An end to fringe mainstreaming?
posted at 12:29 pm on September 6, 2009 by Ed Morrissey
For every action, there will be an equal and opposite reaction — except in politics, where the reaction usually outstrips the action. With the resignation of Van Jones for his 9/11 Truther flirtations (his version) or outright advocacy (which the evidence indicates) and the humiliation of the traditional media deliberately leaving themselves and their consumers behind the New Media on the story, the reaction will come, but not soon. Instead, we can expect the media to hold Republicans to the standards the conservative punditry imposed on Van Jones, and to be a lot more aggressive about it than they were with Jones himself.
What exactly does that mean? In the next Republican administration, we can expect a great deal of scrutiny for Presidential advisers. For one thing, it means that no one who ever expressed public support for Birthers to get the benefit of the doubt. The two conspiracy theories are different, but they both are entirely speculative and imagine dark conspiracies at the highest orbits of power, and neither have any actual direct evidence for support. Anyone who signed a Birther petition can expect to get bypassed for political appointments in a Republican White House with a halfway-decent vetting team, strictly on the basis of politics, in the wake of Jones’ resignation.
The media and the leftward parts of the New Media will get to work in the meantime on advisers and staffers of Republicans in Congress, and in the New Media itself. They will use the Van Jones Standard to launch attacks on high-profile conservatives, looking for everything from John Birch Society membership to militias and Birtherism as well. They have done this all along, but the Left and the media will find much more enthusiasm for these efforts in order to trade Van Jones’ scalp for one or more on the Right.
To some extent, this isn’t a bad trend. The nation could improve with a little more disavowing of conspiracy theorists and political extremists, although they tend to degrade into very damaging witch hunts more often than not. However, with the Democrats in charge of all the electoral organs of the federal government and the amateurish vetting at the White House, conservatives will have a much more target-rich environment than the Left for at least the next year.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: « Previous 1 … 6 7 8 9 Next »
“and are only here to make the site unpleasant for the rest. Well, you’re succeeding.”
Well at least the guy is fessin’ up that you’re making him feel miserable and dejected. Not many people will admit their tail is between their legs like that – so, points for honesty.
whatcat on September 6, 2009 at 11:10 PM
unclesmrgol on September 6, 2009 at 10:45 PM
I know the link has been given here before, but a must-read concerning Article 1 vs the Fourteenth Amendment is at
http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/2009/08/25/the-holy-grail-of-potus-eligibility-law-review-articles-mr-obama-and-mr-arthur-meet-attorney-george-collins/
Would you agree that the way to understand the meaning of what was written is by reading what the people who wrote it said about it, as well as what the leading authorities close to that time said it meant?
justincase on September 6, 2009 at 11:10 PM
Incredible isn’t it? All this time and these people still don’t know the difference.
2Brave2Bscared on September 6, 2009 at 11:11 PM
It is indeed quite incredible. All this time and you paranoids still don’t know the difference.
Red Cloud on September 6, 2009 at 11:12 PM
Hmmm… sooooo…
Its your contention that Natural Born Citizen is somewhere else in the Constitution?
Its your contention that John Jay, who got that put in the Constitution, did not mean what I wrote?
Its your contention that the guy who helped WRITE the 14th amendement did NOT say, what he said?
You’re correct, I am wasting my time with YOU, because you do not dispute points… you only dismiss your oponents… as absurd…
EPIC FAIL…
Romeo13 on September 6, 2009 at 11:12 PM
Neither. Nice overdramatization, though. Goes nicely with the “purge” tone. PREPARE FOR JUDGMENT DAY!
MadisonConservative on September 6, 2009 at 11:13 PM
That Jefferson… What an egomaniac!
2Brave2Bscared on September 6, 2009 at 11:13 PM
Please post a LINK or some attribution, to YOUR definition of what “Natrual Born Citizen” is.
You know… some Supreme Court Case… like oh….
Which says Obama’s “Natural Born” status is in DOUBT?
Romeo13 on September 6, 2009 at 11:15 PM
Your quote is a bit shorter than what Bingham actually said:
So, John Bingham would affirm the 1790 rules I mention above, but would deny the racial qualification.
I see no problem with his interpretation, although the words “jurisdiction of the United States” leaves quite a bit of leeway. We have plenty of laws describing how a citizen can become a non-citizen, and swearing allegiance to a foreign government is among them, as is serving in the armed forces of a nation at war with the United States, and conviction of treason, to name a few. Are you claiming that Obama falls under any of these (including any I didn’t name, such as an official declaration denouncing citizenship to an officer of one of our embassies)?
unclesmrgol on September 6, 2009 at 11:15 PM
What’s so funny? Just because you’re too stupid to know or care why the Framers put special emphasis on “natural born” status as a requirement for POTUS, doesn’t mean anything except, well, that you’re stupid.
2Brave2Bscared on September 6, 2009 at 11:16 PM
No.
unclesmrgol on September 6, 2009 at 11:16 PM
Lol, you’re just acting like a defeated child now. Give it up, buddy.
