8.17K
Interactions

In order to qualify to be president, the U.S. Constitution states, “No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.”

So what defines a “natural-born citizen”?  The answer has not been so simple over the years. The framers left it fairly vague and up to us to interpret throughout our history, and it is an issue that has gone back and forth.

This has all been brought into question as a result of one man whom various media outlets have kept an eye on as a possible presidential candidate in 2016. The man in question is freshman U.S. Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX).

Cruz was born in Canada to an American mother and a Cuban father. His parents were working in the oil business there. Cruz’s father did not become a U.S. citizen until 2005. So though he has made trips to Iowa and the media seems to be watching him quite closely, does he even meet the qualifications of being a natural-born citizen?

145731159_640

Section 1 of the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution states, “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”

This still only leaves a very vague definition for what constitutes a natural-born citizen. So now we look toward Section 5 of the 14th Amendment which states, “The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.”

It should also be noted that under Article 1, Section 8, Clause 4 of the U.S. Constitution, Congress has authority to create law regarding naturalization which includes citizenship.

So now we know that Congress, under the 14th Amendment, can write legislation declaring what constitutes a natural-born citizen. And yes, that means that there will be legal challenges and the U.S. Supreme Court (SCOTUS) will have to make sure such legislation does not violate the Constitution in any way… including Section 1 of the 14th Amendment.

In the case Minor v. Happersett (1875), 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.” – Minor v. Happersett

Though the Constitution is vague in what constitutes a natural-born citizen, Congress has stepped in to attempt to fill in the gap. Under Title 8 of the U.S. Code, Section 1401 defines the following as citizens of the United States upon birth… or natural-born citizens:

  • Anyone born inside the United States. The person must be “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States. (This would exempt the child of a diplomat, for example, from this provision.)
  • Any Indian or Eskimo born in the United States, provided being a citizen of the U.S. does not impair the person’s status as a citizen of the tribe
  • Anyone born outside the United States, both of whose parents are citizens of the U.S., as long as one parent has lived in the U.S.
  • Anyone born outside the United States, if one parent is a citizen and lived in the U.S. for at least one year and the other parent is a U.S. national
  • Anyone born in a U.S. possession, if one parent is a citizen and lived in the U.S. for at least one year
  • Anyone found in the U.S. under the age of five, whose parentage cannot be determined, as long as proof of non-citizenship is not provided by age 21
  • Anyone born outside the United States, if one parent is an alien and as long as the other parent is a citizen of the U.S. who lived in the U.S. for at least five years (with military and diplomatic service included in this time)

By the conditions just laid out, it would appear that Senator Ted Cruz is not eligible to run for president as he would not qualify as a natural-born citizen since only one of the parents was a citizen of the U.S.

However, there still exists one more historical clause which will challenge this argument. The clause states, “a person born before May 24, 1934 of an alien father and a U.S. citizen mother who has lived in the U.S.” is a citizen.

Does this change the argument? If it is grouped with Section 1401 of Title 8 of the US Code, then it would appear so.

Currently, citizenship in the U.S. is governed by the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952.  The most recent changes to statutory law was done by Congress in 2001. So since this most recent debate has circulated around Cruz, I am going to focus on one particular section… birth abroad to one U.S. citizen.

There are a certain set of rules for those born after November 14, 1986, but I’m focusing on the rules at the time of Cruz’s birth, which are the rules that were in effect from December 24, 1952 – November 14, 1986. A person born abroad between those dates is a U.S. citizen upon birth if all of the following are true:

  1. The person’s parents were married at the time of birth;
  2. One of the person’s parents was a U.S. citizen when the person was born;
  3. The citizen parent lived at least ten years in the United States before the child’s birth; and
  4. A minimum of 5 of these 10 years in the United States were after the citizen parent’s 14th birthday.

By these very definitions of the law, it would appear that Cruz is a natural-born citizen and thus meets the qualifications to run for president if he decided to do so. This also does one more thing, as well.

image005

In regards to President Obama, if the “birther” theory had been proven correct (and I’m not saying that it is) in that he had been born in Kenya (instead of Hawaii) to his U.S. mother and his Kenyan father, he would still qualify as a natural-born citizen.

