Breaking: WH releasing long-form birth certificate

posted at 9:13 am on April 27, 2011 by Ed Morrissey

Well, I’m certainly glad this happened the day before I left the country on vacation.  CNN and pretty much everyone else is abuzz with the news that Barack Obama and the White House have tired of playing with conspiracy theorists and will release the long-form birth certificate after all:

The White House released President Obama’s original birth certificate Wednesday.

The surprise release follows recent and sustained remarks by businessman Donald Trump, among others, that raised doubts as to whether the president was born in the United States.

Haven’t seen the actual form yet, but I’ll be sure to add it when I do.  So far, news outlets are only showing the CoLB that they’ve had for almost three years, but we should be able to see the original shortly.

The big question is this: will it make any difference?  The conspiracy theorists have long speculated that the state of Hawaii’s law that allows parents to get a birth certificate after having a child abroad (true) gives them the option to declare Hawaii the birthplace (not true).  Others insist “natural born” means born of two American citizens, which is not only not true but would have disqualified Michael Dukakis in 1988, whose parents were both Greek immigrants. I’m going to guess that this will only shake off those with minimal or moderate attachment to the birth certificate issue, and that the industry will somehow muster onward after this bleak day.

Update: Ah, CNN has the PDF here.  And here’s the image:

Note that the long form doesn’t have any mention of religion at all, which was one theory as to why Obama was supposedly “hiding” it, nor does it list anyone else as Obama’s father, another speculative bit of nonsense peddled by the birthers.  The place of birth box is checked as within city or town limits, signed as thus by the attendant to the birth.

This conspiracy theory should have died three years ago.  Now, maybe we can focus on all the ways Obama is failing as President.

Update II: Some of those who pushed this issue over the last two-plus years are now crying foul, saying “Why did he wait this long to release it?”  Why would Obama have wanted to release it?  After all, it made for a perfect way to paint his opposition as lunatics.  Frankly, I’m surprised he didn’t wait until after the GOP primaries.  He could have used the bump more then than now.

You know who the biggest loser in this might be?  CNN.  They’re in the middle of their in-depth investigation of the birther movement, and now their unaired episodes are moot.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

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: 1 21 22 23

Ed sed: “This conspiracy theory should have died three years ago. Now, maybe we can focus on all the ways Obama is failing as President.”

I usually agree right down the line with Ed, but I think he’s wrong here. The birth-certificate blow-up didn’t interest me until just the last few months. And it is Obama, much more than CNN, who is the loser here.

Like more than 60 percent of the country, Obama’s refusal to address the matter expeditiously finally had me wondering…

1. Does he think he’s above the obvious concern of the public and even the Constitution?

2. Does he have something to hide?

3. He’s he trying to sucker the GOP setting up the whole “Birther” thing? (If so, it just backfired.)

4. Why do we have no uniform means of vetting a Constitutional requirement? (I understand even Bush and Cheney willingly produced their BCs as part of proving they were not both citizens of Texas.)

Playing fast and loose and then producing something mundane that could’ve been timely submitted just marks Obama further as an unserious person. In fact, the way he’s played it, I’m wondering if it’s as phoney as Dan Rather’s military records on Bush. Hey, notice the white space around the typescript on the image…?

Chaz on April 27, 2011 at 11:25 AM

Ditto.

Well said. Thanks for your contribution.

Mcguyver on April 29, 2011 at 12:17 PM

Based on the British Nationality Act of 1948, the new certificate shows that Obama was born with dual citizenship. He was a natural born citizen of the United States and he inherited British citizenship from his father. The only issue then is whether or not his dual citizenship was valid when he ran for President, because the intent of the founding fathers was clearly to exclude having a U.S. President with allegiance to another country. It is possible that Obama’s dual citizenship was no longer valid when he ran for President, but I’m not clear on the legal aspects surrounding dual citizenship. Did Obama renounce his British citizenship in order to change dual citizenship? Was he ever legally a citizen of Kenya or Indonesia? If so, did he renounce citizenship and allegiance to these other countries?

These issues have little to do with the question of whether or not Obama was a natural born US citizen.

Based on the birth certificate, he clearly was a natural born US citizen (but not without foreign entanglements, etc.) who was eligible to be President. But, this doesn’t negate the issue concerning where his allegiance lies. Based on what I’ve seen of his Presidency so far, it’s hard to conclude that his true allegiance is to the Unites States of America and that it a problem for all of us.

