Published Renunciations of the Birther NBC Definition

User avatar
Reality Check
Posts: 15825
Joined: Fri Feb 20, 2009 8:09 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Published Renunciations of the Birther NBC Definition

#26

Post by Reality Check » Tue Oct 04, 2011 9:23 am

I think The Fogbow should present this challenge to Haskins or Kerchner. One of them would be pitted against Loren or Ballantine. Each have one hour to find as many sources as they can supporting their "theory" of the definition of NBC. It would occur at a large municipal or university library. The one with the most legitimate* sources would win. Think Dean or Charlie would accept?* Published before 2008 in textbook, law journal, law or government article, etc.
"“If you’re not outraged, you’re not paying attention.”

Heather Heyer, November 2016

User avatar
verbalobe
Posts: 8507
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2009 5:27 pm

Published Renunciations of the Birther NBC Definition

#27

Post by verbalobe » Tue Oct 04, 2011 9:30 am

I think The Fogbow should present this challenge to Haskins or Kerchner. One of them would be pitted against Loren or Ballantine. Each have one hour to find as many sources as they can supporting their "theory" of the definition of NBC. It would occur at a large municipal or university library. The one with the most legitimate* sources would win. Think Dean or Charlie would accept?





* Published before 2008 in textbook, law journal, law or government article, etc.That's ridiculous. Loren and Ballantine are capable scholars researchers humans*. At the end of the hour, Kerchner or Haskins (whichever participated) would still be in a muddle with the reference desk librarian about how to fill out a call card.




Edit: *Not that they aren't also scholars and researchers. Just that they wouldn't need to be, to win this wager.

User avatar
Welsh Dragon
Posts: 2811
Joined: Mon Aug 10, 2009 3:29 pm

Published Renunciations of the Birther NBC Definition

#28

Post by Welsh Dragon » Tue Oct 04, 2011 9:38 am

Thanks Ballantine - Blackstone does seem to be the root since he regards the Acts as "naturalizing" the children born abroad.BTW Loh , I noticed in passing that Blackstone was of the opinion that the Edward III statute required both parents to be subjects.

ballantine
Posts: 416
Joined: Tue Aug 04, 2009 5:21 pm

Published Renunciations of the Birther NBC Definition

#29

Post by ballantine » Tue Oct 04, 2011 9:50 am

Thanks Ballantine - Blackstone does seem to be the root since he regards the Acts as "naturalizing" the children born abroad.BTW Loh , I noticed in passing that Blackstone was of the opinion that the Edward III statute required both parents to be subjects.Not sure. I was just looking at Blackstone and he seems unclear on this. I know I read it somewhere.

ballantine
Posts: 416
Joined: Tue Aug 04, 2009 5:21 pm

Published Renunciations of the Birther NBC Definition

#30

Post by ballantine » Tue Oct 04, 2011 10:07 am

Wilson is not clear:"Between a subject naturalized and a subject natural born, the distinction is merely nominal as to private rights : it applies only to the manner, in which those rights are devolved. On one they are devolved by his birth: on the other, by the consent of the nation, expressed in the parliament. With regard, however, to publick rights, the case is widely different. By statutes made even since the revolution, no subject naturalized can be a member of parliament; and no bill for naturalization can be received in either house of parliament, without such a disabling clause."Chitty seems to imply they were eligible, so now I'm confused."Every denizen, unless born of English parents (in which case, by the statutes before enumerated, he would be a natural-born subject), is prohibited by the 12 & 13 W. 3. c.2. from being a member of the privy-council, or of either house of parliament...."

ballantine
Posts: 416
Joined: Tue Aug 04, 2009 5:21 pm

Published Renunciations of the Birther NBC Definition

#31

Post by ballantine » Tue Oct 04, 2011 10:25 am

This is from the Royal Commission on the Laws of Naturalization and Allegiance in 1869 speaking on these statutes:"The persons naturalized by these statutes were not placed on the same footing with English subjects to all intents and purposes. They were all, by the statutes that conferred the privilege, as well as by the Statute of 12 and 13 Wm. III., c. 2, prohibited from being members of the Privy Council or of either House of Parliament, and from enjoying any office or place civil or military, or any grant from the king of lands within the Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland."[/break1]google.com/books?id=BlEPAQAAMAAJ&pg=PA7&dq=13+Geo.+4+geo.+%22natural+born%22+parliament+privy+council&hl=en#v=onepage&q=13%20Geo.%204%20geo.%20%22natural%20born%22%20parliament%20privy%20council&f=false]http://books.google.com/books?id=BlEPAQ ... il&f=false