As I stated at the beginning, this issue is a complicated mess. The Framers left it vague when they wrote the Constitution. Did they do it because they couldn’t foresee our future situations or was it so we could make such a determination as our nation progressed? One can only really speculate on that.

Regardless, we have done our best to set forth a definition, and one that holds for all Americans — born here and born abroad. The laws have changed throughout our history, and they will probably change again in our future.

For now, we go by the laws which we have — the laws in which we live by — the laws that govern our society. They apply to us all equally. In this confusing mixture, I hope there has been some small sense to the issue and that now we can have a better understanding of it.

About the Author

James Spurgeon
James Spurgeon

James has a degree in communications and works within the media. He knows how to research any topic that he writes about… approaching the topic from both sides of the issue and break them down. He doesn’t consider himself a Democrat or a Republican.

Join the discussion Please be relevant and respectful.

The Independent Voter Network is dedicated to providing political analysis, unfiltered news, and rational commentary in an effort to elevate the level of our public discourse.


Learn More About IVN

3742 comments
First Shirt
First Shirt

Those that state that any citizen or citizen at birth can be President then why has congress pushed the proposals below?

The congressional record shows that Congress started its assault on this clause in 1975 when Rep. Jonathon B. Bingham (D) introduced H.J.R. 33 which states “Provides that a citizen of the United States otherwise eligible to hold the Office of President shall not be ineligible because such citizen is not a natural born citizen.” This would have allowed any citizen regardless of how they became a citizen to be President. He attempted again in 1977.

It was not until 2003, just prior to the meteoric rise of President Barack Obama, that Congress attempted eight times in twenty-two months to modify or eliminate the Natural Born Citizen clause. Here are the attempts.

1. 11 June 2003 H.J.R 59 Vic Snyder AR “Constitutional Amendment – Makes a person who has been a citizen of the United States for at least 35 years and who has been a resident within the United States for at least 14 years eligible to hold the office of President or Vice President.”

2. 3 September 2003 H.J.R 67 John Conyers MI “Constitutional Amendment – Makes a person who has been a citizen of the United States for at least 20 years eligible to hold the office of President.”

3. 15 September 2004 H.J.R. 104 Dana Rohrabacher CA “Constitutional Amendment – “Makes eligible for the Office of the President non-native born persons who have held U.S. citizenship for at least 20 years and who are otherwise eligible to hold such Office.”

4. 4 January 2005 H.J.R. 2 John Conyers MI “Constitutional Amendment – Makes a person who has been a citizen of the United States for at least 20 years eligible to hold the Office of President.”

5. 1 February 2005 H.J.R. 15 Dana Rohrabacher CA “Constitutional Amendment – Makes eligible for the Office of the President non-native born persons who have held U.S. citizenship for at least 20 years and who are otherwise eligible to hold such Office.”

6. 14 April 2005 H.J.R. 42 Vic Snyder AR “Constitutional Amendment – Makes a person who has been a citizen of the United States for at least 35 years and who has been a resident within the United States for at least 14 years eligible to hold the office of President or Vice President.”

7. 28 February 2008 S.2678 Claire McCaskill MO as part of a military funding bill “Children of Military Families Natural Born Citizen Act – Declares that the term “natural born Citizen” in article II, section 1, clause 5 of the Constitution, dealing with the criteria for election to President of the United States, includes any person born to any U.S. citizen while serving in the active or reserve components of the U.S. armed forces.”

In defense of the Natural Born Citizenship Clause but getting the definition incorrect:

8. 25 February 2004 S. 2128 Don Nickles, OK; “Natural Born Citizen Act – Defines the constitutional term “natural born citizen,” to establish eligibility for the Office of President.”

Why would they work so arduously to modify or eliminate the natural born citizen requirement to be President if it had always been so to begin with?

PogueMoran
PogueMoran

@1sgparker What do you consider to be the definition of a "constitutional scholar" and how does it apply to her?

