Joe Arpaio's "Birther" Investigation Results Show to Be Streamed Live on Conspiracy Website

doitlive.jpg
weknowmemes.com
The results show for Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio's "birther" investigation into President Obama's eligibility is apparently so important that it's going to be steamed live on a conspiracy-theory website.

That's right -- World Net Daily, which has been the mouthpiece for the latest inquiry into the repeatedly debunked conspiracy theory, is going to deliver the embarrassment live to anyone willing to watch.

The sheriff's office previously confirmed that Arpaio's judgment day for Obama is March 1, and all Arpaio has told New Times is that the key to the "investigation" could be Hawaiian twins and microfiche, which you can read about by clicking here.

World Net Daily founder Joseph Farah announced the live-streaming plans yesterday, and is also urging people to sign up for a mailing list to receive the "official report distributed to media by Arpaio's 'Cold Case Posse.'"

Farah, along with fellow conspiracy theorist and World Net Daily contributor Jerome Corsi, are the same ones who were seeking donations to fund the posse's "investigation" -- funds which also went to the World Net Daily/book-sale fund for a free copy of Corsi's "birther" literature.

Arpaio said earlier this week that he took on the "investigation" into Obama's eligibility to be president because he was "doing him a favor" by intending to clear his name.

The sheriff reiterated that he takes his job as sheriff "very seriously," and said he's not headlining the birth-certificate results show just for some media attention.

"I don't have press conferences just to get my name on television," Arpaio said, as we chuckled. "When i have a press conference, I talk about something."

Arpaio hasn't caved in to a few more attempts by New Times to get some hints about what he'll reveal during the results show, so it looks like we'll all just be on pins and needles until next week.

If you just need to get on that mailing list for the Obama eligibility report, click here.


Sponsor Content

My Voice Nation Help
292 comments
a
a

Sorry, but your understanding of how numbers are assigned is wrong. Here is a screen shot of Stig Waidelich's Hawaiian COLB, he was born after the President and before the Nordyke twins (August 5th in a.m.) http://nativeborncitizen.files... His cert # is 10920 and the date filed is 8/8/61. Here are the numbers we know now: Ah’Nee   –     09945              –         August 23rd,  Accepted/Filed August 24thNordyke, Susan    –    10637    –     August 5th, Accepted/Filed August 11thNordyke, Gretchen    – 10638  - August 5th, Accepted/Filed August 11th Obama, Barack   –    10641    –       August 4th, Accepted/Filed August 8thWaidelich, Stig    –   10920   –         August 5th, Accepted/Filed August 8thSunahara, Virginia    -   11080   -     August 4th, Accepted/Filed August 10th

Waidelich is also listed in the birth announcements four above President Obama.

SANDY
SANDY

You probably have already read the e-mail that I received re:  birth certificate.  Kenya was listed on BC as father's country, but Kenya didn't exist until 1963.  Also, the hospital listed was never named what the BC showed until 1978. 

Normanzx
Normanzx

 Well, the trailer park trash will have 4 more years of a black president for their brains to process it, I hope they don't end up loosing their minds!

Anon
Anon

Is Corsi Italian Mafia?  Is arpaio Italian?  At 80 something, whose era did he come out of us. He's certainly out of touch with the 21st century. Just wondering ....

Anon
Anon

if the sheriff wants to go after "birther" issues, he needs to look in his own backyard and the officials "controlling" the state of Arizona.

Midnight
Midnight

Between 2003 and 2008, there have been 8 proposals in Congress by sponsors and cosponsors trying to remove, or redefine natural born Citizen as a requirement to be President. In each effort, it was done so with the purpose of broadening the pool of candidates who would be eligible. The nbC requirement even was debated before it was included in the qualification. At first, you only had to be a citizen, whether naturalized at birth or some point later in life. John Jay made the point that if someone were born with foreign jurisdiction over them as derived from a parent as a foreign national at time of birth, that that person could be compelled by their foreign parent's nation to fight against the U.S. and for that for nation. Or they could legally force that President to join say the British army when they step foot in that nation against a war with the U.S.. This is the rationale for why a person had to be born without any foreign jurisdiction over them. Unfortunately for Obama, his father was a UKC (United Kingdom Colony) citizen to England as covered by the British Nationality Act of 1948 and respected by the U.S. at that time of birth.

Whenever you see terms include natural, such as natural rights, natural born Citizen, those are self evident and require no legal recognition, nor can they be redefined or removed by positive law attempting to usurp natural condition of derivation. So natural law applies where natural terms are used, and positive law applies elsewhere that legal recognition is required.

Matthew H. Owens
Matthew H. Owens

Yes and there seems to be many of these seemingly low intellect people who continue to keep the kooks in place in this state.  Some days... actually most days I really miss the illegals and wish that the kooks would have all moved to Honduras with Nickel Bag Joe.  Perhaps he will start a commune down there for all the like minded supporters of his, a veritable Sun City in lovely Honduras.  I am sure they can cheaply hire all the out of work narcos that he has never been able to catch, perhaps put them to work as security?

