BEWARE: Arizona Senate Bill 1308 Defines Dual Citizens As Natural Born Citizens.

Arizona Senate Bill 1308 passed out of committee yesterday by an 8-5 vote.  This bill is a cleverly disguised attempt to protect President Obama from eligibility scrutiny.  It does this by declaring persons born with dual citizenship as natural born citizens.  But it does this in a very sneaky manner.

That’s right.  Arizona has now passed out of committee a bill which states that persons born with dual citizenship are natural born citizens of the United States.  This same bill is being considered by all states party to the compact.

So infamous congratulations to the 8 votes in Arizona who passed this unconstitutional bill to the full Senate floor.  They’ve just declared those born as dual citizens eligible to be Commander In Chief of the US Armed Forces.

The Arizona Republic completely failed to mention this incredible turn of events in their report:

“Late Tuesday, the committee advanced two of the bills, becoming the first state legislative committee in the nation to pass legislation intended to challenge the practice of granting citizenship to children born in the U.S. to illegal immigrants.

Committee members voted 8-5 to approve a controversial package of bills, which would challenge the 14th Amendment interpretation about citizenship.”

This so called “compact” is being pushed by a conglomerate of states, and it looks like it’s being done to protect Obama.  SB 1308 declares:

ARTICLE 6.  INTERSTATE BIRTH CERTIFICATE COMPACT…

ARTICLE II

Definition

As used in this compact, “subject to the jurisdiction of the United States” has the meaning that it bears in section 1 of the fourteenth amendment to the United States Constitution, namely that the person is a child of at least one parent who owes no allegiance to any foreign sovereignty, or a child without citizenship or nationality in any foreign country.

ARTICLE III

Terms

…A person who is born subject to the jurisdiction of the United States is a natural born United States citizen.

Article II defines a person…  “born subject to the jurisdiction of the United States” … as … “a child born to at least one parent who owes no allegiance to any foreign sovereignty“.

Article III declares that… “A person who is born subject to the jurisdiction of the United States is a natural born United States citizen.”

Sneaky bastards all around.  When the relevant section of Article II is read in conjunction with the relevant section of Article III, you have a complete declaration that a person born of one citizen parent is a “natural born United States citizen”.

According to that definition, a person born with dual citizenship is also  a “natural born United States citizen”.

ANCHOR BABIES OUT… OBAMA IN.

Anchor babies will not be eligible for US citizenship according to this bill, but Obama will be eligible to be POTUS.  Looks like a deal was struck to protect Obama by attacking the citizenship of children born on US soil to illegal immigrant parents.

Apparently, the US citizenship of anchor babies is being sacrificed to protect Obama from competing eligibility legislation – such as Arizona HB 2544 – which does, in fact, require Presidential candidates to prove they have never owed allegiance to a foreign nation.

14th AMENDMENT – MARBURY v. MADISON – JOHN BINGHAM

SB 1308 is unconstitutional because it would render the natural born citizen clause (from Article 2  Section 1) superfluous.  That is not allowed according to the famous SCOTUS decision, Marbury v. Madison, wherein Chief Justice Marshal stated:

‘It cannot be presumed that any clause in the constitution is intended to be without effect; and therefore such construction is inadmissible, unless the words require it.’

If the 14th Amendment defined “natural born citizen” for the purposes of POTUS eligibility, then the nbc clause in Article 2 Section 1 would be rendered meaningless.

If the framers of the 14th Amendment had sought to declare all 14th Amendment citizens to be “natural born citizens” then that’s exactly what the 14th Amendment would say.

But it doesn’t.

The 14th Amendment – by its very own text – defines who are “citizens”, but it does not define who is a “natural born citizen”.  Elsewhere in the Constitution, the word “citizen” was used to define those who are eligible to be Representatives and Senators.  But the word “citizen” was not used to define those eligible to be POTUS.  For that the framers demanded one be a “natural born citizen”.

The 14th Amendment does not use the words “natural born”.  The framers could have included those words in the 14th Amendment, but they chose not to.

The compact between the states referenced in Arizona SB 1308 attempts to rewrite the 14th Amendment by adding the words “natural born” to it.

Such may only be accomplished by the Constitutional amendment process.  This compact does not meet that standard.

In conclusion, I leave you with the words of John Bingham, one of the people who drafted the 14th Amendment:

“…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.”