PogueMoran
PogueMoran

@1sgparker JB williams is fringe dwelling conspiracy theorist.  Why should I take anything he writes seriously.  Let alone a blogsite like newswithviews?

PogueMoran
PogueMoran

@1sgparker Lol Mario Apuzzo is a DUI attorney.  He has lost every case he's argued on this.  He had to beg the judge not to sanction him.  Hardly a credible source.

First Shirt
First Shirt

@PogueMoran Perhaps you could provide us with your bona fides and qualifications as a Constitutional Scholar.  What University did you receive your degree from and what is your current occupation.  Inquiring minds want to know who is guiding them through such a complex issue as the meaning of portions of our Constitution.

David in MA
David in MA

@1sgparker @PogueMoran  1sgparker, have you figured out yet your dealing with a pain in the azz? pouge argues nonsense until you give up and leave.

PogueMoran
PogueMoran

@1sgparker @PogueMoran You're the one claiming these fringe conspiracy theorists are somehow constitutional scholars.  Mario Apuzzo constitutional scholar?  That's a joke.  

First Shirt
First Shirt

@David in MA @1sgparker  Yes, he is socially challenged to the point of lunacy.  If much of the current events subject matter was not so important you could simply egg him on and he could be our "Village Idiot."

PogueMoran
PogueMoran

@1sgparker @David in MA Socially challenged?  You're the one pushing lunacy as if it was factual.  I figure you're just as devoid of knowledge on current events as you are on presidential requirements.  It's cute when fringe conspiracists like yourself try to call anyone a village idiot.

David in MA
David in MA

@PogueMoran @David in MA @1sgparker 

FOOL, I never claimed to live in a FEMA Camp and I do not run away from FACTS, you have no valid facts. I leave because I an sick of liberal Obama supporters who try to twist info to support your idea that he is eligible to be president and that your understanding of natural born citizen is the correct understanding. I see you have picked up a couple of supporters in your natural born citizen club. To which I say: FO!

PogueMoran
PogueMoran

@David in MA @PogueMoran @1sgparker So you can't even remember what you've said here?


What was it you said over a month ago: "


I cannot wait for you and your kind to come to the FEMA Camp they have me in, your survival is limited.

1 month, 2 weeks ago on"


So you didn't claim they have you in a FEMA Camp?  You leave because you are a coward who can't handle factual information.

First Shirt
First Shirt

@PogueMoran You, sir, are the biggest joke on this blog.  Did your father teach you how to interact in polite society without being a smug, self-righteous person?  Blogs can certainly bring out the anti-social side of participants.

PogueMoran
PogueMoran

@David in MA @PogueMoran @1sgparker Umm no.  You are confused.  The future was that we would be in a fema camp.  You said you couldn't wait for us to come to the FEMA camp they have you in.  Have being present tense.  You were saying you presently were in a fema camp.  So now you don't understand the English language.

PogueMoran
PogueMoran

@1sgparker @PogueMoran Coming from a conspiracy theorist like yourself, who thinks losing DUI attorney Mario Apuzzo is somehow a constitutional attorney, is a joke in itself.  How am I being "smug and self righteous"?  It's funny how you whine about the name calling after you yourself are name-calling.


Yes anti-social is the group of fringe dwellers believe in a bunch of long refuted nonsense that no one in any authority actually believes.  It's adorable how you've brought nothing but conspiracy theories here.

PogueMoran
PogueMoran

@David in MA @PogueMoran @1sgparker So when the english language fails you, you come back with nonsense.  You lied you claimed you were in a fema camp and now can't even stand behind that nonsense.

PogueMoran
PogueMoran

@David in MA @PogueMoran @1sgparker And back to the nonsense.  It really shows you have no argument when you claim others are paid to make you look stupid.  It's funny how you claim everyone else is online all day when you're here pushing nonsense.

First Shirt
First Shirt

@PogueMoran;  "You, you, you said this, you said that!  You're the one, you posted this lunacy, you posted that lunacy.  You, you, you.  Do you ever get tired of being up in someone's face continually? 