We need a President whose allegiance is first and foremost to to this country and its constitution.

We don’t need a President of the world who continues to inflict his worldview social justice policies on us and who seems determined to bankrupt our country in the process of doing so.

NuclearPhysicist on April 27, 2011 at 11:31 AM (edited by Mcguyver with some emphasis and notes added, see bold and italics)

Well said.

Thanks for your contribution.

Note my editing, emphasis’ and paragraph offset for highlighting purposes, within your actual quote.

Mcguyver on April 29, 2011 at 12:29 PM

Obama played this brilliantly, get your opponents to spend a ton of time and energy on something that you know is not an issue.

Raisedbywolves on April 27, 2011 at 11:40 AM

If that’s the case, why release it today?

Jim Treacher on April 27, 2011 at 11:47 AM

Exactly.

Perhaps this is a “known unknown”, unless smart people are allowed to further investigate this without being demonized.

Mcguyver on April 29, 2011 at 12:33 PM

BTW- IDK how many of you have done birth certificate research, but I’ve done a lot of it.
These forms they give you copies of usually do not have every detail listed.
This ‘long form’ has enough to satisfy any confusion about citizenship.
However, usually the book in the back they never usually let you look through has MUCH more info than people realize.
For instance, I obtained a purchased regular copy of my deceased grandmother’s BC.
But it was missing info I knew just had to be listed somewhere.
The lady behind the counter was a cranky nasty b!t@h.
I came back a year later & someone else more helpful was there.
I explained the situation to her & she let me in the back to look in the actual book where the real handwritten recorded inofmration was.
There was listed the FULL name of her father, not just an abbreviation, along with some other things that never appeared on the copy BC.
But every state is different & actually every county is different in how they record things & the info they record.

Badger40 on April 27, 2011 at 11:50 AM

Good idea for a lead into further investigation.

Thanks for your contribution and hard work on this comment thread issue.

Mcguyver on April 29, 2011 at 12:36 PM

triple citizenship (again, if that’s even the case) doesn’t mean anything one way or the other.

It’s a non-starter.

Good Lt on April 27, 2011 at 11:48 AM

Wow…so a President’s potential allegiance to another nation doesn’t matter to you.

Good to know.

fossten on April 27, 2011 at 11:54 AM

It does matter to smart people.

Mcguyver on April 29, 2011 at 12:39 PM

So Trump finally got this arrogant little man who thinks he’s our King and above us to do something he thought was beneath him.

Good for Trump and thank you.

I was smiling from ear to ear listening to Obama today. He did not want to do this and he wanted to hold on to this for another year and a half.

Trump has done a service to our side, because he got under Obama’s skin and put Obama on the defensive and shown our side how to deal with him.

By being direct, unafraid and tough.

Trump may or may not survive as a candidate and he is certainly not my favorite, but he is leading the charge and paving the way for our other candidates.

He serves a purpose.

When he attacks Obama as “destroying this country” it now gets play in the media and more people will agree with that sentiment and vote for whoever our candidate will be.

Elisa on April 27, 2011 at 12:02 PM

Ditto.

Thanks for your contribution.

Mcguyver on April 29, 2011 at 12:44 PM

Have to disagree, Ed. The most egregious thing about this wasn’t that people became suspicious when the arrogant ass refused to release the document. It was that the media were NOT suspicious, and did not demand that he react transparently and not deviously. I suspect most of the media were afraid of being chastised by their lefty friends for demanding answers, and an end to the questions.

rivlax on April 27, 2011 at 12:31 PM

Ditto. Agree 100%.

Thanks for the contribution.

Mcguyver on April 29, 2011 at 12:51 PM

What other nation (or 2) does Obama have allegiance to?

Let us know.

Good Lt on April 27, 2011 at 11:58 AM

Actually, fossten has a point.

My wife is a naturalized citizen. Her country of birth, Brazil, still holds her liable to allegiance. When she swore an oath to become a U.S. citizen she had to renounce that allegiance and swear only allegiance to Brazil. Now Brazil still holds her liable. If she goes back to visit family and Brazil goes to war over oil with the US (just hypothetical) she would be required to cooperate as a citizen of Brazil.

