Rovingpatrol's Blog

Lindsey Graham, I Have Questions

Posted in politics by roving on October 2, 2009
Lindsey Graham, member of the United States Se...

I know I have a puny little blog here. I use to to vent mostly. It makes no difference to me if anyone reads it or not. Before the internet, I would just sit down and write my thoughts on paper then throw it away.

Another cowardly Republican is calling us “birthers” crazy. This time its Lindsey Graham, posted on The Hill.

Graham excoriated fringe elements within the Republican Party that have manifested themselves in recent months as unfair to the president, but not representative of the GOP.

“Most of the critics of Barack Obama who carry around these crazy signs would applaud Alan Keyes,” Graham said, referring to the eccentric former Republican presidential candidate and 2004 Senate opponent for Obama.

“The people who are doing unfair and unkind things to the president says more about them than it does the Republican Party,” Graham later added. “But we have to say that’s crazy. Those who say the president was born anywhere other than Hawaii are crazy.”

My question to Graham is why has Obama been sending lawyers to court since last summer fighting the release of ALL of his documents? Why is Obama spending all that money? For the ones who scoff about the spending money, please. Someone as rich as Obama isn’t going to find a lawyer to work for free out of the goodness of his heart. WND had posted the monies Obama has spent since last yr and it has reached one million plus.

If anyone is crazy, its you. We call people like you “suckers.”  An easy mark. Its Republicans like you who give US the bad name by continually sucking up to Obama. For anyone who actually believes Obama isn’t hiding anything, you are truly naive.

I think what needs to be done is anyone running for office needs to qualify by taking a constitution test. They obviously either don’t know it or just ignore it. Obama’s father by Obama’s own admission was not a U.S. citizen. Therefore Obama is not qualified to be president.

Obama supporters say Obama is the smartest president we ever had. I say prove it.  Ask Obama to release his college grades. Something tells me his grades would be very embarrassing to him.

Again, why is Obama’s lawyers and now the DOJ fighting the release of records that every other president has released? WHY??

Oh, another thing, what the hell kind of name is Lindsey? Its a girls name. I guess it fits you though. Wuss.

Advertisements

10 Responses

Subscribe to comments with RSS.

  1. Paul said, on October 2, 2009 at 11:02 am

    The birthers, the tea baggers, the screamers, and the deathers continued extreme minority presence will become tiresome to mainstream America, if it has not already done so. To all the birthers in La, La Land, it is on you to prove to all of us that your assertion is true, if there are people who were there and support your position then show us the video (everyone has a price), either put up or frankly shut-up. I heard Orly Taitz, is selling a tape (I think it’s called “Money, Lies and Video tape”). She is from Orange County, CA, now I know what the mean when they say “behind the Orange Curtain”, when they talk about Orange County, the captial of Conspiracy Theories. You know Obama has a passport, he travel abroad before he was a Senator, but I guess they were in on it. In my opinion the Republican Party has been taken over the most extreme religious right (people who love to push their beliefs on others while trying to take away the rights of those they just hate) and that’s who they need to extract from their party if they real want to win. Good Luck, because as they said in WACO, “We Ain’t Coming Out”. I heard that she now wants to investigate the “Republican 2009 Summer of Love” list: Assemblyman, Michael D. Duvall (CA), Senator John Ensign (NV), Senator Paul Stanley (TN), Governor Mark Stanford (SC), Board of Ed Chair, and Kristin Maguire AKA Bridget Keeney (SC).

  2. smrstrauss said, on October 2, 2009 at 11:56 am

    Re: “why has Obama been sending lawyers to court since last summer fighting the release of ALL of his documents? ”

    Because the cases are not about his documents. The cases are to stop him from being president. Before the election, when most of the cases were filed, they were to stop the election. After the election, most of the cases were to stop the certification or to stop the Inauguration.

    Most of the remaining cases have multiple claims, including that Obama’s father makes him inelegible, but they all are NOT cases for documents. Why does Obama fight them? Because that is what you must do when you are sued. If you don’t, you lose.

    However, Obama has proved that he was born in Hawaii. He provided his birth certificate, the official birth certificate of Hawaii. (http://www.starbulletin.com/columnists/kokualine/20090606_kokua_line.html)

    Obama put it on his web site, and showed the physical document to both Polifact and Factcheck. So, he has shown the physical document.