I believe your sphincter  muscle has constricted too tightly around your larynx to all blood flow to your cranium.  Has is ever occurred to you to be pleasant?  Or, if you can't be that way, simply sit and watch the lights flash?  Your place in life is not to try and re-educate the entire populace of the USA.


Lighten up and be a polite member of society.

PogueMoran
PogueMoran

@1sgparker @PogueMoran How exactly is pointing out that you keep posting fringe theories somehow not being pleasant?  Should I give you more rosy language to tell you what you've posted is nonsense?


You're the one being uptight here.  It's cute though how you complain about pleasantries while you can't even live up to your standards.  

PogueMoran
PogueMoran

@First Shirt @PogueMoran I'm not the one claiming to be a constitutional scholar.  I asked what you defined as being a constitutional scholar.  It seems to be anyone who spouts the same wrong nonsense as you do.

jh4freedom
jh4freedom

David in MA exemplifies how Barack Obama got elected and reelected in the first place. There were just too many conservatives who refused to stand up for their beliefs and retreated from the fight. There was a time when it was liberals who would fold but now its conservatives. The estmates are that 4 to 5 million conservatives stayed home on election day in 2012. That gave the election to Obama, easy.

jh4freedom
jh4freedom

Presidents with foreign born parents:

(1) Andrew Jackson: both parents from Ireland.

(2) Thomas Jefferson: mother was born in England

(3) James Buchanan: father was born in Ireland

(4) Chester Arthur: father was born in Ireland

(5) Woodrow Wilson: mother was born in England

(6) Herbert Hoover: mother was born in Canada.

(7) Barack Obama: father was born in Kenya

PogueMoran
PogueMoran

@jh4freedom I'm sure if you also went through the Vice Presidents you would find more.  Charles Curtis was born on an indian reservation.  As for candidates, the First Republican Presidential Candidate John C. Fremont was born of a french father who never naturalized.

jh4freedom
jh4freedom

If someone sues you and the judge dismisses their lawsuit on pre-trial motions, did you win? This happens quite often in civil suits. If you want a real, honest to goodness trial, don't sue, file criminal charges with a prosecuting attorney and get an indictment.

ksdb
ksdb

@jh4freedom 1,2 and 3 became citizens of the U.S. at the adoption of the U.S. Constitution. The parents for 4,5 and 6 naturalized. No. 7 was never admitted in this country a permanent resident and returned to live in his birth country. Thanks for showing why Obama cannot be considered a natural-born citizen. 

jh4freedom
jh4freedom

Now if you guys could just convince any judge anywhere in America of your theory. Courts have ruled that Barack Obama IS a natural born citizen.

Rhodes v MacDonald, U.S. District Court Judge Clay D. Land: “A spurious claim questioning the president’s constitutional legitimacy may be protected by the First Amendment, but a Court’s placement of its imprimatur upon a claim that is so lacking in factual support that it is frivolous would undoubtedly disserve the public interest.”—U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Georgia, September 16, 2009.

Judge Land, a conservative Republican appointed by President George W. Bush then sanctioned Orly Taitz $20,000 for wasting his time with nonsense. Captain Connie Rhodes had refused to deploy to Iraq until she was certain that the Commander-in-Chief was a natural born citizen.

PogueMoran
PogueMoran

@ksdb @jh4freedom Constitution was ratified in 1788 Buchanan was born in 1791.  There is no proof his father ever naturalized.  Arthur's father didn't naturalize until 16 years after his birth.  You previously claimed you needed two citizen parents at birth.

BlackSunshine84
BlackSunshine84

@PogueMoran @ksdb @jh4freedom Arthur was a usurper (his father was a Canadian citizen) and it was brought up back in the day, but it didn't receive widespread attention because it wasn't exactly the age of information, ya know? Anyways, he burned all of his records to prevent an investigation.


Who says there is no proof that Buchanan's father was a USA citizen? He emigrated to the USA in 1783. 