Parents.  Plural. Not one parent. Two.  Two parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty.  Mr. Bingham would know more about the intent of the drafters of the 14th Amendment than anyone alive today… seeing as how Mr. Bingham wrote the 14th Amendment.

But hey, who cares about facts?  Who cares about the text of the 14th Amendment?  This is America.  The Constitution is what people say it is, not what it actually says for itself.  Welcome to the living Constitution… and the dying of the USA.

Leo Donofrio, Esq.

About these ads

74 Responses to “BEWARE: Arizona Senate Bill 1308 Defines Dual Citizens As Natural Born Citizens.”

  1. I’m stunned. Just when it seems like there may be some sanity coming to this issue, and that certain forces are on the right side, they get their arms twisted and become RATS. What is the power that Obama has over seemingly everyone?

  2. KJ Kaufman Says:

    Leo, thank you for bringing this to my attention. I have written the following email to Representative Burges who is a co-sponsored HB2544. Here is my email to her:

    Good morning Representative Burges,

    I hope you may remember me, I called into Terry Gilberg’s radio show when you were on a couple of weeks ago. I am one of your constituents and informed you that I had voted for you and that I was pleased to see you were dealing with the ability of non-natural born Citizen candidates to get on Presidential ballots. Imagine how disappointed I am to see that the Arizona Senate has usurped this issue and put together and passed a bill yesterday (SB1308) that actually defines natural born Citizen as someone born to one U.S. citizen parent. The relevant text of SB1308 is as follows:

    ARTICLE 6. INTERSTATE BIRTH CERTIFICATE COMPACT…
    ARTICLE II
    Definition
    As used in this compact, “subject to the jurisdiction of the United States” has the meaning that it bears in section 1 of the fourteenth amendment to the United States Constitution, namely that the person is a child of at least one parent who owes no allegiance to any foreign sovereignty…For the purposes of this compact a person who owes no allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is a United States citizen …
    ARTICLE III
    Terms
    …A person who is born subject to the jurisdiction of the United States is a natural born United States citizen.

    When you put these two articles together, you get a Natural Born Citizen as a person born to one citizen parent.

    Representative Burges, when we spoke that night on the radio show, I asked you why you didn’t define natural born Citizen in your bill, and you stated that you had consulted the Goldwater Institute, and they had informed you that you didn’t need to define natural born Citizen. I argued that you should define it. I mean why would you deal with the requirements from a candidate for natural born Citizen and then not define the term. That to me seems to put a candidate at a disadvantage if it isn’t clear what exactly he or she are trying to prove. Regardless, I thought it was important to define the term so that the case would rise to the U.S. Supreme court where the definition of natural born Citizen ultimately needs to be adjudicated.

    I am extremely disappointed that the AZ Senate has usurped your efforts in the Arizona House and has now passed a definition of natural born Citizen that we find nowhere in our U.S. Constitution or Supreme Court cases. I urge you to coalesce the members of the Arizona House to defeat SB1308 and return to drafting a comprehensive piece of legislation that accurately defines natural born Citizen. To assist you in this matter let me leave you with the author of the 14th Amendment’s quasi definition:

    “…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.”

    Please note his use of parents (plural), not one citizen parent.

    I humbly ask a response from you to this email, and I continue to support your efforts in this matter.

  3. I pressed several AZ Reps to include a definition on their circulating Bill back before their vote on SB 1070.

    I acknowledged the fact that the 1070 Bill was more prescient at the time but continued communication explaining that any Bill that did not include a definition would be meaningless because there would be no standard by which to identify conformity to the Constitutional requirement of being a natural born Citizen.

    Reading the Bill as written is disheartening in its intellectual dishonesty but will certainly provide the ‘STATUTORY BASIS’ that has been lacking in the pursuit of a SCOTUS interpretation, won’t it…?

  4. One wonders what that meeting w/ McCain and Obama was all about a week or so ago.

  5. KJ Kaufman Says:

    Update: I have heard back from Representative Burges and have responded to her as well:

    From: Judy M. Burges

    The senate is working on the 14th Amendment issue. The language in HB2544 was heard in Senate Judiciary and the bill was voted down 5 to 3. Judy

    My Response:

    I understand SB1308 only passed committee so far and that SB1308 deals with the 14th Amendment, but please read what I wrote below again. They have clearly defined natural born Citizen in that bill, and they have defined it incorrectly as one citizen parent. Are you prepared, should it pass the full Senate and come to the House, to argue the point I have made below and vote against it unless that definition is amended or that portion of Article III of the bill is removed?

    ed. In my opinion, you need to hammer that 1308 states that those who owed allegiance to a foreign nation at birth are deemed to be natural born citizens. Furthermore, she appears to be backtracking on 2544 which did not come up for vote yet in the House, right? The language came up in the Senate bill, but the bill did not come up in the house. Is she abandoning 2544? Please get a clarification. – Leo

    Thank you so much for the prompt reply to my previous email.