Now my children’s story is similar. They also have dual citizenship. Even though they were born in the USA, Brazil considers them citizens. They would have to have the same allegiance as my wife.

It is a potential allegiance issue. But this is by no fault of their own making. And likewise it is not fault of Obama. There is a potential allegiance issue but pure speculation to go further than that.

Just saying.

shick on April 27, 2011 at 1:02 PM

Right.

This is an issue of candidate certification by each individual state, not Obama’s.

Mcguyver on April 29, 2011 at 12:58 PM

Second, the snarky natures of Ed’s post shows true contempt for people who have merely been asking questions. I’m disgusted with him, and I have been all along, for the attitude he has taken about this issue.

I have to tell you, as much as I like Ed, I have been as well.

Alana on April 27, 2011 at 1:03 PM

Mega dittos.

Mcguyver on April 29, 2011 at 1:00 PM

Mcguyver on April 29, 2011 at 10:32 AM

Well, you spelled everything right.

Jim Treacher on April 29, 2011 at 1:19 PM

I certify that this is a true copy or abstract of the record on file in the Hawaii state department of health.

This is an abstract of the original, not the original itself. It’s not a copy of the record on file.

JannyMae on April 27, 2011 at 1:55 PM

Interesting that they themselves admit that it doesn’t have to be an EXACT copy of the original.

Mcguyver on April 29, 2011 at 1:27 PM

Mcguyver on April 29, 2011 at 10:32 AM

Well, you spelled everything right.

Jim Treacher on April 29, 2011 at 1:19 PM

Touche.

I will remember to harp on your human error over at the Daily Caller.

Mcguyver on April 29, 2011 at 1:29 PM

BTW-just so you all know, a lot of the time ‘original’ birth records are actually generated.
The information usually came from an actual book where the info was originally handwritten in a book until the typewriter came along.
That info was usually still put into books in order of birth.
So for instance, my mother’s BC is a transcription of the original information handwritten in a book kept for recording births.
When typewriters came, the info was usually still handwritten, the transcribed by typewriter onto a form, much like the one we’re discussing here.
Depending upon the year the birth information was requested, some info may or may not be left out.
By looking at the ORIGINAL RECORD is really the only true way of seeing ALL recorded information from the very day that info was recorded, back in the day.

Badger40 on April 27, 2011 at 3:22 PM

Good point.

Mcguyver on April 29, 2011 at 1:52 PM

It was very easy to lie back then.
And often information got changed along the way through compilation of records.

Badger40 on April 27, 2011 at 3:28 PM

Good point.

Mcguyver on April 29, 2011 at 1:54 PM

If you look at the pattern you will quickly realize that is the same screen from Ms. PacMan back in the 70′s. Should be obvious that whoever created this fake was some dope smoking hippie programmer from back in the day…. /sarc

“you will not take my birther conspiracy until you pry it from my cold dead hands…”

Bradky on April 29, 2011 at 2:05 PM

I don’t know. If you’re President and your winning issue is you finally proved to America you were born here you’ve got some problems.

JellyToast on April 27, 2011 at 6:53 PM

Funny…!

And true.

Mcguyver on April 29, 2011 at 2:08 PM

I don’t know. If you’re in opposition to the President and your winning issue is that you haven’t seen his birth certificate you’ve got some problems.

MadisonConservative on April 27, 2011 at 6:55 PM

It’s okay to relax and enjoy a joke now and then.

Jim Treacher on April 27, 2011 at 6:59 PM

Take your own hint.

You and crr6 playing footsie makes this forum look like a ex-date forum…

Mcguyver on April 29, 2011 at 2:11 PM

She unsuccessfully attempted to get Good Lt to fully support her notion that Treacher was a Birther.

blink on April 29, 2011 at 2:21 PM

Why does Treacher have to be so defensive?

Mcguyver on April 29, 2011 at 2:33 PM

Nice going there, AP….by rabidly categorizing what are really not Top Pick blog posts in the Top Pick column, you are hastening the time that this post will be gone..!!

Nice, but epically (and historically) transparent you are there.

/sarc

Mcguyver on April 29, 2011 at 2:39 PM

I will remember to harp on your human error over at the Daily Caller.

Mcguyver on April 29, 2011 at 1:29 PM

Sounds good.

Jim Treacher on April 29, 2011 at 2:44 PM

Take your own hint.