User avatar
Welsh Dragon
Posts: 2811
Joined: Mon Aug 10, 2009 3:29 pm

Published Renunciations of the Birther NBC Definition

#32

Post by Welsh Dragon » Tue Oct 04, 2011 10:38 am

Thanks again Ballantine - that's about as conclusive as it could be.

ballantine
Posts: 416
Joined: Tue Aug 04, 2009 5:21 pm

Published Renunciations of the Birther NBC Definition

#33

Post by ballantine » Tue Oct 04, 2011 10:54 am

Such somewhat weakens Tribe and Olson's argument with respect to McCain. They said:Senator McCain's status as a ``natural born'' citizen by virtue of his birth to U.S. citizen parents is consistent with British statutes in force when the Constitution was drafted, which undoubtedly informed the Framers' understanding of the Natural Born Citizen Clause. Those statutes provided, for example, that children born abroad to parents who were ``natural-born Subjects'' were also ``natural-born Subjects ..... to all Intents, Constructions and Purposes whatsoever.'' British Nationality Act, 1730, 4 Geol. 2, c. 21. The Framers substituted the word ``citizen'' for ``subject'' to reflect the shift from monarchy to democracy, but the Supreme Court has recognized that the two terms are otherwise identical. See, e.g., Hennessy v. Richardson Drug Co., 189 U.S. 25, 34-35 (1903). Thus, the First Congress's statutory recognition that persons born abroad to U.S. citizens were ``natural born'' citizens fully conformed to British tradition, whereby citizenship conferred by statute based on the circumstances of one's birth made one natural born."They were "natural born subjects" to all intents and purposes other than they couldn't hold any office.

A Legal Lohengrin
Posts: 10415
Joined: Tue Oct 26, 2010 9:56 pm

Published Renunciations of the Birther NBC Definition

#34

Post by A Legal Lohengrin » Tue Oct 04, 2011 1:10 pm

I don't think anyone is sure. Clive Parry writing in the 1950s was of the opinion that in the 17th century it was considered to only require one subject parent but that subsequent Acts restricted this to at least a subject father. On the other hand I see a rush of naturalization acts after the English Civil War refering to people who IMO would be subjects by De Natis ultra Mare anyway. My own view is that there was something of a loss of confidence in the staute of Edward III (not II) in the mid 17th century.Yes, you're correct of course, specifically 25 Edw. III Stat 1 (Status of Children Born Abroad Act 1350). I always mix up the Edwards.

User avatar
Butterfly Bilderberg
Posts: 7653
Joined: Sat Jan 24, 2009 2:26 pm

Published Renunciations of the Birther NBC Definition

#35

Post by Butterfly Bilderberg » Fri Oct 07, 2011 12:00 am

Squeeky, of all birthers, did some serious ass kicking at FReep recently:


To: DiogenesLamp





You said: "A common thread among all the anti-Vattel conservative intellectuals is that their explanation of their position always seems to be:"Shut Up! That's why!"





Do you know why smart conservative people (like me!!!) tell you Vattle Birthers that??? It is because your arguments are TOTALLY STUPID and you are embarrassing us. That is why I wrote my very first anti-Vattle Birther Internet Article over a year ago. (Which was not just "shut up" but "Vattel Birthers Should Just STFU!!!) Which I am glad I looked up because of the linky thingys were broken.





Anyway, why I wrote it was because I would be on a thread somewhere just kicking Obotski all around the place with "Why wouldn't Obama cough it up unless he had something to hide???" and here would come some stupid Vattle Birther with that 2 parent stupid phony stuff and there would go the whole thread talking about something stupid from 17oo whatever that was way before the Wong Kim Art case thing. And, as usual, the Obots would gang up on the stupid Vattle Birther and just clobber him and tease him to death for being sooo stupid.





Sooo this got tiring. Because really just stop and think about it. Why, if the Vattle Birthers are right, are there just 1 or 2 conservative and republican lawyers in the whole country agreeing with you??? And no judges. Why is it Ann Coulter, and Rush Limbaugh, and now Mark Levin, and who knows who else telling you to knock it off with the stupid "Birther crap"??? Our laws are NOT secret, and everybody, regardless of the citizenship of their parents, can just go online and read it.