Matthew H. Owens
Matthew H. Owens

Oh that is just so HILARIOUS.  Nickel Bag Joe, and his "Cold Case" posse...   What sort of cool aide are they drinking over thar???  I want some, so I can tolerate all this B.S. that is going on in this state.   You can't spell CRAZY in AZ without R-AZ!  That is for sure.

Midnight
Midnight

Chester A. Arthur was seated as President when Garfield had been killed. However, years after he sat as President, it was found that his nativity story was false, and that he lied about his status as his father was a foreign national at the time of Chester's birth. So Chester burned his early family documents hoping to cover his lies. He claimed the records burned accidentally in a fire, couldn't find them, and fought hard to keep those records sealed.

MidnightRacer
MidnightRacer

"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;"Legal construct of this positive law clause for eligibility is specific to natural born Citizen, and excludes all others. All others would be all categories of citizens under the U.S. Code, 8 USC § 1401 - NATIONALS AND CITIZENS OF UNITED STATES AT BIRTH, which lists all variations of persons born to at least one foreign national parent.

The specific qualification "natural born Citizen" is categorically not included in the above U.S. Code, for the sole reason that positive law cannot enact the condition of natural law. A natural born Citizen (natural law) is not a naturalized one (positive) – see above U.S. Code for list (native born citizen is one). the U.S. Code above legally, artificially grants a legal recognition of citizenship by enactment of the 14th Amendment. The 14th Amendment was only possible to enact given the sole power of Congress for naturalization as defined by the U.S. Constitution. In no way does Congress have the power to grant status of natural born Citizen. If you are a citizen under U.S. Code, 8 USC § 1401, you are such by positive law, and you are not a natural born Citizen, but instead a native born citizen. The eligibility clause specifically requires a natural born Citizen (natural law), and excludes a native born citizen (positive law).

Midnight
Midnight

Obama claims, and the birth certificates of the Nordyke twins shows a problem with the certificate number for Obama.

Here are the birth days and time in chronological order:

Barack ObamaAugust 04, 1961 at 7:24 pm with CERTIFICATE # 61 10641August 08, 1961 filed with the registrar 

Race of Father: African

Susan NordykeAugust 05, 1961 at 2:12 pm with CERTIFICATE # 151 61 10637August 11, 1961 filed with the registrar 

Gretchen NordykeAugust 05, 1961 at 2:17 pm with CERTIFICATE # 151 61 10638August 11, 1961 filed with the registrar It's obvious that Obama's claimed birth and filing with registrar was well before the twins. If you understand how many babies are born, then the number of certificate number of Obama's should be well before theirs, but it's actually after theirs. The filing at registrars has a 3 day difference, and Obama was supposedly born before.But the greatest problem with Obama's claimed birth certificates, short and long form, is where it indicates the following:Father's Race or Race of Father: AfricanAs you all know, Africa is a continent. You will not find any birth certificate which lists a continent as a race. If anyone understands government record keeping, you know how intricate and complex coding can be. In 1961, the government required a coding system for vital statistics. In that, the available codes (1961 Vital Statistics Instruction Manual (VSIM)) for race are as follows:0 Guamian1 White2 Negro3 Indian4 Chinese5 Japanese6 Hawaiian7 Other Nonwhite8 Filipino9 Not StatedAgain, you will never see listed on a valid U.S. birth certificate a continent as race, since continent refers to geography, not vital statistics, nor ethnicity or race.

a
a

Where in Jay's letter does he mention parents?

How about when we see the term natural born subject?

a
a

Funny, if he was so afraid of the truth why is his father's naturalization papers included in his Presidential papers in the Library of Congress.  The date of August 31st, 1843 is clear.

Why didn't President Arthur destroy this critical piece of evidence?

Jim
Jim

That is a bunch of hogwash.  As the board told Orly in Indiana  "we're all attorneys here and we're pretty sure we know what natural born citizen means", and dude, you ain't got a clue!  

a
a

Sorry but your understanding of how numbers are assigned is wrong. Here is a screen shot of Stig Waidelich's Hawaiian COLB, he was born after the President and before the Nordyke twins (August 5th in a.m.) http://nativeborncitizen.files... His cert # is 10920 and the date filed is 8/8/61. Here are the numbers we know now: Ah’Nee – 09945 – August 23rd, Accepted/Filed August 24thNordyke, Susan – 10637 – August 5th, Accepted/Filed August 11thNordyke, Gretchen – 10638 – August 5th, Accepted/Filed August 11th Obama, Barack – 10641 – August 4th, Accepted/Filed August 8thWaidelich, Stig – 10920 – August 5th/Accepted/Filed August 8thSunahara, Virginia* - 11080 - August 4th, Accepted/Filed August 10th

Also the father's race is self reported and the available codes you list are not from the 1961 VSIM. In 1961, the National Center for Health Statistics used nine different designations for race on birth certificates, 1 – White 2 – Negro 3 – American Indian 4 – Chinese 5 – Japanese 6 – Aleut 7 – Eskimo 8 – Hawaiian and Part-Hawaiian (combined) 9 – other nonwhite

The code next to the father's race is 9 or other nonwhite.