You and crr6 playing footsie makes this forum look like a ex-date forum…

Mcguyver on April 29, 2011 at 2:11 PM

Problem?

Jim Treacher on April 29, 2011 at 2:45 PM

Why does Treacher have to be so defensive?

Mcguyver on April 29, 2011 at 2:33 PM

Why do you ask?

Jim Treacher on April 29, 2011 at 2:46 PM

Why does Treacher have to be so defensive?

Mcguyver on April 29, 2011 at 2:33 PM

Why do you ask?

Jim Treacher on April 29, 2011 at 2:46 PM

Okay, I admit it…that was funny.

MadisonConservative on April 29, 2011 at 3:02 PM

Take your own hint.

You and crr6 playing footsie makes this forum look like a ex-date forum…

Mcguyver on April 29, 2011 at 2:11 PM

Problem?

Jim Treacher on April 29, 2011 at 2:45 PM

An utter waste of digital broadband.

Mcguyver on April 29, 2011 at 3:22 PM

Why does Treacher have to be so defensive?

Mcguyver on April 29, 2011 at 2:33 PM

Why do you ask?

Jim Treacher on April 29, 2011 at 2:46 PM

Okay, I admit it…that was funny.

MadisonConservative on April 29, 2011 at 3:02 PM

Not funny and I was just curious. I thought Treacher was above such trollish crap, considering that he has moved up in the world – or maybe not.

Mcguyver on April 29, 2011 at 3:25 PM

I think Fed45 provided us with a new one. “Birthers who believe (despite the 14th amendment) that children born in the territorial US to a non-US citizen parent aren’t US citizens.”

crr6 on April 28, 2011 at 7:02 PM

I wonder why anyone should bother listening to a Non-American about an issue which is wholly the business of Americans?

Seriously, why are you butting into the discussion on an affair which is none of your business?

You don’t live here, you don’t vote here, and you ought not to be trying to interfere with the internal affairs of another country.

Why don’t you go talk about “global warming” or some other issue of which your input might safely be considered within the sphere of your concern?

DiogenesLamp on April 29, 2011 at 4:04 PM

I wonder why anyone should bother listening to a Non-American about an issue which is wholly the business of Americans?

DiogenesLamp on April 29, 2011 at 4:04 PM

I think you’re confused, Lamp.

crr6 on April 29, 2011 at 4:27 PM

Actually, I guess New Jersey answered that one quite well. Does anyone have a contrary answer?

flicker on April 28, 2011 at 7:20 PM

I had always assumed that the only way he wouldn’t be a citizen is if he was born in Canada like cn6. Which I had believed was a strong possibility, and which I am still somewhat suspicious about. If he were born in Washington or Hawaii, then he would be a “citizen.”

Having a foreign Father though, erases the possibility of his being a “Natural born Citizen.” He is a “Natural born Dual Citizen.”

The poor authors of the 14th amendment would be aghast at how badly their amendment has been misused to justify things of which they never dreamt.

The 14th Amendment would be more properly titled the “Former Slaves citizenship” Amendment, because that was it’s actual intended purpose. It was never intended to be seen as repealing article II, and it was never expected to be completely misinterpreted to allow “born on soil” to equal automatic citizenship.

They used the language they did because slaves did not have citizen parents, and therefore could not pass citizenship down in the usual way. (By Blood.) They had to address the legal standing of former slaves as non-citizens in such a way as to grant them citizenship, so they settled on the “Well they were born here weren’t they?” Argument.

But that wasn’t enough, because ANYONE could be born here from a foreigner and thereby have citizen offspring, so they added “And subject to the jurisdiction thereof”, because at that time, Citizens and Subjects were “Subject” to the jurisdiction of their own governments.

Former slaves were “Subject to the jurisdiction thereof” but foreigners were not. They thought the distinction was sufficient to qualify former slaves (and Indians later) and exclude foreign parent birth.

DiogenesLamp on April 29, 2011 at 4:33 PM

They woefully underestimated the stupidity and wickedness of subsequent Liberal politicians who saw an advantage in swelling the ranks of Democrats by recognizing American births of foreign parents as automatic citizens.

At this time in History, the problem of birth by split nationality parents was really not a problem or even on their radar. Women automatically gained “naturalized” citizenship on marriage to an American Male. Any Children of the birth were automatically born to two American parents.

