alan grayson threatens lawsuit on citizenship grounds if ted cruz is the gop nominee

[dcraelin]

I know the eligibility requirements, it is your vaunted court that apparently doesnt as they cant even get the section of the Constitution right.

and bizarrely it uses a phrase that its own footnotes say wasn't even used in Wong, But that is no matter as this court does not have the jurisdiction to rule on those eligibility requirements anyway.

You are indeed a true Birther- impervious to the facts.

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.

"natural born Citizen"

And what did the Indiana Appeals Court say- repeated by every other court?

Based upon the language of Article II, Section 1, Clause 4 and the guidance provided by Wong Kim Ark, we conclude that persons born within the borders of the United States are “natural born Citizens” for Article II, Section 1 purposes, regardless of the citizenship of their parents.

And here is a list of rulings with the same conclusion- which of course- good Birthers will ignore or dismiss- relying instead upon their far greater legal knowledge based upon what they have learned from WND

1. Hollander v. McCain (New Hampshire 2008) ruling: “Those born “in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof,” U.S. Const., amend. XIV, have been considered American citizens under American law in effect since the time of the founding, United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, 674-75 (1898), and thus eligible for the presidency,
2. Ankeny v. Governor of Indiana (Indiana 2008 – Appellate Court) ruling: “Based upon the language of Article II, Section 1, Clause 4 and the guidance provided by Wong Kim Ark, we conclude that persons born within the borders of the United States are “natural born Citizens” for Article II, Section 1 purposes, regardless of the citizenship of their parents.”
3. Tisdale v. Obama (Virginia federal court 2012) ruling: “It is well settled that those born in the United States are considered natural born citizens.”
4. Purpura v. Obama (New Jersey 2012) ruling: “No court, federal, state or administrative, has accepted the challengers’ position that Mr. Obama is not a ‘natural born Citizen’ due to the acknowledged fact that his father was born in Kenya and was a British citizen by virtue of the then applicable British Nationality Act. Nor has the fact that Obama had, or may have had, dual citizenship at the time of his birth and thereafter been held to deny him the status of natural born. It is unnecessary to reinvent the wheel here. … The petitioners’ legal position on this issue, however well intentioned, has no merit in law. Thus, accepting for the point of this issue that Mr. Obama was born in Hawaii, he is a ‘natural born Citizen’ regardless of the status of his father.”
5. Voeltz v. Obama (Florida 2012) ruling: “However, the United States Supreme Court has concluded that ‘[e]very person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, becomes at once a citizen of the United States. ‘Other courts that have considered the issue in the context of challenges to the qualifications of candidates for the office of President of the United States have come to the same conclusion. [The judge cites Hollander and Ankeny]
6. Voeltz v. Obama (2nd suit Florida 2012) ruling: “In addition, to the extent that the complaint alleges that President Obama is not a “natural born citizen” even though born in the United States, the Court is in agreement with other courts that have considered this issue, namely, that persons born within the borders of the United States are “natural born citizens” for Article II, Section 1 purpose, regardless of the citizenship of their parents. [Citations to Wong, Hollander, Ankeny].
7. Allen v. Obama (Arizona 2012) ruling: “Most importantly, Arizona courts are bound by United States Supreme Court precedent in construing the United States Constitution, Arizona v. Jay J. Garfield Bldg. Co. , 39 Ariz. 45, 54, 3 P.2d 983, 986(1931), 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”
8. Farrar (et al.) v. Obama (Georgia 2012) ruling: “In 2009, the Indiana Court of Appeals (“Indiana Court”) addressed facts and issues similar to those before this court. [Ankeny] v. Governor, 916 N.E.2d (Ind. Ct. App. 2009). … The Indiana Court rejected the argument that Mr. Obama was ineligible, stating that children born within the United States are natural born citizens, regardless of the citizenship of their parents. … This Court finds the decision and analysis of [Ankeny] persuasive.”
9. Paige v. Obama et al. (Vermont 2012) ruling: While the court has no doubt at this point that Emmerich de Vattel’s treatise The Law of Nations was a work of significant value to the founding fathers, the court does not conclude that his phrase–“The natives, or natural born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens.”–has constitutional significance or that his use of “parents” in the plural has particular significance. Thus far, no judicial decision has adopted such logic in connection with this or any related issues. In fact, the most comprehensive decision on the topic, Ankeny v. Governor of Indiana, examines the historical basis of the use of the phrase, including the English common law in effect at the time of independence, and concludes that the expression “natural born Citizen” is not dependent on the nationality of the parents but reflects the status of a person born into citizenship instead of having citizenship subsequently bestowed. The distinction is eminently logical.
10. Fair v. Obama (Maryland 2012) ruling: The issue of the definition of “natural born citizen” is thus firmly resolved by the United States Supreme Court in a prior opinion [US v Wong], and as this court sees it, that holding is binding on the ultimate issue in this case. [The Court also cites Ankeny at length, and determined that Obama is eligible.]
11. Strunk v. New York State Board of Elections ruling on motion for reconsideration (2013): … the Fourteenth Amendment defines citizenship as “[a]ll persons born or naturalized in the Untied States.” Moreover, the United States Supreme Court held, in Miller v Albright (452 US 420, 423-424 [1998]), that:
    There are “two sources of citizenship and two only: birth and naturalization.” United States v Wong Kim Ark, 169 US 649, 702 (1898). Within the former category, the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution guarantees that every person “born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, becomes at once a citizen of the United States, and needs no naturalization.” 169 US at 702.

while I dont consider myself a birther.......none of these cases refutes what the birthers think , which is that Obama was not born in the united states..,,,,, all they do in most cases is say that if you are born in the US you are a citizen.
.

You sure sound like a Birther- you reject every actual legal decision and want to dwell upon irrelevant minutia

Birthers think all sorts of crap- there are some Birthers that believe EVERY single reason that they have been told that Barack Obama could not possibly be eligible- even when they are contradictory- like believing both that he was born in Kenya- AND- that he was not eligible even if born in the United States because he was born a dual citizen.

The cases listed deal with the one peculiar lie of Birthers- that being born in the United States is not sufficient to be a "Natural Born Citizen"- and every one of these courts concluded that being born in the United States(unless you are born to a foreign diplomat) is sufficient- knocking out that particularly peculiar Birther lie.

And finally- every one of the court cases listed say that if you are born in the United States you are a natural born citizen- and since you may not remember this- that is one of the eligibility requirements;

1. Hollander v. McCain (New Hampshire 2008) ruling: “Those born “in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof,” U.S. Const., amend. XIV, have been considered American citizens under American law in effect since the time of the founding, United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, 674-75 (1898), and thus eligible for the presidency,
2. Ankeny v. Governor of Indiana (Indiana 2008 – Appellate Court) ruling: “Based upon the language of Article II, Section 1, Clause 4 and the guidance provided by Wong Kim Ark, we conclude that persons born within the borders of the United States are “natural born Citizens” for Article II, Section 1 purposes, regardless of the citizenship of their parents.”
3. Tisdale v. Obama (Virginia federal court 2012) ruling: “It is well settled that those born in the United States are considered natural born citizens.”
4. Purpura v. Obama (New Jersey 2012) ruling: “No court, federal, state or administrative, has accepted the challengers’ position that Mr. Obama is not a ‘natural born Citizen’ due to the acknowledged fact that his father was born in Kenya and was a British citizen by virtue of the then applicable British Nationality Act. Nor has the fact that Obama had, or may have had, dual citizenship at the time of his birth and thereafter been held to deny him the status of natural born. It is unnecessary to reinvent the wheel here. … The petitioners’ legal position on this issue, however well intentioned, has no merit in law. Thus, accepting for the point of this issue that Mr. Obama was born in Hawaii, he is a ‘natural born Citizen’ regardless of the status of his father.”
5. Voeltz v. Obama (Florida 2012) ruling: “However, the United States Supreme Court has concluded that ‘[e]very person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, becomes at once a citizen of the United States. ‘Other courts that have considered the issue in the context of challenges to the qualifications of candidates for the office of President of the United States have come to the same conclusion. [The judge cites Hollander and Ankeny]
6. Voeltz v. Obama (2nd suit Florida 2012) ruling: “In addition, to the extent that the complaint alleges that President Obama is not a “natural born citizen” even though born in the United States, the Court is in agreement with other courts that have considered this issue, namely, that persons born within the borders of the United States are “natural born citizens” for Article II, Section 1 purpose, regardless of the citizenship of their parents. [Citations to Wong, Hollander, Ankeny].
7. Allen v. Obama (Arizona 2012) ruling: “Most importantly, Arizona courts are bound by United States Supreme Court precedent in construing the United States Constitution, Arizona v. Jay J. Garfield Bldg. Co. , 39 Ariz. 45, 54, 3 P.2d 983, 986(1931), 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”
8. Farrar (et al.) v. Obama (Georgia 2012) ruling: “In 2009, the Indiana Court of Appeals (“Indiana Court”) addressed facts and issues similar to those before this court. [Ankeny] v. Governor, 916 N.E.2d (Ind. Ct. App. 2009). … The Indiana Court rejected the argument that Mr. Obama was ineligible, stating that children born within the United States are natural born citizens, regardless of the citizenship of their parents. … This Court finds the decision and analysis of [Ankeny] persuasive.”
9. Paige v. Obama et al. (Vermont 2012) ruling: While the court has no doubt at this point that Emmerich de Vattel’s treatise The Law of Nations was a work of significant value to the founding fathers, the court does not conclude that his phrase–“The natives, or natural born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens.”–has constitutional significance or that his use of “parents” in the plural has particular significance. Thus far, no judicial decision has adopted such logic in connection with this or any related issues. In fact, the most comprehensive decision on the topic, Ankeny v. Governor of Indiana, examines the historical basis of the use of the phrase, including the English common law in effect at the time of independence, and concludes that the expression “natural born Citizen” is not dependent on the nationality of the parents but reflects the status of a person born into citizenship instead of having citizenship subsequently bestowed. The distinction is eminently logical.
10. Fair v. Obama (Maryland 2012) ruling: The issue of the definition of “natural born citizen” is thus firmly resolved by the United States Supreme Court in a prior opinion [US v Wong], and as this court sees it, that holding is binding on the ultimate issue in this case. [The Court also cites Ankeny at length, and determined that Obama is eligible.]
11. Strunk v. New York State Board of Elections ruling on motion for reconsideration (2013): … the Fourteenth Amendment defines citizenship as “[a]ll persons born or naturalized in the Untied States.” Moreover, the United States Supreme Court held, in Miller v Albright (452 US 420, 423-424 [1998]), that:
    There are “two sources of citizenship and two only: birth and naturalization.” United States v Wong Kim Ark, 169 US 649, 702 (1898). Within the former category, the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution guarantees that every person “born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, becomes at once a citizen of the United States, and needs no naturalization.” 169 US at 702.

no one disputes he is a citizen,,.....just that he is a citizen eligible to be president.

Im not going to look at all these, my suspicion is that they are all of a quality of the Indiana decision you referenced.

Barack Obama was elected in 2008 and 2012- and the voters, the Electoral College, Congress and Chief Justice Roberts all found him eligible.

So have 11 courts.

Everyone who matters has already weighed in. Now it is just a matter of mocking idiot Birthers.

Like Grayson

And Trump.

you do realize Grayson would agree with you on Obama birthers.....Cruzes is a different situation

 

[dcraelin]

I know the eligibility requirements, it is your vaunted court that apparently doesnt as they cant even get the section of the Constitution right.

and bizarrely it uses a phrase that its own footnotes say wasn't even used in Wong, But that is no matter as this court does not have the jurisdiction to rule on those eligibility requirements anyway.

You are indeed a true Birther- impervious to the facts.

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.

"natural born Citizen"

And what did the Indiana Appeals Court say- repeated by every other court?

Based upon the language of Article II, Section 1, Clause 4 and the guidance provided by Wong Kim Ark, we conclude that persons born within the borders of the United States are “natural born Citizens” for Article II, Section 1 purposes, regardless of the citizenship of their parents.