  6. Back on January 28th, I sent the following e-mail to Arizona Rep Judy Burges. This was in reference to HB2544 which was then being considered:
    Dear Representative Burges,

    My name is (redacted) and I live in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.
    I have two sisters and my Mother residing in Tucson and I try to keep up with the
    news from that part of the world.

    I have been following with prayerful interest the progress of Subject Bill (HB 2544).
    I have noticed though, that there seems to be no provision in HB 2544 to document
    the Citizenship of Candidates’ parents.

    Since a “Natural Born Citizen” is:
    1). A Child born on the Soil of the United States
    2). Born of Parents who are themselves Citizens

    It would seem that absent a requirement to document parental Citizenship, subject bill (HB 2544) falls short of its intended goal of ensuring Candidates for POTUS meet US Constitutional requirements.

    Passing a law that would “water down” Constitutional requirements would be a mistake (IMO) since other states are “Modeling” after Arizona’s HB 2544
    Do you not think it wise to amend the bill at this time to include language that addresses the total requirements of “Natural Born Citizenship”
    (that is: to include language that “Candidate document parental US Citizenship”)?

    I am very pleased (and I know I speak the sentiments of many fellow Citizens) to see headway made on an issue that should have been set in stone a long time ago.
    I wish you success in your endeavour and would appreciate a reply to this inquiry.

    Thank You
    Redacted

    I received (promptly) the following reply:
    (Name redacted) : Thank you for looking at the bill so closely. A line that should have been on the bill was inadvertently left off and so much be added in a committee hearing. Thank you for your kind words of support. Judy

    Thanks Leo for all you are doing – It’s great to see that you are back on-line – Your site is such a resource to all of us.
    ELmo

  7. A carrot and stick bill? You let me disqualify anchor babies from citizenship, and you can claim to be a natural born citizen. Simple ignorance of history?

    If this passes, it will be interesting to see the reaction in Washington. The dems desperately want “immigration” reform, and Mr. Obama desperately wants a second term. Surely the former would not allow exclusion of anchor babies.

    The legislators were probably trying to distinguish native born from something else. What would be the proper legal terminology for the child born in the US of one citizen parent? “Citizen” is broad, and “native born citizen” implies that anchor babies are citizens. “Natural born citizen” is not historically accurate and is specified in Article II for the president. Dual citizens were considered by the Founders to be a security risk for the country.

    Any ideas on a legal term for a child born in the US to one citizen parent?

  8. U.S. Dept of State Foreign Affairs Manual~
    Presidential Eligibility:

    ” a natural born Citizen pursuant to a statute is not necessarily one for Constitutional purposes”

    What’s the ” Constitutional purpose” for a ‘natural born Citizen’? Gee, … I can’t think of too many (lol)

    ed. I forgot about that. Good one. Leo

  9. ‘Those who authored the 14th Amendment speak, deliberately~
    subject to the jurisdiction thereof’ means full & complete What is meant by complete jurisdiction? Not owing allegiance to anyone else. That is what it means——-

    “Tom’s” note- the municipal law does not and cannot overide the natural law

  10. Chuck Clements Says:

    Leo,

    Welcome back. I am delighted to see you posting again.

    Leo, we desperately need people like you in the fight.

    Again, many people will look forward to your advices.

  11. USURPERVILLE, D.C.

  12. KJ Kaufman Says:

    Further update:

    Per your advice Leo, I sent the following email to Rep. Burges and received a response, then responded in kind (see thread of these emails below):

    Email to Rep. Burges:

    With respect to HB2544, where does it stand in the House? Have you passed it out of committee? Have you passed it out of the House? What are your future intentions for HB2544?

    Thank you for your time, and I look forward to your response.