2Brave2Bscared on September 6, 2009 at 11:18 PM
When you are a citizen of another country, you owe that country Allegiance. That was the common definition of the day.
Take the whole quote in context.
Romeo13 on September 6, 2009 at 11:19 PM
That can’t be true, because the 14th Amendment starts with this sentence (emphasis mine):
The word “and” means that both of the conditions specified must be true for the conjunction to be true. A person born or naturalized in the US, but not subject to its jurisdiction, is not a citizen. The most obvious example of this is if an employee of a foreign embassy or consulate, or dependent of such person, gives birth in a US hospital, that does not automatically confer US citizenship upon the child born. There are legitimate arguments that illegal immigrants, by entering the country in violation of the law, have withheld themselves from the jurisdiction of the US, and therefore any children born to such illegal immigrants are not lex soli citizens.
The Monster on September 6, 2009 at 11:20 PM
Read much? You are amusing….
Romeo13 on September 6, 2009 at 11:21 PM
Birther/dualist: 2 + 2 = 4
Obama defender: No it doesn’t.
2Brave2Bscared on September 6, 2009 at 11:23 PM
There’s nothing in there that indicates that his “natural born” status is in doubt.
What nationality was his mother? American? Yes. This makes him “natural born.” The difference between “natural born” and other citizens, is that one is born a citizen, and the other has successfully applied to become one. Even if Obama were born on MARS, he was still born to an American mother.
US Code. Title 8. Section 1401.
Hell, even if Ann Dunham wasn’t married – he’d still be a natural born citizen.
US Code, Title 8, Section 1409.
It’s all there in black and white. You paranoids simply do not want to look at it.
Look at yourselves. You’ve been at this ALL DAY. If you have nothing better to do with your lives than spout this paranoid nonsense, then I genuinely feel sorry for you, and I will pray for you.
Good night.
Red Cloud on September 6, 2009 at 11:23 PM
Not vague at all to even the least bit perceptive mind.
Now that is about the most gosh darn silliest thing I have heard, even from you, especially the torpid part. But, in any case, at least I understand what I myself write, whereas you clearly do not seem to even understand much of what you yourself write. But I guess that if you can’t even understand what you yourself write you would be hard pressed to understand what I write. One has to learn to crawl before they can walk. You really aren’t much of a challenge you know, even for a lazy Sunday evening. I certainly wish you would improve.
MB4 on September 6, 2009 at 11:25 PM
unclesmrgol at 11:15PM
I don’t see that the context you gave there makes any difference to the issue at hand. At issue is whether Congress could ever make a person NOT be a citizen if they were Constitutionally a natural-born citizen: that is, born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty.
What this guy is saying about citizenship being nullified has no bearing on Obama because Obama never met the Constitutional “natural-born” requirement in the first place: to be born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty.
And that’s precisely the problem. There’s no way this guy is eligible to be president.
justincase on September 6, 2009 at 11:25 PM
<blockquoteRomeo13 on September 6, 2009 at 11:12 PM
John Jay wasn’t a member of the Constitutional Convention, it was Virginia Delegates, George Mason and James Madison who pushed for the criteria of “Natural Born Citizen” to be added to the Constitution.
nelsonknows on September 6, 2009 at 11:26 PM
We have plenty of laws describing how a citizen can become
Actualy, under current law, and the interpretations thereof, you can serve in a foreign military, vote in their elections, and even hold office in their countries without giving up your US citizenship…
The ONLY way to give it up is to sign a document at the embassy, specificly giving it up.
The key question is, does a DUAL citizen meet the “Natural Born” requirment that the Framer’s of the Constitution intended?
IMO they do not.
Romeo13 on September 6, 2009 at 11:26 PM
You’ve got it wrong. You’re the one acting like the petulant child that is not getting his way. Obama won the election and is our president. Lamentable, but your reaction is one of denial. You’re the child stomping his feet and shouting “NO!” even in the face of overwhelming facts and logic, pouting because the adults won’t let you have it your way. But you stand firm in your petulance, because you know better than the adults.
Don’t you?
Red Cloud on September 6, 2009 at 11:26 PM
Good one, Red Cloud!
The birther issue is a non-starter at all levels; on the substance, on the tactical level, in the context of priorities, etc.
Good night people!
modifiedcontent on September 6, 2009 at 11:29 PM
Once again, you MISS the entire point…
There is only one place where “Natural Born” is in the Constitution.
No where in what you cited does it say they are “Natural Born Citizens”… it says CITIZENS…
And the Supremes in their own writings say they are DIFFERENT. Otherwise… why mention it at all in the above cited case?
Romeo13 on September 6, 2009 at 11:29 PM
<blockquoteThe Monster on September 6, 2009 at 11:20 PM
Well put, this is the best definition I’ve seen since college, of why children of illegal aliens are NOT automatically citizens.
nelsonknows on September 6, 2009 at 11:30 PM
My friend, you are a broken pencil: lacking a point.
MadisonConservative on September 6, 2009 at 11:31 PM
No, but just as with many others, he was involved in the debate of what the Constitution should say…
Remember… it took YEARS to write the Constitution… they were able to have a public debate on it… unlike the political climate we have today where things are reinterpreted with no real public debate (or State ratification).