And here is a list of rulings with the same conclusion- which of course- good Birthers will ignore or dismiss- relying instead upon their far greater legal knowledge based upon what they have learned from WND

1. Hollander v. McCain (New Hampshire 2008) ruling: “Those born “in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof,” U.S. Const., amend. XIV, have been considered American citizens under American law in effect since the time of the founding, United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, 674-75 (1898), and thus eligible for the presidency,
2. Ankeny v. Governor of Indiana (Indiana 2008 – Appellate Court) ruling: “Based upon the language of Article II, Section 1, Clause 4 and the guidance provided by Wong Kim Ark, we conclude that persons born within the borders of the United States are “natural born Citizens” for Article II, Section 1 purposes, regardless of the citizenship of their parents.”
3. Tisdale v. Obama (Virginia federal court 2012) ruling: “It is well settled that those born in the United States are considered natural born citizens.”
4. Purpura v. Obama (New Jersey 2012) ruling: “No court, federal, state or administrative, has accepted the challengers’ position that Mr. Obama is not a ‘natural born Citizen’ due to the acknowledged fact that his father was born in Kenya and was a British citizen by virtue of the then applicable British Nationality Act. Nor has the fact that Obama had, or may have had, dual citizenship at the time of his birth and thereafter been held to deny him the status of natural born. It is unnecessary to reinvent the wheel here. … The petitioners’ legal position on this issue, however well intentioned, has no merit in law. Thus, accepting for the point of this issue that Mr. Obama was born in Hawaii, he is a ‘natural born Citizen’ regardless of the status of his father.”
5. Voeltz v. Obama (Florida 2012) ruling: “However, the United States Supreme Court has concluded that ‘[e]very person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, becomes at once a citizen of the United States. ‘Other courts that have considered the issue in the context of challenges to the qualifications of candidates for the office of President of the United States have come to the same conclusion. [The judge cites Hollander and Ankeny]
6. Voeltz v. Obama (2nd suit Florida 2012) ruling: “In addition, to the extent that the complaint alleges that President Obama is not a “natural born citizen” even though born in the United States, the Court is in agreement with other courts that have considered this issue, namely, that persons born within the borders of the United States are “natural born citizens” for Article II, Section 1 purpose, regardless of the citizenship of their parents. [Citations to Wong, Hollander, Ankeny].
7. Allen v. Obama (Arizona 2012) ruling: “Most importantly, Arizona courts are bound by United States Supreme Court precedent in construing the United States Constitution, Arizona v. Jay J. Garfield Bldg. Co. , 39 Ariz. 45, 54, 3 P.2d 983, 986(1931), 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”
8. Farrar (et al.) v. Obama (Georgia 2012) ruling: “In 2009, the Indiana Court of Appeals (“Indiana Court”) addressed facts and issues similar to those before this court. [Ankeny] v. Governor, 916 N.E.2d (Ind. Ct. App. 2009). … The Indiana Court rejected the argument that Mr. Obama was ineligible, stating that children born within the United States are natural born citizens, regardless of the citizenship of their parents. … This Court finds the decision and analysis of [Ankeny] persuasive.”
9. Paige v. Obama et al. (Vermont 2012) ruling: While the court has no doubt at this point that Emmerich de Vattel’s treatise The Law of Nations was a work of significant value to the founding fathers, the court does not conclude that his phrase–“The natives, or natural born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens.”–has constitutional significance or that his use of “parents” in the plural has particular significance. Thus far, no judicial decision has adopted such logic in connection with this or any related issues. In fact, the most comprehensive decision on the topic, Ankeny v. Governor of Indiana, examines the historical basis of the use of the phrase, including the English common law in effect at the time of independence, and concludes that the expression “natural born Citizen” is not dependent on the nationality of the parents but reflects the status of a person born into citizenship instead of having citizenship subsequently bestowed. The distinction is eminently logical.
10. Fair v. Obama (Maryland 2012) ruling: The issue of the definition of “natural born citizen” is thus firmly resolved by the United States Supreme Court in a prior opinion [US v Wong], and as this court sees it, that holding is binding on the ultimate issue in this case. [The Court also cites Ankeny at length, and determined that Obama is eligible.]
11. Strunk v. New York State Board of Elections ruling on motion for reconsideration (2013): … the Fourteenth Amendment defines citizenship as “[a]ll persons born or naturalized in the Untied States.” Moreover, the United States Supreme Court held, in Miller v Albright (452 US 420, 423-424 [1998]), that:
    There are “two sources of citizenship and two only: birth and naturalization.” United States v Wong Kim Ark, 169 US 649, 702 (1898). Within the former category, the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution guarantees that every person “born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, becomes at once a citizen of the United States, and needs no naturalization.” 169 US at 702.

The Indiana case, did not need to touch on citizenship at all, ...and in a footnote acknowledges that Wong says nothing about natural born citizens. It also explicitly says it should not be applied in the case of someone born out of country to one or two US citizens, as is the case with Cruz..

If you are trying to argue that Cruz is not eligible, then the Indiana Court certainly did not rule definitively on his circumstance- but it also certainly left the door open that he could be eligible.

I personally think Cruz is eligible- I personally think that anyone born a citizen of the United States is a natural born citizen at birth- but there is an actual controversy about someone born outside the United States- there is no actual controversy for those born inside the United States.

Will Birthers like Wash continue a Birthin' against Cruz?

Naah.

A few- like Stevie the racist will- because Stevie doesn't believe that anyone but those who pass his white purity test should be President and neither Rubio or Cruz satisfies him.

well depends on what your mean by "actual controversy," I dont know about the legality behind the 'must have citizen parents' idea but in some ways it makes more sense than just being born on US soil.

As in there is no actual legal controversy that anyone born in the United States other than the children of diplomats is a natural born citizen. Hell I was taught that in school by my Conservative civics teacher over 30 years ago. There is not a single civics text books that says otherwise.

There is an actual controversy about those not born in the United States- with actual scholars weighing in on both sides. Wong Kim Ark makes it very clear that anyone born in the United States is by birth a NBC- but there is no court ruling that I am aware of on children born outside the United States.

So there is a legitimate legal controversy- though I think Cruz is eligible- the Constitution references only two types of citizens- and Cruz has never been naturalized- so by process of deduction that makes him the other kind of citizen.

actually according to your own linked case, in Indiana, Wong does NOT even use the phrase NBC.

but I agree on legitimate controversy on cruz

 

[washamericom]

I know the eligibility requirements, it is your vaunted court that apparently doesnt as they cant even get the section of the Constitution right.

and bizarrely it uses a phrase that its own footnotes say wasn't even used in Wong, But that is no matter as this court does not have the jurisdiction to rule on those eligibility requirements anyway.

You are indeed a true Birther- impervious to the facts.

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.

"natural born Citizen"

And what did the Indiana Appeals Court say- repeated by every other court?

Based upon the language of Article II, Section 1, Clause 4 and the guidance provided by Wong Kim Ark, we conclude that persons born within the borders of the United States are “natural born Citizens” for Article II, Section 1 purposes, regardless of the citizenship of their parents.

And here is a list of rulings with the same conclusion- which of course- good Birthers will ignore or dismiss- relying instead upon their far greater legal knowledge based upon what they have learned from WND

1. Hollander v. McCain (New Hampshire 2008) ruling: “Those born “in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof,” U.S. Const., amend. XIV, have been considered American citizens under American law in effect since the time of the founding, United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, 674-75 (1898), and thus eligible for the presidency,
2. Ankeny v. Governor of Indiana (Indiana 2008 – Appellate Court) ruling: “Based upon the language of Article II, Section 1, Clause 4 and the guidance provided by Wong Kim Ark, we conclude that persons born within the borders of the United States are “natural born Citizens” for Article II, Section 1 purposes, regardless of the citizenship of their parents.”
3. Tisdale v. Obama (Virginia federal court 2012) ruling: “It is well settled that those born in the United States are considered natural born citizens.”
4. Purpura v. Obama (New Jersey 2012) ruling: “No court, federal, state or administrative, has accepted the challengers’ position that Mr. Obama is not a ‘natural born Citizen’ due to the acknowledged fact that his father was born in Kenya and was a British citizen by virtue of the then applicable British Nationality Act. Nor has the fact that Obama had, or may have had, dual citizenship at the time of his birth and thereafter been held to deny him the status of natural born. It is unnecessary to reinvent the wheel here. … The petitioners’ legal position on this issue, however well intentioned, has no merit in law. Thus, accepting for the point of this issue that Mr. Obama was born in Hawaii, he is a ‘natural born Citizen’ regardless of the status of his father.”
5. Voeltz v. Obama (Florida 2012) ruling: “However, the United States Supreme Court has concluded that ‘[e]very person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, becomes at once a citizen of the United States. ‘Other courts that have considered the issue in the context of challenges to the qualifications of candidates for the office of President of the United States have come to the same conclusion. [The judge cites Hollander and Ankeny]
6. Voeltz v. Obama (2nd suit Florida 2012) ruling: “In addition, to the extent that the complaint alleges that President Obama is not a “natural born citizen” even though born in the United States, the Court is in agreement with other courts that have considered this issue, namely, that persons born within the borders of the United States are “natural born citizens” for Article II, Section 1 purpose, regardless of the citizenship of their parents. [Citations to Wong, Hollander, Ankeny].
7. Allen v. Obama (Arizona 2012) ruling: “Most importantly, Arizona courts are bound by United States Supreme Court precedent in construing the United States Constitution, Arizona v. Jay J. Garfield Bldg. Co. , 39 Ariz. 45, 54, 3 P.2d 983, 986(1931), 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”
8. Farrar (et al.) v. Obama (Georgia 2012) ruling: “In 2009, the Indiana Court of Appeals (“Indiana Court”) addressed facts and issues similar to those before this court. [Ankeny] v. Governor, 916 N.E.2d (Ind. Ct. App. 2009). … The Indiana Court rejected the argument that Mr. Obama was ineligible, stating that children born within the United States are natural born citizens, regardless of the citizenship of their parents. … This Court finds the decision and analysis of [Ankeny] persuasive.”
9. Paige v. Obama et al. (Vermont 2012) ruling: While the court has no doubt at this point that Emmerich de Vattel’s treatise The Law of Nations was a work of significant value to the founding fathers, the court does not conclude that his phrase–“The natives, or natural born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens.”–has constitutional significance or that his use of “parents” in the plural has particular significance. Thus far, no judicial decision has adopted such logic in connection with this or any related issues. In fact, the most comprehensive decision on the topic, Ankeny v. Governor of Indiana, examines the historical basis of the use of the phrase, including the English common law in effect at the time of independence, and concludes that the expression “natural born Citizen” is not dependent on the nationality of the parents but reflects the status of a person born into citizenship instead of having citizenship subsequently bestowed. The distinction is eminently logical.
10. Fair v. Obama (Maryland 2012) ruling: The issue of the definition of “natural born citizen” is thus firmly resolved by the United States Supreme Court in a prior opinion [US v Wong], and as this court sees it, that holding is binding on the ultimate issue in this case. [The Court also cites Ankeny at length, and determined that Obama is eligible.]
11. Strunk v. New York State Board of Elections ruling on motion for reconsideration (2013): … the Fourteenth Amendment defines citizenship as “[a]ll persons born or naturalized in the Untied States.” Moreover, the United States Supreme Court held, in Miller v Albright (452 US 420, 423-424 [1998]), that:
    There are “two sources of citizenship and two only: birth and naturalization.” United States v Wong Kim Ark, 169 US 649, 702 (1898). Within the former category, the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution guarantees that every person “born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, becomes at once a citizen of the United States, and needs no naturalization.” 169 US at 702.

The Indiana case, did not need to touch on citizenship at all, ...and in a footnote acknowledges that Wong says nothing about natural born citizens. It also explicitly says it should not be applied in the case of someone born out of country to one or two US citizens, as is the case with Cruz..

If you are trying to argue that Cruz is not eligible, then the Indiana Court certainly did not rule definitively on his circumstance- but it also certainly left the door open that he could be eligible.

I personally think Cruz is eligible- I personally think that anyone born a citizen of the United States is a natural born citizen at birth- but there is an actual controversy about someone born outside the United States- there is no actual controversy for those born inside the United States.

Will Birthers like Wash continue a Birthin' against Cruz?

Naah.

A few- like Stevie the racist will- because Stevie doesn't believe that anyone but those who pass his white purity test should be President and neither Rubio or Cruz satisfies him.

this is like a fellini movie. i thought this thread might get like... fifty hits, at best.

Just goes to show- Birthers are idiots.

i don't call you an idiot, i respect your stance, as misguided as you and the obot community are.
try this: remove the grandfather clause, then read the stanza in article 2.

No Person except a natural born Citizen, 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.

happier now ?? maybe obamajevich can fix that part of the constitution real quick with an executive order, on his way out the door.

that and sending the remaining guantanamo 5 back to the battlefield, then he'll call it a day.

let's play golf !!

 

[Syriusly]

You are indeed a true Birther- impervious to the facts.

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.

"natural born Citizen"

And what did the Indiana Appeals Court say- repeated by every other court?

Based upon the language of Article II, Section 1, Clause 4 and the guidance provided by Wong Kim Ark, we conclude that persons born within the borders of the United States are “natural born Citizens” for Article II, Section 1 purposes, regardless of the citizenship of their parents.

And here is a list of rulings with the same conclusion- which of course- good Birthers will ignore or dismiss- relying instead upon their far greater legal knowledge based upon what they have learned from WND