    The document that he has shown is the OFFICIAL birth certificate of Hawaii. It is accepted by ALL the departments in Hawaii as proof of birth in Hawaii (Yes, including DHHL. I checked, they prefer the original, which some people have, but they accept the Certification as proof of birth in Hawaii) The US State Department and US Military also accept the Certification as proof of birth in Hawaii.

    The facts on the Obama birth certificate, that he was born in Hawaii in 1961, were confirmed by the two officials of the Hawaii government who looked into his file. (http://www.swamppolitics.com/news/politics/blog/2008/11/obama_hawaaianborn_citizen_for.html)

    The Wall Street Journal also notes that it is the official document. It said: “Further, if Congress were to pass the so-called birther bill, Obama would be able to comply easily. The bill would require presidential campaigns to submit “a copy of the candidate’s birth certificate” to the Federal Election Commission. The certificate Obama has released publicly would meet this requirement.”

    Many states now issue only short-form birth certificates. They are legal documents, and when they have the raised seal and signature as required by the US State Department, they are accepted by the State Department. (Obama’s physical document has the seal and signature, as shown in FactCheck’s detailed photograph).

    This is what the Wall Street Journal concludes: “Obama has already provided a legal birth certificate demonstrating that he was born in Hawaii. No one has produced any serious evidence to the contrary. Absent such evidence, it is unreasonable to deny that Obama has met the burden of proof. We know that he was born in Honolulu as surely as we know that Bill Clinton was born in Hope, Ark., or George W. Bush in New Haven, Conn.”

    Re: “Ask Obama to release his college grades. Something tells me his grades would be very embarrassing to him.” I doubt it. You don’t get into Harvard law school on lousy grades, and by the way, he graduated Magna Cum Laude from Harvard Law. For what it is worth, some presidents have released their grade point averages voluntarily before the election; other’s didn’t. But no president has ever released his total academic record, meaning the grades on all his courses. Moreover, the point is that the release is voluntary. One reason a president would fight a lawsuit against him that demanded his grades is that there is NO right of a citizen to get that information. There’s no law that says that the people have a right to it. The president has a right to that privacy, and that is a principle that will be useful to future presidents.

    And besides, some of these lawsuits are demanding such crazy things as Obama’s kindergarten records.

    Oh, and don’t bring up the meaningless claim about Obama promising to be “transparent.” That was a promise about the government being transparent. Neither he nor anyone else in the government has to release private details such as past grades or old girlfriends.

  3. Paul said, on October 2, 2009 at 4:13 pm

    We are all adults here, and as adults we know there are consequences for are actions, so if you do not agree with his policies, you can a) do nothing, b) support him, c) not support him, d) protest and picket, its your choice, live the dream! As for Orly Taitz, to this point she has not been successful because she does not have any proof, documentation supporting her claims except her wild rants. I would not bet the farm on this one. She has a mail-order-degree get someone with real credentials (Harvard, Yale Law School) not a crazy Russian immigrant with dual US/ Israel citizenship (where are her allegiances?). Have you even thought of who is paying for all these legal filings, her travel and all her wigs? Sorry she has no juice because she does not have any proof, documentation supporting her claims except her wild rants. I heard they are now playing the victim card as well. Please, feel sorry for us the “Birth Certificate” that we built our entire case around and that we have been dancing around turn out to be a big “Fake”. Her material might work on “Fake News” but not in a Court of the United States.

  4. Pete said, on October 2, 2009 at 9:18 pm

    Let me get this right. The obots here are posting that he is qualified because he ‘might’ have been born in Hawaii (pending release if his vital recordS were amended). Nice that he was born in Hawaii, and one parent, the mother was a minor, but citizen. That gave Barack Obama instant US Citizenship claim, no argument from me about that. Unfortunately, the Constitution says Natural Born Citizen, and the impetus is based upon letters from John Jay to Washington. In summary, Jay and Washington both felt that no one with foreign influence be allowed to take the office of POTUS. The bar is high here, much higher than for citizenship; it calls for a special kind of citizenship where no foreign nation/royal family can claim your birth. I might add they were afraid of a British citizen being born on US soil and claiming POTUS, with support from foreign finances.

    Now that we have established the obvious, that the writers of the Constitution desperately wanted the POTUS to be of foreign influence, let’s look at Obama. Barack Obama II was born ?Hawaii, of a BRITISH CITIZEN FATHER and a ‘minor’ mother, and immediately took on BRITISH CITIZENSHIP by BRITISH NATIONALITY ACT OF 1948. Barack Obama was born a DUAL citizen. Obama has said he was born with citizenship in Kenya (first if was British, then Kenyan, possibly both) and the US. IF Barack Obama let his Kenyan citizenship lapse, at age 23, he was clearly an ADULT claiming two country citizenships. That my Obot friends is ‘foreign influence’ that our founding fathers bled for to prevent.