    Response from Rep. Burges:

    Unfortunately, it is dead. We will see what can be done to move it forward. Judy

    Response to Rep. Burges:

    Incredibly disappointing. I don’t blame you Representative Burges, but the games being played at the Arizona capital are unacceptable. I hope you will take my advice and oppose SB1308. Enough games. Let’s get to the truth without sleight of hand by legislatures. For once, us citizens would like to see a legislature legislate in good faith, with truth as their agenda and the welfare of their citizens in their minds.

    Thank you again for all of your efforts.

    ed. How does it die in the House before it’s even been voted on by a house committee? And in the Senate I thought it could be brought up again before the rules committee. – Leo

  13. I knew Burges was full of it when she proposed a duplicative bill, since ARS ALREADY HAD A LAW ON THE BOOKS REQUIRING PROOF OF ELIGIBILITY. ARS 16-311 already required it before he was balloted, instead the SoS admits all they made him do was sign an affidavit that he was qualified, not show any documents, nothing…

    http://www.thepostemail.com/2010/10/12/why-bho-cannot-be-a-legal-president/

    So then here comes Burges with a bogus bill to require a birth certificate, it was all entree inroad to misdirect from NBC, it would’ve given time for a fabricated BC, and now come to learn they’re trying to sneak in the 14th?

    They’re all liars.
    Just point out that Minor already disallows any 14thers, then they don’t know what to say.

  14. Leo,
    I am so thankful that you are back, and have pointed out this critical “feature” of SB1308. You are a lighthouse, warning us of impending danger. Thank you for everything you have done and continue to do. May God bless and protect you.

  15. Leo,
    Would you be so kind as to review my following post, and let me know your thoughts (with a comment either here or at the post itself)? I would be most appreciative. I have sent these questions to Speaker Boehner’s office, but have not received a reply.

    http://itooktheredpill.wordpress.com/2011/01/07/questions-for-speaker-boehner

    ed. Good points. leo

  16. Constantine Says:

    Leo, do you think the ‘vital stats’ of Obama will only, eventually come out once he is out of office and therefore power?

    If eligibility bills for the next election are passed and enacted, there will undoubtedly be suits. That of course is ironic if Obama has nothing to worry about … but my question remains do you think it will there will then be a challenge and SCOTUS will finally take it?

    I’m still skeptical about the “reconferencing” of the Hollister case on March 4th.

    Thoughts?

    ed. No state will pass a bill that even requires Obama to show a real COLB from Hawaii. That’s my prediction. Obama won’t even be required to show his COLB to the SOS of even one state because that would make it a public document. And nobody will see that document in this, or any other lifetime. That’s my prediction after seeing what Arizona tried to pull with the bait and switch between the real birther bill that Burgess instituted and SB 1308. Arizona had a nice dog and pony show there for awhile, but it’s all bunk. – Leo

  17. Cabby - AZ Says:

    I just learned of this problem and am sending the following to about five senators and representative in AZ:

    The Honorable Steve Pierce
    Majority Whip, Arizona State Senate
    1700 West Washington
    Phoenix, Arizona 85007 Re. Senate Bill 1308

    Dear Senator Pierce:

    It has just come to my attention that the Senate Bill 1308 which was passed by committee with an 8 – 5 vote, has a serious FLAW. It is so serious that I am contacting you so that you can do an intense review in case you haven’t already.

    Here is the problem. In Article 6 (II) “subject to the jurisdiction of the United States” has the meaning that it bears in Sec. 1 of the fourteenth amendment to the U.S.Constitution, namely that the person is a child of at least one parent who owes no allegiance to any foreign sovereignty…….

    Then in Article 6, (III) it says that “…..a person who is born subject to the jurisdiction of the United States is a natural born United States citizen.”
    (the underlining is mine for emphasis)

    Here is what has happened either purposely or inadvertently: Senate Bill 1308 has taken upon itself to define “Natural Born Citizen”, which term is clearly reserved for the office of the President in the U.S. Constitution, Article II, Sec. 1.

    This Bill 1308 has made an unjustifiable quantum leap to state that a person who is subject to the jurisdiction of the U.S. is therefore a “natural born citizen”, the latter of which is believed by many good scholars to be only a person born on American soil to TWO citizen parents. But in its efforts to restrict anchor babies, Bill 1308 has overreached into territory in which it has no business. In essence it defines a person born with dual citizenship as also a “natural born United States citizen.”

    This needs to be corrected post haste. Otherwise, since President Obama admits that his father was not a U.S. citizen, he and his supporters could very well take refuge in this Bill 1308’s definitions to reinforce his “right” to be on the ballot in 2012. Some other states will follow the pattern set by Arizona.