Midnight
Midnight

So then you know the history that being a native born citizen was not sufficient in that they then proposed a tighter limitation in applying natural born Citizen.

Natural born subject relates to England at that time, where a person whose parents were British subjects conferred to their children the same. Here, you need to understand the difference between subject and citizen, whereas subject is without soveriengty and citizen is sovereign. Difference of rule versus independence.

Midnight
Midnight

Much like Chester Arthur's circumstance, Obama claims his father as Barack Obama Sr., who has always been a foreign national. When Obama was born, he was born with dual allegiance, one to his father (see British Nationality Act of 1948, Obama Jr. was born a UKC citizen since the U.S. had an agreement to respect England's laws), and one to his mother. This means Obama fits into the categories of citizen listed in U.S. Code, 8 USC § 1401, or in other words a Fourteenth Amendment citizen as a subject of Congress in it's only Constitutional power to naturalize citizens, here automatically at birth. If Obama's father had naturalized before his birth, then Obama would be a natural born Citizen. But Obama Sr. had to leave Harvard and return to Kenya. Obama Jr. was born a UKC citizen

Before they got rid of Obama's support website FightTheSmears, it once stated for fact the following:

“When Barack Obama Jr. was born on Aug. 4,1961, in Honolulu, Kenya was a British colony, still part of the United Kingdom’s dwindling empire. As a Kenyan native, Barack Obama Sr. was a British subject whose citizenship status was governed by The British Nationality Act of 1948. That same act governed the status of Obama Sr.‘s children.Since Sen. Obama has neither renounced his U.S. citizenship nor sworn an oath of allegiance to Kenya, his Kenyan citizenship automatically expired on Aug. 4,1982.”My comment: did you read that, "That same act governed the status of Obama Sr.‘s children."That should perfectly close this matter.

Midnight
Midnight

Chester A. Arthur was born Oct 5, 1829. So when his father was naturalized, Chester was 13 years old. This obviously means that when Chester was born, his father was a foreign national, and it meant Chester was born with dual allegiance, one to country you're born in, and possibly one to his father's nation where his father owed allegiance.

Do you agree, or disagree?

Midnight
Midnight

If it's hogwash, post how. When you quote someone without showing the flaw of my argument, just because they are a lawyer who refuse to refute as well by saying "we all know what X is", it's called an appeal to authority, a logical fallacy.

You concede the argument when you refuse to refute the points I've made.

In fact, you cannot claim that the natural and positive law equate. You cannot claim that categories of citizen under 8 USC § 1401 include natural born Citizen, because it does not. You cannot claim Congress, by way of the 14th Amendment has any other power beyond naturalization.

Midnight
Midnight

forgot to post the most important, third paragraph of that:

Blackstone's CommentariesWhen I say, that an alien is one who is born out of the king's dominions, or allegiance, this also must be understood with some restrictions. The common law indeed stood absolutely so; with only a very few exceptions: so that a particular act of parliament became necessary after the restoration, for the naturalization of children of his majesty's English subjects, born in foreign countries during the late troubles. And this maxim of the law proceeded upon a general principle, that every man owes natural allegiance where he is born, and cannot owe two such allegiances, or serve two masters, at once. Yet the children of the king's ambassadors born abroad were always held to be natural subjects: for as the father, though in a foreign country, owes not even a local allegiance to the prince to whom he is sent; so, with regard to the son also, he was held (by a kind of postliminium) to be born under the king of England's allegiance, represented by his father, the ambassador. To encourage also foreign commerce, it was enacted by statute 25 Edw. III. st. 2. that all children born abroad, provided both their parents were at the time of the birth in allegiance to the king, and the mother had passed the seas by her husband's consent, might inherit as if born in England: and accordingly it hath been so adjudged in behalf of merchants. But by several more modern statutes these restrictions are still farther taken off: so that all children, born out of the king's ligeance, whose fathers were natural-born subjects, are now natural-born subjects themselves, to all intents and purposes, without any exception; unless their said fathers were attainted, or banished beyond sea, for high treason; or were then in the service of a prince at enmity with Great Britain.