Why, if you are right, do you have to run like little scaredy cat girls from the Wong Kim Ark thingy and the Indiana thingy??? Because I have read the Indiana case thing like 10 times or more just this last week, and there is nothing wild or far out in there. They just quote Supreme Court stuff. Meanwhile, you Vattle Birthers are over there in Europe and Switzerland and France and Saxony digging up dead Europeans to back you up.






It is going to get even worse on now that Rubio and Jindle are being talked about, because now, I bet more and more conservative people are going to come right out and tell you "Knock off this stupid birther crap" and "There is no debate" and "This site is for "RATIONAL" people.





This should be your "sign" that you have become taken over by a CULT!!!





520 posted on 10/01/2011 12:23:21 PM PDT by Squeeky ("Truth is so rare that it is delightful to tell it. " Emily Dickinson)[/break1]freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/2785458/posts?q=1&;page=501]http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-cha ... &;page=501








To: butterdezillion





You said: “The Minor v Happersett court didn’t decide the issue of NBC because it was outside the scope of the case. . .”





Well, you are right about this but you better tell the other Vattle Birthers because they just swear this case is the one that proves their whole theory.
But, I think you are wrong on all the other stuff you said.





541 posted on 10/01/2011 5:26:32 PM PDT by Squeeky ("Truth is so rare that it is delightful to tell it. " Emily Dickinson) =D> =D> =D> =D> =D>
"Pity the nation that acclaims the bully as hero,
and that deems the glittering conqueror bountiful."
- Kahlil Gibran, The Garden of The Prophet

User avatar
June bug
Posts: 6151
Joined: Wed Jul 01, 2009 3:29 pm
Location: Northern San Diego County

Published Renunciations of the Birther NBC Definition

#36

Post by June bug » Fri Oct 07, 2011 5:11 pm

From that same [link]thread,http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-cha ... &;page=501[/link]:Your theory would yield the bizarre conclusion that John McCain, born in Panama while his parents were serving in the nation's interest, has not sufficient allegiance to be considered loyal enough to be President, while Barry, born to a [highlight]foreign[/highlight] father (so they say) and raised for many years in a [highlight]foreign[/highlight] country with a [highlight]foreign[/highlight] culture [highlight](not even English, Aussie, or Canadian)[/highlight] with not demonstrably reliable proof that he *IS* even born inside the borders, is. :evil: But we're not xenophobic racists! :evil:

User avatar
Jez
Posts: 2612
Joined: Fri Jan 23, 2009 3:05 pm
Location: Out there, Somewhere...
Occupation: Thread Killer

Published Renunciations of the Birther NBC Definition

#37

Post by Jez » Fri Oct 07, 2011 5:16 pm

From that same [link]thread,http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-cha ... &;page=501[/link]:Your theory would yield the bizarre conclusion that John McCain, born in Panama while his parents were serving in the nation's interest, has not sufficient allegiance to be considered loyal enough to be President, while Barry, born to a [highlight]foreign[/highlight] father (so they say) and raised for many years in a [highlight]foreign[/highlight] country with a [highlight]foreign[/highlight] culture [highlight](not even English, Aussie, or Canadian)[/highlight] with not demonstrably reliable proof that he *IS* even born inside the borders, is. :evil: But we're not xenophobic racists! :evil:Many years? He lived for many years in a foreign country? Well dang. Guess I did to. Does that make me foreign?
I have learned silence from the talkative, toleration from the intolerant, and kindness from the unkind; yet, strange, I am ungrateful to those teachers.

~Khalil Gibran

User avatar
Whatever4
Posts: 12236
Joined: Tue Sep 08, 2009 6:36 am
Location: Mainely in the plain
Occupation: Visiting doctors.

