'I can't spend all of my time with my birth certificate plastered on my forehead' (Virginia, constitutional)

[formercalifornian]

Originally Posted by ergohead

He's about as natural as Monsanto corn.

That doesn't even make sense. What is your point?

[HistorianDude]

Originally Posted by InformedConsent

You do realize that Dumas sent Benjamin Franklin 3 copies Of Vattel's Law of Nations in French, right? I've already posted a jpg of the French version containing chapter 19 subsection 12. Read it. It calls for natural citizens to have had citizen parents, and explains why that is necessary.

Yes... and none of those three copies contains any mention of "natural born citizens" whatsoever, let alone provides a definition for them.

Originally Posted by InformedConsent

I see... you couldn't help yourself from climbing on the 'bash the birfer' bandwagon. Well... that's what happens when you can't debate the facts. A shame.

When your position is ridiculous, you should anticipate ridicule.

Originally Posted by InformedConsent

I'm getting my info directly from Benjamin Franklin's 1775 letter to Dumas, Vattel's Law of Nations, and the Congressional Record from the late 18th century. You, on the other hand, seem to just be spouting talking points that you've picked up from somewhere.

That is a lie. There is no sign that you have ever referenced either. You are cutting and pasting from second, third, fourth and fifth hand sources.

Originally Posted by InformedConsent

Even the DNC's own fight the smears website will not state that Obama is a natural born citizen. Think about that.

What it "does not" state and what it "will not" state are two different things. Please stop spinning and deal with the actual evidence.

Originally Posted by InformedConsent

Besides, I've already contradicted that claim. Read Hinman's How A British Subject Became President of the United States. At the time, the objection to Chester Arthur was that they thought he was born first in Ireland, and when that didn't pan out, the claim was shifted to Canada.

And anyone who has actually read that pamphlet (which you apparently have not) understands that the entire argument was based on a jus soli definition of natural born citizen. Hinman ignored the citizenship of Arthur's parents completely because he knew (as most Americans knew until Birthism was invented) that the children of aliens are natural born American citizens if they are born on US soil.

Originally Posted by InformedConsent

I have no idea what you're babbling about, but you sure seem to make a lot of claims. What is the historic significance, how is it relevant, and where are you getting your info?

I am getting my info directly from Leo Donofrio's own writings that record his descent into drug use, delusion and mental illness. He told about it in a rambling stream of consciousness internet bloviation called "One Love Story" where he describes how he became convinced that the lead singer for the Manchester rock band "Stone Roses" was Jesus and that he (Donofrio) was the Holy Spirit assigned to announce his second coming.

This is the man who invented the whole "two citizen parent" definition of natural born citizen.

[ergohead]

Originally Posted by formercalifornian

That doesn't even make sense. What is your point?

Have you seen the ears on that boy?

[HistorianDude]

Originally Posted by InformedConsent

They accepted the COLB, but would then have to follow up with lengthy investigation and verification processes.

Not to validate citizenship, though. To validate Hawaiian ethnicity.

Again: different purposes, different requirements. Duh.

Originally Posted by InformedConsent

Interesting how Obama could become president with much less verification than the Hawaiian DHHL required at the time.

Interesting how Obama has provided more evidence for his citizenship than any other President in American history, and yet he's the only one you ever thought to question on the issue.

Originally Posted by InformedConsent

Here's the law. Where does it say that?
http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/hrs200..._0338-0006.htm

You're looking at the wrong law.

Here's the one that makes it a crime to put "Honolulu" in the "Place of Birth" field of a birth certificate when the person was actually born in a foreign country.

United States Code: Title 18,CHAPTER 47;FRAUD AND FALSE STATEMENTS

[InformedConsent]

Originally Posted by HistorianDude

InformedConsent has a habit of garbling several different anti-eligibility theories into one confused argument. It's not entirely his fault, since he is little more than a mouth piece for the Birther narrative rather than somebody who thinks about it himself. But I wanted to take a moment to tease apart his two most intimately confused arguments. He seems to think they are one, but they are not.

I've posted links to Benjamin Franklin's letter to Dumas and the Library of Congress to support what I've posted. You, on the other hand do nothing other than call names and post your unsubstantiated opinion.