After 1920, (And after the 19th amendment) Women were recognized by the courts as having new rights, and therefore were recognized as being able to pass on citizenship to their offspring on their own, the same as American Males already could.

Now it was possible to have births to dual citizens from split nationality parents. They would still be American citizens, because they could inherit that characteristic from either parent, but they no longer met the Original meaning of “Natural born citizen.” Born Specifically American, with no divided loyalties.

DiogenesLamp on April 29, 2011 at 4:43 PM

I wonder why anyone should bother listening to a Non-American about an issue which is wholly the business of Americans?

DiogenesLamp on April 29, 2011 at 4:04 PM

I think you’re confused, Lamp.

crr6 on April 29, 2011 at 4:27 PM

“Enlighten me!” Are you an American or not? Others said you were a Canadian, and I saw no denial as of yet. Settle the issue then.

DiogenesLamp on April 29, 2011 at 4:44 PM

Mcguyver on April 29, 2011 at 3:22 PM

Mcguyver on April 29, 2011 at 3:25 PM

Wotta grouch!

Jim Treacher on April 29, 2011 at 4:46 PM

Regardless of the citizenship status of Obama’s parents, under 14th amendment, as long as his parents weren’t members of a foreign embassy (thus diplomatically immune from U.S. Jurisdiction), birth in the U.S. granted him citizenship naturally upon birth.
Thus natural born Citizen.

New_Jersey_Buckeye on April 28, 2011 at 7:25 PM

Citizenship yes, but Natural born citizenship? He’s a natural born Triple-Citizen. He can Claim British (boy, the founders would really love THAT one!) or he can claim Kenyan, or he can claim American. H3ll, he can probably even claim Indonesian.

Yeah, no divided loyalties there. He actually acts just like what you would expect for a muli-citizen. Unconcerned about America’s best interest, and totally engrossed with his concern for other countries.

DiogenesLamp on April 29, 2011 at 4:51 PM

“Enlighten me!” Are you an American or not? Others said you were a Canadian, and I saw no denial as of yet. Settle the issue then.

DiogenesLamp on April 29, 2011 at 4:44 PM

I’m American.

Everything you say is wrong or stupid. Go away.

crr6 on April 29, 2011 at 4:56 PM

Everything you say is wrong or stupid. Go away.

crr6 on April 29, 2011 at 4:56 PM

Only room enough for one of you, eh?

Jim Treacher on April 29, 2011 at 4:58 PM

Only room enough for one of you, eh?

Jim Treacher on April 29, 2011 at 4:58 PM

I’m actually surprised you have the temerity to show your face in this thread again. I thought you’d have performed internet-seppuku by now.

crr6 on April 29, 2011 at 5:00 PM

You seriously think the Clintons didn’t do everything in their not-inconsiderable power to win?

Jim Treacher on April 28, 2011 at 8:44 PM

Yes, I think John Henry tried to beat the steam drill. But sometimes the steam drill just can’t be beat.

The Clinton’s certainly didn’t have more influence in either Chicago OR Hawaii. Since the BC is in Hawaii, barring some seriously illegal and high risk of being caught burglary, I don’t see how they could have pried it out of him regardless of what they did.

Their best hope was to demand he produce it, then Scream bloody murder if he didn’t. The problem with this strategy is that he had already become the darling of the Black constituency, and this would have alienated a large quantity of the people she needed to win. It would have sealed her loss.

Her loss was a foregone conclusion. There was so much dirt on her she would have been a greasy spot. This is why Rush wanted her to be the nominee. She would have been trounced. The Media would not have worked nearly so hard for Hillary as they did their beloved social cometary candidate. I think that made all the difference in the Democrats winning.

DiogenesLamp on April 29, 2011 at 5:02 PM

I’m American.

Everything you say is wrong or stupid. Go away.

crr6 on April 29, 2011 at 4:56 PM

Sure you wouldn’t rather be a Canadian? You’ve already got their political opinions?

Okay, I accept you at your word for it. That subject is settled, or should you perhaps produce a birth certificate?

:)

DiogenesLamp on April 29, 2011 at 5:04 PM

I meant, how can something be set in stone for now? Doesn’t the expression, set in stone, mean that it can’t change? Are you saying that her negatives could change?

blink on April 29, 2011 at 8:10 AM

Her negatives are high and set in stone for the 2012 cycle.

That’s exactly what I noticed in looking over his past comments. He’s always attacking and never promoting any conservative ideals. He obviously doesn’t have any leadership qualities.

blink on April 29, 2011 at 1:06 AM

You mean attacking an out of control,unconstitutional and corrupt Federal government? Guilty.

Am i supposed to be enthusiastic about the crop of candidates we have? Trump? Romney? Huck is running, no? zzzzzzzzzz

I think John Kasich could win, but he’s not running.

toliver on April 29, 2011 at 5:04 PM

DiogenesLamp on April 29, 2011 at 4:33 PM

DL I think you are mistaken on several points.

1st. CRR6 is an American, I believe. A 2L at an American law school. CRR6 contends that it is a high ranking (top 30) law school, but as you would expect other commenters may disagree with her assessment. CRR6 is also a she. I believe you are confusing CRR6 with David Rywall who is Canadian.

2nd. Your interpretation of the 14th amendment is widely divergent from every court in the U.S from the lowly state trial courts up to the U.S. Supreme Court. Your interpretation also differs from pretty much every trained legal professional in the U.S. While you may contend your interpretation is correct and everyone else is wrong, it is not likely to carry the day in any court in the land.

The U.S. Supreme court in U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark addressed the question of what does the citizenship clause of the 14th Amendment mean? The Court stated:

affirms the ancient and fundamental rule of citizenship by birth within the territory, in the allegiance and under the protection of the country, including all children here born of resident aliens, with the exceptions or qualifications (as old as the rule itself) of children of foreign sovereigns or their ministers, or born on foreign public ships, or of enemies within and during a hostile occupation of part of our territory, and with the single additional exception of children of members of the Indian tribes owing direct allegiance to their several tribes.”

If the Supreme Court isn’t good enough how about some of the senator’s statements on the record during the debates on the 14th amendment.

affirms the ancient and fundamental rule of citizenship by birth within the territory, in the allegiance and under the protection of the country, including all children here born of resident aliens, with the exceptions or qualifications (as old as the rule itself) of children of foreign sovereigns or their ministers, or born on foreign public ships, or of enemies within and during a hostile occupation of part of our territory, and with the single additional exception of children of members of the Indian tribes owing direct allegiance to their several tribes.”Senator Howard (author of the citizenship clause of the 14th Amendment), Cong. Globe, 39th Cong., lst Sess. 2765-66 (1866).

“”I have always believed that every person, of whatever race or color, who was born within the United States was a citizen of the United States…The Senator says a person may be born here and not be a citizen. I know that is so in one instance, in the case of the children of foreign ministers who reside “near” the United States in the diplomatic language. By a fiction of law such persons are not supposed to be residing here, and under that fiction of law their children would not be citizens of the United States.” Senator Wade, Cong. Globe, 39th Cong., lst Sess.2768-69 (1866).

“In one sense, all persons born within the geographical limits of the United States are subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, but they are not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States in every sense. Take the child of an ambassador. In one sense, that child born in the United States is subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, because if that child commits the crime of murder, or commits any other crime against the laws of the country, to a certain extent he is subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, but not in every respect; and so with these Indians. All persons living within a judicial district may be said, in one sense, to be subject to the jurisdiction of the court in that district, but they are not in every sense subject to the jurisdiction of the court until they are brought, by proper process, within the reach of the power of the court.” Senator Williams, Cong. Globe, 39th Cong. 1st Sess. 2897 (1866).

The words of the 14th amendment are clear. You are born a citizen of the U.S. if you are born in the U.S and subject to its jurisdiction. The only people in the U.S. that are not subject to its jurisdiction are members of an embassy due to diplomatic immunity. Are you seriously saying that resident aliens or even illegal aliens are not subject to the U.S. jurisidiction? If an illegal alien kills you, does the U.S. have jurisdiction to arrest, try, and convict said illegal alien. If yes, than the illegal alien is under u.S. jurisdiction. For a person with diplomatic immunity, if they kill you, the U.S. lacks jurisdiciton to arrest, try and convict that person. That is the common (and legal) understanding of what “subject to the jurisdiction” means in the 14th amendment. Your intpretation is contrary to this accepted legal principle.