BlackSunshine84
BlackSunshine84

@jh4freedom  Andrew Jackson's parents were colonists, citizens. 

Thomas Jefferson was eligible because of the "grandfather clause."  

James Buchanan's parents were colonists, citizens. 

Chester Arthur was a usurper. And it was brought up back in the day, but he burned all of his records to keep anyone from investigating.

I don't know about Wilson or Hoover.

0bama is a usurper.


PogueMoran
PogueMoran

@BlackSunshine84 @PogueMoran @ksdb @jh4freedom Except it was known that Arthur's father didn't naturalize until 16 years after his birth.  The democrats were trying to place his birth in Canada.  His father's citizenship never mattered.  He didn't burn his records.  In fact his father's naturalization certificate has been in the library of congress for over a century.  So no he didn't burn anything to prevent an investigation.


Do you have a naturalization certificate for Buchanan's irish father?

First Shirt
First Shirt

@jh4freedom Interesting.  However, it is incumbent upon our Two Houses of Congress to deal with this dilemma, not some Judge sitting on a Bench out in the lowlands of the USA.  Neither Party of either the House or Senate will stand to do the proper thing.  Not one Member.


People are often called Conspiracy Theorists and Birthers by the sheep.  But if there were just not so many obvious conspiracies and ineligible candidates for POTUS. . .  Many of us were educated in the old days, when truth was far more important that history modification at the hand of the Federal Government's funding of education at all levels.  "Look, Grade School 9or, High School, etc.), either use our text books and our curriculum of we won't give you a huge block of Free Money we just printed at the Fed."

BlackSunshine84
BlackSunshine84

@1sgparker @jh4freedom For decades people said that chemtrails were just a conspiracy theory. Now its being openly discussed by the UN and also California government, where it has been determined that chemtrails are responsible for the drought there.

PogueMoran
PogueMoran

@1sgparker @jh4freedom "Obvious ineligible candidates"  Sorry but you claiming they're ineligible doesn't make them ineligible.  You're called a conspiracy theorist because you believe in things for which you don't have any proof to even believe in.  It's paranoia that leaves you that way.  Really where in your textbooks did it ever claim you needed two citizen parents to be President?  Please present a textbook that said that.

PogueMoran
PogueMoran

@BlackSunshine84 @PogueMoran @ksdb @jh4freedom Exactly what?  You claimed he burned all his papers but presented nothing to confirm it.  There is no link provided in your post.  How exactly could his father's naturalization papers be in the library of congress if he supposedly burned all his papers.  Arthur wasn't a usurper since there has never been a two citizen parent requirement.

PogueMoran
PogueMoran

@BlackSunshine84 @jh4freedom Leo Donofrio is a losing attorney who ended up quitting his job to play cards.  I notice his claim that Arthur burned his record is supported by a dead link.  He also proved my point by linking to the naturalization record of Arthur's father which once again has been apart of the Chester A Arthur collection in the library of congress for over a century.

First Shirt
First Shirt

@PogueMoran;  Text Book?  So, if I wrote a text book you would swallow it, hook, line, and sinker?  Maybe I should write a text book...

PogueMoran
PogueMoran

@1sgparker @PogueMoran So you didn't just go on a rant about what you were taught in grade school?  And how you were educated in the old days?  Okay so provide a reference of what you were "taught in the old days" with an actual textbook teaching you such.  You'll not find it since you weren't taught the two citizen parent theory.

jh4freedom
jh4freedom

Congress already did something about this issue. In 2009 Congress passed House Resolution 593 by a vote of 378-0 containing the "whereas" clause: "The 44th president of the United States Barack Obama was born in Hawaii on August 4, 1961."

Congress also certfied Barack Obama's electoral votes unanimously in 2009 and again in 2013. It only takes written objections from one Representative and one Senator to interrupt the certification of the electoral vote and both Houses must resolve the objection.