  5. smrstrauss said, on October 3, 2009 at 9:43 am

    Re: “Foreign influence.”

    The framers of the Constitution DID forbid foreign influence. They forbid foreigners from becoming president, and they forbid naturalized citizens from being president. But that is all.

    They did NOT say that they barred the children of foreigners who were born in the USA from being president. They could have, but they didn’t. Why not? It seems highly likely that they believed that the children of foreigners, if they are born in the USA, BECAME United States citizens, in every way. It is also clear that according to the law (which continues, by the way), if you are born in the USA, you are legally assumed to have total allegiance to the USA.

    That is why Madison said that under the US system, the place of birth was the criterion of allegiance.

    In a speech before the House of Representatives in May of 1789, James Madison said:
    “It is an established maxim, that birth is a criterion of allegiance. Birth, however, derives its force sometimes from place, and sometimes from parentage; but, in general, place is the most certain criterion; it is what applies in the United States.” It is what applies in the United States.

    So, although some citizens who were BORN in the USA were dual nationals at the time of the Constitution, the criterion for allegiance was still the place of birth, as it still is.

    It is clear that when the Constitution was written there were already dual nationals who were born in the USA, and that these would continue. Whenever a citizen from a country that has jus sanguinis nationality laws (laws of blood, meaning parents pass on their citizenship) gives birth to a child in the USA, the child will have dual nationality.

    That means that whenever a child was born to a French or German or Italian parent in the USA, she or he would have dual nationality. And, it was only many years later, in the 20th century, that most of these countries passed laws saying that if their citizens became naturalized in a foreign country, the citizenship of the child was not still that of the country of the parent.

    So there were plenty of born-in-America dual nationals at the time of the Constitution and in the years after it, and the writers of the Constitution knew that, and they knew that immigration would increase.

    Yet, they did not specifically bar the children of foreigners from becoming president, so long as the children were born in the USA.

    So the idea that dual nationality affects Natural Born status does not hold. And, how could it? The original meaning of Natural Born simply means born in the country. It is like Ohio-born. No foreign law can make someone who was born in Ohio not Ohio-born.

    To be sure, a law can take away citizenship, so if were discussing an Ohio-born citizen, and she became a citizen of Georgia, then she would not be an Ohio-born citizen, but she would always be Ohio-born. The same thing on Natural Born. Under the laws at the time of the Constitution, blacks were considered Natural Born, but they were not considered citizens. BUT they were considered Natural Born. Why? Because Natural Born simply meant born in the country.

    Regarding Obama, since he was born in Hawaii, he is Natural Born, and since he is a citizen, he is a Natural Born Citizen.

  6. Pete said, on October 3, 2009 at 5:04 pm

    ……….So, although some citizens who were BORN in the USA were dual nationals at the time of the Constitution, the criterion for allegiance was still the place of birth, as it still is. ………….

    Thank you very much for just proving my point. That is why the added the part about either Natural Born Citizen or born before 1790/the adoption of this Constitution were EXEMPT. The founding fathers new they were born British, and had to put an exemption in the Constitution so guys like Madison could serve as POTUS. I certain that Barack Obama was NOT born before 1790.

    The Founding Fathers allowed themselves to be dual citizens, then again they faced hanging for thier activity against the British. I don’t think Obama qualifies as a comparison, do you?

  7. smrstrauss said, on October 3, 2009 at 6:52 pm

    Re: “The founding fathers new they were born British, and had to put an exemption in the Constitution so guys like Madison could serve as POTUS. I certain that Barack Obama was NOT born before 1790.”

    The founding fathers were the first settlers. You are referring to the framers of the Constitution.

    According to the law at the time, if they were born in a Colony they were both citizens of the colony and subjects of Britain. When the Revolution came along and the Declaration of Independence, they were still considered citizens of the colonies when they became states. The grandfather clause was NOT to make Washington eligible. He was eligible because he was a Natural Born citizen of Virginia.

    It was to make someone who was NOT born in a US colony eligible. That was Alexander Hamilton, who was born on the British Caribbean island of Nevis. At the time of the Constitution he was a naturalized citizen, because he was a naturalized citizen of New York, but he was not a Natural Born Citizen because he was not born in one of the 13 colonies.