1. Hollander v. McCain (New Hampshire 2008) ruling: “Those born “in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof,” U.S. Const., amend. XIV, have been considered American citizens under American law in effect since the time of the founding, United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, 674-75 (1898), and thus eligible for the presidency,
2. Ankeny v. Governor of Indiana (Indiana 2008 – Appellate Court) ruling: “Based upon the language of Article II, Section 1, Clause 4 and the guidance provided by Wong Kim Ark, we conclude that persons born within the borders of the United States are “natural born Citizens” for Article II, Section 1 purposes, regardless of the citizenship of their parents.”
3. Tisdale v. Obama (Virginia federal court 2012) ruling: “It is well settled that those born in the United States are considered natural born citizens.”
4. Purpura v. Obama (New Jersey 2012) ruling: “No court, federal, state or administrative, has accepted the challengers’ position that Mr. Obama is not a ‘natural born Citizen’ due to the acknowledged fact that his father was born in Kenya and was a British citizen by virtue of the then applicable British Nationality Act. Nor has the fact that Obama had, or may have had, dual citizenship at the time of his birth and thereafter been held to deny him the status of natural born. It is unnecessary to reinvent the wheel here. … The petitioners’ legal position on this issue, however well intentioned, has no merit in law. Thus, accepting for the point of this issue that Mr. Obama was born in Hawaii, he is a ‘natural born Citizen’ regardless of the status of his father.”
5. Voeltz v. Obama (Florida 2012) ruling: “However, the United States Supreme Court has concluded that ‘[e]very person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, becomes at once a citizen of the United States. ‘Other courts that have considered the issue in the context of challenges to the qualifications of candidates for the office of President of the United States have come to the same conclusion. [The judge cites Hollander and Ankeny]
6. Voeltz v. Obama (2nd suit Florida 2012) ruling: “In addition, to the extent that the complaint alleges that President Obama is not a “natural born citizen” even though born in the United States, the Court is in agreement with other courts that have considered this issue, namely, that persons born within the borders of the United States are “natural born citizens” for Article II, Section 1 purpose, regardless of the citizenship of their parents. [Citations to Wong, Hollander, Ankeny].
7. Allen v. Obama (Arizona 2012) ruling: “Most importantly, Arizona courts are bound by United States Supreme Court precedent in construing the United States Constitution, Arizona v. Jay J. Garfield Bldg. Co. , 39 Ariz. 45, 54, 3 P.2d 983, 986(1931), 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”
8. Farrar (et al.) v. Obama (Georgia 2012) ruling: “In 2009, the Indiana Court of Appeals (“Indiana Court”) addressed facts and issues similar to those before this court. [Ankeny] v. Governor, 916 N.E.2d (Ind. Ct. App. 2009). … The Indiana Court rejected the argument that Mr. Obama was ineligible, stating that children born within the United States are natural born citizens, regardless of the citizenship of their parents. … This Court finds the decision and analysis of [Ankeny] persuasive.”
9. Paige v. Obama et al. (Vermont 2012) ruling: While the court has no doubt at this point that Emmerich de Vattel’s treatise The Law of Nations was a work of significant value to the founding fathers, the court does not conclude that his phrase–“The natives, or natural born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens.”–has constitutional significance or that his use of “parents” in the plural has particular significance. Thus far, no judicial decision has adopted such logic in connection with this or any related issues. In fact, the most comprehensive decision on the topic, Ankeny v. Governor of Indiana, examines the historical basis of the use of the phrase, including the English common law in effect at the time of independence, and concludes that the expression “natural born Citizen” is not dependent on the nationality of the parents but reflects the status of a person born into citizenship instead of having citizenship subsequently bestowed. The distinction is eminently logical.
10. Fair v. Obama (Maryland 2012) ruling: The issue of the definition of “natural born citizen” is thus firmly resolved by the United States Supreme Court in a prior opinion [US v Wong], and as this court sees it, that holding is binding on the ultimate issue in this case. [The Court also cites Ankeny at length, and determined that Obama is eligible.]
11. Strunk v. New York State Board of Elections ruling on motion for reconsideration (2013): … the Fourteenth Amendment defines citizenship as “[a]ll persons born or naturalized in the Untied States.” Moreover, the United States Supreme Court held, in Miller v Albright (452 US 420, 423-424 [1998]), that:
    There are “two sources of citizenship and two only: birth and naturalization.” United States v Wong Kim Ark, 169 US 649, 702 (1898). Within the former category, the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution guarantees that every person “born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, becomes at once a citizen of the United States, and needs no naturalization.” 169 US at 702.

The Indiana case, did not need to touch on citizenship at all, ...and in a footnote acknowledges that Wong says nothing about natural born citizens. It also explicitly says it should not be applied in the case of someone born out of country to one or two US citizens, as is the case with Cruz..

If you are trying to argue that Cruz is not eligible, then the Indiana Court certainly did not rule definitively on his circumstance- but it also certainly left the door open that he could be eligible.

I personally think Cruz is eligible- I personally think that anyone born a citizen of the United States is a natural born citizen at birth- but there is an actual controversy about someone born outside the United States- there is no actual controversy for those born inside the United States.

Will Birthers like Wash continue a Birthin' against Cruz?

Naah.

A few- like Stevie the racist will- because Stevie doesn't believe that anyone but those who pass his white purity test should be President and neither Rubio or Cruz satisfies him.

this is like a fellini movie. i thought this thread might get like... fifty hits, at best.

Just goes to show- Birthers are idiots.

i don't call you an idiot,
*****
happier now ?? maybe obamajevich can fix that part of the constitution real quick with an executive order, on his way out the door.
!

Why shouldn't I call you an idiot when you make idiotic posts like that?

 

[Syriusly]

You are indeed a true Birther- impervious to the facts.

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.

"natural born Citizen"

And what did the Indiana Appeals Court say- repeated by every other court?

Based upon the language of Article II, Section 1, Clause 4 and the guidance provided by Wong Kim Ark, we conclude that persons born within the borders of the United States are “natural born Citizens” for Article II, Section 1 purposes, regardless of the citizenship of their parents.

And here is a list of rulings with the same conclusion- which of course- good Birthers will ignore or dismiss- relying instead upon their far greater legal knowledge based upon what they have learned from WND

1. Hollander v. McCain (New Hampshire 2008) ruling: “Those born “in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof,” U.S. Const., amend. XIV, have been considered American citizens under American law in effect since the time of the founding, United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, 674-75 (1898), and thus eligible for the presidency,
2. Ankeny v. Governor of Indiana (Indiana 2008 – Appellate Court) ruling: “Based upon the language of Article II, Section 1, Clause 4 and the guidance provided by Wong Kim Ark, we conclude that persons born within the borders of the United States are “natural born Citizens” for Article II, Section 1 purposes, regardless of the citizenship of their parents.”
3. Tisdale v. Obama (Virginia federal court 2012) ruling: “It is well settled that those born in the United States are considered natural born citizens.”
4. Purpura v. Obama (New Jersey 2012) ruling: “No court, federal, state or administrative, has accepted the challengers’ position that Mr. Obama is not a ‘natural born Citizen’ due to the acknowledged fact that his father was born in Kenya and was a British citizen by virtue of the then applicable British Nationality Act. Nor has the fact that Obama had, or may have had, dual citizenship at the time of his birth and thereafter been held to deny him the status of natural born. It is unnecessary to reinvent the wheel here. … The petitioners’ legal position on this issue, however well intentioned, has no merit in law. Thus, accepting for the point of this issue that Mr. Obama was born in Hawaii, he is a ‘natural born Citizen’ regardless of the status of his father.”
5. Voeltz v. Obama (Florida 2012) ruling: “However, the United States Supreme Court has concluded that ‘[e]very person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, becomes at once a citizen of the United States. ‘Other courts that have considered the issue in the context of challenges to the qualifications of candidates for the office of President of the United States have come to the same conclusion. [The judge cites Hollander and Ankeny]
6. Voeltz v. Obama (2nd suit Florida 2012) ruling: “In addition, to the extent that the complaint alleges that President Obama is not a “natural born citizen” even though born in the United States, the Court is in agreement with other courts that have considered this issue, namely, that persons born within the borders of the United States are “natural born citizens” for Article II, Section 1 purpose, regardless of the citizenship of their parents. [Citations to Wong, Hollander, Ankeny].
7. Allen v. Obama (Arizona 2012) ruling: “Most importantly, Arizona courts are bound by United States Supreme Court precedent in construing the United States Constitution, Arizona v. Jay J. Garfield Bldg. Co. , 39 Ariz. 45, 54, 3 P.2d 983, 986(1931), 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”
8. Farrar (et al.) v. Obama (Georgia 2012) ruling: “In 2009, the Indiana Court of Appeals (“Indiana Court”) addressed facts and issues similar to those before this court. [Ankeny] v. Governor, 916 N.E.2d (Ind. Ct. App. 2009). … The Indiana Court rejected the argument that Mr. Obama was ineligible, stating that children born within the United States are natural born citizens, regardless of the citizenship of their parents. … This Court finds the decision and analysis of [Ankeny] persuasive.”
9. Paige v. Obama et al. (Vermont 2012) ruling: While the court has no doubt at this point that Emmerich de Vattel’s treatise The Law of Nations was a work of significant value to the founding fathers, the court does not conclude that his phrase–“The natives, or natural born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens.”–has constitutional significance or that his use of “parents” in the plural has particular significance. Thus far, no judicial decision has adopted such logic in connection with this or any related issues. In fact, the most comprehensive decision on the topic, Ankeny v. Governor of Indiana, examines the historical basis of the use of the phrase, including the English common law in effect at the time of independence, and concludes that the expression “natural born Citizen” is not dependent on the nationality of the parents but reflects the status of a person born into citizenship instead of having citizenship subsequently bestowed. The distinction is eminently logical.
10. Fair v. Obama (Maryland 2012) ruling: The issue of the definition of “natural born citizen” is thus firmly resolved by the United States Supreme Court in a prior opinion [US v Wong], and as this court sees it, that holding is binding on the ultimate issue in this case. [The Court also cites Ankeny at length, and determined that Obama is eligible.]
11. Strunk v. New York State Board of Elections ruling on motion for reconsideration (2013): … the Fourteenth Amendment defines citizenship as “[a]ll persons born or naturalized in the Untied States.” Moreover, the United States Supreme Court held, in Miller v Albright (452 US 420, 423-424 [1998]), that:
    There are “two sources of citizenship and two only: birth and naturalization.” United States v Wong Kim Ark, 169 US 649, 702 (1898). Within the former category, the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution guarantees that every person “born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, becomes at once a citizen of the United States, and needs no naturalization.” 169 US at 702.

The Indiana case, did not need to touch on citizenship at all, ...and in a footnote acknowledges that Wong says nothing about natural born citizens. It also explicitly says it should not be applied in the case of someone born out of country to one or two US citizens, as is the case with Cruz..

If you are trying to argue that Cruz is not eligible, then the Indiana Court certainly did not rule definitively on his circumstance- but it also certainly left the door open that he could be eligible.

I personally think Cruz is eligible- I personally think that anyone born a citizen of the United States is a natural born citizen at birth- but there is an actual controversy about someone born outside the United States- there is no actual controversy for those born inside the United States.

Will Birthers like Wash continue a Birthin' against Cruz?

Naah.

A few- like Stevie the racist will- because Stevie doesn't believe that anyone but those who pass his white purity test should be President and neither Rubio or Cruz satisfies him.

well depends on what your mean by "actual controversy," I dont know about the legality behind the 'must have citizen parents' idea but in some ways it makes more sense than just being born on US soil.

As in there is no actual legal controversy that anyone born in the United States other than the children of diplomats is a natural born citizen. Hell I was taught that in school by my Conservative civics teacher over 30 years ago. There is not a single civics text books that says otherwise.

There is an actual controversy about those not born in the United States- with actual scholars weighing in on both sides. Wong Kim Ark makes it very clear that anyone born in the United States is by birth a NBC- but there is no court ruling that I am aware of on children born outside the United States.

So there is a legitimate legal controversy- though I think Cruz is eligible- the Constitution references only two types of citizens- and Cruz has never been naturalized- so by process of deduction that makes him the other kind of citizen.

actually according to your own linked case, in Indiana, Wong does NOT even use the phrase NBC.
z

Wong Kim Ark mentions Natural-Born Citizen 14 times- and mentions Natural Born 44 times.

What the Appeals Court in Indiana did say was this:

and this

and finally this:

 

[Syriusly]

You are indeed a true Birther- impervious to the facts.

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.

"natural born Citizen"

And what did the Indiana Appeals Court say- repeated by every other court?

Based upon the language of Article II, Section 1, Clause 4 and the guidance provided by Wong Kim Ark, we conclude that persons born within the borders of the United States are “natural born Citizens” for Article II, Section 1 purposes, regardless of the citizenship of their parents.

And here is a list of rulings with the same conclusion- which of course- good Birthers will ignore or dismiss- relying instead upon their far greater legal knowledge based upon what they have learned from WND

1. Hollander v. McCain (New Hampshire 2008) ruling: “Those born “in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof,” U.S. Const., amend. XIV, have been considered American citizens under American law in effect since the time of the founding, United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, 674-75 (1898), and thus eligible for the presidency,
2. Ankeny v. Governor of Indiana (Indiana 2008 – Appellate Court) ruling: “Based upon the language of Article II, Section 1, Clause 4 and the guidance provided by Wong Kim Ark, we conclude that persons born within the borders of the United States are “natural born Citizens” for Article II, Section 1 purposes, regardless of the citizenship of their parents.”
3. Tisdale v. Obama (Virginia federal court 2012) ruling: “It is well settled that those born in the United States are considered natural born citizens.”
4. Purpura v. Obama (New Jersey 2012) ruling: “No court, federal, state or administrative, has accepted the challengers’ position that Mr. Obama is not a ‘natural born Citizen’ due to the acknowledged fact that his father was born in Kenya and was a British citizen by virtue of the then applicable British Nationality Act. Nor has the fact that Obama had, or may have had, dual citizenship at the time of his birth and thereafter been held to deny him the status of natural born. It is unnecessary to reinvent the wheel here. … The petitioners’ legal position on this issue, however well intentioned, has no merit in law. Thus, accepting for the point of this issue that Mr. Obama was born in Hawaii, he is a ‘natural born Citizen’ regardless of the status of his father.”
5. Voeltz v. Obama (Florida 2012) ruling: “However, the United States Supreme Court has concluded that ‘[e]very person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, becomes at once a citizen of the United States. ‘Other courts that have considered the issue in the context of challenges to the qualifications of candidates for the office of President of the United States have come to the same conclusion. [The judge cites Hollander and Ankeny]
6. Voeltz v. Obama (2nd suit Florida 2012) ruling: “In addition, to the extent that the complaint alleges that President Obama is not a “natural born citizen” even though born in the United States, the Court is in agreement with other courts that have considered this issue, namely, that persons born within the borders of the United States are “natural born citizens” for Article II, Section 1 purpose, regardless of the citizenship of their parents. [Citations to Wong, Hollander, Ankeny].
7. Allen v. Obama (Arizona 2012) ruling: “Most importantly, Arizona courts are bound by United States Supreme Court precedent in construing the United States Constitution, Arizona v. Jay J. Garfield Bldg. Co. , 39 Ariz. 45, 54, 3 P.2d 983, 986(1931), 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”
8. Farrar (et al.) v. Obama (Georgia 2012) ruling: “In 2009, the Indiana Court of Appeals (“Indiana Court”) addressed facts and issues similar to those before this court. [Ankeny] v. Governor, 916 N.E.2d (Ind. Ct. App. 2009). … The Indiana Court rejected the argument that Mr. Obama was ineligible, stating that children born within the United States are natural born citizens, regardless of the citizenship of their parents. … This Court finds the decision and analysis of [Ankeny] persuasive.”
9. Paige v. Obama et al. (Vermont 2012) ruling: While the court has no doubt at this point that Emmerich de Vattel’s treatise The Law of Nations was a work of significant value to the founding fathers, the court does not conclude that his phrase–“The natives, or natural born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens.”–has constitutional significance or that his use of “parents” in the plural has particular significance. Thus far, no judicial decision has adopted such logic in connection with this or any related issues. In fact, the most comprehensive decision on the topic, Ankeny v. Governor of Indiana, examines the historical basis of the use of the phrase, including the English common law in effect at the time of independence, and concludes that the expression “natural born Citizen” is not dependent on the nationality of the parents but reflects the status of a person born into citizenship instead of having citizenship subsequently bestowed. The distinction is eminently logical.
10. Fair v. Obama (Maryland 2012) ruling: The issue of the definition of “natural born citizen” is thus firmly resolved by the United States Supreme Court in a prior opinion [US v Wong], and as this court sees it, that holding is binding on the ultimate issue in this case. [The Court also cites Ankeny at length, and determined that Obama is eligible.]
11. Strunk v. New York State Board of Elections ruling on motion for reconsideration (2013): … the Fourteenth Amendment defines citizenship as “[a]ll persons born or naturalized in the Untied States.” Moreover, the United States Supreme Court held, in Miller v Albright (452 US 420, 423-424 [1998]), that:
    There are “two sources of citizenship and two only: birth and naturalization.” United States v Wong Kim Ark, 169 US 649, 702 (1898). Within the former category, the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution guarantees that every person “born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, becomes at once a citizen of the United States, and needs no naturalization.” 169 US at 702.

while I dont consider myself a birther.......none of these cases refutes what the birthers think , which is that Obama was not born in the united states..,,,,, all they do in most cases is say that if you are born in the US you are a citizen.
.