The 12th Amendment states unequivocably that whoever receives a majority of the votes of the electors "SHALL BE THE PRESIDENT." Once Barack Hussein Obama II's electoral votes exceeded 270 (he got 363 and 332) and no one objected, he became President and the only option left for removing him from that position is impeachment by the House of Representatives, trial in the Senate and the guilty votes for high crimes and misdemeanors of 67 Senators. The Republicans have never had anywhere close to 67 votes (the current 54 is the most they've had under Obama) so just like Bill Clinton, Obama likely would be found not guilty in an impeachment trial.

jh4freedom
jh4freedom

You are certainly entitled to your personal opinion that Obama is an usurper and you had every right to not vote for him on that basis but the Courts and the Congress disagree with you.

21 Court decisions have ruled him to be a natural born citizen and Congress sends him bills to sign into law and the Senate confirms his appointees. There has never been a single ruling anywhere or a single act of Congress or any state's Governor or legislature against the president's eligibility. Every state in the Union approved him for the ballot, twice.

Here's what the Republican Governor of Hawaii when Obama was first running for president had to say: "

"You know, during the campaign of 2008, I was actually in the mainland campaigning for Sen. McCain. This issue kept coming up so much in the campaign, and again I think it's one of those issues that is simply a distraction from the more critical issues that are facing the country. And so I had my health director, who is a physician by background, go personally view the birth certificate in the birth records of the Department of Health, and we issued a news release at that time saying that the president was, in fact, born at Kapi'olani Hospital in Honolulu, Hawaii. And that's just a fact. And yet people continue to call up and e-mail and want to make it an issue. And I think it's, again, a horrible distraction for the country by those people who continue this. It's been established. He was born here."--Linda Lingle, Governor of Hawaii, 2002-2010

First Shirt
First Shirt

@jh4freedom According to the Congressional Record Service this is the title of HR 593, 2009 Session:  To amend title 10, United States Code, to expand the authorized concurrent receipt of disability severance pay from the Department of Defense and compensation for the same disability under any law administered by the Department of Veterans Affairs to cover all veterans who have a combat-related disability, as defined under section 1413a of such title. 

 https://www.congress.gov/bill/111th-congress/house-bill/593/text?q={%22search%22%3A[%22\%22hr593\%22%22]}&resultIndex=1

First Shirt
First Shirt

@jh4freedom I didn't see any mention of Obama.  Perhaps it is just a typo discussing Veteran's Combat-Related Disabilities. . .

jh4freedom
jh4freedom

Barack Obama wrote a book about his Kenyan father, "Dreams From My Father." That book which became a number one bestseller was published in 1995, 12 years before he ran for President. There was no attempt to hide the fact that his father was Kenyan. There is a picture of his father as a child being held by Obama's grandmother on the cover of the book.

Anyone who believed that two American citizen parents are required in order to be a natural born citizen had the ability to vote against Obama but no court and no state barred him from the ballot and he won election by ten million votes and with 67% of the electoral votes.

There have been more than 200 lawsuits since 2008 challenging the President's natural born citizenship and he's won them all.

DrConspiracy
DrConspiracy

@jh4freedom I think it's better to say that the "challengers lost them all" since Obama himself was not a party to most of the lawsuits, or they were dismissed without his attorneys filing anything.

There were notable exceptions, such as when Orly Taitz lost to an empty chair in Atlanta, and Mario Apuzzo lost to Mickey Mouse in New Jersey.

DrConspiracy
DrConspiracy

@PogueMoran @DrConspiracy @jh4freedom He shouldn't. New Jersey is about the worst state in the country to have brought the suit. Not only did the candidate not have to prove eligibility, the candidate didn't even have to consent to be on the ballot! 

Apuzzo didn't lose to another attorney; he lost to the law.

PogueMoran
PogueMoran

@David in MA @jh4freedom The courts heard many of them and decided several on their lack of merits.  If you guys brought cases that had any merit in the first place they wouldn't have ended up being tossed..


You do know having your case dismissed is a loss.

PogueMoran
PogueMoran

@David in MA @PogueMoran @jh4freedom It is a fair loss.  When you bring a case which lacks any merit and you lose on the law then yes it's a fair loss.  Those bringing the cases brought no evidence before the court.  Most of the cases were decided by judges appointed by republicans.

