Citizenship » Oh, For Goodness Sake

Arizona Ballot Challenge: Allen v. Obama, Arizona Democratic Party–DISMISSED

Birthers, Citizenship, Election Laws, Elections: 2012, Lawsuits, Right Wing Nutzoids Comments Off

Mar 092012

I haven’t kept up with Allen v. Obama, Arizona Democratic Party, in the Arizona Superior Court in Pima County, but Judge Richard E. Gordon’s Dismissal Order should make President Obama’s eligibility clear as a bell:

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. See United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, 702-03 (1898) (addressing U. S. Const. amend. XIV); Ankeny v. Governor of the State of Indiana, 916 N.E.2d 678, 684-88 (Ind. App. 2010) (addressing the precise issue). Contrary to Plaintiff’s assertion, Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162 (1874), does not hold otherwise.

To put a fine point on it: A natural born citizen is one who is born in the United States; parents who are citizens or not citizens, one or both, have nothing to do with anything.

There were recent court filings made available by Jack Ryan Scribd; in the newest, Allen added Pima County Sheriff Joe Arpaio’s recent allegations:

Opposition to Motion to Dismiss

Motion to Dismiss

Order Setting Hearing on Motion to Dismiss

In Chambers Ruling

Hearing Minutes – 2012-02-23

Complaint for Constitutional Violations

Fogbow court observer, Poutine, attended the status hearing on Tuesday, March 6, and reports:

I showed up for the 3:30 hearing around 3pm. Without having any idea who Kenneth Allen was, I felt I recognized him sitting close to the courtroom door waiting for it to open. My suspicion was confirmed when I saw some birther-looking lady walk up to him to shake his hand and say (I think), “Hi, nice to see you again,” and then hand him a stack of mysterious papers which seemed to have “notes” typed out on them. (Note: It’s also possible that she was his friend or wife, and I misheard what she said.)

Allen looks like a birther. He is a smallish man aged in his late 50s or early 60s. He looked nervous and tightly wound up. He was wearing a shirt and tie that were all but overshadowed by what appeared to me to be a large puffy winter jacket, presumably because he does not own a formal coat that is part of a suit.

The hearing started a few minutes early. Judge Gordon is a surprisingly young-looking judge with a friendly demeanor. In appearance were two lawyers from the Pima County Attorney’s Office. Appearing by phone for the Democratic Party was Paul Eckstein from the Perkins Coie firm, Phoenix office. I won’t read much into Eckstein’s decision to appear by telephone (he says it was due to a dinner he had to attend at 5:30), except to observe that it reflected a certain level of confidence (or arrogance, perhaps deliberately signaled).

The hearing lasted about 40 minutes. The judge started it with a strange comment about his background as a former US Attorney. He felt he did not need to recuse himself because the US Attorney was not a party to this action, but asked the parties if anyone wanted to request that he recuse himself. No one did, including Allen. I disagree that he even needed to bring this up but whatever.
Continue reading »

Farrar v. Obama, etc.: Final Decision–DENIED

Birthers, Citizenship, Election Laws, Elections: 2012, Lawsuits, Presidency, Right Wing Nutzoids Comments Off

Feb 072012

Obama WINS! Futile lawsuits are reasonably sure to follow, given these are Birthers we’re talking about, and the Birther movement is oddly flush with money this re-election year. (If you know where the bucks are coming from, please register at The Fogbow and tell us what you know.) But they will be a gaggle of Republicans, including a GOP county chair, suing the Georgia Secretary of State, a Republican, who will be defended by the State Attorney General, a Republican. Good luck, suckers. Obama’s outta here.

Today, Georgia Secretary of State Brian P. Kemp Adopted the Recommendation on February 3, by Administrative Law Judge Michael Malihi, of the Office of State Administrative Hearings, that Barack Obama, a citizen at birth, is a natural born citizen and eligible as a presidential candidate in the primary election.

Press Release:

Atlanta – Georgia Secretary of State Brian Kemp today issued his final decision on challenges contending that President Barack Obama does not meet the State of Georgia’s eligibility requirements for his name to be listed on the 2012 Presidential Preference Primary ballot.

Secretary Kemp stated, “After careful consideration of Administrative Law Judge Michael Malihi’s initial decision and all record evidence based on the criteria set forth in this process, I find that the Respondent, President Barack Obama, meets the State of Georgia’s eligibility requirements. President Barack Obama’s name shall remain on the Democratic Party’s 2012 Presidential Preference Primary ballot.”

In other words, screw the Birthers, yeah. And congrats to Mike Jablonski for the empty chair.

Tisdale v. Obama: VA Ballot Challenge–DISMISSED

Birthers, Citizenship, Election Laws, Elections: 2012, Lawsuits, Presidency Comments Off

Feb 062012

A little late on this one, which was Dismissed with Prejudice on January 24, by Judge John A. Gibney, Jr., in the US District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, Richmond Division. Charles Tisdale’s Motion for Injunction, against President Obama and Virginia elections officials, sought to bar Barack Obama, Mitt Romney and Ron Paul, (and mentioning Rick Santorum), from both the March 6 Primary ballot and the General Election ballot in November.

Additionally, Tisdale sought permanent changes in Virginia State Board of Elections practices, based on the two-parent natural born citizenship theory currently and prominently being hawked by the Vatellists of the Birther movement. In his Exhibits, Tisdale included a copy of the President’s long form birth certificate, though none for the other candidates, stipulating that President Obama was born in the United States.

In his Order, Judge Gibney wrote:

The eligibility requirements to be President of the United States are such that the individual must be a “natural born citizen” of the United States and at least thirty-five years of age. U.S. Const.art. II, 1. It is well settled that those born in the United States are considered natural born citizens. See, e.g., United States v. Ark, 169 U.S. 649, 702 (1898) (“Every person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, becomes at once a citizen of the United States.”)’ Perkis v. Elg, 99 F.2d 408, 409 (1938). Moreover, “those born ‘in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof,’ … have been considered American citizens under American law in effect since the time of the founding…and thus eligible for the presidency.” Hollander v. McCain, 566 F. Supp. 2d 63, 66 (D.N.H 2008). Thus, Mr. Tisdale’s contention that President Obama, Governor Romney, and Congressman Paul are not eligible to be President due to their nationalities is without merit.

In Ankeny v. Gov. of Indiana in 2009, which also cited Hollander v. McCain and United States v. Wong Kim Ark, it was found that:

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.

This past week, an Administrative Law Judge in Georgia cited the Indiana State Court ruling in his finding:

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. Id. at 688. This Court finds the decision and analysis of Arkeny [sic] persuasive. …

For the purposes of this analysis, this Court considered that President Barack Obama was born in the United States. Therefore, as discussed in Arkeny, he became a
citizen at birth and is a natural born citizen.

Ankeny had been cited by the Defense Attorney Mike Jablonski in a Motion to Dismiss filed in December.

In ballot challenge hearings at the Illinois State Board of Elections this past Friday:

Jackson v. Obama, 12 SOEB GP 104 (Jan. 27, 2012) (hearing officer recommendation) (Obama’s birth certificate “clearly establishes” his eligibility for office as a “Natural Born Citizen”), objection overruled (Ill. State Bd. of Elections, Feb. 3, 2012); Freeman v. Obama, 12 SOEB GP 103 (Jan. 27, 2012) (hearing officer recommendation) (Obama’s birth certificate “clearly establishes” his eligibility for office as a “Natural Born Citizen”), objection overruled (Ill. State Board of Elections, Feb. 3, 2012).

Considering that Ankeny alone involved four judges, adding the rest, we have quite a few judges who are declaring Barack Obama a natural born citizen. More to come, no doubt.

Furthermore, the Congressional Research Service has issued legal advisories to Members of Congress that:

The constitutional history and relevant case law thus indicate that one born “in” the United States, and subject to its jurisdiction, that is, when one’s parents are not official diplomatic personnel representing a foreign nation in the U.S., would be considered a U.S. citizen “at birth” or “by birth,” and thus a “natural born Citizen” of the United States, regardless of the citizenship status of that individual’s parents.

Give it up, Vattelists; you lose.

Anonymous Goes Birther?