    Will you please carefully review this bill and reject it if it cannot be properly amended? Also, alert your colleagues. Thank you for your kind attention to this urgent matter.

    Yours very truly,

  18. If there’s one US citizen parent born on US soil, that’s a US Code1401(b) naturalized-at-birth (statutory) US Citizen per the 14th, which can never be a natural born citizen (per WKA and Minor).

    And if the State Dept says that a NBC pursuant to statute is not necessary one for Constitutional purposes, doesn’t that make AZs motions a waste of time? Also since a state statute cannot override a Supreme Court holding?

    Here’s the 1308 sponsor Gould’s email rgould@azleg.gov and Burges’ email jburges@azleg.gov

    As to the status of 2544

    http://www.azleg.gov/FormatDocument.asp?inDoc=/legtext/50leg/1r/bills/hb2544o.asp

    it’s in a “coma”, the hearings are done and it was supposed to get a hearing but never did, it could only possibly survive as an attachment. It’s not dead, but good as.

  19. KJ;

    Historically that term would be “Bastard”, however that term is now more commonly used to describe Employers or Conservatives and that stigma is much to great to attach to a child born out of wed-lock.

    “Legitimized Citizen by birth” would be the correct turn of words to identify the circumstances of the birth and acquisition of citizenship, but the PC world would have good cause to lambaste that.

    So, in light of the right to absolute privacy of one’s-self we might consider that one making it all the way through the gestation process to delivery then perhaps “Un-Aborted Citizen” might be appropriate.

    Please take the above as an attempt to find humor in TRUTH and recognize that the proper moniker for a child born with legitimate jus sanguinis right to citizenship should be proud and proudly called a “citizen of the United States of America”

  20. ARS 16311(D): All persons desiring to become a candidate shall file with the nomination paper provided for in subsection A an affidavit which shall be printed in a form prescribed by the secretary of state. The affidavit shall include facts sufficient to show that, other than the residency requirement provided in subsection A, the candidate will be qualified at the time of election to hold the office the person seeks.
    ———

    http://www.azleg.gov/legtext/49leg/2r/bills/sb1024h.htm

    I notice the bill has been amended several times. But this critical section is still the same and is live on the books. Last election, the SoS only required an affidavit, but lacked “facts sufficient to show that…candidate will be qualified at time of election to hold the office the person seeks”.

    Is this left to the discretion of the SoS only? Does the AZ A.G. have to enforce the laws? Or does this stuff just go on all the time and I’m just now realizing how corrupt it always has been?

    Is there any way to assure that 16311 is enforced this time around?

  21. In 2008, Law professor Lawrence B. Solum published an article, titled “Originalism and the Natural Born Citizen Clause”. Here is a link to the article as it appears in the Michigan Law Review:

    http://www.michiganlawreview.org/assets/fi/107/solum.pdf

    The above-cited article contains this text:

    There is general agreement on the core of its meaning. Anyone born on American soil whose parents are citizens of the United States is a “natural born citizen.” Anyone whose citizenship is acquired after birth as a result of naturalization is not a natural born citizen.

    The following link is to a later (2010) version of the same article.

    http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1263885&

    The new version now contains the following text:

    There is general agreement on the core of settled meaning: some cases of inclusion and exclusion seem indisputable. As a matter of inclusion, anyone born on American soil with an American parent is clearly a “natural born citizen.” As a matter of exclusion, anyone whose citizenship is acquired after birth as a result of “naturalization” is clearly not a “natural born citizen.”

    It appears that, between 2008 and 2010, “parents” (plural) became “parent” (singular). I wonder how and why that happened.

    ed.- Bravo! Nice find. America is being scrubbed. – leo

  22. @ KJ,

    You have the inside connection to and the somewhat attentive ear of a state legislator. This is invaluable. The next letter that you draft to her must be spot on and remarkably persuasive. Don’t lose her. Please take Leo’s valuable advice as stated in his response to your second post today.