Midnight
Midnight

The problem with people putting faith in a states' legislature's acts as being correct has over time shown to be less than valid as states legislate, and the judiciary reviews. During slavery, several states legislated that one human owned another since the reasoning applied was that that a slave was property. Of course, that was flawed given that no one could be the subject of another as declared in the Declaration of Independence "all men are create equate", "unalienable rights", etc. The era of subjects ended.

Midnight
Midnight

While that may be your opinion, in the references you cited above, they treated the two as singular (separate) subjects in the grammatical construction. There, they identify two separate categories which one category will now have, by legal recognition, the same rights (etc.) as another category. I'm sure you see the grammatical separation of distinct subjects there.

Midnight
Midnight

Then they are incorrect. One is a sovereign (NBC), the other is a subject (NBS). There are no natural born subjects in the U.S.A.. When the Declaration of Independence declared natural law and sovereignty of the people to no longer be ruled over by a King, and that they have the self evident natural rights to life, liberty, happiness, etc., it declared and end to ruled subjects, and replaced it with the free individual. But I think you're aware of this. The term natural born subject was create over in England under the King's rule to tie a person and their children to the King's rule whether they be born on soil or to a father who was a subject of the King. When the framers crafted the term natural born Citizen as a qualification for President, they did so to create the strongest check against foreign influence (you know this). So what is the strongest check? A person born to citizen parents who have absolutely no allegiance to any foreign sovereign (monarchy/nation). I'm guessing you're also familiar with the British Nationality Act of 1948 which governed Obama Sr's children, namely Obama Jr.. So here's a little reference to subjects (Obama was born a UKC subject).

Here's a little reading:

Blackstone's Commentaries

The first and most obvious division of the people is into aliens and natural-born subjects. Natural-born subjects are such as are born within the dominions of the crown of England, that is, within the ligeance, or as it is generally called, the allegiance of the king; and aliens, such as are born out of it. Allegiance is the tie, or ligamen, which binds the subject to the king, in return for that protection which the king affords the subject. The thing itself, or substantial part of it, is founded in reason and the nature of government; the name and the form are derived to us from our Gothic ancestors.

Allegiance, both express and implied, is however distinguished by the law into two sorts or species, the one natural, the other local; the former being also perpetual, the latter temporary. Natural allegiance is such as is due from all men born within the king's dominions immediately upon their birth. For, immediately upon their birth, they are under the king's protection; at a time too, when (during their infancy) they are incapable of protecting themselves.

a
a

You are missing the point - they used the terms natural born citizen and natural born subject interchangeably.  The two terms were synonymous to the legislature of Massachusetts.

Midnight
Midnight

In all of your above citations, it ends with the following:

“shall be deemed, adjudged, and taken to be citizens of this Commonwealth, and entitled to all the liberties, rights and privileges of natural born citizens.”

You do realize that, grammatically, the sentence states that one has the same  liberties, rights and privileges as the other. This is basic grammatical construction. I can understand why you made the mistake of thinking they are interchangeable, but you overlook the two separate subjects; 1)naturalized citizen, 2) natural born citizen, are stated as having the same rights. It states they are citizens by naturalization, and now have the same rights as natural born citizens who are not naturalized.

For example, if the legislatures (states) one day legislate that all civil unions have the same rights as married couples, it would be written as the following:

“shall be deemed, adjudged, and taken to be a civil union, and entitled to all the liberties, rights and privileges of a married union.”

But the two are distinct and exclusive of the other.

just saying... hope you realize

a
a

Maybe you could explain the difference between NBC and NBS to the Massachusetts legislature.  They used both terms interchangeably between 1785 and 1791 in their acts of naturalization.

In February, 1785, the Massachusetts legislature passed “AN ACT FOR NATURALIZING NICHOLAS ROUSSELET AND GEORGE SMITH.” in which it was declared that Nicholas Rousselet and George Smith “shall be deemed, adjudged, and taken to be citizens of this Commonwealth, and entitled to all the liberties, rights and privileges of natural born citizens.”

In February, 1786, the legislature passed “AN ACT FOR NATURALIZING MICHAEL WALSH.” in which it was declared that Michael Walsh “shall be deemed, adjudged, and taken to be a citizen of this Commonwealth, and entitled to all the liberties, rights and privileges of a natural born citizen.”

In July, 1786, the legislature passed “AN ACT FOR NATURALIZING JONATHAN CURSON AND WILLIAM OLIVER” in which it was declared that Jonathan Curson and William Oliver “shall be deemed adjudged and taken to be free Citizens of this Commonwealth, and entitled to all the liberties, privileges and immunities of natural born citizens."

In March, 1787, the legislature passed “AN ACT FOR NATURALIZING WILLIAM MARTIN AND OTHERS.” in which it was declared that William Martin and others,”shall be deemed, adjudged and taken to be free Citizens of this Commonwealth, and entitled to all the liberties, privileges and immunities of natural born subjects.”