You sure sound like a Birther- you reject every actual legal decision and want to dwell upon irrelevant minutia

Birthers think all sorts of crap- there are some Birthers that believe EVERY single reason that they have been told that Barack Obama could not possibly be eligible- even when they are contradictory- like believing both that he was born in Kenya- AND- that he was not eligible even if born in the United States because he was born a dual citizen.

The cases listed deal with the one peculiar lie of Birthers- that being born in the United States is not sufficient to be a "Natural Born Citizen"- and every one of these courts concluded that being born in the United States(unless you are born to a foreign diplomat) is sufficient- knocking out that particularly peculiar Birther lie.

And finally- every one of the court cases listed say that if you are born in the United States you are a natural born citizen- and since you may not remember this- that is one of the eligibility requirements;

1. Hollander v. McCain (New Hampshire 2008) ruling: “Those born “in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof,” U.S. Const., amend. XIV, have been considered American citizens under American law in effect since the time of the founding, United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, 674-75 (1898), and thus eligible for the presidency,
2. Ankeny v. Governor of Indiana (Indiana 2008 – Appellate Court) ruling: “Based upon the language of Article II, Section 1, Clause 4 and the guidance provided by Wong Kim Ark, we conclude that persons born within the borders of the United States are “natural born Citizens” for Article II, Section 1 purposes, regardless of the citizenship of their parents.”
3. Tisdale v. Obama (Virginia federal court 2012) ruling: “It is well settled that those born in the United States are considered natural born citizens.”
4. Purpura v. Obama (New Jersey 2012) ruling: “No court, federal, state or administrative, has accepted the challengers’ position that Mr. Obama is not a ‘natural born Citizen’ due to the acknowledged fact that his father was born in Kenya and was a British citizen by virtue of the then applicable British Nationality Act. Nor has the fact that Obama had, or may have had, dual citizenship at the time of his birth and thereafter been held to deny him the status of natural born. It is unnecessary to reinvent the wheel here. … The petitioners’ legal position on this issue, however well intentioned, has no merit in law. Thus, accepting for the point of this issue that Mr. Obama was born in Hawaii, he is a ‘natural born Citizen’ regardless of the status of his father.”
5. Voeltz v. Obama (Florida 2012) ruling: “However, the United States Supreme Court has concluded that ‘[e]very person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, becomes at once a citizen of the United States. ‘Other courts that have considered the issue in the context of challenges to the qualifications of candidates for the office of President of the United States have come to the same conclusion. [The judge cites Hollander and Ankeny]
6. Voeltz v. Obama (2nd suit Florida 2012) ruling: “In addition, to the extent that the complaint alleges that President Obama is not a “natural born citizen” even though born in the United States, the Court is in agreement with other courts that have considered this issue, namely, that persons born within the borders of the United States are “natural born citizens” for Article II, Section 1 purpose, regardless of the citizenship of their parents. [Citations to Wong, Hollander, Ankeny].
7. Allen v. Obama (Arizona 2012) ruling: “Most importantly, Arizona courts are bound by United States Supreme Court precedent in construing the United States Constitution, Arizona v. Jay J. Garfield Bldg. Co. , 39 Ariz. 45, 54, 3 P.2d 983, 986(1931), 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”
8. Farrar (et al.) v. Obama (Georgia 2012) ruling: “In 2009, the Indiana Court of Appeals (“Indiana Court”) addressed facts and issues similar to those before this court. [Ankeny] v. Governor, 916 N.E.2d (Ind. Ct. App. 2009). … The Indiana Court rejected the argument that Mr. Obama was ineligible, stating that children born within the United States are natural born citizens, regardless of the citizenship of their parents. … This Court finds the decision and analysis of [Ankeny] persuasive.”
9. Paige v. Obama et al. (Vermont 2012) ruling: While the court has no doubt at this point that Emmerich de Vattel’s treatise The Law of Nations was a work of significant value to the founding fathers, the court does not conclude that his phrase–“The natives, or natural born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens.”–has constitutional significance or that his use of “parents” in the plural has particular significance. Thus far, no judicial decision has adopted such logic in connection with this or any related issues. In fact, the most comprehensive decision on the topic, Ankeny v. Governor of Indiana, examines the historical basis of the use of the phrase, including the English common law in effect at the time of independence, and concludes that the expression “natural born Citizen” is not dependent on the nationality of the parents but reflects the status of a person born into citizenship instead of having citizenship subsequently bestowed. The distinction is eminently logical.
10. Fair v. Obama (Maryland 2012) ruling: The issue of the definition of “natural born citizen” is thus firmly resolved by the United States Supreme Court in a prior opinion [US v Wong], and as this court sees it, that holding is binding on the ultimate issue in this case. [The Court also cites Ankeny at length, and determined that Obama is eligible.]
11. Strunk v. New York State Board of Elections ruling on motion for reconsideration (2013): … the Fourteenth Amendment defines citizenship as “[a]ll persons born or naturalized in the Untied States.” Moreover, the United States Supreme Court held, in Miller v Albright (452 US 420, 423-424 [1998]), that:
    There are “two sources of citizenship and two only: birth and naturalization.” United States v Wong Kim Ark, 169 US 649, 702 (1898). Within the former category, the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution guarantees that every person “born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, becomes at once a citizen of the United States, and needs no naturalization.” 169 US at 702.

no one disputes he is a citizen,,.....just that he is a citizen eligible to be president.

Im not going to look at all these, my suspicion is that they are all of a quality of the Indiana decision you referenced.

Barack Obama was elected in 2008 and 2012- and the voters, the Electoral College, Congress and Chief Justice Roberts all found him eligible.

So have 11 courts.

Everyone who matters has already weighed in. Now it is just a matter of mocking idiot Birthers.

Like Grayson

And Trump.

you do realize Grayson would agree with you on Obama birthers.....Cruzes is a different situation

I think Grayson is an idiot for even bringing this crap up.

Trump is a bigger idiot- because he is a bigger Birther.

 

[dcraelin]

The Indiana case, did not need to touch on citizenship at all, ...and in a footnote acknowledges that Wong says nothing about natural born citizens. It also explicitly says it should not be applied in the case of someone born out of country to one or two US citizens, as is the case with Cruz..

If you are trying to argue that Cruz is not eligible, then the Indiana Court certainly did not rule definitively on his circumstance- but it also certainly left the door open that he could be eligible.

I personally think Cruz is eligible- I personally think that anyone born a citizen of the United States is a natural born citizen at birth- but there is an actual controversy about someone born outside the United States- there is no actual controversy for those born inside the United States.

Will Birthers like Wash continue a Birthin' against Cruz?

Naah.

A few- like Stevie the racist will- because Stevie doesn't believe that anyone but those who pass his white purity test should be President and neither Rubio or Cruz satisfies him.

well depends on what your mean by "actual controversy," I dont know about the legality behind the 'must have citizen parents' idea but in some ways it makes more sense than just being born on US soil.

As in there is no actual legal controversy that anyone born in the United States other than the children of diplomats is a natural born citizen. Hell I was taught that in school by my Conservative civics teacher over 30 years ago. There is not a single civics text books that says otherwise.

There is an actual controversy about those not born in the United States- with actual scholars weighing in on both sides. Wong Kim Ark makes it very clear that anyone born in the United States is by birth a NBC- but there is no court ruling that I am aware of on children born outside the United States.

So there is a legitimate legal controversy- though I think Cruz is eligible- the Constitution references only two types of citizens- and Cruz has never been naturalized- so by process of deduction that makes him the other kind of citizen.

actually according to your own linked case, in Indiana, Wong does NOT even use the phrase NBC.
z

Wong Kim Ark mentions Natural-Born Citizen 14 times- and mentions Natural Born 44 times.

What the Appeals Court in Indiana did say was this:

View attachment 56304

and this

View attachment 56305

and finally this:

View attachment 56306

yeah, see, I dont get what theyre saying, first, (well now i cant see your cut -outs) but, at one point they say wong was a citizen but dont use phrase natural born citizen I dont think .......and Id like to see where in Wong it uses that phrase cause the Indiana court, unless I misread it says it isnt in there......but they also, again,get the clause wrong.....and then they out of thin air decide the wording is immaterial?.....yeah I dont think they put alot of thought into it...............

they could decide the case on other grounds and just seem to be babbling in your snippets and footnotes.

 

[dcraelin]

while I dont consider myself a birther.......none of these cases refutes what the birthers think , which is that Obama was not born in the united states..,,,,, all they do in most cases is say that if you are born in the US you are a citizen.
.

You sure sound like a Birther- you reject every actual legal decision and want to dwell upon irrelevant minutia

Birthers think all sorts of crap- there are some Birthers that believe EVERY single reason that they have been told that Barack Obama could not possibly be eligible- even when they are contradictory- like believing both that he was born in Kenya- AND- that he was not eligible even if born in the United States because he was born a dual citizen.

The cases listed deal with the one peculiar lie of Birthers- that being born in the United States is not sufficient to be a "Natural Born Citizen"- and every one of these courts concluded that being born in the United States(unless you are born to a foreign diplomat) is sufficient- knocking out that particularly peculiar Birther lie.

And finally- every one of the court cases listed say that if you are born in the United States you are a natural born citizen- and since you may not remember this- that is one of the eligibility requirements;

1. Hollander v. McCain (New Hampshire 2008) ruling: “Those born “in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof,” U.S. Const., amend. XIV, have been considered American citizens under American law in effect since the time of the founding, United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, 674-75 (1898), and thus eligible for the presidency,
2. Ankeny v. Governor of Indiana (Indiana 2008 – Appellate Court) ruling: “Based upon the language of Article II, Section 1, Clause 4 and the guidance provided by Wong Kim Ark, we conclude that persons born within the borders of the United States are “natural born Citizens” for Article II, Section 1 purposes, regardless of the citizenship of their parents.”
3. Tisdale v. Obama (Virginia federal court 2012) ruling: “It is well settled that those born in the United States are considered natural born citizens.”
4. Purpura v. Obama (New Jersey 2012) ruling: “No court, federal, state or administrative, has accepted the challengers’ position that Mr. Obama is not a ‘natural born Citizen’ due to the acknowledged fact that his father was born in Kenya and was a British citizen by virtue of the then applicable British Nationality Act. Nor has the fact that Obama had, or may have had, dual citizenship at the time of his birth and thereafter been held to deny him the status of natural born. It is unnecessary to reinvent the wheel here. … The petitioners’ legal position on this issue, however well intentioned, has no merit in law. Thus, accepting for the point of this issue that Mr. Obama was born in Hawaii, he is a ‘natural born Citizen’ regardless of the status of his father.”
5. Voeltz v. Obama (Florida 2012) ruling: “However, the United States Supreme Court has concluded that ‘[e]very person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, becomes at once a citizen of the United States. ‘Other courts that have considered the issue in the context of challenges to the qualifications of candidates for the office of President of the United States have come to the same conclusion. [The judge cites Hollander and Ankeny]
6. Voeltz v. Obama (2nd suit Florida 2012) ruling: “In addition, to the extent that the complaint alleges that President Obama is not a “natural born citizen” even though born in the United States, the Court is in agreement with other courts that have considered this issue, namely, that persons born within the borders of the United States are “natural born citizens” for Article II, Section 1 purpose, regardless of the citizenship of their parents. [Citations to Wong, Hollander, Ankeny].
7. Allen v. Obama (Arizona 2012) ruling: “Most importantly, Arizona courts are bound by United States Supreme Court precedent in construing the United States Constitution, Arizona v. Jay J. Garfield Bldg. Co. , 39 Ariz. 45, 54, 3 P.2d 983, 986(1931), 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”
8. Farrar (et al.) v. Obama (Georgia 2012) ruling: “In 2009, the Indiana Court of Appeals (“Indiana Court”) addressed facts and issues similar to those before this court. [Ankeny] v. Governor, 916 N.E.2d (Ind. Ct. App. 2009). … The Indiana Court rejected the argument that Mr. Obama was ineligible, stating that children born within the United States are natural born citizens, regardless of the citizenship of their parents. … This Court finds the decision and analysis of [Ankeny] persuasive.”
9. Paige v. Obama et al. (Vermont 2012) ruling: While the court has no doubt at this point that Emmerich de Vattel’s treatise The Law of Nations was a work of significant value to the founding fathers, the court does not conclude that his phrase–“The natives, or natural born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens.”–has constitutional significance or that his use of “parents” in the plural has particular significance. Thus far, no judicial decision has adopted such logic in connection with this or any related issues. In fact, the most comprehensive decision on the topic, Ankeny v. Governor of Indiana, examines the historical basis of the use of the phrase, including the English common law in effect at the time of independence, and concludes that the expression “natural born Citizen” is not dependent on the nationality of the parents but reflects the status of a person born into citizenship instead of having citizenship subsequently bestowed. The distinction is eminently logical.
10. Fair v. Obama (Maryland 2012) ruling: The issue of the definition of “natural born citizen” is thus firmly resolved by the United States Supreme Court in a prior opinion [US v Wong], and as this court sees it, that holding is binding on the ultimate issue in this case. [The Court also cites Ankeny at length, and determined that Obama is eligible.]
11. Strunk v. New York State Board of Elections ruling on motion for reconsideration (2013): … the Fourteenth Amendment defines citizenship as “[a]ll persons born or naturalized in the Untied States.” Moreover, the United States Supreme Court held, in Miller v Albright (452 US 420, 423-424 [1998]), that:
    There are “two sources of citizenship and two only: birth and naturalization.” United States v Wong Kim Ark, 169 US 649, 702 (1898). Within the former category, the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution guarantees that every person “born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, becomes at once a citizen of the United States, and needs no naturalization.” 169 US at 702.

no one disputes he is a citizen,,.....just that he is a citizen eligible to be president.