Published Renunciations of the Birther NBC Definition

#38

Post by Whatever4 » Fri Oct 07, 2011 10:54 pm

Many years? He lived for many years in a foreign country? Well dang. Guess I did to. Does that make me foreign?I've always thought OK and TX were a foreign country.
"[Moderate] doesn't mean you don't have views. It just means your views aren't predictable ideologically one way or the other, and you're trying to follow the facts where they lead and reach your own conclusions."
-- Sen. King (I-ME)

User avatar
Estiveo
Posts: 8245
Joined: Tue Oct 20, 2009 7:31 pm
Location: Trouble's Howse

Published Renunciations of the Birther NBC Definition

#39

Post by Estiveo » Sat Oct 08, 2011 2:33 am

I loves me some Squeeks. We haven't interacted since Gretawire went down in flames, but Squeeky was a bit of alright in a sea of drek. Her Haiku period was especially enlightening. Seriously, I loves me some Squeeks.
Image Image Image Image Image

Adrianinflorida
Posts: 3110
Joined: Wed Jun 01, 2011 1:07 pm
Location: South Detroit

Published Renunciations of the Birther NBC Definition

#40

Post by Adrianinflorida » Sat Oct 08, 2011 9:31 am

At least they're kind enough to telegraph the next argument, in case some court that they respect enough to acknowledge, affirms that The President is Natural Born. They'll try to make the argument that his 'many years living overseas' somehow dilute or remove his Natural Born status

Loren
Posts: 4359
Joined: Wed Jan 28, 2009 3:20 pm

Published Renunciations of the Birther NBC Definition

#41

Post by Loren » Mon Oct 17, 2011 7:11 pm

From Richard Hildreth's "The History of the United States of America":[/break1]google.com/books?id=Il5KAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA521&dq=%22native+born%22+%22president%22+%22citizen+at+the+adoption%22&hl=en&ei=Z7WcTrenEMPk0QGM8-X6CA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=2&ved=0CEUQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=%22native%20born%22%20%22president%22%20%22citizen%20at%20the%20adoption%22&f=false]http://books.google.com/books?id=Il5KAA ... 22&f=false"The President was required to be thirty-five years of age, and native born, or a citizen at the adoption of the Constitution."Mr. Hildreth's work was well-respected for its accuracy. And he obviously saw no great distinction between "native born" and "natural born."

User avatar
aarrgghh
Posts: 1747
Joined: Mon Mar 23, 2009 4:05 pm
Contact:

Published Renunciations of the Birther NBC Definition

#42

Post by aarrgghh » Fri Dec 30, 2011 1:32 am

via [/break1]freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2826527/posts?q=1&;page=151]freeperville elementary:





...their interpretation of Natural Born CitizenWhat's this "interpretation" crap?





This was taught as fact, way back when I went to grade school...and again in high school.





Of course that was back when they still taught American History and economics.

Loren
Posts: 4359
Joined: Wed Jan 28, 2009 3:20 pm

Published Renunciations of the Birther NBC Definition

#43

Post by Loren » Mon May 07, 2012 11:49 am

I don't know if this has been located before, but being that it's from 1806, perhaps it's worth sharing again:[/break1]google.com/books?id=p_kaAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA528&dq=%22natural+born+*+citizen%22&hl=en&sa=X&ei=8-2nT-rCCIe69QS6qOytAw&ved=0CEYQ6AEwAg#v=onepage&q=%22natural%20born%20*%20citizen%22&f=false]Reports of cases argued and determined in the Supreme court of Judicature and in the Court for Trial of Impeachments and the Correction of Errors in the State of New-YorkOrdered that, hereafter, no person, not being a natural born, or naturalized citizen of the United States, shall be admitted as an attorney or counselor of this court.So there were only two kinds of citizens in 1806. Natural born and naturalized. Either that, or the New York courts were willing to let naturalized citizens practice law, but not "native-born" citizens of non-citizen parents.

User avatar
Plutodog
Posts: 11952
Joined: Tue Sep 08, 2009 10:11 pm

Published Renunciations of the Birther NBC Definition

#44

Post by Plutodog » Mon May 07, 2012 11:58 am

So there were only two kinds of citizens in 1806. Natural born and naturalized.





Either that, or the New York courts were willing to let naturalized citizens practice law, but not "native-born" citizens of non-citizen parents.It could happen. 8-) Prove it didn't! ;)
The only good Bundy is an Al Bundy.

User avatar
esseff44
Posts: 12507
Joined: Sat Apr 16, 2011 12:40 am

Published Renunciations of the Birther NBC Definition

#45

Post by esseff44 » Fri Dec 12, 2014 8:27 pm

It's a good thread to review and move the LB two-parent discussion over to.