In May, 1787, the legislature passed “AN ACT FOR NATURALIZING EDWARD WYER AND OTHERS THEREIN NAMED.” in which it was declared that William Martin and Others,”shall be deemed, adjudged and taken, to be free Citizens of this Commonwealth, and entitled to all the liberties, privileges and immunities of natural born subjects.”

In October, 1787, the legislature passed “AN ACT FOR NATURALIZING BARTHOLOMY DE GREGOIRE, AND MARIA THERESA, HIS WIFE, AND THEIR CHILDREN.” in which it was declared that Bartholomy de Gregoire, and Maria Theresa, his wife, their children,”shall be deemed, adjudged and taken to be free Citizens of this Commonwealth, and entitled to all the liberties, rights and privileges of natural born citizens.”

In November, 1787, the legislature passed “AN ACT FOR NATURALIZING ALEXANDER MOORE, AND OTHERS, HEREIN NAMED.” in which it was declared that Alexander Moore and others,”shall be deemed, adjudged and taken to be free citizens of this Commonwealth, & entitled to all the privileges, liberties, and immunities of natural born subjects.”

In June, 1788, the legislature passed, “AN ACT FOR NATURALIZING WILLIAM MENZIES, AND OTHERS, THEREIN NAMED.” in which it was declared that William Menzies and others “shall be deemed, adjudged and taken to be free citizens of this Commonwealth, and intitled to all the liberties, privileges & immunities of natural born subjects.”

In November, 1788, the legislature passed, "AN ACT FOR NATURALIZING ELISHA BOURN, AND OTHERS, THEREIN NAMED.” in which it was declared that Elisha Bourn and others “shall be deemed, adjudged and taken to be free Citizens of this Commonwealth, & entitled to all the liberties, privileges & immunities of natural born Citizens.”

In February, 1789, the legislature passed, “AN ACT FOR NATURALIZING JAMES HUYMAN, AND OTHERS, THEREIN NAMED.” in which it was declared that James Huyman and others “shall be deemed, adjudged and taken to be free Citizens of this Commonwealth, and entitled to all the Liberties, Privileges and Immunities of natural born subjects.”

In June, 1789, the legislature passed, “AN ACT FOR NATURALIZING NATHANIEL SKINNER, AND OTHERS, THEREIN NAMED.” in which it was declared that Nathaniel Skinner and others “shall be deemed, adjudged and taken to be free citizens of this Commonwealth, and entitled to all the liberties, privileges and immunities of natural born subjects.”

In March, 1790, the legislature passed “AN ACT FOR NATURALIZING JOHN JARVIS, AND OTHERS, THEREIN NAMED” in which it was declared that John Jarvis and others, “shall be deemed adjudged and taken to be free citizens of this Commonwealth, and entitled to all the liberties, privileges and immunities of natural born subjects.”

In March, 1791, the legislature passed “AN ACT FOR NATURALIZING JOHN WHITE & OTHERS" in which it was declared that John White and others, “shall be deemed adjudged and taken, to be free citizens of this Commonwealth, and intitled to all the liberties, privileges, and immunities of natural born subjects.”

The two terms are used in the same type of legilation, same context and same language.

But I'm sure you understand the difference better than they did.

Midnight
Midnight

Why don't you explain the history of proposals to the eligibility clause, since you want people to think you understand it. Present, if you dare.

a
a

You missed the 1974 effort by Congressman Bingham.

These were for the most part are attempts to allow naturalized citizens to be President.  Only one of them is an attempt to redefine the term "natural born".  So I fail to see any relevance to them.  Other then that they are attempts to allow Arnold Schwarzenegger or Jennifer Granholm the opportunity to be President.

a
a

Please don't tell me you going to give me Alexander Hamilton's June 18th, 1787 draft constitution with it's "born a citizen" clause?

Because that would be incredible ignorant of you.

Midnight
Midnight

(natural born Citizen will be abbreviated to nbC)

You might also find it interesting that beginning in 2003 and through 2008, members of both political parties have engaged in trying to remove or change the natural born citizen requirement for President. I'll list them for you:H.J.R 59, June 11, 2003: "Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to permit persons who are not natural-born citizens of the United States, but who have been citizens of the United States for at least 35 years, to be eligible to hold the offices of President and Vice President."H.J.R 59, September 3, 2003: (same as above except 20 years)S.2128, February 25, 2004: (Natural Born Citizen Act tries to legally define it with positive law, which you cannot since it is natural derivation)H.J.R 104, September 15, 2004: "Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to make eligible for the Office of President a person who is not a natural born citizen of the United States but has been a United States citizen for at least 20 years."H.J.R. 2, Jan 4, 2005: (tries to remove nbC and make someone who is at least 20 years old eligible)H.J.R. 15, Feb 1, 2005: (another attempt of same above)H.J.R. 42, April 14, 2005: (another attempt at removing nbC from qualification)S.2678, Feb 28, 2008: (tries to apply positive law to prepare the grounds to legally define nbC as a legally recognized nbC)S.R.511, April 10, 2008: (Senate vote unanimous 99-0 legislatively declares McCain a nbC by positive law granting what is a natural condition, i.e. the right to breath air)