David in MA
David in MA

@PogueMoran @David in MA @jh4freedom  File a case and bring no evidence? Then there is still room for doubt.

Why would an attorney file a case and not present evidence? Were they threatened, I wonder?

So, there is still an opening that Obama is illegal. (which I believe he is)

PogueMoran
PogueMoran

@David in MA @PogueMoran @jh4freedom Room for doubt?  Do you even know what your argument is anymore?


Ask orly taitz why she filed cases and didn't present any evidence.  Probably because birthers filing these cases have no idea how civil procedure actually works.  They think they get to just beg for discovery and get it granted.  Oh look another paranoid conspiracy theory of yours.  So birthers presented no evidence when they filed cases so you believe they were threatened.  That's stupid even for you.


There is no "opening" that Obama is illegal.  You've shown that you believe things that aren't true.

DrConspiracy
DrConspiracy

@PogueMoran @David in MA @jh4freedom Generally Taitz never gets past a motion to dismiss, which is why she doesn't present evidence and call witnesses; however, in the Farrar case in Atlanta, she did present evidence and she did call witnesses (in a rather unprofessional way). She lost anyway

jh4freedom
jh4freedom

Not only was she only two years out of Georgetown Law School, she worked in the Real Estate division of her firm.

But my favorite was three different birther lawyers (Taiitz, Irion and Hatfield) in Georgia losing to an empty chair when Obama's attorney (Jablonski) refused to show up for the trial.

The judge offered the plaintiffs a default judgement but they wanted a trial on the merits, which they got, and lost.

jh4freedom
jh4freedom

But what about the many conservative leaning judges that have had Obama eligibility challenges before them? For example, McInnish v Chapman in Alabama was a 100% Republican affair. McInnish, the plaintiff is a Republican. Beth Chapman was the defendant and she was the Republican Secretary of State of Alabama. The lawsuit went to the Alabama Supreme Court which is composed of nine elected Justices, all Republicans. Obama being eligible won.

The most important lawsuit has turned out to be Ankeny v Daniels in Indiana. It established precedent. The "Daniels" who defended Obama's eligibility is Mitch Daniels, the Republucan Governor of Indiana who was President Bush's budget director before becoming governor.

Many Republican judges have ruled in Obama's favor. Judge G. Murray Snow in Arizona who may ge holding Sheriff Joe Arpaio in Contempt of Court is a George W, Bush appointee and Judge Lamberth in Washington D.C. who has given Orly Taitz such as hard time is a Reagan appointee.

When Orly Taitz tried to get the Bush Administration's Commissioner of the Social Security Administration, Michael Astrue to admit that Obama had someone else's Social Security number: Taitz v. Astrue

"Ever persistent, plaintiff has once again come before this Court in an effort to uncover 'the biggest cover up in the history of this nation.' She believes that the President is using a 'fraudulently obtained' social security number and that the Social Security Administration—among other agencies—is involved in a scheme to 'cover up social security fraud, IRS fraud, elections fraud and possibly treason' committed by the President. As her numerous filings with the Court demonstrate, plaintiff will stop at nothing to get to the bottom of this alleged conspiracy. Unfortunately for plaintiff, today is not her lucky day."-Chief U.S. District Court Judge Royce C. Lamberth, August 30, 2011

DrConspiracy
DrConspiracy

@jh4freedom I don't that is possible for a private citizen to "file charges" with anyone. They can file a complaint with the police, or you can ask a prosecuting attorney pretty please to look into the matter. That's what Arpaio did with the county attorney in Maricopa County. The county attorney turned him down for a lack of evidence.

Dave B.
Dave B.

@jh4freedom

She did all right for herself.  I think Marius still gets the shivers.

ksdb
ksdb

@PogueMoran @ksdb @jh4freedom Moron. Buchanan's father settled in the United States in 1783 BEFORE the ratification of the Constitution. 

" His parents were both of Ulster Scots descent, the father having emigrated from Donegal, Ireland, in 1783."