Romeo13 on September 6, 2009 at 11:31 PM
You’re beyond help. Mincing words in order to maintain an already tenuous conclusion. Sad, really.
I pray that you find peace.
Red Cloud on September 6, 2009 at 11:31 PM
Once again… no response to the points… just platitudes…
How… amusing…
Romeo13 on September 6, 2009 at 11:32 PM
Of course, but this guy is writing in 1884, far away from any of the various naturalization laws which would govern our modern situation, and obviously interprets the 14th Amendment far differently that did Bingham (the prime framer) or any Republican, for that matter. He’s a Democrat writing about Republican Vice Presidential candidate Chester Arthur, whom he detested every bit as much as the libs detested Sarah Palin, and he gets it wrong in exactly the same way. Arthur’s mother was a Vermonter, and Arthur himself was born to her in Vermont. That Arthur’s father was foreign born was the Democratic smear tactic of the 1879 election, and, in fact, the Democrats circulated rumors that Arthur himself was born variously in either Ireland or Canada, thus making him ineligible for the Vice Presidency or the Presidency.
Again, I think my sources surpass yours: Vermont officials verified Arthur’s birth in their state, thus putting to bed any foreign-citizenship claim, just has Hawaii’s verification of Obama’s birth put similar claims on his detractors to bed.
unclesmrgol on September 6, 2009 at 11:33 PM
Romeo13 on September 6, 2009 at 11:26 PM
I have a question regarding adoption. I know that birth certificates are reprinted claiming that an adopted child was born in the country of his/her adoptive parents. Does that change citizenship in any way?
Does it do anything to a person’s US citizenship if we have a birth certificate saying they were born in a different country – such as Obama would have if Soetoro adopted him?
justincase on September 6, 2009 at 11:33 PM
And, in mine, they do, especially if the dual citizenship is bestowed by factors beyond any the otherwise-natural-born person can control.
unclesmrgol on September 6, 2009 at 11:35 PM
I’ve already responded to your “points.” US code lays out in black and white the terms for which a newborn is considered a US citizen (thus, being a “natural born citizen”). I have laid out for you exactly where those terms are within US code.
And your response is “you’re MISSING the point.” No, I’m not.
If what is outlined in that code is not outlining “NATURAL BORN CITIZENS!!!!!11″, then YOU are not a “natural born citizen” either.
But go ahead. Deny, deny, deny. Keep your hands clasped over your eyes and ears! You know better!
Red Cloud on September 6, 2009 at 11:36 PM
The President of the United States is the ONLY official, required by the U.S. Constitution, to have been BORN a citizen. If people don’t like the FACT that the Constitution calls for the President to be a NATURAL BORN CITIZEN under Article 2, Section 1, clause 5, then try to amend the Constitution, because as it stands, this is the rule of law. Don’t think a constitutional amendment can preclude Obama from being a natural born citizen, because the Constitution prohibits ANY ex-post facto law.
nelsonknows on September 6, 2009 at 11:40 PM
unclesmrgol at 11:33PM
A guy writing in 1884 is closer to the writing of the Constitution and the 14th Amendment than anybody today. I don’t understand why you’re saying that what some Vermont “officials” (clerk somewhere?) said should overrule what Constitutional scholars nearer the writing of the Constitution said about what Constitutional terms mean.
It seems like you’re not dealing with the quote that Romeo13 gave you – but just saying that some clerks later on are more modern and thus know more about what the Constitution means. I don’t buy that, and I’m wondering what your reason is for giving a state clerk greater credibility in interpreting the Constitution than the Constitutional scholars closer to the time it was written.
Leo Donofrio was only this past year able to get access to the records showing that Chester Arthur’s father did not become a US citizen until AFTER Chester was born. And Chester Arthur went to great lengths to hide all the records from that time. Why would he bother to do that if he himself believed that there was no problem with him being born to a non-US citizen?
justincase on September 6, 2009 at 11:40 PM
And my dear, you are like a fish out of water as all you do is flop aimlessly around.
MB4 on September 6, 2009 at 11:40 PM
Good grief you’re hopeless. And once again dead wrong.
If you knew what you were talking about, you’d know that the status of the father has much more bearing on the status of the child than the mother’s. Besides the fact that we have shown you over and over that the definition of “natural born” the framers and Founders used (based on “Law of Nations”) requires the person in question to be born to TWO citizen parents. Obama Sr. was not, nor ever was, a citizen of the United States.
You’re equivocating. No where does any of that mention “natural born” citizenship. Yet you want to use it to somehow make your case that Obama is a natural born. Again, you’re hopeless.
Yet, in the numerous citations and court cases where this subject has been directly addressed by framers and justices, you ignore them — because they contradict your baseless preconceived assertions.
Save your pity.
2Brave2Bscared on September 6, 2009 at 11:43 PM
Adoption confers citizenship from what I’ve read. It creates a legal fiction that your Legal Parents ARE your birth parents… in most countries…
However, under US law (if I read it correctly) it does NOT give up your US Citizenship if you are adopted by a foreign national parent… at 18 you can “take up” your US citizenship… your parents actions can’t stop you from being a US citizen under the current interpretations.