Midnight
Midnight

If you're interested, I can provide you with the initial proposals to the qualifications before when they thought merely a citizen should be the qualified, then changed it to limit the President eligibility to an even higher standard by requiring one to be a natural born citizen due to concerns of foreign influence and jurisdiction. In the above citations of yours to Jackson and Arthur, you claim that England had jurisdiction over those two men. Obviously, this is the reason John Jay wrote his famous letter to include the higher limitation on eligibility to be a natural born Citizen in order to avoid foreign jurisdiction issues as Commander-in-Chief. It's actually pretty interesting history, and debate before they finally nailed down the limited requirement for President.

a
a

The Constitution does not prohibit someone having dual citizenship from being President.

President Theodore Roosevelt, in his book "Fear God and Take Your Own Part", stated that due to their dual citizenship both Presidents Andrew Jackson and Chester Arthur could be impressed into the British military should they ever visit England.

And point is that President Arthur did not try to hide his father's nationality.

Midnight
Midnight

Wishful thinking on your part. The two singular subjects are separate by the grammatical disjunctive "or". If you remember your English grammar, you will understand that a disjunctive "or" indicates separate subjects, and in this case clearly states that native born citizen is categorically different and separate from natural born citizen. It's basic grammar. Here, I'll post another phrase from U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, Interpretation 324.2:

"The effect of naturalization under the above statutes was not to erase the previous period of alienage, but to restore the person to the status if naturalized, native, or natural-born citizen, as determined by her status prior to loss."

Here, we see the disjunction "or" used again separating the distinct categories of citizens, and clearly showing native and natural are distinctly separate.

Has nothing to do with liberal views. This is grammar.

Midnight
Midnight

last line should include "not"; as in who are not natural born citizens.

Congress can only act to ensure that all states admit citizens uniformly, which is through naturalization. The Fourteenth Amendment is the exercise of Congress's only enumerate power which the states must follow.

Midnight
Midnight

"Article I, section 8, clause 4 of the United States Constitution expressly gives theUnited States Congress the power to establish a uniform rule of naturalization."The powers given by the people to Congress by the Constitution are enumerated powers, meaning the only powers Congress has. The above is the only power, of naturalization. It limits Congress. Congress cannot legislate who is and is not a natural born Citizen. Congress can only establish a uniform rule to grant citizenship to those who are natural born Citizens.

Jim
Jim

BWAHAHAHA!!!   Show me where it says that anywhere in the law or constitution.  You and your natural law BS.  You are granted your citizenship by law, and congress has the power to say who is or is not a citizen...and they have for well over 2 hundred years.  There are 2 types of citizens in this country, born or naturalized, as per SCOTUS.  So get back on your meds before they have to put you back in that straight jacket.

a
a

It is not a question of famous or not.  It is a question of what the words meant to them.  These are lawyers, are you saying they don't understand the meaning ot native born/natural born?

To understand the Constitution you have to understand the menaings of the words they used.

Or as Justice Scalia wrote,

"What I look for in the Constitution is precisely what I look for in a statute:  the original meaning of the text, not what the original draftsmen intended” (A Matter of Interpretation, Federal Courts and the Law, 1997)

a
a

Yes, the Federal Government takes a very liberal view of citizenship.  The document shows that they believe people born outside the US to citizens are "natural born".

You see native born people are automatically natural born, but a natural born person (like Senator McCain) is not necessarily native born.

MidnightRacer
MidnightRacer

The eligibility for President is so limited that both political parties have either tried to remove natural born Citizen or legally redefine a natural condition. They attempted to remove or change it in the following from 2003 to 2008:

H.J.R 59, June 11, 2003: "Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to permit persons who are not natural-born citizens of the United States, but who have been citizens of the United States for at least 35 years, to be eligible to hold the offices of President and Vice President."H.J.R 59, September 3, 2003: (same as above except 20 years)S.2128, February 25, 2004: (Natural Born Citizen Act tries to legally define it with positive law, which you cannot since it is natural derivation)H.J.R 104, September 15, 2004: "Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to make eligible for the Office of President a person who is not a natural born citizen of the United States but has been a United States citizen for at least 20 years."H.J.R. 2, Jan 4, 2005: (tries to remove nbC and make someone who is at least 20 years old eligible)H.J.R. 15, Feb 1, 2005: (another attempt of same above)H.J.R. 42, April 14, 2005: (another attempt at removing nbC from qualification)S.2678, Feb 28, 2008: (tries to apply positive law to prepare the grounds to legally define nbC as a legally recognized nbC)S.R.511

Midnight
Midnight

Life happiness and the pursuit of prosperity are the basis for the DoI. These truths are self evident, you recall that. Congress is limited by the Constitution in the first 10 amendments known as the Bill of Rights. None of those grant anything to the people, but instead limits government from encroaching on those natural rights, this is natural law, the basic protection sworn by every court in our nation to protect these natural rights under natural law. You still don't want to educate yourself on the difference between natural law and positive law, and assume the government grants your status as natural born citizen, when in fact it cannot, since that is a natural condition derived from parentage.