Im not going to look at all these, my suspicion is that they are all of a quality of the Indiana decision you referenced.

Barack Obama was elected in 2008 and 2012- and the voters, the Electoral College, Congress and Chief Justice Roberts all found him eligible.

So have 11 courts.

Everyone who matters has already weighed in. Now it is just a matter of mocking idiot Birthers.

Like Grayson

And Trump.

you do realize Grayson would agree with you on Obama birthers.....Cruzes is a different situation

I think Grayson is an idiot for even bringing this crap up.

Trump is a bigger idiot- because he is a bigger Birther.

Grayson is a hero for bringing it up, the Constitutions original intent should be followed. And this issue needs to be ironed out. And poorly put together opinions like the Indiana one should not be controlling,...the Supreme Court should decide this and decide it in a non-partisan manner.

 

[Syriusly]

If you are trying to argue that Cruz is not eligible, then the Indiana Court certainly did not rule definitively on his circumstance- but it also certainly left the door open that he could be eligible.

I personally think Cruz is eligible- I personally think that anyone born a citizen of the United States is a natural born citizen at birth- but there is an actual controversy about someone born outside the United States- there is no actual controversy for those born inside the United States.

Will Birthers like Wash continue a Birthin' against Cruz?

Naah.

A few- like Stevie the racist will- because Stevie doesn't believe that anyone but those who pass his white purity test should be President and neither Rubio or Cruz satisfies him.

well depends on what your mean by "actual controversy," I dont know about the legality behind the 'must have citizen parents' idea but in some ways it makes more sense than just being born on US soil.

As in there is no actual legal controversy that anyone born in the United States other than the children of diplomats is a natural born citizen. Hell I was taught that in school by my Conservative civics teacher over 30 years ago. There is not a single civics text books that says otherwise.

There is an actual controversy about those not born in the United States- with actual scholars weighing in on both sides. Wong Kim Ark makes it very clear that anyone born in the United States is by birth a NBC- but there is no court ruling that I am aware of on children born outside the United States.

So there is a legitimate legal controversy- though I think Cruz is eligible- the Constitution references only two types of citizens- and Cruz has never been naturalized- so by process of deduction that makes him the other kind of citizen.

actually according to your own linked case, in Indiana, Wong does NOT even use the phrase NBC.
z

Wong Kim Ark mentions Natural-Born Citizen 14 times- and mentions Natural Born 44 times.

What the Appeals Court in Indiana did say was this:

View attachment 56304

and this

View attachment 56305

and finally this:

View attachment 56306

yeah, see, I dont get what theyre saying, first, (well now i cant see your cut -outs) but, at one point they say wong was a citizen but dont use phrase natural born citizen I dont think .......and Id like to see where in Wong it uses that phrase cause the Indiana court, unless I misread it says it isnt in there......but they also, again,get the clause wrong.....and then they out of thin air decide the wording is immaterial?.....yeah I dont think they put alot of thought into it...............

they could decide the case on other grounds and just seem to be babbling in your snippets and footnotes.

Wong Kim Ark and Ankeny v. Daniels are both available online if you want to read what they say- Google worked just fine for me.

But to summarize- the Indiana Appeals Court found that it was clear that a person born in the United States is a natural born citizen- exactly what all of those who were born and educated here grew up knowing.

 

[Syriusly]

You sure sound like a Birther- you reject every actual legal decision and want to dwell upon irrelevant minutia

Birthers think all sorts of crap- there are some Birthers that believe EVERY single reason that they have been told that Barack Obama could not possibly be eligible- even when they are contradictory- like believing both that he was born in Kenya- AND- that he was not eligible even if born in the United States because he was born a dual citizen.

The cases listed deal with the one peculiar lie of Birthers- that being born in the United States is not sufficient to be a "Natural Born Citizen"- and every one of these courts concluded that being born in the United States(unless you are born to a foreign diplomat) is sufficient- knocking out that particularly peculiar Birther lie.

And finally- every one of the court cases listed say that if you are born in the United States you are a natural born citizen- and since you may not remember this- that is one of the eligibility requirements;

1. Hollander v. McCain (New Hampshire 2008) ruling: “Those born “in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof,” U.S. Const., amend. XIV, have been considered American citizens under American law in effect since the time of the founding, United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, 674-75 (1898), and thus eligible for the presidency,
2. Ankeny v. Governor of Indiana (Indiana 2008 – Appellate Court) ruling: “Based upon the language of Article II, Section 1, Clause 4 and the guidance provided by Wong Kim Ark, we conclude that persons born within the borders of the United States are “natural born Citizens” for Article II, Section 1 purposes, regardless of the citizenship of their parents.”
3. Tisdale v. Obama (Virginia federal court 2012) ruling: “It is well settled that those born in the United States are considered natural born citizens.”
4. Purpura v. Obama (New Jersey 2012) ruling: “No court, federal, state or administrative, has accepted the challengers’ position that Mr. Obama is not a ‘natural born Citizen’ due to the acknowledged fact that his father was born in Kenya and was a British citizen by virtue of the then applicable British Nationality Act. Nor has the fact that Obama had, or may have had, dual citizenship at the time of his birth and thereafter been held to deny him the status of natural born. It is unnecessary to reinvent the wheel here. … The petitioners’ legal position on this issue, however well intentioned, has no merit in law. Thus, accepting for the point of this issue that Mr. Obama was born in Hawaii, he is a ‘natural born Citizen’ regardless of the status of his father.”
5. Voeltz v. Obama (Florida 2012) ruling: “However, the United States Supreme Court has concluded that ‘[e]very person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, becomes at once a citizen of the United States. ‘Other courts that have considered the issue in the context of challenges to the qualifications of candidates for the office of President of the United States have come to the same conclusion. [The judge cites Hollander and Ankeny]
6. Voeltz v. Obama (2nd suit Florida 2012) ruling: “In addition, to the extent that the complaint alleges that President Obama is not a “natural born citizen” even though born in the United States, the Court is in agreement with other courts that have considered this issue, namely, that persons born within the borders of the United States are “natural born citizens” for Article II, Section 1 purpose, regardless of the citizenship of their parents. [Citations to Wong, Hollander, Ankeny].
7. Allen v. Obama (Arizona 2012) ruling: “Most importantly, Arizona courts are bound by United States Supreme Court precedent in construing the United States Constitution, Arizona v. Jay J. Garfield Bldg. Co. , 39 Ariz. 45, 54, 3 P.2d 983, 986(1931), 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”
8. Farrar (et al.) v. Obama (Georgia 2012) ruling: “In 2009, the Indiana Court of Appeals (“Indiana Court”) addressed facts and issues similar to those before this court. [Ankeny] v. Governor, 916 N.E.2d (Ind. Ct. App. 2009). … The Indiana Court rejected the argument that Mr. Obama was ineligible, stating that children born within the United States are natural born citizens, regardless of the citizenship of their parents. … This Court finds the decision and analysis of [Ankeny] persuasive.”
9. Paige v. Obama et al. (Vermont 2012) ruling: While the court has no doubt at this point that Emmerich de Vattel’s treatise The Law of Nations was a work of significant value to the founding fathers, the court does not conclude that his phrase–“The natives, or natural born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens.”–has constitutional significance or that his use of “parents” in the plural has particular significance. Thus far, no judicial decision has adopted such logic in connection with this or any related issues. In fact, the most comprehensive decision on the topic, Ankeny v. Governor of Indiana, examines the historical basis of the use of the phrase, including the English common law in effect at the time of independence, and concludes that the expression “natural born Citizen” is not dependent on the nationality of the parents but reflects the status of a person born into citizenship instead of having citizenship subsequently bestowed. The distinction is eminently logical.
10. Fair v. Obama (Maryland 2012) ruling: The issue of the definition of “natural born citizen” is thus firmly resolved by the United States Supreme Court in a prior opinion [US v Wong], and as this court sees it, that holding is binding on the ultimate issue in this case. [The Court also cites Ankeny at length, and determined that Obama is eligible.]
11. Strunk v. New York State Board of Elections ruling on motion for reconsideration (2013): … the Fourteenth Amendment defines citizenship as “[a]ll persons born or naturalized in the Untied States.” Moreover, the United States Supreme Court held, in Miller v Albright (452 US 420, 423-424 [1998]), that:
    There are “two sources of citizenship and two only: birth and naturalization.” United States v Wong Kim Ark, 169 US 649, 702 (1898). Within the former category, the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution guarantees that every person “born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, becomes at once a citizen of the United States, and needs no naturalization.” 169 US at 702.

no one disputes he is a citizen,,.....just that he is a citizen eligible to be president.

Im not going to look at all these, my suspicion is that they are all of a quality of the Indiana decision you referenced.

Barack Obama was elected in 2008 and 2012- and the voters, the Electoral College, Congress and Chief Justice Roberts all found him eligible.

So have 11 courts.

Everyone who matters has already weighed in. Now it is just a matter of mocking idiot Birthers.

Like Grayson

And Trump.

you do realize Grayson would agree with you on Obama birthers.....Cruzes is a different situation

I think Grayson is an idiot for even bringing this crap up.

Trump is a bigger idiot- because he is a bigger Birther.

Grayson is a hero for bringing it up, the Constitutions original intent should be followed. And this issue needs to be ironed out. And poorly put together opinions like the Indiana one should not be controlling,...the Supreme Court should decide this and decide it in a non-partisan manner.

Perhaps the Supreme Court would have decided this matter- but the Birthers in the Ankeny case- and in none of the other cases- didn't appeal the matter all the way to the Supreme Court.

Even if it reaches the Supreme Court there is a very good chance the Supreme Court would decline to decide- since Congress is the branch of government designated in the Constitution with the powers over the office of the Presidency- Congress must confirm a President before he becomes President- and only Congress can remove a President.

But hey if you want to consider Grayson a 'hero' go for it.

I think he is as much of an idiot as Trump.

 

[Cecilie1200]

I just want to point out that Birthers can find no example of Americans believing this crap in the 100 years prior to Obama running for election.

And I just want to point out that no one has accepted the appeal to popularity as valid argument for some 3000 years. But that's only because science proved WAY BACK THEN... that such is a fatally flawed, thus unsound logical construct... thus such is unworthy of consideration by reasonable people.

Now is there anyway that we can demonstrate this?

Hmm...

Ok.... Let's try this:

You say that for over a century, 'just being BORN in the USA to at least one US Citizen is plenty to be a "Natural Born Citizen".

So fine... we let of Chester take his seat on the bench, because 'its just the Vice Presidency... and BANG! four months later he's the President... .

Fast forward 120ish years and a poor black child of dubious birth origins, is born to a communist bitch US Citizen, sired by a communist Kenyan. His party says he was born in the only state in the US which legally provided Birth Certs to foreign born children during that time... and what the hell... he's in.

While Chester muddled through his time without any major damage... and while some douche no one has ever heard of was VP to some President of no consequence, despite also being the child of a foreign National parent... the THIRD TIME was the evil charm.

In the nidst of the the carnage from the catastrophic failure of socialist economic policy... and as the US is at war with a fair percentage of Islam engaged in an international manhunt for Saddam Hussein and Osama Bin Ladin... Come to the stage... the PROOF CERTAIN that God has a WICKED SENSE OF HUMOR... a Brown Clown by the name of Barak Hussein Obama.

A man who pledged to "Fundamentally Change" the US Constitution... who has stepped around the Constitution, rejected the Charter of Principles... added more debt to the US Federal Budget than every President who came before him, who has implemented foreign policy that has directly resulted in the reversal of US influence in the Middle East, empowered the enemies of the US and the latest information is that he founded, funded, armed and trained "AL QAEDA on STEROIDS", OKA: ISIS and has done everything in his power, without getting arrested and charged with treason... to promote the interests, lending aid and comfort at every point possible.

The damage that this creature has done to the United States as a direct consequence of his disdain for American principle is INCALCULABLE.

The ONLY reason that he was able to do that... is because some idiots in the 1880s wanted to put Chester Author's fat ass up as Vice President... and to do that they made the same specious argument that these idiots are making.

And as was inevitable... nefarious forces used that idiocy to sit the Brown Clown and severely, if not fatally injure the United States.