    In the letter that you posted, you focused on the point that SB 1308 defines (by combining pieces of Articles II and III) “a child of at least one parent who owes no allegiance to any foreign sovereignty” as a natural born citizen. The really big deal here is that the citizenship status of the OTHER parent is not adequately addressed in SB 1308, meaning that the other parent may be a foreign national (OR a dual citizen, OR a natural born citizen, etc.). Under this bill, the aforementioned “child” born in the U.S. to one foreign national parent and one U.S. citizen parent owing no foreign allegiance MAY then have non-U.S. citizenship through the foreign national parent, be a dual citizen, owe an allegiance to a foreign nation at birth as Obama did, and still be a natural born citizen of the U.S.A. You’ve got to focus on the fact that the lousy language in the bill surreptitiously permits the child born in the U.S. to ONE FOREIGN NATIONAL PARENT to be a natural born citizen.

    Please carefully articulate this point. If asked, maybe Leo will agree to proof it for you. You da man! Go get ‘em!

  23. Welcome back Leo. Both your knowledge and your voice need to be heard by all Americans.

  24. here is procedure from one of Senator’s help I got last week after
    the House’s bill was rejected by republican’s committee when two GOPers flipped. It seems to me that the President of the Senate is killing this bill on purpose because it passes several committees last year, and then he sat on it. This year he gave it to a committee knowing it was not going to pass.

    Dear Da Verg:

    The following is my best understanding of AZ legislative procedure in answer to your questions:

    If the House passes Rep. Judy Burges’ bill, it comes over to the Senate. It will have to go through at least one Senate committee (President’s choice) in addition to Rules. If it gets out of whatever Senate committees its assigned to, it will go to the Senate floor (President willing). If the Senate and House pass the EXACT same language, then it goes to the Governor for her signature. I may be incorrect, but I don’t think the President has the ability to “pocket” a bill that has passed the Senate. I think he has to send it to the Governor (if it’s passed BOTH the House and the Senate) or to the House (If it hasn’t yet passed the House).

    Bills are voted on at least four times in each house of the legislature (the House of Representatives and the Senate) ASSUMING it gets out of that house of the legislature. It’s voted on by at least one committee, the Rules Committee, and twice on the floor via Committee of the Whole and Third Read.

    Bills, in each house of the legislature go through three “reads.” First and Second Read are largely ceremonial. On 1st and 2nd read, the bill number and short title of the bill are read aloud to the Members on the floor. On Third Read, the Members actually vote on a bill on the floor. If at any time a bill fails on a vote, it advances no further. Granted, in Arizona politics, there’s ways to revive dead bills, like strike everything amendments on bills that are still going through the process.

    Hopefully, this clears things up. For a short primer on Arizona legislative procedure, former Senate President Randall Gnant wrote a book on the subject. No matter what you may think of him, I think his book should still be the first step in getting a grasp on the Arizona legislative process. You might be able to check out a copy from your local library rather than resorting to buying the book.

    Feel free to call or write again if you have further questions.

    ed. If the comments attributed to Burgess at this blog are accurate, and I have no reason to believe they aren’t, HB 2544 is dead and dusted. Furthermore, I am comfortable with the following prediction – NOT ONE BILL REQUIRING POTUS CANDIDATES TO SUPPLY ANY FORM OF US CITIZENSHIP DOCUMENTATION WILL BE PASSED. You won’t even get to see Obama’s real COLB. The photocopy of the COLB that has become well known has never been shown to any election official and it never will be so shown. That’s my opinion. What just happened with SB 1308 in Arizona is the scariest damn thing I’ve seen yet in this fight. All that language in 1308 about birth certificates and COLB etc., none of it has any meaning in the bill. None of it. This compact was cleverly designed to look as if it had some teeth while it’s really support for Obama at the expense of anchor baby citizenship. Why does that not surprise me? The Constitution is confetti. – leo

  25. foreverinbluejeans@cox.net Says:

    thankfully ….. our Consitutition TRUMPS any stupid law that States make!

  26. My understanding is that Arizona is working on 2 different bills of citizenship. One on anchor babies and one on the NBC issue. They are confused on the two. They think they are going to get it correct when they dont have anyone who knows what they are doing on the two issues. We better either help or pray real hard.

    For the greatest country that ever was we sure have a bunch of losers for professional politicians. I think we need an ammendment to the constitution saying all Professional Politicians should be shot. haha. that is only a joke. I try to vote for normal people who are not politicians. Hard to do.

    Unfortunately I am 2500 miles from Arizona.

    ed. this was well thought out and bargained for language. – leo

  27. Leo, very good to hear from you. We missed your intellect. Glad that you are doing well. The Chrysler case is on appeal?