So, no… if I read this stuff right (kind of a muddle) Obama being adopted by Soetoro would not mean a thing to his citizenship status… UNLESS you subscribe to the origional intent of the Framers… where they did not want anyone who was ever a citizen of another country to be President… (and thats a thing for the courts to decide).
Romeo13 on September 6, 2009 at 11:44 PM
That’s correct, you said the commenter made you feel “unpleasant”. Although I don’t know how that could really mean that you’re having a great time. But since we all air our complaints, it’s neither here nor there if you feel upset.
Every day is judgment day.
whatcat on September 6, 2009 at 11:44 PM
US code lays out in black and white the terms for which a newborn is considered a US citizen (thus, being a “natural born citizen”).
Red Cloud on September 6, 2009 at 11:36 PM
Being a US citizen at birth according to the 14th amendment is not the same thing as being a “natural born citizen” according to Article 1. You need to read Donofrio’s research at
http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/2009/08/25/the-holy-grail-of-potus-eligibility-law-review-articles-mr-obama-and-mr-arthur-meet-attorney-george-collins/
justincase on September 6, 2009 at 11:44 PM
Actualy, the did not. Arthur’s problems did not come to light until LAST YEAR! Discovered by a BIRTHER even. They did NOT VET HIM!
But please, continue with your “points”…
Romeo13 on September 6, 2009 at 11:47 PM
Romeo13 on September 6, 2009 at 11:44 PM
Do you know how a person would have to “take up” their US citizenship at age 18? Would there be a legal paper trail?
justincase on September 6, 2009 at 11:47 PM
Again, you will get lumped in with the birthers because liberals think your belief is as loony as you think the birther’s is. I’d venture to say many would find your beliefs crazier.
Congratulations on all your accomplishments and coming to the USA by choice, but that Clinton/Gore gig’s a little shaky in my opinion.
I’ve looked at Obama’s past, his current actions, and who he brings in the back door. Don’t mistake my criticism as meaning I don’t see Obama as a Communist(I don’t have any degrees, and don’t distinguish between the two). So your actually preaching to the choir on the Tyrant thing. Didn’t you notice that some of the people going in the back door are inciters of racial hatred towards whitey, and just might be racists. Or perhaps, because you’re a classic liberal, the “Truth” only goes so far, which in my experience is to never offend people of color. Isn’t that a mortal sin for liberals of any degree?
As for your contention that birthers don’t understand who Obama is, and don’t care and think he’s a liberal, again, man, wake up, please. Again, I’m not a birther, but just hanging out and reading all this stuff even I’m perceptive enough to know they probably all agree with you on the Socialist crime of tyrany. How can an educated man like you even argue such a thing.
No, I wouldn’t be surprised at NY libs, nor idiot libs all over this nation that drank this liars koolaid. Why would you think I’d be surprised?
You may have a degree, written a book, worked for Clinton, and came to the USA by choice, but, with all due respect, your assertion that the loony-tunes birther crowd doesn’t care who Obama is, and that they think he’s a liberal is so far south of the truth that you really weaken your case. At least in my opinion. But, sir, we are definitely on the same page concerning tyranny.
Gang-of-One on September 6, 2009 at 11:47 PM
Read much? So, in your opinion, but not the opinion of various Framers of the Constitutiton, and the guy who helped write the 14th amenedment, and the Supreme COURT, there is no difference between citizen, and “Natural Born Citizen”…
I think I know whose opinion I’ll listen to.
Romeo13 on September 6, 2009 at 11:49 PM
Getting back briefly to the cancellation of the Major’s orders, as was mentioned earlier. Does anyone think that if the Major had challenged his orders on the basis of the Colonel or General who had signed them being of questionable legitimacy that his orders would have been canceled?
MB4 on September 6, 2009 at 11:53 PM
I think all of that is of more or less interest to whomever, Romeo13, but it’s a bit of “the horse before the cart” for my thinking.
I believe the one area that should be pressed and the one questions that need to be asked & answered of is: (to Obama) “Will you make your original long form BC open to the American public and the media? If you will noot, why not?”.
Anything that comes after that is just gravy.
whatcat on September 6, 2009 at 11:56 PM
Romeo13, while you’re here, I read that Chessani is going to be given an internal military investigation that only allows the “evidence” that has already been dismissed because of “undue command influence”. What is going on with the NCIS? I have a lot of respect for our military but when I see this kind of junk I wonder if the military leadership licks John Murtha’s boots each night. What’s going on?
justincase on September 6, 2009 at 11:56 PM
Taking an oath of allegiance to a foreign government does it too.
Foreign military service can result in lost citizenship.
An oath of allegiance to a nation who is an adversary of the United States may be interpreted as intent to relinquish citizenship.