Consequences like 5% unemployment and a record high stock market?

Nothing more amusing than a leftist desperately pretending he really believes that people look around and go, "Wow, what a GREAT economy! Golly gee whiz, we need more of THIS!"

5% unemployment. Fool, please.

i had that very thought. if a republican gets in it will be fifteen percent the first day.

Well, yeah. All they have to do is start counting all the people who said, "Fuck it, this is hopeless" and gave up looking for work after so long on unemployment. And that doesn't even address the massive and growing number of underemployed.

 

[Cecilie1200]

I just want to point out that Birthers can find no example of Americans believing this crap in the 100 years prior to Obama running for election.

And I just want to point out that no one has accepted the appeal to popularity as valid argument for some 3000 years. But that's only because science proved WAY BACK THEN... that such is a fatally flawed, thus unsound logical construct... thus such is unworthy of consideration by reasonable people.

Now is there anyway that we can demonstrate this?

Hmm...

Ok.... Let's try this:

You say that for over a century, 'just being BORN in the USA to at least one US Citizen is plenty to be a "Natural Born Citizen".

So fine... we let of Chester take his seat on the bench, because 'its just the Vice Presidency... and BANG! four months later he's the President... .

Fast forward 120ish years and a poor black child of dubious birth origins, is born to a communist bitch US Citizen, sired by a communist Kenyan. His party says he was born in the only state in the US which legally provided Birth Certs to foreign born children during that time... and what the hell... he's in.

While Chester muddled through his time without any major damage... and while some douche no one has ever heard of was VP to some President of no consequence, despite also being the child of a foreign National parent... the THIRD TIME was the evil charm.

In the nidst of the the carnage from the catastrophic failure of socialist economic policy... and as the US is at war with a fair percentage of Islam engaged in an international manhunt for Saddam Hussein and Osama Bin Ladin... Come to the stage... the PROOF CERTAIN that God has a WICKED SENSE OF HUMOR... a Brown Clown by the name of Barak Hussein Obama.

A man who pledged to "Fundamentally Change" the US Constitution... who has stepped around the Constitution, rejected the Charter of Principles... added more debt to the US Federal Budget than every President who came before him, who has implemented foreign policy that has directly resulted in the reversal of US influence in the Middle East, empowered the enemies of the US and the latest information is that he founded, funded, armed and trained "AL QAEDA on STEROIDS", OKA: ISIS and has done everything in his power, without getting arrested and charged with treason... to promote the interests, lending aid and comfort at every point possible.

The damage that this creature has done to the United States as a direct consequence of his disdain for American principle is INCALCULABLE.

The ONLY reason that he was able to do that... is because some idiots in the 1880s wanted to put Chester Author's fat ass up as Vice President... and to do that they made the same specious argument that these idiots are making.

And as was inevitable... nefarious forces used that idiocy to sit the Brown Clown and severely, if not fatally injure the United States.

Consequences like 5% unemployment and a record high stock market?

Nothing more amusing than a leftist desperately pretending he really believes that people look around and go, "Wow, what a GREAT economy! Golly gee whiz, we need more of THIS!"

5% unemployment. Fool, please.

Great.

Yet another rightard who thinks the BLS somehow lost their ability to accurately measure unemployment.

The BLS has no trouble compiling its statistics. The trouble lies with you leftist twat waffles CITING them correctly. I've seen pretzels with fewer twists than your arguments to try to make the economy look less shitty.

Let's see THE ENTIRETY of what the BLS has to say about unemployment, shall we?

Unemployment rate 5.7 percent in January 2015; U-6 measure was 11.3 percent : The Economics Daily: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics

You will notice that as of January, 2015, the most recent date currently available on the BLS chart, the unemployment rate was 5.7% ONLY if you count JUST the people who are still looking for work, or are temporarily laid off. If you count ALSO the people who are underemployed (working part-time even though they want to work full-time), who are marginally attached to the labor force (currently are neither working nor looking for work but indicate that they want and are available for a job and have looked for work sometime in the past 12 months), and discouraged (those who have stopped looking for work and have given a job-market related reason for not currently looking for work), the unemployment rate jumps to 11.3%). That was almost a year ago, and those last three groups are the folks you lefties "mysteriously" forget to mention.

So don't blame the BLS for your bullshit, Chuckles.

 

[Faun]

I just want to point out that Birthers can find no example of Americans believing this crap in the 100 years prior to Obama running for election.

And I just want to point out that no one has accepted the appeal to popularity as valid argument for some 3000 years. But that's only because science proved WAY BACK THEN... that such is a fatally flawed, thus unsound logical construct... thus such is unworthy of consideration by reasonable people.

Now is there anyway that we can demonstrate this?

Hmm...

Ok.... Let's try this:

You say that for over a century, 'just being BORN in the USA to at least one US Citizen is plenty to be a "Natural Born Citizen".

So fine... we let of Chester take his seat on the bench, because 'its just the Vice Presidency... and BANG! four months later he's the President... .

Fast forward 120ish years and a poor black child of dubious birth origins, is born to a communist bitch US Citizen, sired by a communist Kenyan. His party says he was born in the only state in the US which legally provided Birth Certs to foreign born children during that time... and what the hell... he's in.

While Chester muddled through his time without any major damage... and while some douche no one has ever heard of was VP to some President of no consequence, despite also being the child of a foreign National parent... the THIRD TIME was the evil charm.

In the nidst of the the carnage from the catastrophic failure of socialist economic policy... and as the US is at war with a fair percentage of Islam engaged in an international manhunt for Saddam Hussein and Osama Bin Ladin... Come to the stage... the PROOF CERTAIN that God has a WICKED SENSE OF HUMOR... a Brown Clown by the name of Barak Hussein Obama.

A man who pledged to "Fundamentally Change" the US Constitution... who has stepped around the Constitution, rejected the Charter of Principles... added more debt to the US Federal Budget than every President who came before him, who has implemented foreign policy that has directly resulted in the reversal of US influence in the Middle East, empowered the enemies of the US and the latest information is that he founded, funded, armed and trained "AL QAEDA on STEROIDS", OKA: ISIS and has done everything in his power, without getting arrested and charged with treason... to promote the interests, lending aid and comfort at every point possible.

The damage that this creature has done to the United States as a direct consequence of his disdain for American principle is INCALCULABLE.

The ONLY reason that he was able to do that... is because some idiots in the 1880s wanted to put Chester Author's fat ass up as Vice President... and to do that they made the same specious argument that these idiots are making.

And as was inevitable... nefarious forces used that idiocy to sit the Brown Clown and severely, if not fatally injure the United States.

Consequences like 5% unemployment and a record high stock market?

Nothing more amusing than a leftist desperately pretending he really believes that people look around and go, "Wow, what a GREAT economy! Golly gee whiz, we need more of THIS!"

5% unemployment. Fool, please.

i had that very thought. if a republican gets in it will be fifteen percent the first day.

Well, yeah. All they have to do is start counting all the people who said, "Fuck it, this is hopeless" and gave up looking for work after so long on unemployment. And that doesn't even address the massive and growing number of underemployed.

Too fucking stupid. Such people are already tracked by the BLS. And neither is "massive and growing" and both are down under Obama.

Number of people who gave up looking but want a job is about 5.6 million.

Bureau of Labor Statistics Data

Number of people who are underemployed is about 6.1 million.

Bureau of Labor Statistics Data

 

[Faun]

I just want to point out that Birthers can find no example of Americans believing this crap in the 100 years prior to Obama running for election.

And I just want to point out that no one has accepted the appeal to popularity as valid argument for some 3000 years. But that's only because science proved WAY BACK THEN... that such is a fatally flawed, thus unsound logical construct... thus such is unworthy of consideration by reasonable people.

Now is there anyway that we can demonstrate this?

Hmm...

Ok.... Let's try this:

You say that for over a century, 'just being BORN in the USA to at least one US Citizen is plenty to be a "Natural Born Citizen".

So fine... we let of Chester take his seat on the bench, because 'its just the Vice Presidency... and BANG! four months later he's the President... .

Fast forward 120ish years and a poor black child of dubious birth origins, is born to a communist bitch US Citizen, sired by a communist Kenyan. His party says he was born in the only state in the US which legally provided Birth Certs to foreign born children during that time... and what the hell... he's in.

While Chester muddled through his time without any major damage... and while some douche no one has ever heard of was VP to some President of no consequence, despite also being the child of a foreign National parent... the THIRD TIME was the evil charm.

In the nidst of the the carnage from the catastrophic failure of socialist economic policy... and as the US is at war with a fair percentage of Islam engaged in an international manhunt for Saddam Hussein and Osama Bin Ladin... Come to the stage... the PROOF CERTAIN that God has a WICKED SENSE OF HUMOR... a Brown Clown by the name of Barak Hussein Obama.

A man who pledged to "Fundamentally Change" the US Constitution... who has stepped around the Constitution, rejected the Charter of Principles... added more debt to the US Federal Budget than every President who came before him, who has implemented foreign policy that has directly resulted in the reversal of US influence in the Middle East, empowered the enemies of the US and the latest information is that he founded, funded, armed and trained "AL QAEDA on STEROIDS", OKA: ISIS and has done everything in his power, without getting arrested and charged with treason... to promote the interests, lending aid and comfort at every point possible.

The damage that this creature has done to the United States as a direct consequence of his disdain for American principle is INCALCULABLE.

The ONLY reason that he was able to do that... is because some idiots in the 1880s wanted to put Chester Author's fat ass up as Vice President... and to do that they made the same specious argument that these idiots are making.

And as was inevitable... nefarious forces used that idiocy to sit the Brown Clown and severely, if not fatally injure the United States.

Consequences like 5% unemployment and a record high stock market?

Nothing more amusing than a leftist desperately pretending he really believes that people look around and go, "Wow, what a GREAT economy! Golly gee whiz, we need more of THIS!"

5% unemployment. Fool, please.

Great.

Yet another rightard who thinks the BLS somehow lost their ability to accurately measure unemployment.

The BLS has no trouble compiling its statistics. The trouble lies with you leftist twat waffles CITING them correctly. I've seen pretzels with fewer twists than your arguments to try to make the economy look less shitty.

Let's see THE ENTIRETY of what the BLS has to say about unemployment, shall we?

Unemployment rate 5.7 percent in January 2015; U-6 measure was 11.3 percent : The Economics Daily: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics

You will notice that as of January, 2015, the most recent date currently available on the BLS chart, the unemployment rate was 5.7% ONLY if you count JUST the people who are still looking for work, or are temporarily laid off. If you count ALSO the people who are underemployed (working part-time even though they want to work full-time), who are marginally attached to the labor force (currently are neither working nor looking for work but indicate that they want and are available for a job and have looked for work sometime in the past 12 months), and discouraged (those who have stopped looking for work and have given a job-market related reason for not currently looking for work), the unemployment rate jumps to 11.3%). That was almost a year ago, and those last three groups are the folks you lefties "mysteriously" forget to mention.

So don't blame the BLS for your bullshit, Chuckles.

I get that you're baffled by this since you're conservative and it involves numbers, but no matter which BLS measurement you use, U-3, U-4, U-5, or U-6, the BLS is still using the same methodologies to calculate those figures as they did prior to Obama being President; and by any of those measures, unemployment is down considerably under Obama.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Well since you don't even know what the eligibility requirements are- how would you even know?

I know the eligibility requirements, it is your vaunted court that apparently doesnt as they cant even get the section of the Constitution right.

and bizarrely it uses a phrase that its own footnotes say wasn't even used in Wong, But that is no matter as this court does not have the jurisdiction to rule on those eligibility requirements anyway.

You are indeed a true Birther- impervious to the facts.

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.

"natural born Citizen"

And what did the Indiana Appeals Court say- repeated by every other court?

Based upon the language of Article II, Section 1, Clause 4 and the guidance provided by Wong Kim Ark, we conclude that persons born within the borders of the United States are “natural born Citizens” for Article II, Section 1 purposes, regardless of the citizenship of their parents.