    Unless there were framers whose parents were from Germany, Italy or France, the actual writers of the Constitution and the leaders at the time were not dual nationals. Their parents came from Britain, which is a jus soli country, like the USA. So, they received their citizenship from the colonies that they were born in. The Declaration of Independence made them American citizens (citizens of the states at the time) and no longer British.

    What kind of citizens were they? If they were born in a colony, they were Natural Born. Natural Born was the term for what we call Native Born. They virtually never used the term Native Born at the time. The popular term for born in the country was Natural Born.

    The same policy on a citizen of the place automatically becoming a citizen of the new country immediately, by the way, applied to all the other countries that became independent. In Ireland, before it was independent, the person born in Ireland was a British subject. After independence, she or he immediately became Irish. The same with India and Israel.

    One way to find out the meaning of Natural Born at the time of the Constitution is to check quotations of the founders and if they have something that indicates that there are only two kinds of citizens, Natural Born and Naturalized, then obviously the meaning of Natural Born is “born in the country.”

    Here are some examples:

    I just found the following from James Wilson, who was a delegate to BOTH the Continental Congress and the Constitutional Convention (and he was a prominent lawyer).

    And here is one of the things he wrote: “Between alien friends, who are temporary subjects, and subjects naturalized or natural born, a species of subjects intermediate is known to the law of England. They are distinguished by the appellation of denizens.”

    So there are only two categories of permanent subjects, naturalized or natural born.

    And he wrote: “Between a subject naturalized and a subject natural born, the distinction is merely nominal as to private rights: it applies only to the manner, in which those rights are devolved. On one they are devolved by his birth: on the other, by the consent of the nation, expressed in the parliament. With regard, however, to publick rights, the case is widely different. By statutes made even since the revolution, no subject naturalized can be a member of parliament…”

    Again, only two categories, naturalized and natural born.

    For both these quotations, here is the reference: (http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=advanced_search.php)

    And
    “Natural born subjects have a great variety of rights, which they acquire by being born in the king’s ligeance, and can never forfeit by any distance of place or time, but only by their own misbehaviour…” (http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php&title=2072&search=%22natural+born%22&chapter=156335&layout=html#a_2775384)

    So the Natural Born subject gets rights merely by being born in the king’s ligeance (which means the area that the king controls). This is saying the same thing as the Wong case did: “The fundamental principle of the common law with regard to English nationality was birth within the allegiance, also called “ligealty,” “obedience,” “faith,” or “power” of the King.” (
    “http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0169_0649_ZO.html)

    Here is how Hamilton used Natural Born: “The position is founded on that clause of the British act of navigation, which forbids any but a natural-born or naturalized subject to exercise the occupation of a merchant or factor, in any of the British dominions in Asia, Africa, and America.” (
    http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php&title=1382&search=%22natural+born%22&layout=html#a_1602437)

    There are only two categories of subject, natural-born and naturalized.

    Thus, natural born meant at the time Born in the Country (with the exception of the children of foreign diplomats). In the years since the writing of the Constitution, there have been various laws that tried to extend the definition to include the children of two US parents, even if they were born overseas. But these extensions only added to the original definition, they never took away the right of all people born in the USA to be citizens nor did they say that Natural Born requires two parents and being born in the country.

    And, by the way, the old meaning of Natural Born, meaning simply born in the country, continued for a long time. When men were asked to fill out forms for the draft in World War I, they were asked whether they were aliens, or natural born citizens or naturalized citizens. Only two kinds of citizens, and the term natural born meant born in the country.

  8. Pete said, on October 3, 2009 at 7:29 pm

    These are quotes from the Person who wrote the 14th Amendment, and from the SCOTUS in Kim Wong, which was requoted from Minor v. Happersett. Please spend the time to re-educate yourself, this time correctly, and read. NO ALLEGIANCE TO FORIEGN SOVERNTY. There is NO DOUBT “children born in a country, of parents who were its citizens, became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also.”. Those two statements just destroyed your “if they are born on US soil they are citizens” theory! Fact, American indians were NOT considered citizens, but they were born on US soil, because they were not under the jurisdiction of the US. Fact, you cannot have allegiance to a Foriegn sovernty at birth and be Natural Born Citizen. Obama, was NOT BORN under the sole Jurisdiction of the United states–and HE HIMSELF has made that claim. He has claimed allegiance to a foriegn sovern, perhaps well into adulthood, and has yet to publically DENY that he doesn’t still have foriegn citizenships.