Midnight
Midnight

Thank you for your concession. The point of debate is to present you point and counterpoint in a reasoned and logical exchange. I've supported mine with reason and sources, you've resorted to ad hominem attacks and appeal to authority. It stands as it does. You've shown your ignorance of the Declaration of Independence being the first time a nation has declared that natural law cannot be encroached upon by positive law in their rebellion against the King of England's common law and autocracy.

Jim
Jim

Sorry, you haven't a clue what you're talking about.  And every court in the land would laugh you right out the door if you tried to bring that BS before them.  Back to you meds.

Jim
Jim

Well, Midnight, whatever your delusions are...the courts, the constitution and the laws do not agree with you.  And whether you like it or not, the laws of the land are what grant you citizenship, not some made-up BS from a meth-head.  So keep telling yourself you think you got something and the courts will keep telling you to get help!

Midnight
Midnight

btw, did you read my source, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, Interpretation 324.2? It clearly distinguishes for you the separating categories of natural and native on an official basis.

Midnight
Midnight

You said, "I'm merely pointing out that St. George Tucker and James Kent believed that natural born and native born meant the same thing.

Now should I believe two of the best legal minds of the of the late 18th and early 19th centuries?"

Are you familiar with an appeal to authority. Believing an opinion for the fame of that person does not establish the logic of a conclusory opinion without context. I'll explain. If Joe Smith was born to two U.S. citizen parents, Joe would be both a natural born citizen who also by nature of his birth on soil is simultaneously a native born citizen as well. However, if Joe Smith was born to same two U.S. citizen parents in say neutral Antarctica under no foreign nation's jurisdiction, then Joe would be a natural born Citizen (derived through parents' citizenship), but he would not be a native born citizen. If Joe Smith was born of at least one foreign national as a parent (and history usually spoke of a foreign father), then he could be a native born citizen, but not a natural born citizen – due to a lack of natural derivation of citizenship which means a person could be nothing other than the derived quality of parents' unity of citizenship.

Native American (continent) indians were obviously born on soil in North America, but the parents were not under the jurisdiction of the U.S.A., so they were not even a citizen due to lack of jus sanguinis. If a native indian male were to have a son with a U.S. citizen woman, it would need legal recognition to be a citizen.

The difference is natural law versus a need for positive law. A person born to two citizen parents derive its natural citizenship without need of legal recognition, it's naturally derived, thus the term natural born Citizen. If you are a native born citizen, it is only through a granting of citizenship through the act of Congress enacting the Fourteenth Amendment to legally recognize you as such; see 8 USC § 1401 – if your birth circumstance is listed here, you are legally recognize by positive law. If you need positive law to grant your status, it means it was not through natural law, or natural derivation.

a
a

"You would be incorrect. In no way can you equate native born citizen and natural born citizen."

I'm not equating anything.  I'm merely pointing out that St. George Tucker and James Kent believed that natural born and native born meant the same thing.

Now should I believe two of the best legal minds of the of the late 18th and early 19th centuries?

I know let's ask James Iredell, what he thinks,

"No man but a native, or who has resided fourteen years in America, can be chosen President." (North Carolina Debates on the Constiution, July 30th, 1788)

So do you agree with St. James Tucker, James Kent and James iredell?

Midnight
Midnight

You would be incorrect. In no way can you equate native born citizen and natural born citizen. I'll send you a source in the government which I hope will clear this up for you.

U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, Interpretation 324.2:"The words "shall be deemed to be a citizen of the United States to the same extent as though her marriage to said alien had taken place on or after September 22, 1922", as they appeared in the 1936 and 1940 statutes, are prospective and restore the status of native-born or natural-born citizen (whichever existed prior to the loss) as of the date citizenship was reacquired."

English grammar when using the either/or terms separate as two distinct subject (grammatical term is two singular subjects). For example: Mary or Joe (whoever showed up) picked up Bob from the airport. Apples or oranges, etc.

Also, in countries around the world, a native born person isn't necessarily a citizen, but would need to be legally recognized as such. Even in the U.S., before the Fourteenth Amendment, a native born person whose parent (1) was a foreign national, had to be legally recognized as a citizen. All this requires a legal act. A person born to two citizen parents need no legal recognition, act, or legislation to be the only thing they can be through derivation, naturally. This is why there is a distinction between natural and native. This is why North American "Indians" who were born on this continent's soil, but were not under the jurisdiction of the U.S. could not possibly be even a regular citizen.

a
a

To the Founders natural born and native born were synonymous.  They could have used either term and it would have meant the exact same thing.