And here is a list of rulings with the same conclusion- which of course- good Birthers will ignore or dismiss- relying instead upon their far greater legal knowledge based upon what they have learned from WND

1. Hollander v. McCain (New Hampshire 2008) ruling: “Those born “in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof,” U.S. Const., amend. XIV, have been considered American citizens under American law in effect since the time of the founding, United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, 674-75 (1898), and thus eligible for the presidency,
2. Ankeny v. Governor of Indiana (Indiana 2008 – Appellate Court) ruling: “Based upon the language of Article II, Section 1, Clause 4 and the guidance provided by Wong Kim Ark, we conclude that persons born within the borders of the United States are “natural born Citizens” for Article II, Section 1 purposes, regardless of the citizenship of their parents.”
3. Tisdale v. Obama (Virginia federal court 2012) ruling: “It is well settled that those born in the United States are considered natural born citizens.”
4. Purpura v. Obama (New Jersey 2012) ruling: “No court, federal, state or administrative, has accepted the challengers’ position that Mr. Obama is not a ‘natural born Citizen’ due to the acknowledged fact that his father was born in Kenya and was a British citizen by virtue of the then applicable British Nationality Act. Nor has the fact that Obama had, or may have had, dual citizenship at the time of his birth and thereafter been held to deny him the status of natural born. It is unnecessary to reinvent the wheel here. … The petitioners’ legal position on this issue, however well intentioned, has no merit in law. Thus, accepting for the point of this issue that Mr. Obama was born in Hawaii, he is a ‘natural born Citizen’ regardless of the status of his father.”
5. Voeltz v. Obama (Florida 2012) ruling: “However, the United States Supreme Court has concluded that ‘[e]very person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, becomes at once a citizen of the United States. ‘Other courts that have considered the issue in the context of challenges to the qualifications of candidates for the office of President of the United States have come to the same conclusion. [The judge cites Hollander and Ankeny]
6. Voeltz v. Obama (2nd suit Florida 2012) ruling: “In addition, to the extent that the complaint alleges that President Obama is not a “natural born citizen” even though born in the United States, the Court is in agreement with other courts that have considered this issue, namely, that persons born within the borders of the United States are “natural born citizens” for Article II, Section 1 purpose, regardless of the citizenship of their parents. [Citations to Wong, Hollander, Ankeny].
7. Allen v. Obama (Arizona 2012) ruling: “Most importantly, Arizona courts are bound by United States Supreme Court precedent in construing the United States Constitution, Arizona v. Jay J. Garfield Bldg. Co. , 39 Ariz. 45, 54, 3 P.2d 983, 986(1931), 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”
8. Farrar (et al.) v. Obama (Georgia 2012) ruling: “In 2009, the Indiana Court of Appeals (“Indiana Court”) addressed facts and issues similar to those before this court. [Ankeny] v. Governor, 916 N.E.2d (Ind. Ct. App. 2009). … The Indiana Court rejected the argument that Mr. Obama was ineligible, stating that children born within the United States are natural born citizens, regardless of the citizenship of their parents. … This Court finds the decision and analysis of [Ankeny] persuasive.”
9. Paige v. Obama et al. (Vermont 2012) ruling: While the court has no doubt at this point that Emmerich de Vattel’s treatise The Law of Nations was a work of significant value to the founding fathers, the court does not conclude that his phrase–“The natives, or natural born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens.”–has constitutional significance or that his use of “parents” in the plural has particular significance. Thus far, no judicial decision has adopted such logic in connection with this or any related issues. In fact, the most comprehensive decision on the topic, Ankeny v. Governor of Indiana, examines the historical basis of the use of the phrase, including the English common law in effect at the time of independence, and concludes that the expression “natural born Citizen” is not dependent on the nationality of the parents but reflects the status of a person born into citizenship instead of having citizenship subsequently bestowed. The distinction is eminently logical.
10. Fair v. Obama (Maryland 2012) ruling: The issue of the definition of “natural born citizen” is thus firmly resolved by the United States Supreme Court in a prior opinion [US v Wong], and as this court sees it, that holding is binding on the ultimate issue in this case. [The Court also cites Ankeny at length, and determined that Obama is eligible.]
11. Strunk v. New York State Board of Elections ruling on motion for reconsideration (2013): … the Fourteenth Amendment defines citizenship as “[a]ll persons born or naturalized in the Untied States.” Moreover, the United States Supreme Court held, in Miller v Albright (452 US 420, 423-424 [1998]), that:
    There are “two sources of citizenship and two only: birth and naturalization.” United States v Wong Kim Ark, 169 US 649, 702 (1898). Within the former category, the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution guarantees that every person “born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, becomes at once a citizen of the United States, and needs no naturalization.” 169 US at 702.

while I dont consider myself a birther.......none of these cases refutes what the birthers think , which is that Obama was not born in the united states..,,,,, all they do in most cases is say that if you are born in the US you are a citizen.
.

You sure sound like a Birther- you reject every actual legal decision and want to dwell upon irrelevant minutia

Birthers think all sorts of crap- there are some Birthers that believe EVERY single reason that they have been told that Barack Obama could not possibly be eligible- even when they are contradictory- like believing both that he was born in Kenya- AND- that he was not eligible even if born in the United States because he was born a dual citizen.

The cases listed deal with the one peculiar lie of Birthers- that being born in the United States is not sufficient to be a "Natural Born Citizen"- and every one of these courts concluded that being born in the United States(unless you are born to a foreign diplomat) is sufficient- knocking out that particularly peculiar Birther lie.

And finally- every one of the court cases listed say that if you are born in the United States you are a natural born citizen- and since you may not remember this- that is one of the eligibility requirements;

1. Hollander v. McCain (New Hampshire 2008) ruling: “Those born “in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof,” U.S. Const., amend. XIV, have been considered American citizens under American law in effect since the time of the founding, United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, 674-75 (1898), and thus eligible for the presidency,
2. Ankeny v. Governor of Indiana (Indiana 2008 – Appellate Court) ruling: “Based upon the language of Article II, Section 1, Clause 4 and the guidance provided by Wong Kim Ark, we conclude that persons born within the borders of the United States are “natural born Citizens” for Article II, Section 1 purposes, regardless of the citizenship of their parents.”
3. Tisdale v. Obama (Virginia federal court 2012) ruling: “It is well settled that those born in the United States are considered natural born citizens.”
4. Purpura v. Obama (New Jersey 2012) ruling: “No court, federal, state or administrative, has accepted the challengers’ position that Mr. Obama is not a ‘natural born Citizen’ due to the acknowledged fact that his father was born in Kenya and was a British citizen by virtue of the then applicable British Nationality Act. Nor has the fact that Obama had, or may have had, dual citizenship at the time of his birth and thereafter been held to deny him the status of natural born. It is unnecessary to reinvent the wheel here. … The petitioners’ legal position on this issue, however well intentioned, has no merit in law. Thus, accepting for the point of this issue that Mr. Obama was born in Hawaii, he is a ‘natural born Citizen’ regardless of the status of his father.”
5. Voeltz v. Obama (Florida 2012) ruling: “However, the United States Supreme Court has concluded that ‘[e]very person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, becomes at once a citizen of the United States. ‘Other courts that have considered the issue in the context of challenges to the qualifications of candidates for the office of President of the United States have come to the same conclusion. [The judge cites Hollander and Ankeny]
6. Voeltz v. Obama (2nd suit Florida 2012) ruling: “In addition, to the extent that the complaint alleges that President Obama is not a “natural born citizen” even though born in the United States, the Court is in agreement with other courts that have considered this issue, namely, that persons born within the borders of the United States are “natural born citizens” for Article II, Section 1 purpose, regardless of the citizenship of their parents. [Citations to Wong, Hollander, Ankeny].
7. Allen v. Obama (Arizona 2012) ruling: “Most importantly, Arizona courts are bound by United States Supreme Court precedent in construing the United States Constitution, Arizona v. Jay J. Garfield Bldg. Co. , 39 Ariz. 45, 54, 3 P.2d 983, 986(1931), 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”
8. Farrar (et al.) v. Obama (Georgia 2012) ruling: “In 2009, the Indiana Court of Appeals (“Indiana Court”) addressed facts and issues similar to those before this court. [Ankeny] v. Governor, 916 N.E.2d (Ind. Ct. App. 2009). … The Indiana Court rejected the argument that Mr. Obama was ineligible, stating that children born within the United States are natural born citizens, regardless of the citizenship of their parents. … This Court finds the decision and analysis of [Ankeny] persuasive.”
9. Paige v. Obama et al. (Vermont 2012) ruling: While the court has no doubt at this point that Emmerich de Vattel’s treatise The Law of Nations was a work of significant value to the founding fathers, the court does not conclude that his phrase–“The natives, or natural born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens.”–has constitutional significance or that his use of “parents” in the plural has particular significance. Thus far, no judicial decision has adopted such logic in connection with this or any related issues. In fact, the most comprehensive decision on the topic, Ankeny v. Governor of Indiana, examines the historical basis of the use of the phrase, including the English common law in effect at the time of independence, and concludes that the expression “natural born Citizen” is not dependent on the nationality of the parents but reflects the status of a person born into citizenship instead of having citizenship subsequently bestowed. The distinction is eminently logical.
10. Fair v. Obama (Maryland 2012) ruling: The issue of the definition of “natural born citizen” is thus firmly resolved by the United States Supreme Court in a prior opinion [US v Wong], and as this court sees it, that holding is binding on the ultimate issue in this case. [The Court also cites Ankeny at length, and determined that Obama is eligible.]
11. Strunk v. New York State Board of Elections ruling on motion for reconsideration (2013): … the Fourteenth Amendment defines citizenship as “[a]ll persons born or naturalized in the Untied States.” Moreover, the United States Supreme Court held, in Miller v Albright (452 US 420, 423-424 [1998]), that:
    There are “two sources of citizenship and two only: birth and naturalization.” United States v Wong Kim Ark, 169 US 649, 702 (1898). Within the former category, the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution guarantees that every person “born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, becomes at once a citizen of the United States, and needs no naturalization.” 169 US at 702.

no one disputes he is a citizen,,.....just that he is a citizen eligible to be president.

Im not going to look at all these, my suspicion is that they are all of a quality of the Indiana decision you referenced.

Well, the left has done such a lovely job of muddying the water and confusing people on the subject, that it's going to take some time to clarify the law . . . as usual.

Again, this is really not at all complicated.

Natural born citizen

One may also be a "natural born Citizen" if, despite a birth on foreign soil, U.S. citizenship immediately passes from the person's parents.

So how does one's citizenship immediately pass from one's parents, you ask? Also already codified into law, by Congress, pursuant to Article I, Section 8, Clause 4 of the U.S. Constitution, in which Congress is given the power to enact laws regarding citizenship and naturalization:

8 U.S.C. § 1401 : US Code - Section 1401: Nationals and citizens of United States at birth

(g) a person born outside the geographical limits of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is an alien, and the other a citizen of the United States who, prior to the birth of such person, was physically present in the United States or its outlying possessions for a period or periods totaling not less than five years, at least two of which were after attaining the age of fourteen years.

This is not complicated. Ted Cruz has been a citizen of the United States since his birth. He has never needed to be naturalized as a citizen, because he's been one from the beginning, hence a "natural born citizen".

It's only complicated if you try to make it complicated for some reason.

 

[Cecilie1200]

And I just want to point out that no one has accepted the appeal to popularity as valid argument for some 3000 years. But that's only because science proved WAY BACK THEN... that such is a fatally flawed, thus unsound logical construct... thus such is unworthy of consideration by reasonable people.

Now is there anyway that we can demonstrate this?

Hmm...

Ok.... Let's try this:

You say that for over a century, 'just being BORN in the USA to at least one US Citizen is plenty to be a "Natural Born Citizen".

So fine... we let of Chester take his seat on the bench, because 'its just the Vice Presidency... and BANG! four months later he's the President... .

Fast forward 120ish years and a poor black child of dubious birth origins, is born to a communist bitch US Citizen, sired by a communist Kenyan. His party says he was born in the only state in the US which legally provided Birth Certs to foreign born children during that time... and what the hell... he's in.

While Chester muddled through his time without any major damage... and while some douche no one has ever heard of was VP to some President of no consequence, despite also being the child of a foreign National parent... the THIRD TIME was the evil charm.

In the nidst of the the carnage from the catastrophic failure of socialist economic policy... and as the US is at war with a fair percentage of Islam engaged in an international manhunt for Saddam Hussein and Osama Bin Ladin... Come to the stage... the PROOF CERTAIN that God has a WICKED SENSE OF HUMOR... a Brown Clown by the name of Barak Hussein Obama.

A man who pledged to "Fundamentally Change" the US Constitution... who has stepped around the Constitution, rejected the Charter of Principles... added more debt to the US Federal Budget than every President who came before him, who has implemented foreign policy that has directly resulted in the reversal of US influence in the Middle East, empowered the enemies of the US and the latest information is that he founded, funded, armed and trained "AL QAEDA on STEROIDS", OKA: ISIS and has done everything in his power, without getting arrested and charged with treason... to promote the interests, lending aid and comfort at every point possible.

The damage that this creature has done to the United States as a direct consequence of his disdain for American principle is INCALCULABLE.

The ONLY reason that he was able to do that... is because some idiots in the 1880s wanted to put Chester Author's fat ass up as Vice President... and to do that they made the same specious argument that these idiots are making.

And as was inevitable... nefarious forces used that idiocy to sit the Brown Clown and severely, if not fatally injure the United States.

Consequences like 5% unemployment and a record high stock market?

Nothing more amusing than a leftist desperately pretending he really believes that people look around and go, "Wow, what a GREAT economy! Golly gee whiz, we need more of THIS!"

5% unemployment. Fool, please.

i had that very thought. if a republican gets in it will be fifteen percent the first day.

Well, yeah. All they have to do is start counting all the people who said, "Fuck it, this is hopeless" and gave up looking for work after so long on unemployment. And that doesn't even address the massive and growing number of underemployed.

Too fucking stupid. Such people are already tracked by the BLS. And neither is "massive and growing" and both are down under Obama.

Number of people who gave up looking but want a job is about 5.6 million.

Bureau of Labor Statistics Data

Number of people who are underemployed is about 6.1 million.

Bureau of Labor Statistics Data

I'm always amused when a leftist is proven wrong, and responds with "You're so stupid" and then repeats what they were just told, as though it's somehow a disputation that THEY just came up with.

I'm not fooled by it. The question is, did you fool yourself?

 

[Cecilie1200]

And I just want to point out that no one has accepted the appeal to popularity as valid argument for some 3000 years. But that's only because science proved WAY BACK THEN... that such is a fatally flawed, thus unsound logical construct... thus such is unworthy of consideration by reasonable people.

Now is there anyway that we can demonstrate this?

Hmm...

Ok.... Let's try this:

You say that for over a century, 'just being BORN in the USA to at least one US Citizen is plenty to be a "Natural Born Citizen".

So fine... we let of Chester take his seat on the bench, because 'its just the Vice Presidency... and BANG! four months later he's the President... .

Fast forward 120ish years and a poor black child of dubious birth origins, is born to a communist bitch US Citizen, sired by a communist Kenyan. His party says he was born in the only state in the US which legally provided Birth Certs to foreign born children during that time... and what the hell... he's in.

While Chester muddled through his time without any major damage... and while some douche no one has ever heard of was VP to some President of no consequence, despite also being the child of a foreign National parent... the THIRD TIME was the evil charm.