    P.S. Look closely at the SCOTUS, ‘there have been doubts’. Those doubts have never been addressed by the SCOTUS, but the floor discussion in congress prior to the adoption of the 14th Amendment leaves little doubt what NBC was, and it isn’t what you claim.

    P.S.S. I have to add that the founding fathers-including Washington, consider himself British at birth, American by right of risk–not by place of birth. Obama was born a British Citizen, only after Kenya became independent did he absorb his third right to citizenship.

    http://federalistblog.us/2008/11/natural-born_citizen_defined.html
    This article points out that John A. Bingham, the Framer of the 14th Amendment, defined natural born citizen as follows: “every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen.”

    In Wong Kim Ark, the court thoroughly discussed “natural born citizen”. And in doing so, Justice Gray quoted directly from the holding in a prior Supreme Court case, Minor v. Happersett. The following passage is a quote from Minor as quoted by Justice Gray in Wong Kim Ark:

    ” ‘At common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country, of parents who were its citizens, became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further, and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction, without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first.

  9. smrstrauss said, on October 3, 2009 at 10:40 pm

    Re: “Obama, was NOT BORN under the sole Jurisdiction of the United States.”

    Yes he was. When you are in the United States you are under the jurisdiction of the United States. The only exceptions are foreign diplomats. They aren’t. Everyone else is. So a child born in the United States is under the jurisdiction of the United States. When you are born in the USA, you are born under the jurisdiction of the USA, the sole jurisdiction of the USA.

    Re: “Some authorities go further, and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction, without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first.”

    A DOUBT is not a precedent. The Minor case said there were doubts. The Wong case was after the Minor case, and it had NO doubts.

    It said that all children born in the United States are Natural Born Citizens. This may shock you a little, but it’s really not a big deal. Since Natural Born means “born in the country” and since the 14th amendment said that all who are born in the country are citizens, then someone who was born in the country is, of course, a Natural Born Citizen.

    Remember syllogisms? The logic of a syllogism runs like this: All men are mortal. Smith is a man. Therefore, Smith must be mortal.

    So, if the Supreme Court says that ALL children born in the USA. Or, another way of putting it, if EVERY child born in the USA is a Natural Born Citizen, then Wong Kim Ark, who was born in the USA, must be a Natural Born Citizen.

    And that is what it said. It said: “It thus clearly appears that, by the law of England for the last three centuries, beginning before the settlement of this country and continuing to the present day, aliens, while residing in the dominions possessed by the Crown of England, were within the allegiance, the obedience, the faith or loyalty, the protection, the power, the jurisdiction of the English Sovereign, and therefore every child born in England of alien parents was a natural-born subject unless the child of an ambassador or other diplomatic agent of a foreign State or of an alien enemy in hostile occupation of the place where the child was born.

    III. The same rule was in force in all the English Colonies upon this continent down to the time of the Declaration of Independence, and in the United States afterwards, and continued to prevail under the Constitution as originally established.”

    To make it clear. It said: “Every child (unless of a foreign etc)…was a natural-born.” And it said: “the same rule was in force in the English colonies.” And it said that the same rule continued under the Constitution.

    So, since Wong was born in the USA, he was a Natural Born Citizen, and since Obama was born in the USA, he is too. (And so are a lot of other people.)

    Re “He has claimed allegiance to a foriegn sovern, perhaps well into adulthood, and has yet to publically DENY that he doesn’t still have foriegn citizenships.”

    He has not claimed allegiance to a foreign sovereign at all. He said he was at one time a dual national. Under US law, he has allegiance to the USA because of the place of birth. Under a foreign law, he may be considered by that country to have allegiance to it also. But that does not matter. OUR law says that he has allegiance to the USA. Legally he has allegiance to the USA.

    In any case, that has no application to Natural Born. If the writers of the Constitution really thought that a child born of foreign parents in the USA should not be eligible, they would have written that. And, if they thought that a child born of a citizen or citizens of Jus Sanguinis countries should not be eligible, they would have written that.
    But they didn’t. They believed, with Madison, that the place of birth is what determines both citizenship and allegiance.

    Re Washington considered himself British at birth. Yes, he did, and so did Ben Franklin and Adams and Jefferson. They were British once; they became American when America ceased to be Britain, and that took place at the time of the Declaration of Independence.

    Further proof that Natural Born citizens and Natural Born subjects of AMERICA existed before the Constitution can be found from some of the early naturalization laws. These laws say that the alien who follows the naturalization procedure receives all the rights of persons who are Natural Born subjects of the colony or state.