In the case of “Tokyo Rose”, Iva Togura was prosecuted as a traitor precisely because, even under pressure by the Japanese Government, Togura (a Republican) refused to do so. She was convicted by the testimony of three ex-Japanese Americans who had renounced their citizenship in statements to the Japanese Government as they swore allegiance to same. The United States did not try the three for treason because they had renounced their citizenship, but used the threat to coerce their testimony against Togura. They were told what to say, and they said it.
With respect to Togura herself, she was due to be stripped of her citizenship and be deported back to Japan at the end of her prison sentence, but fought the punishment and, after two years of court battles, won.
That said, you are right in that, in modern times, a voluntary act by the citizen is required to relinquish same — which is why DUAL CITIZENSHIP BY BIRTH (to return to a previous argument) is a no-go for this argument.
unclesmrgol on September 6, 2009 at 11:58 PM
Bass-ackwards. Should have been “cart before the horse”, dammit!
whatcat on September 6, 2009 at 11:59 PM
Collins’ article had nothing to do with Arthur.
Then why did Arthur feel the need to hide from the public that his father, at the time of his birth, was a subject of England and wasn’t naturalized as a U.S. citizen until 14 years after his birth?
If place of birth was all that determined “natural born” status, and Arthur knew he was born in Vermont, why did he have his papers burned? Could it be that he knew that his father’s British citizenship disqualified him for the presidency?
2Brave2Bscared on September 7, 2009 at 12:00 AM
there was a Supreme Court case where a Woman, born in America, lived in another country (Sweden?, workin off memory here… too lazy to go look), and then tried to emeigrate back and get a US Passport… she was denied… as she had not met a Congressionaly made requirment to move back to America in a certain timeframe… Supremes overuled, said she was a CITIZEN (notice, not Natural born).
As to a paper trail? Passport, registering to vote… things of that nature… key would be the paper trail of legal documents (IMO).
But then again… as I’ve said before, I’m not a lawyer, although I slept with one at a Holiday Inn once (and boy was she HAWT!)
Romeo13 on September 7, 2009 at 12:00 AM
Your side discovered documents written in 1884 last year, and that makes them not come to light until last year? Chester Arthur was smeared during his vice-presidential election campaign. How little history you guys know.
unclesmrgol on September 7, 2009 at 12:01 AM
If he applied to Oxidental College as an Indonesian/foreign student, would that be considered a legal paper trail?
justincase on September 7, 2009 at 12:04 AM
Excpet that there is another case from the WWII era, where a Japanese American joined the Japanese Army… and thought that meant he was no longer a US citizen… we tried him AFTER the war for treason, and the Supreme Court Upheld his US citizenship. He was sentenced to DEATH, but his sentence was changed by Presidential Pardon powers.
Rahm Enamuel served in the Israeli Army, is he still a US citizen?
Mexican Americans VOTE in the Mexican election by abscentee ballot… you can get one at their embassies…
Whole thing is a mess… which is why I want the Supremes to Rule on the whold subject of just what a Natural Born Citizen is.
Romeo13 on September 7, 2009 at 12:06 AM
For what it’s worth, Wikipedia bears you out on that point, though I suspect even “legit dead wood” encyclopedias and other historical documents will agree:
“During the 1880 U.S. presidential election a New York attorney, Arthur P. Hinman, was hired to explore rumors of Arthur’s foreign birth. Hinman alleged that Arthur was born in Ireland and did not come to the United States until he was fourteen years old. When that story failed to take root Hinman came forth with a new story that Arthur was born in Canada. This claim also fell on deaf ears”
whatcat on September 7, 2009 at 12:07 AM
Dam… hadn’t head… got a linky?
Romeo13 on September 7, 2009 at 12:08 AM
Problem is, that just like the Obama case… they pursued the WRONG question…
They looked at if he was born in another country, somthing easily dismissed…. and missed the question of whether his Father was a citizen WHEN he was born.
“of course history repeats itself, no one was listening the first time”
Shaw.
Romeo13 on September 7, 2009 at 12:10 AM
I’m at a loss here. Maybe you should ask Chester Arthur why his papers at the Archives were burned. As for his father’s British citizenship disqualifying him, it did nothing of the sort, as he was born in Vermont to a natural-born American citizen. As for his father’s naturalization, or lack thereof, it has no bearing, just as Sadao Munemori‘s parents not being American citizens did not prevent him from being one, by virtue of his birth here in the United States, and did not prevent him from dying for our freedom.
unclesmrgol on September 7, 2009 at 12:13 AM
Can’t speak to a “side”, as I only speak for myself…
But from what I’ve read Arthur was investigated for having been born in another country, NOT if his father was a citizen when he was born…
Wash, Rinse, Repeat…
Romeo13 on September 7, 2009 at 12:14 AM
Sadao Mumemori was President? Wow, musta missed that one.
Romeo13 on September 7, 2009 at 12:16 AM
It all depends on the meaning of the word is.
unclesmrgol on September 7, 2009 at 12:19 AM
Yes, but as Mr. Donofrio points out, the issue of Arthur’s father not being a U.S. citizen at the time of his birth was not known until very recently. Ironically, they were right that Arthur was ineligible, but not due to his place of birth.
2Brave2Bscared on September 7, 2009 at 12:22 AM
The report on Chessani’s case:
http://warchronicle.com/DefendOurMarines/Weimann/GoodNewsBadNews.htm
justincase on September 7, 2009 at 12:23 AM
Exactly right.
2Brave2Bscared on September 7, 2009 at 12:23 AM
Agreed…. but… as I’ve posted BEFORE…
emphasis mine
the Supreme court ITSELF leaves DOUBT as to the question of whether someone born on American soil, of a Non US Citizen Parent, is a “Natural Born Citizen” in the context of the Constitution.
Romeo13 on September 7, 2009 at 12:24 AM
The fact that you continue to not understand the difference between the varies types of citizenship makes it hard for me to take you seriously.
2Brave2Bscared on September 7, 2009 at 12:27 AM
No, Sadao Munemori was a natural-born American citizen. I think that should answer your question — a natural-born citizen is, by definition, an American citizen who does not need to be naturalized.
…by a Democratic smear campaign. As for Arthur’s situation, he couldn’t prove on his own that he was born in Vermont — Vermont officials asserted he had been. That was because birth records weren’t recorded in Vermont until the late 1850′s. However, anecdotal records by his peers indicate that Chester was indeed born in Vermont, and Vermont embraces him.
unclesmrgol on September 7, 2009 at 12:31 AM
Ditto.
I fully understand the difference between natural-born and naturalized citizenship — my family has both kinds. We know which of us can be President — and which cannot.
unclesmrgol on September 7, 2009 at 12:32 AM
What I don’t understand is how the eligibility of the US president isn’t considered important enough for the SCOTUS to waste their time on the case. I think the same day they supposedly dismissed Donofrio’s case they agreed to hear a case about cigarette companies. Obviously a much more pressing Constitutional issue than the leader of the free world…
And how the heck can it be that even if 99.9% of the country believed an issue needed to be addressed in the courts, the SCOTUS can deny “standing” for the whole darned lot of us?
The checks and balances, accountability, etc are totally screwed up here. And that is the bigger issue here, even beyond Obama himself. That’s why I believe this issue is NOT a tangent but dead-on.
justincase on September 7, 2009 at 12:33 AM
Ouch… they are trying to make this go away, by trying to get him to retire… as he is apparently retirement eligable.
Its a threat…. retire on your own… or we will reccomend your retirment at a lower Rank.
I’ve seen this type of thing before… bet there was a “conversation” where he was told to retire… but he did not… now they are trying to force him out.
Romeo13 on September 7, 2009 at 12:34 AM
Yet, in this particular case, they did not take appellate jurisdiction. Probably not an interesting question for the current set of Justices — they probably have the same thoughts I do about the matter.
unclesmrgol on September 7, 2009 at 12:36 AM
Also, one more point about this. Nothing in Federal law even explicitly defines “natural born citizen.” And even if there were such a definition, Federal and State law has no bearing on the Constitutional meaning of “natural born.” The U.S. State Department even warns that…
So not only have you provided something that has nothing to do with the topic at hand (whether or not Obama is “natural born”), but the laws you are citing have nothing to do with “Constitutional purposes.”
2Brave2Bscared on September 7, 2009 at 12:37 AM
Sorry, but you are no “classical liberal” if you campaigned for Clinton/Gore.
atheling on September 7, 2009 at 12:38 AM
No, he was a NATIVE BORN citizen if born on American Soil…. and a Natural Born Citizen if born on American soil, of US Citizen Parents.
Or at least that is the definition that the Founders, and the guy who wrote the 14th amendment had.
Romeo13 on September 7, 2009 at 12:38 AM
Romeo13 on September 7, 2009 at 12:34 AM
If they want the issue to go away, why don’t they just say it is resolved? If they want HIM to go away, wouldn’t that basically be retaliation – the same thing as in Major Cook’s case?
justincase on September 7, 2009 at 12:38 AM
You guys need to give it a rest. The definition of “natural born citizen” is a matter of first impression. It has never been decided. It might mean the same thing as “citizen at birth” or it might be something more restrictive, excluding dual citizens. We have gone through the authorities enough to know that there is no conclusive answers. WE DO NOT KNOW. Anyone who pretends to know the answer is fooling you or themselves. Until the SCOTUS addresses the issue in the course of a presidential qualification challenge, we will never know. It will remain a great unsolved mystery.
tommylotto on September 7, 2009 at 12:41 AM
Could citizens file a class-action lawsuit against Obama? Would that guarantee standing? I thought that was what Orly was going to do with Major Cook’s case.
justincase on September 7, 2009 at 12:41 AM
Actualy, in todays climate, if the Supremes had taken Dono’s case up before the election?
Race Riots…
Supremes have a habit of NOT taking up certain issues until things are pretty calm… which is why I don’t think this will be heard until Obama is out of office.