New_Jersey_Buckeye on April 29, 2011 at 5:11 PM

I’m actually surprised you have the temerity to show your face in this thread again. I thought you’d have performed internet-seppuku by now.

crr6 on April 29, 2011 at 5:00 PM

Your failure continues to amuse the rest of us.

Jim Treacher on April 29, 2011 at 5:24 PM

2nd. Your interpretation of the 14th amendment is widely divergent from every court in the U.S from the lowly state trial courts up to the U.S. Supreme Court. Your interpretation also differs from pretty much every trained legal professional in the U.S. While you may contend your interpretation is correct and everyone else is wrong, it is not likely to carry the day in any court in the land.

You do know what “First Principles” are? You also know what “Fallacy of Authority” means?

The Legal system has turned the “Fallacy of Authority” into a methodology. Precedent, is merely the opinions of previous courts on similar questions. The idea that a previous court may have gotten something wrong is not really addressed.

I am not interested in arguing what a court THINKS original intent was. I am interested in arguing WHAT original intent was without the filter of another person’s opinion.

If you think Court Decisions are infallible, then explain Dred Scot v. Sanford. Or Cherokee Nation v. Georgia.

DiogenesLamp on April 29, 2011 at 5:24 PM

If the Supreme Court isn’t good enough how about some of the senator’s statements on the record during the debates on the 14th amendment.
New_Jersey_Buckeye on April 29, 2011 at 5:11 PM

Those are pretty good, and they do support your argument. However, an Honest person will also report information that does not support your argument. (If you are aware of it.)

You quote Senator Howard, *I’ll* quote Senator Howard.

This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons.

How about Sen. Lyman Trumbull?

[T]he provision is, that ‘all persons born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens.’ That means ‘subject to the complete jurisdiction thereof.’ What do we mean by ‘complete jurisdiction thereof?’ Not owing allegiance to anybody else. That is what it means.

Sen. W. Williams:

I understand the words here, ‘subject to the jurisdiction of the United States,’ to mean fully and completely subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.

And of course Senator John Bingham also opined on this issue, (very strongly on my side) but I have to go and don’t have the time to look for the quote.

I won’t be back till tomorrow at the earliest. (and i’ll probably be hung over.) :) Till then.

DiogenesLamp on April 29, 2011 at 5:43 PM

Your failure continues to amuse the rest of us.

Jim Treacher on April 29, 2011 at 5:24 PM

Yes, I’m sure the lurkers are supporting you via email.

; )

crr6 on April 29, 2011 at 5:44 PM

crr6 on April 29, 2011 at 5:44 PM

Oh, sweetie. Petulance doesn’t look good on you. Please continue!

Jim Treacher on April 29, 2011 at 5:54 PM

You do know what “First Principles” are? You also know what “Fallacy of Authority” means?

The Legal system has turned the “Fallacy of Authority” into a methodology. Precedent, is merely the opinions of previous courts on similar questions. The idea that a previous court may have gotten something wrong is not really addressed.

DiogenesLamp on April 29, 2011 at 5:24 PM

You are arguing what the legal interpretation of a clause of the constitution is. However, you demand that I not refer to legal precedent in my legal argument. Is it just because the legal precedent favors my argument or do you have some other reason to require that I not rely upon your rules.

If we were arguing philosophy or engineering, I guess I could agree that “Fallacy of Authority” is applicable. But it is not applicable for a legal argument. The binding precedent of prior decisions of the United States Supreme Court is law. It is “common law” but it it is still law and is required to be followed by officers of the court, such as myself. Your appeal to the “fallacy of authority” ignores the fact that the Supreme Court isn’t just some authority, but rather its interpretation of the constitution has the force of law.

Your whims on how to argue legal issues are not commonly accepted and are not applicable in a court of law. When arguing legal points I apply the rules of applicable to the legal system. When arguing philosophy I would argue using the rules of philosophy.

You have attemtped to engage in a discussion in the legal interpretation of the 14th amendment. Having been proven wrong by applicable common law, you have attempted to salvage your argument by crying “No Fair. You can’t use common law and precedent to prove your legal interpretation.” When engaged in a sword fight, you can’t cry out “no fair he’s using a sword.”

I won’t be back till tomorrow at the earliest. (and i’ll probably be hung over.) :) Till then.