    Can we discuss the question of slcraig, I think it is important:

    “Reading the Bill … but will certainly provide the ‘STATUTORY BASIS’ that has been lacking in the pursuit of a SCOTUS interpretation, won’t it…?”

  28. RE: “No state will pass a bill that even requires Obama to show a real COLB from Hawaii. That’s my prediction…(ed)”

    O had to do something about the states enacting bc-showing state laws else he could not run. So now we know what he is doing about that. If he is able to do engineer this in all states with bc-showing legislation, he is effectively a king.

    Next he will figure out how to abolish the term limit. Why not? The states are in his pocket, the Judiciary Branch as well. The GOP believes that bringing up the eligibility issue would hurt the 2012-GOP-candidates. There is no opposition.

    Even if there were an opposition the regime can eliminate that with the $1B that the regime can easily raise for the campaign. The Checks and Balances principle is dead. The US is a monarchy not a Constitutional Republic. Anyone cares?

  29. truefreedom Says:

    Evergreen 5:45pm

    I beleive Jan Brewer was our SOS in 2008 – who’s job it was to be sure BO submitted proper documentation? Being she let it slide then, I have no confidence she would not sign sb 1308 if it came to her as gov.

  30. “[D]emocracy will soon degenerate into an anarchy, such an anarchy that every man will do what is right in his own eyes and no man’s life or property or reputation or liberty will be secure, and every one of these will soon mould itself into a system of subordination of all the moral virtues and intellectual abilities, all the powers of wealth, beauty, wit and science, to the wanton pleasures, the capricious will, and the execrable cruelty of one or a very few.” –John Adams, An Essay on Man’s Lust for Power, 1763

    http://patriotpost.us/edition/2011/01/07/digest/

    Could not help myself but to share this ‘Daily’ after reading through the thoughts and info on the AZ situation.

    Just before the SB1070 Bill was voted on there was much to do going on with the ‘Election Eligibility Bill’, similar to what appears now.

    When the EE Bill was tabled and SB 1070 was announced I saw it as a pragmatic approach to the one step at a time politics.

    Although I mentioned this before I repeat it now with the question of ‘what will really come out of the State House that follows that one step at a time pragmatic political approach this time’…?

    Bait and switch, carrot and stick, double down on 1070…?

  31. Noo Noo Noo!

    Oh hell NOOOOOOOOOO!

  32. CJ, thanks for your advice. Burges is a House Rep not a State Senator though. Regardless, I will construct another email to her focusing on the points you made. More to follow.

  33. If all this fun and games in Arizona and elsewhere proves anything, it’s a very simple point. That everyone of these legislators, commentators and liars know exactly what the term Natural Born means:

    And why it never needed to be “interpreted” by the SCOTUS. The Founding Fathers knew the danger of a dual citizen in the Commander in Chief position. Many of them knew and admired one of their most trusted officers, General Benedict Arnold. That was what we now call a lesson learned.

    Or, lesson forgotten?

    On the plus side, it might put the Supremes into a deciding moment. On the negative side, the sudden rise of the Hollister case to the Court, which is focused solely on the “Place” of birth, could spell an end to any meaningful definition being spelled out, once and for all.

    As a matter of fact, why can’t a foreign citizen be President? The NBC phrase could mean anything you want it to mean.

    ed. – dont get your hopes up with the Hollister case. best of luck to them, but it appears that the SCOTUS failed to issue a judgment on the motion and will correct that error with a one line denial as with all other cases before them on this issue. I would be happy to eat my words on this one, but will not have to. – Leo

  34. Unfortunately, I think you’re quite right with the pending SCOTUS conference ruling on Hollister. I’m merely curious to see if the 2 O-pointees (Sotomayor/Kagan) formally recuse or not (but I doubt that, too!).

  35. Attn.: AF intel or Leo

    RE: “On the plus side, it might put the Supremes into a deciding moment.”

    Would you explain this in a little more detail ? Thanks.

  36. Attn.: foreverinbluejeans@cox.net

    RE: “thankfully ….. our Consitutition TRUMPS any stupid law that States make!”

    Yes, in theory. But if the Judiciary Branch refuses to rule on merit on vital constitutional issues, as they have done, thereby making the Constitution unenforcable, it TRUMPS nothing.

  37. The following was Filed and docketed in time on 2/11/2011 and is the Guv’mnts Response to the same ‘Show Cause Order’ my ‘Response’ was filed under.