    Thus, there must have been Natural Born subjects of the states before these naturalization laws were written. So, here is one from Maryland in 1779: “Be it enacted by The General Assembly of Maryland. That every person who shall hereafter come into this State, from any Nation, Kingdom or State, and shall complete and subscribe a belief in the Christian religion, and take, repeat and prescribe the following oath, to wit: “I do swear that I hereafter will become a subject of the State of Maryland, and will be faithful and bear full allegiance to the state, and that I do not hold myself bound to give allegiance to any king or prince or state or government” shall thereupon and thereof be adjudged, deemed and taken to be a natural born subject of this state.”

    So there were Natural Born subjects of the state of Maryland in 1779. That is before the Constitution but after the Declaration. Don’t let the word “subject” throw you. That is what the states used in those days more than the word “citizen.” The thing that is the same is Natural Born. (Which simply means born in Maryland, not born of two Maryland parents.)

    Jefferson used the words the same way in his first draft of the Constitution of Virginia.
    “”All persons who by their own oath or affirmation or by other testimony shall give satisfactory proof to any court of record in this colony that they purpose to reside in the same [7] years at the least and who shall subscribe the fundamental laws shall be considered as a residents & entitled to all the rights of a person natural born.” (http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php&title=755&search=%22natural+Born%22&layout=html#a_1987094)”

    All persons who follow the naturalization procedure are entitled to the rights of a person natural born. Jefferson was born in Virginia; he was natural born. Washington was born in Virginia. He was natural born. Neither Washington nor Jefferson nor any of the leaders who were born in American colonies had to be grandfathered. But Hamilton wasn’t born in an American colony, so he did have to be grandfathered.

    Re: “Fact, American indians were NOT considered citizens.” Precisely. They were not considered citizens. They were considered Natural Born. When, in 1925 I think, a Federal law made Indians citizens. The only ones of them who were not eligible to be president (assuming they were 35) were the ones who were born outside of the USA.

    Re Bingham. I agree that is what he believed. I find, however, that he is very much in the minority. As far back as 1854, a Secretary of State of the United States wrote that a child of two aliens born in the USA was a Natural Born Citizen and hence eligible to be president. Interestingly enough, the question asked, was not whether the child was eligible to be president. It was whether he was a citizen, the Secretary of State (William L. Marcy, secretary of state under President Franklin Pierce) volunteered his opinion that the person was eligible because he was (1) a citizen and (2) natural born.

    That appears at (http://query.nytimes.com/mem/archive-free/pdf?_r=2&res=9B06E2DC153DE034BC4851DFB566838F649FDE). Unfortunately, the text is an image and so I cannot clip it to put it here. But the key words are: “This is in conformity with the English Common Law, which law is generally acknowledged in this country; and a person born of alien parents would, it is presumed, be considered such natural born citizen, in the language of the Constitution, as to make him eligible to the Presidency.”

    Granted that this is only one opinion. But the Supreme Court ruled in Wong (SIX justices for and only two against) that all children born in the USA, except for the children of foreign diplomats, are Natural Born Citizens.

    And that is why such prominent conservative Senators who are also lawyers as Orren Hatch and Lindsay Graham say that a Natural Born Citizen is simply one who was born in the USA:

    Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC), said:

    “Every child born in the United States is a natural-born United States citizen except for the children of diplomats.” (December 11, 2008 letter to constituent)

    Senator Orrin G. Hatch (R-UT), said:

    “What is a natural born citizen? Clearly, someone born within the United States or one of its territories is a natural born citizen.” (Senate Judiciary Committee hearing hearing on OCTOBER 5, 2004)

    And that is why the Wall Street Journal says that Natural Born is a synonym for native born and for born in the country. “Some birthers imagine that there is a difference between being a “citizen by birth” or a “native citizen” on the one hand and a “natural born” citizen on the other. “Eccentric” is too kind a word for this notion, which is either daft or dishonest. All three terms are identical in meaning.”

  10. smrstrauss said, on October 3, 2009 at 11:49 pm

    And I just found this:

    “Prior to the adoption of the constitution, the people inhabiting the different states might be divided into two classes: natural born citizens, or those born within the state, and aliens, or such as were born out of it.”

    That is from St. George Tucker, View of the Constitution of the United States with Selected Writings [1803]

    That is at: http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php&title=693&search=%22natural+born%22&layout=html#a_1661223

    What does this show: (1) that there were Natural Born Citizens before the Revolution. (George Washington was one); and (2) Natural Born simply meant “those born within the state.”


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: