Video: America’s most famous Birther appears on Colbert for ritual mockery

you are all on a fools errand as you are dealing with Sheeple.

Tav on July 29, 2009 at 7:36 PM

Language worthy of the truest of Troothers.

JohnGalt23 on July 29, 2009 at 7:45 PM

Ronnie on July 29, 2009 at 7:44 PM

Fron Wong Kim Ark:

The fundamental principle of the common law with regard to English nationality was birth within the allegiance-also called ‘ligealty,’ ‘obedience,’ ‘faith,’ or ‘power’-of the king. The principle embraced all persons born within the king’s allegiance, and subject to his protection. Such allegiance and protection were mutual,-as expressed in the maxim, ‘Protectio trahit subjectionem, et subjectio protectionem,’-and were not restricted to natural-born subjects and naturalized subjects, or to those who had taken an oath of allegiance; but were predicable of aliens in amity, so long as they were within the kingdom. Children, born in England, of such aliens, were therefore natural-born subjects.

But by all means, Ronnie… why don’t you demonstrate your mastery of jurisprudence, and cite relevant US Code or SCOTUS decision that contradicts that.

I’ll bet you can’t.

JohnGalt23 on July 29, 2009 at 7:53 PM

how did troothers get into this exchange ??

runner on July 29, 2009 at 7:47 PM

Because man… it’s obvious… man… that Bush and his Saudi buddies used dynamite to bring down Tower 7 … man!!

But try explaining that to the sheeple… man!

JohnGalt23 on July 29, 2009 at 7:56 PM

Just for giggles, also from Wong Kim Ark:

In Dred Scott v. Sandford (1857) 19 How. 393, Mr. Justice Curtis said: ‘The first section of the second article of the constitution uses the language, ‘a natural-born citizen.’ It thus assumes that citizenship may be acquired by birth. Undoubtedly, this language of the constitution was used in reference to that principle of public law, well understood in this country at the time of the adoption of the constitution, which referred citizenship to the place of birth.’ Id. 576. And to this extent no different opinion was expressed or intimated by any of the other judges.

once again, not directly on point, but clearer than anything the birther crowd has laid out as law.

JohnGalt23 on July 29, 2009 at 8:07 PM

And yet another citation from Wong Kim Ark:

In U. S. v. Rhodes (1866), Mr. Justice Swayne, sitting in the circuit court, said: ‘All persons born in the allegiance of the king are natural- born subjects, and all persons born in the allegiance of the United States are natural-born citizens. Birth and allegiance go together. Such is the rule of the common law, and it is the common law of this country, as well as of England.’ ‘We find no warrant for the opinion [169 U.S. 649, 663] that this great principle of the common law has ever been changed in the United States.

Boy, that Mr. Justice Gray and that Mr. Justice Swayne… they must have been in on the coverup also.

Just how deep does this thing go? Birther minds want to know…

JohnGalt23 on July 29, 2009 at 8:11 PM

he will reply, that children born of citizen parents are themselves citizens

runner on July 29, 2009 at 8:20 PM

Trouble reading the words of Mr. Justice Swayne, runner?

Mr. Justice Swayne said nothing about the parentage of children. He said that children born into the allegiance of the US are natural born citizens.

That seems pretty plain language to me.

JohnGalt23 on July 29, 2009 at 8:23 PM

Funny you should put it that way.

doriangrey on July 29, 2009 at 8:23 PM

I was at the time listening to a performance recorded in Alaska. I couldn’t resist.

JohnGalt23 on July 29, 2009 at 8:24 PM

So, do you think Wong Kim Ark had to show a birth certificate or not?

Ronnie on July 29, 2009 at 8:27 PM

No I don’t think so. But I could be wrong.

Now I’ve answered your question. please do me the same courtesy, or (far more likely) admit that you cannot.

JohnGalt23 on July 29, 2009 at 8:30 PM

oint=point

JohnGalt23 on July 29, 2009 at 8:42 PM

Mr. Justice Swayne relied on the Constitution and relevant cases, i.e. Minor v. Happersett

from Minor vs. Happerset:

“It is sufficient for everything we have now to consider that all children born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction are themselves citizens.”

runner on July 29, 2009 at 8:47 PM

Why, do you mean the very same Minor v. Happerset in which the Court ruled:

The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case it is not necessary to solve these doubts.

So, in fact, in Minor, the court did not rule on children of aliens and foreigners. Thus, Mr. Justice Grey’s citation of Mr. Justice Swayne’s assertion of “natural-born” criteria reamains good law, imho.

Once again, can you point to SCOTUS opinion or US Code to contradict Mr. Justice Grey?

JohnGalt23 on July 29, 2009 at 8:56 PM

justincase on July 29, 2009 at 9:01 PM

As I said in my original posts, the preponderance of the evidence is on Obama’s side. It is certainly not evidence that proves beyond a reasonable doubt. There is, in fact, doubt.

But there is plain language from a Federal Judge, cited by a SCOTUS justice indicating that Obama would pass the “natural-born” test. That Swayne’s words are dicta is the only reason for any doubt. Had Wong Kim Ark been running for POTUS, there would in fact be no doubt.

I have argued that some entity of our Federal govt. (my preference would be Congress, but I suppose a SCOTUS ruling would suffice) should clearly define “natural born”. But absent that clear definition, and considering Congress and the EC has in fact confirmed Obama as POTUS, knowing his history and the relevant case law, pursuing this line of activity is, IMHO, pointless and politically unsound.

JohnGalt23 on July 29, 2009 at 9:10 PM