I will say this... the fact that you're getting so desperate to attack the facts (and getting increasingly abusive in doing so) is very telling. You're verging on full blown temper tantrum because the facts don't support your opinion.

The first argument has already been beaten to death (again) is this thread. Vattel cannot have had any influence over Article 2 of the Constitution, as the inappropriately named "Vattel definition" never existed until ten years after the Constitution had already been framed.

You are failing at deflection. I've already posted the original French version of chapter 19 subsection 212. Read it.

Example: The grandchildren of Italian citizens born in this country to parents who are both American citizens are still (under Italian law) Italian citizens at birth.

They meet the "Vattel definition" perfectly. They are born on American soil to two citizen parents.

Yes.

Article 2 of the Constitution tells us what a President must be. It says nothing about what a President must not be. As long as a person is 35 years old, has lived 14 years in the United States, and is a natural born citizen they are eligible.

Correct, which requires U.S. citizen parents.

So it does not matter if President Obama was born a British Subject.

Obama is not eligible. He is not a natural born citizen because his father was a non-citizen. Go back and read Vattel, Benjamin Franklin's letter to Dumas, and the Congressional Record.

[lorrysda]

Originally Posted by HistorianDude

Your memory fails you. There is no evidence that any application President Obama made for any college ever stated he was "foreign student."

That is a complete Birther invention.


...l.

Hmmm, since I had a copy of the application then I am supposed to assume it was a phony? I wish I hadn't throw it out now.

Oh, well. Since BO constantly contradicts himself and factual information he doesn't want to hear, the facts still exist.

[InformedConsent]

Originally Posted by HistorianDude

Redacting a photograph of a rock does not alter the rock.

It does indeed alter the photograph of the rock.

[InformedConsent]

Originally Posted by formercalifornian

Barack Obama was born in the state of Hawaii, as proven by his Certificate of Live Birth, to a citizen of the United States, his mother. Title 8, section 1401 of the U.S. Code confers citizenship at birth to anyone born within the U.S.*

Where's the controversy? It seems very clear to me that President Obama is qualified to serve as leader of our nation.

That may prove Obama is a citizen. He cannot ever be a natural born citizen, which is the Constitutional requirement, because his father was a non-citizen.

[HistorianDude]

Originally Posted by InformedConsent

There is a difference between citizen and natural born citizen. Otherwise, naturalized citizens would be eligible to become president. They're not.

There is a "difference," but you do not appear to understand what that difference is.

"Citizen" is a the general category that includes two (and only two) sub categories; natural born citizens and naturalized citizens.

All are citizens, but only natural born can become president.

Originally Posted by InformedConsent

Read the French version of Law of Nations. The meaning is quite clear in French. The requirement is citizen parents. And it explains why.

The "requirement" for what? Do you really know? Have you given it any genuine critical thought?

Because it's certainly not for "natural born citizenship," since it is never mentioned once. Once you actually figure out what he is really saying, then you will discover how completely he is contradicted by the US Constitution. Because he does not believe that such children are not "natural born citizens" (a phrase he never uttered). He believes that they are not citizens at all!

As an aside: Did you know that Vattel, in Law of Nations, also completely rejected the right of citizens to bear arms?

Gosh... I thought you said the Framers really liked his ideas? That he was some sort of ultimate source of the ideas that became the US Constitution?

Go figure.

[formercalifornian]

Originally Posted by InformedConsent

That may prove Obama is a citizen. He cannot ever be a natural born citizen, which is the Constitutional requirement, because his father was a non-citizen.

I disagree about the validity of Vattel's writings in this argument. What matters is how the U.S. has interpreted the meaning of natural-born citizen during the intervening two centuries, and I think it's very clear that our judicial branch has determined that "citizen at birth" and "natural-born citizen" are synonymous; therefore, our current President qualifies. And, since our current Supreme Court has repeatedly thrown out birther suits, I think we can safely assume that they agree.

I have to wonder if there would have been this much belly-aching over eligibility had McCain been elected.

As an aside, I have to thank all of you for helping to inspire my spouse and I to clear up the argument over whether he is a naturalized or natural-born citizen of our nation. He unequivocally qualifies as natural-born despite having entered the world overseas.