Birthers, Citizenship, Video Comments Off

Jan 162012

No knowing if this is authentically an Anonymous release, but if it is, they are less informed than usual. If this video was done by a poseur, well, look out, Birthers, here comes Anonymous.

Natural Born Citizenship Requirement

Birthers, Citizenship, Congress, Presidency Comments Off

Nov 292011

Thanks to Doc Conspiracy, a recent report issued by the Congressional Research Service.

From the report, busting more than one favorite Birther balloon:

In addition to historical and textual analysis, numerous holdings and references in federal (and state) cases for more than a century have clearly indicated that those born in the United States and subject to its jurisdiction (i.e., not born to foreign diplomats or occupying military forces), even to alien parents, are citizens “at birth” or “by birth,” and are “natural born,” as opposed to“naturalized,” U.S. citizens. There is no provision in the Constitution and no controlling American case law to support a contention that the citizenship of one’s parents governs the eligibility of a native born U.S. citizen to be President. …

It may be noted that some have argued that the relevant common meaning of natural born citizen that was prevalent in 18th century America should not be the one that was actually applicable in the American colonies during that time from British statutory and common law, and which was adopted specifically by the states after independence in 1776 (and which, as noted by Justice Story, formed the “foundation” for American jurisprudence), but rather should be recognized as one derived from what has been described as a “philosophical treatise” on the law of nations by a Swiss legal philosopher in the mid-1700s. This particular treatise, however, in the editions available at the time of the drafting of the U.S. Constitution, did not actually use, either in the original French or in English interpretations at that time, the specific term “natural born citizens.” It was not until after the adoption of the Constitution in the United States did a translator interpret the French in Emmerich de Vattel’s Law of Nations to include, in English, the term “natural born citizens” for the first time, and thus that particular interpretation and creative translation of the French, to which the Vattel enthusiasts cite, could not possibly have influenced the framing of the Constitution in 1787.

Furthermore, and on a more basic level, the influence of the work of Vattel on the framers in employing the term “natural born” in relation to domestic citizenship within the Constitution is highly speculative at best, is without any direct historical evidence, and is contrary to the mainstream principles of constitutional interpretation and analysis within American jurisprudence. Although it appears that there is one single reference by one delegate at the Federal Convention of 1787 to Vattel (in reference to several works of different authors to support an argument for equal voting representation of the states in the proposed Congress), there is no other reference to the work in the entire notes of any of the framers published on the proceedings of the Federal Convention of 1787, and specifically there is no reference or discussion of the work at all in relation to citizenship at the Convention, in the Federalist Papers, or in any of the state ratifying conventions.

Full version on next page.
Continue reading »

Dumbest Article On Natural Born Citizenship Yet

Birthers, Citizenship, Right Wing Nutzoids Comments Off

Oct 242011

The Post & Email featured as “Blog of the Day” recently: WHAT WAS THE FOUNDERS’ DEFINITION OF “NATURAL BORN CITIZEN?”

Ballantine of The Fogbow responds:

It is somewhat funny that someone can write an article that is wrong in everything it says.

“The 1772 British Nationality Act declared children born of British subjects outside the ‘ligeance’ of the crown be natural born subjects;[1] and that is the law that we must apply (as would the framers) to Obama’s birth circumstances. In other words, the British deemed ‘citizenship by descent’ as superior to ‘otherwise than by descent,’ i.e., jus soli.”

Children born under such Act were only treated as British subjects if they move back to England. England did not claim they owed allegaince to England at birth and didn’t claim their allegaince against their native country. They were secondary British subjects that did not have all the rights on natural born subjects under the common law. No one in the founding period considered native born children of British subjects to be British subjects. And the notion that anyone ever thought we let foreign nations determine who are our citizens is just stupid and without the slightest authority to support it. Britain could have made everyone in America a British subject if it wanted. Duh!!

“In fact, the 1790 Uniform Naturalization Act, et seq 1855, defined minor children of aliens as U.S. citizens only upon naturalization of the father.”

They said no such thing. They provided for derivative citizenship for children of aliens who became naturalized. Obviously, native born citizens did not need to be naturalized and these statutes say nothing about the native born. All legal authority of the period said that only the foreign born could be naturalized, by defintiion. Such was said in the debates on naturalization in Congress, by the Supreme Court and by all legal scholars of the period. No court or legal authority ever said that a native born person could be naturalized.

“Similarly, the term of art appeared decisively in an 1875 Supreme Court holding, defining it ‘without doubt’ as children born of two U.S. citizens.”

What a twisting of words. It didn’t define it as “without doubt” being only children of citizens. The court said there was no doubt about one class of persons being natural born citizens. The court said there was some doubts (i.e., lact of certainty) about the citizenship of another class and declined to address it. Didn’t say they were talking about another type of citizenship other than natural born and in no way stated such doubts had merit. The court did say that they were talking about the common law of the founders which was of course the English common law. Of course, if the court looked at such common law, like the Wong Kim Ark court did, it would have concluded that it was jus soli. To say that Minor in anyway said that native born children of aliens were not natural born is simply a lie. Or perhaps these people just can’t read very well.

“Under U.S. law, a citizen at birth may be solely of U.S. citizenship, i.e., a natural born citizen, or a 14th Amendment citizen at birth as interpreted by Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1869).”

No, Wong Kim Ark said they mean the same thing. Have you ever seen people say a case says exactly the opposite of what it actually says?

“The second is ‘naturalized’ because even with Ark’s 14th Amendment, the alien nationality of one or both parents must be removed by application of the Aliens and Nationality Act, as revised after 1855.”

This is about as dumb a statement as I have seen yet. Neither of Wong Kim Ark’s parents had their alienage removed. In fact, under the law at the time, they could not become citizens. No legal authority since WKA has said one needs to have the alienage of any parent removed in order to become a citizen under the 14th Amendment which is why we have the anchor baby issue. And no one except the idiot Apuzzo has ever said a citizen at birth under the 14th amendment is naturalized.

“Nevertheless, Wong Kim Ark did not, nor could not, revise Article II’s natural born citizen clause, nor the common knowledge of the framers as to what constituted a natural born citizen, or what law created a British natural born subject if born on U.S. soil.”

It didn’t. It is the only court that definatively defined the term. Saying it was common knowledge that the framers had a different definition does not make it so as the birthers have yet to produce a single piece of evidence that anyone in the founding period used such definition. This may be the dumbest article yet on the subject.

CRS Upsets Birthers All Over Again

Birthers, Citizenship, Right Wing Nutzoids Comments Off

May 312011

The first Congressional Research Service legal advisory debunking Birtherism, dated April 3, 2009, Qualifications for the Office of President of the United States and Legal Challenges to the Eligibility of a Candidate, appeared on the Internet last November. It stated:

The constitutional history and relevant case law thus indicate that one born “in” the United States, and subject to its jurisdiction, that is, when one’s parents are not official diplomatic personnel representing a foreign nation in the U.S., would be considered a U.S. citizen “at birth” or “by birth,” and thus a “natural born Citizen” of the United States, regardless of the citizenship status of that individual’s parents.

A second CRS legal analysis, “Birth Certificates of Presidential Candidates and Standing to Challenge Eligibility,” was provided to inquiring Congress Members on March 18, 2010, and has now been discovered by the Birfistani. It states:

… all persons born ‘in’ the United States and subject to its jurisdiction are citizens of the United States ‘at birth.’ As such, any person physically born ‘in’ the United States, regardless of the citizenship status of one’s parents (unless such parents are foreign diplomatic personnel not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States) would appear to be a ‘natural born’ citizen eligible to be President of the United States.

A native-born citizen, therefore, is a natural-born citizen, and there is no parental citizenship requirement for presidential eligibility. Simple, right?

Wrong. From the Post & Email: Bombshell–blah blah blah, de Vattel.

The principle to be kept in mind is simply this: all natural born citizens are also native born citizens, but not all native born citizens are natural born citizens.

There is simply no cracking the Birther skull.

Here is the second legal memo in full:

Birth Certificates of Presidential Candidates and Standing to Challenge Eligibility

Debunking Corsi – Natural Born/English Common Law

Birthers, Books, Citizenship Comments Off

May 302011

Read at Native and Natural Born Citizenship Explored.

Page 1 of 8 1 2 3 … 7 8 Older Entries