This would make Buchanan's father one of the FOURTH types of citizens described in Minor v. Happersett.

"Whoever, then, was one of the people of either of these States when the Constitution of the United States was adopted, became ipso facto a citizen -- a member of the nation created by its adoption. He was one of the persons associating together to form the nation, and was, consequently, one of its original citizens. As to this there has never been a doubt."

He didn't have to naturalize nor did his mother. Their child, James, was therefore a natural-born citizen because he would have been born in the country to parents who were its citizens. 


Arthur's citizenship evidently was in question because it wasn't clear where he was born, nor is there any evidence anyone would known his father was not a citizen when Arthur was born. But the Arthur didn't actually run for president and get elected in the traditional way.

ksdb
ksdb

@jh4freedom You misunderstand Ankeny. That case is the reason you and all the other Obot boobs are here desperately trying to defend and his lack of eligibility six years later. Ankeny in its glorious incompetence provided the recipe for proving Obama is not eligible. First, it never declared Obama to be eligible for office. Second, it never declared Obama to be a natural-born citizen. Third it admitted there is nothing in Wong Kim Ark that supports the phantom guidance it claimed to have derived in misdefining natural-born citizen. Fourth, it contradicted its own claim by showing how Minor was the ONLY SCOTUS decision to define natural-born citizen and by showing that it rejected the notion that you could be a natural-born citizen without being born to citizen parents. Fifth, it contradicted itself on stating the plaintiffs case. There are a couple of later cases that cite Ankeny but none have have a direct and supportable citation that ever said Obama was eligible for office. It's all a game of connecting dots that aren't actually connected, or in the other cases, a matter of baseless denial, such as by Lamberth.

Leave a Comment
  1. Jimmyjam6 Allen v Obama, Arizona Superior Court Judge Richard E. Gordon: "Arizona courts are bound by United States Supreme Court precedent in construing the United States Constitution, and this precedent fully supports that President Obama is a natural born citizen under the Constitution and thus qualified to hold the office of President. Contrary to Plaintiff’s assertion, Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162 (1874), does not hold otherwise."--Pima County Superior Court, Tuscon, Arizona, March 7, 2012
  2. Dave B. BlackSunshine84 Dave B. Archbishop Gregori That's a nonsensical claim.  I'll reiterate, it does not establish the precedent AG claims it does.
  3. BlackSunshine84 Dave B. Archbishop Gregori Actually it sets the precedence for every case as it has never been challenged
  4. BlackSunshine84 "However, there still exists one more historical clause which will challenge this argument. The clause states, “a person born before May 24, 1934 of an alien father and a U.S. citizen mother who has lived in the U.S.” is a citizen." How would a law that applies to persons born before 1934 have any bearing on this conversation?
  5. BlackSunshine84 Jimmyjam6 They made a ton of money off of naive USA citizens. It's time for them to move on with all their cash.
  6. BlackSunshine84 Repeat a lie often enough and it becomes the truth, eh, Spurgeon?
  7. Jimmyjam6 I translate that as letting the true believers down easy and hoping donations will still be coming in. How many years does it take to investigate the digital image of a one page document which is still up on the whitehouse.gov web site?
  8. ksdb Jimmyjam6 So how do you translate "it does not mean we are not cultivating new evidence" into the CCP "might be giving up"?? Plus, Zullo said, "he’s continuing to investigate the birth certificate ..."
  9. Jimmyjam6 I read the article. The headline says "delayed" and in the body of the article Mike Zullo is quoted saying: “We’ve cleared two, and the last one is problematic,” Zullo said of the legal hurdles. “If we can’t clear it, it may preclude this information from ever reaching the light of day. It may prevent me from ever disclosing what this is. But it does not mean we are not cultivating new evidence.” http://mobile.wnd.com/2015/07/universe-shattering-info-on-obama-delayed/#QpgccfrUeL7MEWuK.99
  10. ksdb Jimmyjam6 So you posted this link and you're wish about was going to happen without actually reading the story?? This explains why Obots don't understand how natural-born citizen is defined. They don't read.