DiogenesLamp on April 29, 2011 at 5:43 PM

Ahh. Now I understand where your argument style is coming from. ;) Keep hydrated (glass of water after every drink) and have a bannana before going to bed and your hangover will be much lessened.

New_Jersey_Buckeye on April 29, 2011 at 6:02 PM

Wotta grouch!

Jim Treacher on April 29, 2011 at 4:46 PM

Touche!

Mcguyver on April 29, 2011 at 8:14 PM

Touche!

Mcguyver on April 29, 2011 at 8:14 PM

Wanna talk about it?

Jim Treacher on April 29, 2011 at 8:38 PM

So… will birthers now tell us that Nikki Haley, Bobby Jindall and Marco Rubio are ineligible to be POTUS, since they were born here to legal immigrants, some not-yet naturalized citizens?

If so, is there any similar case of cranks building such a huge political funeral pyre for themselves?

Will such folks also explain why John McCain’s birth in the Panama Canal Zone, which remained Panamanian property under lease, did not disqualify him for POTUS, given that he was born a Panamanian as well as US citizen?

(crickets)

fulldroolcup on April 29, 2011 at 8:39 PM

“Still doesn’t make a difference his father was a british subject. The Natural Born Clause requirement is different than Citizenship requirement. The framers were very clear on the Natural Born Clause both parents must be citizens and the requirement comes from the blood of the father.”

Not to make the rubble bounce, but: where, exactly, were the framers clear on the definition of “natural born citizen”?

fulldroolcup on April 29, 2011 at 8:47 PM

You are arguing what the legal interpretation of a clause of the constitution is. However, you demand that I not refer to legal precedent in my legal argument. Is it just because the legal precedent favors my argument or do you have some other reason to require that I not rely upon your rules.

I asked you before if you understood what “First Principles” means. Your reply indicates that you do not. Let me explain.

“First Principles” means derived from original information, as opposed to being a parroting of analysis performed by others. In simple terms, it means checking their work yourself rather than just “taking their word for it. ”

You see, basing your opinions on OTHER people’s opinions is what is refereed to as the “Fallacy of Authority.” It means you don’t know something for sure, (because you didn’t do the work yourself) but you THINK it’s true because some “expert” Says so.

Relying on declarations by “Experts” is how people centuries ago believed Heavier objects fell faster than lighter objects. How did they know? Because Aristotle said so.

He was wrong.

Do your own work.

DiogenesLamp on April 30, 2011 at 9:57 AM

Your whims on how to argue legal issues are not commonly accepted and are not applicable in a court of law. When arguing legal points I apply the rules of applicable to the legal system. When arguing philosophy I would argue using the rules of philosophy.

Yes, it is well understood by most people that the Legal system has it’s own peculiar way of doing things. In the legal system PROCEDURE (otherwise known as “ritual”) is everything. Most of us sit and watch with amusement as the legal system repeatedly produces kooky and irrational outcomes because they insist that methodology is more important than results. In Science, if a procedure consistently yielded results like the legal system, they would regard it as a failure.

I Design and build things. (Electronic things) The rules I use aren’t subject to opinions. They are consistent and inviolable. They operate in the realm of Objective reality, just as the legal system operates in the realm of Subjective reality. I am accustomed to dealing with REAL reality. Not “Declared” reality.

I argue that reality is not subjective but objective. It does not change merely because someone’s opinion changes. Where the legal system refuses to acknowledge objective reality in favor of opinions declaring something to be so, it is the legal system which is broken, not reality.

Now you argue that because they have the power to enforce their decisions (no matter how ridiculous those decisions may be.) that those decisions must be accepted as “FACT.”
They may be forced upon us, but that does not make them correct. You cannot dictate fact by fiat. Might does not make right.

I only have interest in arguing what is actual fact, and if a court declares it such, so much the better, but I am not interested in deviating from true and actual fact for the pleasure of the court.

Once actual facts are established, the people should be persuaded to them. The courts will follow eventually.

DiogenesLamp on April 30, 2011 at 10:22 AM

You quote Senator Howard, *I’ll* quote Senator Howard.

This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons.

Um, yeah. Try reading that a little more carefully.

Hint: It support’s NJ Buckeye’s position, not yours.

crr6 on April 30, 2011 at 1:58 PM

Comment pages: 1 21 22 23