Romeo13 on September 7, 2009 at 12:41 AM
The way SCOTUS is treating this issue sure makes it look like their decision on Bush v Gore was judicial activism. When Donofrio and Wrotnowski both appealed because their state election laws were broken they patterned their cases after Bush v Gore. Why did the SCOTUS reasoning for having jurisdiction in the issue back in 1999 not also apply in 2008?
justincase on September 7, 2009 at 12:45 AM
What if his school records reveal that he’s a citizen of another country? What if he identified himself as an Indonesian citizen at the time of enrollment at Occidental or Harvard?
atheling on September 7, 2009 at 12:47 AM
Gotta love unclesmrgol. He makes up his own definition of “natural born,” one that is contrary to the one espoused and defended by various Founders and Framers, and then turns around and accuses us of not knowing our history.
You, sir, are an ignoramus who refuses to be educated by facts. We have brought numerous quotes to your attention by the Founders, by the framers of the Constitution and its amendments, by various supreme court rulings, and even by an accomplished attorney writing in the prestigious The American Law Review, that your claims are bogus. And yet you continue on, in ignorant bliss, as if you haven’t read a word.
You’re a waste of time, unclesmrgol. A complete fool who seemingly relishes in his own ignorance.
2Brave2Bscared on September 7, 2009 at 12:47 AM
LOL… yer talking to someone who for the last 10 years of his carreer in the Navy, was “unpromotable”.
Wasn’t bad enough to get kicked out, but I was told by a Navy Capt, who sat on my promotion board (and yes, he could have gotten in BIG trouble for talking to me about it), that unless I got the CMH… I would never be promoted past my present rank…
Kind of liberating actualy… as long as I was not stupid, they could not kick me out… but I sure didn’t have to play any games…
Military wants this whole thing to go away… but if he stays in, the Lefts Pundits will always talk about a “Cover up”… Yes, its abosolutly retalitory… but its also pretty much how it works.
Its like the old thing where you “allowed” a Gentleman to commit suicide instead of being dishonored… if he didn’t do it himself… it may have been done “for” him.
Romeo13 on September 7, 2009 at 12:48 AM
I’m not into conspiracy theories myself. I remember laughing when I read that some people thought Obama’s Hawaiian COLB was a modified version of his sister, Maya’s Hawaiian COLB. I still think that’s a bit crazy. But then I read his sister’s bio. She was BORN IN INDONESIA… but SHE HAS A HAWAIIAN COLB. So there goes the “fact” that the COLB proves anything about Obama’s birth. Until the law changed in mid eighties, anyone who was born anywhere could get a HI COLB.
NightmareOnKStreet on September 7, 2009 at 12:50 AM
By many accounts, he was a man rather impressed with himself.
rokemronnie on September 7, 2009 at 12:50 AM
It’s absolutely true that this sacrifice fly on Obama’s part may well nip some of the ongoing conspiracy talk from the opposition.
I think, personally, it was a smart move.
I have my own personal list of conspiracy thoughts I could stand to never read about again, including “follow the money.” Good grief, but it’s gotten completely nuts to read, regardless of the side, all the talk about corruption from donations, etc. Not every dollar buys you much with politicians. Mostly, you’ll know that your side gets a fair hearing is all.
Some ARE corrupt, but the evidence is a lot more than just taking a donation. The birthers and truthers are in a class all of their own. :)
AnninCA on September 7, 2009 at 12:52 AM
Honestly, Tommy, have you even looked into this or are you simply talking out of your ass? My guess is you have done little to no research, because if you had, you’d discover that this issue isn’t nearly as ambiguous as you try to make it.
No, it doesn’t. We’ve pointed out time and time again in this thread, through direct quotes from the Framers, that “natural born” means 1) born on U.S. soil AND 2) to parents who are U.S. citizens at the time of said birth.
2Brave2Bscared on September 7, 2009 at 12:52 AM
Damn, you worked on the Clinton/Gore campaign and you’re still not a citizen?
I’ve been wondering why you refer to yourself as “one of the Europeans…” I falsely assumed since you came here by choice, and worked a political campaign that you were an American citizen now.
While I still can’t get it through my thick head how you can’t see that your mantra of “Socialist Tyrant” appears to liberals every bit as paranoid as the birther’s mantra of “Obama is not a natural born citizen,” I do think it’s a shame your not a citizen by now.
Damn, you should have come over, under, or around our southern border. You’d be voting by now–as long as you voted for a Democrat.
Gang-of-One on September 7, 2009 at 12:54 AM
Only if you volunteer. I know a lot of people that hold dual US/Israeli citizenship. When they were drafted into the IDF, they made sure to notify the US Embassy that they were not volunteering.
rokemronnie on September 7, 2009 at 12:56 AM
At this stage, don’t care where the SOB says he was born!
By his actions he’s made it clear that he’s anti-American.
It would be wise though, that before he’s permitted to lecture school children, that he be required to submit Raised Seal Transcripts from the postsecondary schools he says he attended.
Till then, I expect the vast majority of students will stay home, or watch the Obama Puppet Act with the volume muted.
P.S. as for this non-sensical prescription to be sensitive to how the Govment Press will “launch attacks on high-profile conservatives”– WTF is new about their MO?
