lib. Prof. Solum, Chicago; has now been backtracking after he realized his little law review pertaining to McCain's citizenship would come back to bite him in the butt because it totally de-legitimizes his candidate Obama:

[T]he language of the Constitution recognizes a distinction between the terms “citizen” and “subject.”For example, in Article III Section 2, which confers “judicial power” on the federal courts, “citizens” of the several states are differentiated from “citizens” or “subjects” of foreign states—corresponding to the distinction between diversity and alienage jurisdiction. In the framing era, these two terms reflected two distinct theories of the relationship between individual members of a political community and the state.

From St george Tucker's Blackstone 1803:

From the whole of the preceding examination, we may deduce the following conclusions:

First .... That the common law of England, and every statute of that kingdom, made for the security of the life, liberty, or property of the subject, before the settlement of the British colonies, respectively, so far as the same were applicable to the nature of their situation and circumstances, respectively, were brought over to America, by the first settlers of the colonies, respectively; and remained in full force therein, until repealed, altered, or amended by the legislative authority of the colonies, respectively; or by the constitutional acts of the same, when they became sovereign and independent states.

Secondly .... That neither the common law of England, nor the statutes of that kingdom, were, at any period antecedent to the revolution, the general and uniform law of the land in the British colonies, now constituting the United States.

Thirdly .... That as the adoption or rejection of the common law and statutes of England, or any part thereof, in one colony, could not have any operation or effect in another colony, possessing a constitutional legislature of it's own; so neither could the adoption or rejection thereof by the constitutional, or legislative act of one sovereign and independent state, have any operation or effect in another sovereign independent state; because every such state hath an exclusive right to be governed by it's own laws only.

Fourthly .... Therefore the authority and obligation of the common law and statutes of England, as such in the American states, must depend solely upon the constitutional or legislative authority of each state, respectively; as contained in their several bills of rights, constitutions, and legislative declarations .... which, being different in different states, and. wholly independent of each other, cannot establish any uniform law, or rule of obligation in all the states.

Fifthly .... That neither the articles of confederation and perpetual union, nor, the present constitution of the United States, ever did, or do, authorize the federal government, or any department thereof, to declare the common law or statutes of England, or of any other nation, to be the law of the land in the United States, generally, as one nation; nor to legislate upon, or exercise jurisdiction in, any case of municipal law, not delegated to the United States by the constitution



Companion to the Fourteenth Amendment the Expatriation Act of 1868 was passed on July 27th, 1868 just 18 days after the ratification of the 14th Amendment (July 9, 1868):

Whereas the right of expatriation is a natural and inherent right of all people, indispensable to the enjoyment of the rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; and whereas in the recognition of this principle, this government has freely received emigrants from all nations, and invested them with the rights of citizenship; and whereas it is claimed that such American citizens, with their descendants, are subjects of foreign states, owing allegiance to the governments thereof; and whereas it is necessary to the maintenance of public peace that this claim of foreign allegiance should be promptly and finally disavowed; Therefore,

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That any declaration, instruction, opinion, order, or decision of any officers of this government which denies, restricts, impairs, or questions the right of expatriation, is hereby declared inconsistent with the fundamental principles of this government.

We don't need any new bureaucracy, all they need to do is go back to the original way births were handled. If you were born to American citizens, then you get a birth certificate. If you are born to aliens, legal or illegal, you get a receipt of birth which you take to the ministry of your country to file where you fill out papers for a certificate of birth from the country of the parents.


Barry v. Mercein 46 U. S. 103 (1847) Case Footnote:

4. The plaintiff in error being of legeance to the crown of England, his child, though born in the United States during his father’s temporary residence therein – twenty-two months and twenty days – not withstanding its mother be an American citizen, is not a citizen of the United States. It is incapacitate by its infancy from making any present election, follows the legeance of its father, partus sequitur patrem, and is a British subject. The father being domiciled and resident within the dominions of Her Britannic Majesty, such is also the proper and rightful domicil of his wife and child, and he has a legal right to remove them thither. The child being detained from the father, its natural guardian and protector, without authority of law, and writ of habeas corpus ad subjiciendum is his appropriate legal remedy for its restoration to him from its present illegal detention and restraint. Constitution United States, art. 3, sec. 2; Judiciary Act, 1789, sec. 11; Inglis v. Trustees Sailor’s Snug Harbor, 3 Peters, 99; 7 Anne, cap. 5; 4 Geo. III. cap. 21; Warrender v. Warrender, 2 Clar. & Fin. Ap. Ca. 523; Story’s Confl. Laws, 30, 36, 43, 74, 160; Shelford on Marriage, Ferg. Rep. 397, 398.


“Allegiance is nothing more than the tie or duty of obedience of a subject to the sovereign under whose protection he is, and allegiance by birth is that which arises from being born within the dominions and under the protection of a particular sovereign. Two things usually concur to create citizenship: first, birth locally within the dominions of the sovereign, and secondly, birth within the protection and obedience, or, in other words, within the allegiance of the sovereign….That the father and mother of the demandant were British born subjects is admitted. If he was born before 4 July, 1776, it is as clear that he was born a British subject. If he was born after 4 July, 1776, and before 15 September, 1776 [the date the British occupied New York], he was born an American citizen, whether his parents were at the time of his birth British subjects or American citizens. Nothing is better settled at the common law than the doctrine that the children even of aliens born in a country while the parents are resident there under the protection of the government and owing a temporary allegiance thereto are subjects by birth.”

Inglis v. Sailors’ Snug Harbor (1830)


In the sailor's Snug case, notice the limited time frame for children of aliens born in the US. July 1776-Sept 1776. After Sept 15, 1776 feudal law was completely abolished. We were no longer subjects to feudal law, we became free citizens & the citizens held the sovereignty, not the ruler.

State of Virginia: A Bill Declaring Who Shall Be Deemed Citizens of This Commonwealth

May 1779

Be it enacted by the General Assembly, that all white persons born within the territory of this commonwealth and all who have resided therein two years next before the passing of this act, and all who shall hereafter migrate into the same; and shall before any court of record give satisfactory proof by their own oath or affirmation, that they intend to reside therein, and moreover shall give assurance of fidelity to the commonwealth; and all infants wheresoever born, whose father, if living, or otherwise, whose mother was, a citizen at the time of their birth, or who migrate hither, their father, if living, or otherwise their mother becoming a citizen, or who migrate hither without father or mother, shall be deemed citizens of this commonwealth, until they relinquish that character in manner as herein after expressed: And all others not being citizens of any the United States of America, shall be deemed aliens.


Chris Nelson doesn't know his law or the constitution for that matter. He neglected to do his duty as SD SOS and rejected pleas from the voters to properly vett Obama. He merely relied on a DNC form that did not have the constitutional qualification language in it. He deserves what he got...loss of political career as he is NO representative of the Constituion or the Declaration of Independence which is list as the very 1st law on the books of this country to this day! If you can't discern natural law from feudal law that the founders fought a bloody war to abolish, you have no business in an office who's main function is to uphold the law.

The comments to this entry are closed.