"That provision in the constitution which requires that the president shall be a native-born citizen (unless he were a citizen of the United States when the constitution was adopted,) is a happy means of security against foreign influence, which, wherever it is capable of being exerted, is to be dreaded more than the plague."St. George Tucker (View of the Constitution of the United States, 1803).

"The Constitution requires  that the President shall be a natural-born citizen, or a citizen of the United States at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, and that he shall have attained to the age of thirty-five years, and shall have been fourteen years a resident within the United States. Considering the greatness of the trust, and that this department is the ultimately efficient executive power in government, these restrictions will not appear altogether useless or unimportant. As the President is required to be a native citizen of the United States, ambitious foreigners cannot intrigue for the office, and the qualification of birth cuts off all those inducements from abroad to corruption"  James Kent, Commentaries on American Laws

BTW, the courts do not agree with you.

"No one disputes that Marguet-Pillado’s requested instruction was “an accurate statement of the law,” in that it correctly stated the two circumstances in which an individual born in 1968 is a natural-born United States citizen: (1) that the person was born in the United States or (2) born outside the United States to a biologically-related United States citizen parent who met certain residency requirements.” Ninth Curcuit Court of Appeals, United States v. Marguet-Pillado

“It is well settled that those born in the United States are considered natural born citizens”. United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, Tisdale v. Obama

Only have to be born in the United States to be considered natural born.

Midnight
Midnight

You said, "This is a country of laws and your natural laws crap have nothing to do with the laws of this country".

The Declaration of Independence in its essence is the fist time a revolution occurred citing Natural law as the basis for independence against the rule of the King of England who applied positive law upon his subjects who lacked individual sovereignty. 

If you claim to know what this country is all about, and you state natural law is nonsense, you've just conceded ignorance.

Natural law is the basis for freedom, which is a person's natural sovereignty – something which cannot be legislate or enacted, but occurs outside of artificial legal fabrication. Positive law can be passed and enacted, or repealed and removed – and so it is codified in U.S. Code. Natural law cannot be legally recognized since it is exclusive of legal construction. This is why you will not find the category natural born Citizen under  8 USC § 1401, but instead a person granted the privilege of naturalized citizen at birth to at least one foreign national parent as listed in the categories.

If you disavow natural law, then you don't understand the Declaration of Independence as a prelude to the Constitution's backbone.

Jim
Jim

No you haven't proven anything.  You've just made something up and hope nobody notices.  Nothing you say is logical or is it even applicable to the Constitution or laws of this country.  You just throw crap out and hope something sticks...but it just blows back in your face!  This is a country of laws and your natural laws crap have nothing to do with the laws of this country.  So, like I said, time to get back on your medication and maybe you'll naturally get healthy again so someone can have an intelligent conversation with you.

Midnight
Midnight

If you're confused as to my post (calling it gibberish), I'll put it in plain terms.

A natural born Citizen occurs under natural circumstances, i.e. a person born to 2 parents with the same national citizenship can only be that nation's citizen (natural law).

A native born Citizen before the 14th Amendment was not a citizen by birth alone, but needed legal recognition to be automatically naturalized at birth. The 14th Amendment makes anyone born in the U.S. to at least one foreign national a native born citizen by law (positive law). Tomorrow, Congress and the states could easily repeal the 14th Amendment, and those born in the U.S. to at least one foreign national will no longer be U.S. citizens.

This is the difference between natural and native born citizens. Congress can never take away the natural condition of the person born to two citizen parents, but could take it away from a native born citizen.

Midnight
Midnight

That would be an ad hominem; another fallacy refusing to counter a point.

I've already proven my point. The qualification is natural born Citizen. Obama at best is a dual citizen who has a foreign national father and U.S. citizen mother, making him a native born citizen if born in the U.S., which is listed under 8 USC § 1401 of the U.S. immigration and naturalization categories, of which he is a 14th Amendment citizen. A 14th Amendment citizen, even a native born citizen is granted that privilege by the enactment of the 14th Amendment, which was only possible by the only power the Constitution gives Congress to legislate, which is the power of naturalization. In no way does it give Congress the power to legislate, define or grant anyone to become a natural born Citizen.

You need to educate yourself on the distinction between natural law and positive law so that you at the least have a rebuttal not so dependent on logical fallacies.

Jim
Jim

I don't have to refute your point...you've just made up a lot of gibberish.  You can't prove your point.  Case closed, you lose.  Now back on your medication.

Now Trending

Phoenix Concert Tickets

From the Vault

 

Loading...