In the nidst of the the carnage from the catastrophic failure of socialist economic policy... and as the US is at war with a fair percentage of Islam engaged in an international manhunt for Saddam Hussein and Osama Bin Ladin... Come to the stage... the PROOF CERTAIN that God has a WICKED SENSE OF HUMOR... a Brown Clown by the name of Barak Hussein Obama.

A man who pledged to "Fundamentally Change" the US Constitution... who has stepped around the Constitution, rejected the Charter of Principles... added more debt to the US Federal Budget than every President who came before him, who has implemented foreign policy that has directly resulted in the reversal of US influence in the Middle East, empowered the enemies of the US and the latest information is that he founded, funded, armed and trained "AL QAEDA on STEROIDS", OKA: ISIS and has done everything in his power, without getting arrested and charged with treason... to promote the interests, lending aid and comfort at every point possible.

The damage that this creature has done to the United States as a direct consequence of his disdain for American principle is INCALCULABLE.

The ONLY reason that he was able to do that... is because some idiots in the 1880s wanted to put Chester Author's fat ass up as Vice President... and to do that they made the same specious argument that these idiots are making.

And as was inevitable... nefarious forces used that idiocy to sit the Brown Clown and severely, if not fatally injure the United States.

Consequences like 5% unemployment and a record high stock market?

Nothing more amusing than a leftist desperately pretending he really believes that people look around and go, "Wow, what a GREAT economy! Golly gee whiz, we need more of THIS!"

5% unemployment. Fool, please.

Great.

Yet another rightard who thinks the BLS somehow lost their ability to accurately measure unemployment.

The BLS has no trouble compiling its statistics. The trouble lies with you leftist twat waffles CITING them correctly. I've seen pretzels with fewer twists than your arguments to try to make the economy look less shitty.

Let's see THE ENTIRETY of what the BLS has to say about unemployment, shall we?

Unemployment rate 5.7 percent in January 2015; U-6 measure was 11.3 percent : The Economics Daily: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics

You will notice that as of January, 2015, the most recent date currently available on the BLS chart, the unemployment rate was 5.7% ONLY if you count JUST the people who are still looking for work, or are temporarily laid off. If you count ALSO the people who are underemployed (working part-time even though they want to work full-time), who are marginally attached to the labor force (currently are neither working nor looking for work but indicate that they want and are available for a job and have looked for work sometime in the past 12 months), and discouraged (those who have stopped looking for work and have given a job-market related reason for not currently looking for work), the unemployment rate jumps to 11.3%). That was almost a year ago, and those last three groups are the folks you lefties "mysteriously" forget to mention.

So don't blame the BLS for your bullshit, Chuckles.

I get that you're baffled by this since you're conservative and it involves numbers, but no matter which BLS measurement you use, U-3, U-4, U-5, or U-6, the BLS is still using the same methodologies to calculate those figures as they did prior to Obama being President; and by any of those measures, unemployment is down considerably under Obama.

Uh huh. The economy is amazing, everyone's thrilled and happy and DYING to have more of the same.

You just keep telling yourself that, Chuckles, since you're the only one likely to believe you.

 

[Cecilie1200]

You sure sound like a Birther- you reject every actual legal decision and want to dwell upon irrelevant minutia

Birthers think all sorts of crap- there are some Birthers that believe EVERY single reason that they have been told that Barack Obama could not possibly be eligible- even when they are contradictory- like believing both that he was born in Kenya- AND- that he was not eligible even if born in the United States because he was born a dual citizen.

The cases listed deal with the one peculiar lie of Birthers- that being born in the United States is not sufficient to be a "Natural Born Citizen"- and every one of these courts concluded that being born in the United States(unless you are born to a foreign diplomat) is sufficient- knocking out that particularly peculiar Birther lie.

And finally- every one of the court cases listed say that if you are born in the United States you are a natural born citizen- and since you may not remember this- that is one of the eligibility requirements;

1. Hollander v. McCain (New Hampshire 2008) ruling: “Those born “in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof,” U.S. Const., amend. XIV, have been considered American citizens under American law in effect since the time of the founding, United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, 674-75 (1898), and thus eligible for the presidency,
2. Ankeny v. Governor of Indiana (Indiana 2008 – Appellate Court) ruling: “Based upon the language of Article II, Section 1, Clause 4 and the guidance provided by Wong Kim Ark, we conclude that persons born within the borders of the United States are “natural born Citizens” for Article II, Section 1 purposes, regardless of the citizenship of their parents.”
3. Tisdale v. Obama (Virginia federal court 2012) ruling: “It is well settled that those born in the United States are considered natural born citizens.”
4. Purpura v. Obama (New Jersey 2012) ruling: “No court, federal, state or administrative, has accepted the challengers’ position that Mr. Obama is not a ‘natural born Citizen’ due to the acknowledged fact that his father was born in Kenya and was a British citizen by virtue of the then applicable British Nationality Act. Nor has the fact that Obama had, or may have had, dual citizenship at the time of his birth and thereafter been held to deny him the status of natural born. It is unnecessary to reinvent the wheel here. … The petitioners’ legal position on this issue, however well intentioned, has no merit in law. Thus, accepting for the point of this issue that Mr. Obama was born in Hawaii, he is a ‘natural born Citizen’ regardless of the status of his father.”
5. Voeltz v. Obama (Florida 2012) ruling: “However, the United States Supreme Court has concluded that ‘[e]very person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, becomes at once a citizen of the United States. ‘Other courts that have considered the issue in the context of challenges to the qualifications of candidates for the office of President of the United States have come to the same conclusion. [The judge cites Hollander and Ankeny]
6. Voeltz v. Obama (2nd suit Florida 2012) ruling: “In addition, to the extent that the complaint alleges that President Obama is not a “natural born citizen” even though born in the United States, the Court is in agreement with other courts that have considered this issue, namely, that persons born within the borders of the United States are “natural born citizens” for Article II, Section 1 purpose, regardless of the citizenship of their parents. [Citations to Wong, Hollander, Ankeny].
7. Allen v. Obama (Arizona 2012) ruling: “Most importantly, Arizona courts are bound by United States Supreme Court precedent in construing the United States Constitution, Arizona v. Jay J. Garfield Bldg. Co. , 39 Ariz. 45, 54, 3 P.2d 983, 986(1931), 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”
8. Farrar (et al.) v. Obama (Georgia 2012) ruling: “In 2009, the Indiana Court of Appeals (“Indiana Court”) addressed facts and issues similar to those before this court. [Ankeny] v. Governor, 916 N.E.2d (Ind. Ct. App. 2009). … The Indiana Court rejected the argument that Mr. Obama was ineligible, stating that children born within the United States are natural born citizens, regardless of the citizenship of their parents. … This Court finds the decision and analysis of [Ankeny] persuasive.”
9. Paige v. Obama et al. (Vermont 2012) ruling: While the court has no doubt at this point that Emmerich de Vattel’s treatise The Law of Nations was a work of significant value to the founding fathers, the court does not conclude that his phrase–“The natives, or natural born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens.”–has constitutional significance or that his use of “parents” in the plural has particular significance. Thus far, no judicial decision has adopted such logic in connection with this or any related issues. In fact, the most comprehensive decision on the topic, Ankeny v. Governor of Indiana, examines the historical basis of the use of the phrase, including the English common law in effect at the time of independence, and concludes that the expression “natural born Citizen” is not dependent on the nationality of the parents but reflects the status of a person born into citizenship instead of having citizenship subsequently bestowed. The distinction is eminently logical.
10. Fair v. Obama (Maryland 2012) ruling: The issue of the definition of “natural born citizen” is thus firmly resolved by the United States Supreme Court in a prior opinion [US v Wong], and as this court sees it, that holding is binding on the ultimate issue in this case. [The Court also cites Ankeny at length, and determined that Obama is eligible.]
11. Strunk v. New York State Board of Elections ruling on motion for reconsideration (2013): … the Fourteenth Amendment defines citizenship as “[a]ll persons born or naturalized in the Untied States.” Moreover, the United States Supreme Court held, in Miller v Albright (452 US 420, 423-424 [1998]), that:
    There are “two sources of citizenship and two only: birth and naturalization.” United States v Wong Kim Ark, 169 US 649, 702 (1898). Within the former category, the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution guarantees that every person “born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, becomes at once a citizen of the United States, and needs no naturalization.” 169 US at 702.

no one disputes he is a citizen,,.....just that he is a citizen eligible to be president.

Im not going to look at all these, my suspicion is that they are all of a quality of the Indiana decision you referenced.

Barack Obama was elected in 2008 and 2012- and the voters, the Electoral College, Congress and Chief Justice Roberts all found him eligible.

So have 11 courts.

Everyone who matters has already weighed in. Now it is just a matter of mocking idiot Birthers.

Like Grayson

And Trump.

you do realize Grayson would agree with you on Obama birthers.....Cruzes is a different situation

I think Grayson is an idiot for even bringing this crap up.

Trump is a bigger idiot- because he is a bigger Birther.

Grayson is a hero for bringing it up, the Constitutions original intent should be followed. And this issue needs to be ironed out. And poorly put together opinions like the Indiana one should not be controlling,...the Supreme Court should decide this and decide it in a non-partisan manner.

Well, if you want to talk about the original intent of the Founding Fathers, then Grayson looks even less like a hero, and more like a fucking moron:

naturalization laws 1790-1795

SEC. 3. And be it further enacted, that the children of persons duly naturalized, dwelling within the United States, and being under the age of twenty-one years, at the time of such naturalization, and the children of citizens of the United States, born out of the limits and jurisdiction of the United States, shall be considered as citizens of the United States: Provided, That the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons, whose fathers have never been resident of the United States: Provided also, That no person heretofore proscribed by any state, or who has been legally convicted of having joined the army of Great Britain during the late war, shall be admitted a citizen as foresaid, without the consent of the legislature of the state, in which such person was proscribed.

Those provisions are even more generous and less restrictive in many ways than the current laws regarding natural-born citizenship. And they also include Ted Cruz, since his father certainly was a resident of the US for quite some time.

 

[Faun]

Consequences like 5% unemployment and a record high stock market?

Nothing more amusing than a leftist desperately pretending he really believes that people look around and go, "Wow, what a GREAT economy! Golly gee whiz, we need more of THIS!"

5% unemployment. Fool, please.

Great.

Yet another rightard who thinks the BLS somehow lost their ability to accurately measure unemployment.

The BLS has no trouble compiling its statistics. The trouble lies with you leftist twat waffles CITING them correctly. I've seen pretzels with fewer twists than your arguments to try to make the economy look less shitty.

Let's see THE ENTIRETY of what the BLS has to say about unemployment, shall we?

Unemployment rate 5.7 percent in January 2015; U-6 measure was 11.3 percent : The Economics Daily: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics

You will notice that as of January, 2015, the most recent date currently available on the BLS chart, the unemployment rate was 5.7% ONLY if you count JUST the people who are still looking for work, or are temporarily laid off. If you count ALSO the people who are underemployed (working part-time even though they want to work full-time), who are marginally attached to the labor force (currently are neither working nor looking for work but indicate that they want and are available for a job and have looked for work sometime in the past 12 months), and discouraged (those who have stopped looking for work and have given a job-market related reason for not currently looking for work), the unemployment rate jumps to 11.3%). That was almost a year ago, and those last three groups are the folks you lefties "mysteriously" forget to mention.

So don't blame the BLS for your bullshit, Chuckles.

I get that you're baffled by this since you're conservative and it involves numbers, but no matter which BLS measurement you use, U-3, U-4, U-5, or U-6, the BLS is still using the same methodologies to calculate those figures as they did prior to Obama being President; and by any of those measures, unemployment is down considerably under Obama.

Uh huh. The economy is amazing, everyone's thrilled and happy and DYING to have more of the same.

You just keep telling yourself that, Chuckles, since you're the only one likely to believe you.

Spits the idiot who just got caught telling lies that folks giving up looking for work and underemployed are "massive and growing."

 

[dcraelin]

well depends on what your mean by "actual controversy," I dont know about the legality behind the 'must have citizen parents' idea but in some ways it makes more sense than just being born on US soil.

As in there is no actual legal controversy that anyone born in the United States other than the children of diplomats is a natural born citizen. Hell I was taught that in school by my Conservative civics teacher over 30 years ago. There is not a single civics text books that says otherwise.

There is an actual controversy about those not born in the United States- with actual scholars weighing in on both sides. Wong Kim Ark makes it very clear that anyone born in the United States is by birth a NBC- but there is no court ruling that I am aware of on children born outside the United States.

So there is a legitimate legal controversy- though I think Cruz is eligible- the Constitution references only two types of citizens- and Cruz has never been naturalized- so by process of deduction that makes him the other kind of citizen.

actually according to your own linked case, in Indiana, Wong does NOT even use the phrase NBC.
z

Wong Kim Ark mentions Natural-Born Citizen 14 times- and mentions Natural Born 44 times.

What the Appeals Court in Indiana did say was this:

View attachment 56304

and this

View attachment 56305

and finally this:

View attachment 56306

yeah, see, I dont get what theyre saying, first, (well now i cant see your cut -outs) but, at one point they say wong was a citizen but dont use phrase natural born citizen I dont think .......and Id like to see where in Wong it uses that phrase cause the Indiana court, unless I misread it says it isnt in there......but they also, again,get the clause wrong.....and then they out of thin air decide the wording is immaterial?.....yeah I dont think they put alot of thought into it...............

they could decide the case on other grounds and just seem to be babbling in your snippets and footnotes.

Wong Kim Ark and Ankeny v. Daniels are both available online if you want to read what they say- Google worked just fine for me.

But to summarize- the Indiana Appeals Court found that it was clear that a person born in the United States is a natural born citizen- exactly what all of those who were born and educated here grew up knowing.

it did not need to "find" that, its opinion gets the section of the Constitution wrong, its opinion is worthless as to eligibility of the president. ....Even though I agree that if you are born here you are a natural born citizen.