One problem is that many of the links are broken or not working since the Great Migration from the old board. Loren did a lot of good posting of historical references the first part of the thread. Good discussion of natural born subject from ballantine and WD. and what carries over to natural born citizen.

User avatar
esseff44
Posts: 12507
Joined: Sat Apr 16, 2011 12:40 am

Published Renunciations of the Birther NBC Definition

#46

Post by esseff44 » Fri Dec 12, 2014 9:52 pm

Well, I tried to move the discussion. I will try again.



LB wrote:





It's even more curious that there are comments in that thread, allegedly by this informed debunking group, such as this: "... we have a long list of presidential and vice-presidential candidates whose parents were not born in this country."





I wrote that post in 2011 and the reason I used the description 'whose parents were not born in this country' was because the information about whose parents at been citizens at the birth of the candidates was not information that was widely published at the time if at all. If this information had been critical to their being eligible to be president, I have no doubt the information would have been widely published and discussed. Candidates openly touted their parents struggle as recent immigrants and how hard they worked starting over in a new country. They did not stop and explain when or whether they had been naturalized in order to meet the two-parent qualifications nor did they include that information in any biographies that I ever saw. Interestingly, it did come up with prospective candidates Rubio, Jindal and Cruz and that was because so much had been made of McCain's having been born in Panama and Obama having a non-citizen father from Kenya. Cruz was apparently unaware that he was still a Canadian citizen and took steps to renounce it as he admitted to presidential aspirations, I don't believe he has renounced his Cuban citizenship yet. Nor has Rubio. I haven't checked on Jindal's dual citizenship status. This would not have come up in the same way had it not been for the brouhaha about McCain and Obama. ETA: I also should have put Santorum on the list as well as Michele Bachmann (duel Swiss).



Again the point was that these were not matters of concern previously because of the presumption that being born on US soil was enough to meet the NBC require just as it always has been.

User avatar
Volkonski
Posts: 23802
Joined: Sat Mar 02, 2013 4:44 pm
Location: Texas Gulf Coast and North Fork of Long Island
Occupation: Retired Mechanical Engineer

Published Renunciations of the Birther NBC Definition

#47

Post by Volkonski » Sat Dec 13, 2014 3:23 pm

I, Volkonski, by the Grace of the Flying Spaghetti Monster the Supreme Emperor and King of Volkonskiland, Duke of the Duchy of Volkonski, Royal Governor of the Province of Volkonski, Lord Mayor of Volkonski City, Supreme Head of the Church of the FSM in Volkonskiland and Chief Pasta Chef do hereby declare that all present and future candidates for President of the United States are citizens of Volkonskiland and are my subjects. :-bd



Volkonskiland citizenship is permanent and may not be renounced, revoked or refused. [-X



So declared this 13th Day of December in the year of our Flying Spaghetti Monster nine.









There, now all US presidential candidates have at least dual citizenship.



;)
Image“If everyone fought for their own convictions there would be no war.”
― Leo Tolstoy, War and Peace

User avatar
magdalen77
Posts: 5394
Joined: Fri Jan 04, 2013 1:43 pm
Location: Down in the cellar

Published Renunciations of the Birther NBC Definition

#48

Post by magdalen77 » Sat Dec 13, 2014 4:10 pm

You should have made yourself God-Emperor.

User avatar
Volkonski
Posts: 23802
Joined: Sat Mar 02, 2013 4:44 pm
Location: Texas Gulf Coast and North Fork of Long Island
Occupation: Retired Mechanical Engineer

Published Renunciations of the Birther NBC Definition

#49

Post by Volkonski » Sat Dec 13, 2014 4:17 pm





You should have made yourself God-Emperor.







I'll suggest that to the FSM. ;)
Image“If everyone fought for their own convictions there would be no war.”
― Leo Tolstoy, War and Peace

User avatar
Family Liberty Patriot
Posts: 4486
Joined: Wed Aug 20, 2014 1:23 pm
Location: Southern Orlystan
Occupation: Czar of All the Russias

Published Renunciations of the Birther NBC Definition

#50

Post by Family Liberty Patriot » Sat Dec 13, 2014 4:18 pm

You should have made yourself God-Emperor.



That's his humility at work.
"The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness."

John Kenneth Galbraith (1908 - 2006)

Post Reply

Return to “Legal Claims by Birthers”