FYI, Glenn Beck, and before him Rush, under fire from leftys & moderates, have single handedly jerked knots in Obama’s tail, as well as the jacka$$ed clowns in the media. NO! We should not be genuflecting to the newsies and journos, nor FrumKin and the rest of the RINO right! It’s time to knock heads with these bastagges till they finally come to understand that they work for US — not the other way around.
“Let’s Roll”
On Watch on September 7, 2009 at 12:57 AM
That is so ironic. They’re afraid the left will become “Haditha Truthers” so they get rid of a guy who seems from everything I’ve read to be an exemplary military officer. And in doing so they basically tell every military man and woman that even if they survive combat they may not survive the political games.
But in order to cover up Obama’s eligibility issue they revoke military orders which provide standing so the issue that is troubling a good percentage of Americans can be resolved – even though they know good and well it is like pouring gasoline on the fire to do so.
The double standard really gets me.
My nephew/godson is in Marines ROTC, graduates in a year. Before he went to college he talked with me about how he respects the military because they are free of politics, work together for the common goal rather than getting bogged down in politics. I didn’t see how his dad (who was a naval officer/pilot for quite a while) reacted to his comments. I know he had talked to me before about how political it actually is.
This year has been really eye-opening for me.
justincase on September 7, 2009 at 1:00 AM
By then, two or three more Justices may join Sotomayor as having been appointed by the President on whose legitimacy they’d be expected to rule.
Conflict of interest much?
This is why legislation needs to be introduced to require certification of all candidates for (V)POTUS before their names even go on the ballot, to assure that the Electors pledged to vote for a certain pair of candidates won’t be throwing their votes away on someone not eligible to hold the office. After they’ve already been elected, it’s too late to rule them ineligible without all kinds of ugly complications.
The Monster on September 7, 2009 at 1:00 AM
Monster, there were laws in at least 2 states which required the eligibility to be certified before the names could go on the ballot. The SOS’s claimed they could know Obama was eligible without seeing any official documents.
Yeah, right. And I can figure out how many taxes I owe by looking at my own rear end…
SOS’s can get away with that kind of logic, but none of us peons would.
And we’ve found that the law means nothing to Obama and his ilk.
Yes, we need a law, but we also need a way to let politicians know that if they or their staff fail to follow the law there will be penalties above and beyond them possibly not being elected to another term. By the next election the damage will already have been done.
justincase on September 7, 2009 at 1:09 AM
You’re both morons. Settled!
crr6 on September 7, 2009 at 1:14 AM
I’m not sure what you mean there, Romeo13, sorry. It’s kind of vague as to what you’re addressing. Also, I don’t know who “they” refers to – media, doubters or ?
I’m just wondering if you think – on the Hawaii long form BC question alone – do you accept the “Obama line” that it is legit; that there’s nothing there?
I’m thinking there’s something there since people don’t tend to be so evasive, to the point of fighting in court, to make something that’s supposed to be innocuous into something akin to a state secret.
At any rate, that where I’d go with the questions – laying a solid groundwork before I’d speculate further. Just a simple question that can be very easily & quickly answered by Obama making the long form BC public.
whatcat on September 7, 2009 at 1:22 AM
I think you read way too much into a metaphor. I don’t think “go to the back of the bus” necessarily translates to the whole civil rights movement.
And if not, then “no amount of facepalm” is necessary. Which according to Occam’s razor makes that a more likely interpretation.
ThereGoesTheNeighborhood on September 7, 2009 at 1:32 AM
Glad to see a resident liberal troll has defaulted to their base ideology.
MadisonConservative on September 7, 2009 at 1:39 AM
Renunciation of citizenship is very specific and impossible to do inadvertently. Even if he claimed Indonesian citizenship to get a scholarship in college, it might be fraudulent and personally embarrassing, but it would not amount to a renunciation of US citizenship and would have no impact on whether he had natural born status at the time of his birth. Now, if you found a document filed with the secretary of state signed by Obama after the age of 21 specifically renouncing his US citizenship, then you would have something, but that is rather unlikely, considering that he was patriotic enough to register for the draft at age 18.
tommylotto on September 7, 2009 at 2:19 AM
I wonder if that could be a reason why he won’t release his school records – it would reveal fraud and be quite an embarassment to him.
atheling on September 7, 2009 at 2:25 AM
You’re welcome. Any time.
Loxodonta on September 7, 2009 at 2:26 AM
Trust me, I have read up on this issue just as much if not more than you, and certainly with a less biased mind. I am sympathetic to your theory, but that is all that it is — a theory. There is no authority for the proposition that someone born a citizen is not natural born. We know that a sole US citizen born on US soil is natural born. We also know those born as “foreigners” are not natural born and can never be natural born. The question is a circumstance not considered by the founders — a person born a dual citizen. There is no authority on this question. There is extensive case law on the issue of “citizenship” and that tends to cut against your interpretation. You must maintain that natural born citizen means something other than citizen at birth, but that is just speculation. It is a reasonable speculation, but it remains an unknown. You can marshall all the quotes from all the founders you want, but until the SCOTUS hears the case and renders an opinion, your argument is just mental masturbation.
tommylotto on September 7, 2009 at 2:31 AM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 … 6 7 8 9 Next »