    I consider this a ‘rope-a-dope’ move by EHH Jr.’s minions in that I DID NOT appeal a ‘Removal Order’, nor did I at anytime communicate with the BIA.

    My Appeal was to the AAO/U.

    Anyway, I post it because the ‘Administrative Review’ is not a ‘Public Record’ process so the USCA ‘locks’ the files from public viewing.

    I’m not sure if the Court took extra days off for Presidents Day or if they are having trouble deciding how to deal with my ‘Response’ in light of the fact EHH Jr. is seeking dismissal of something not subject of the Review…?….or I have just jinxed the whole process by posting this…?

    _________________________________________________________

    No. 11-9501
    ___________________________________________
    IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT
    ___________________________________________
    STEVEN LEE CRAIG,
    Agency No. A087 672 698,
    Petitioner,
    v.
    ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., United States Attorney General,
    Respondent.
    ___________________________________________
    RESPONDENT’S RESPONSE TO ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE AND
    MOTION TO DISMISS FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION
    ___________________________________________
    Petitioner Steven Lee Craig (“Craig” or “Petitioner”) is a citizen of the
    United States, born in Oklahoma, and not presently in or subject to removal proceedings. See Exhibits A & B (decision by U.S. Citizenship and ImmigrationServices (“USCIS”) Administrative Appeals Office and Petitioner’s birth certificate). Respondent respectfully moves the Court to dismiss this petition for review for lack of jurisdiction because the January 24, 2011 decision by USCIS denying Craig’s application for a certificate of citizenship for which Craig seeks review is not a final order of removal.

    This Court’s jurisdiction is limited to review “final order[s] of removal.”
    Immigration and Nationality Act (“INA”) § 242(a), 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a); Hamilton v. Gonzales, 485 F.3d 564 (10th Cir. 2007) (holding that it lacked jurisdiction to review the denial of a visa revocation order because it was not a final order of removal). Because Craig has petitioned for review of a USCIS decision addressing solely the denial of an application for his certificate of citizenship and not an order of removal, the decision does not constitute a final order of removal subject to this Court’s jurisdiction. See INA § 101(a)(47)(A), 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(47)(A) (defining “order of removal” as “the order of the special inquiry
    officer [an immigration judge] …. concluding that the alien is deportable or
    ordering deportation”).

    Accordingly, the Court should dismiss the instant petition for review for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. See INA § 242(a)(1), 8 U.S.C.
    § 1252(a)(1).

  38. BTW, the USCIS does not think that they are subject to the Administraion Apeals Act, APA, in 5 USC

  39. RE: “deciding moment”, even if Scotus says they’re not interested in hearing Hollister, they may be more inclined to hear Mr. Craig’s request for a simple definition. At some point, they’ll have to decide whether to “Interpret” the phrase; or not.

    Either way, there will be a decision. If they decide not to hear any of these cases, then the decision is that the voters have defined the intent of NBC by their vote. It could very well end up that Natural Born means he wasn’t born in a test tube. Not intended to be a joke.

  40. Arizona Revised Statutes 16>311(D) requires presidential candidates to file “an affidavit which shall be printed in a form prescribed by the secretary of state. The affidavit shall include facts sufficient to show that, other than the residency requirement provided in subsection A, the candidate will be qualified at the time of election to hold the office the person seeks.” The affidavit for the 2008 presidential election is available at the Arizona Secretary of State’s website (http://www.azsos.gov/election/2008/PPE/Nomination_Paper_PPE_Feb_5_2008.pdf). Obama filled out, signed, and submitted this form, via which he attested to “facts” sufficient to show that he is eligible for the office of President of the United States. He was not required to append any further information or proof. That is what last year’s and this year’s “birther bills” were attempting to do – require proof of what is attested to in the affidavit.

    However, all is not lost; A.R.S. 16-351 (B) states that “Any elector may challenge a candidate for any reason relating to qualifications for the office sought as prescribed by law, including age, residency or professional requirements, if applicable.” I don’t know what the procedure would be for such a challenge, but it is authorized in Arizona, and probably in the other 49 states as well.

    -ed. There will be no challenge and certainly no new legislation requiring anything from Obama other than what he submitted in 2008. All this hullabaloo is going nowhere. It’s all a dong and pony show. – leo

  41. 2008 Senate Bill S.Res511 recognizing John McCain as a natural born citizen twice identifies the born to requirement as “Americans” and “citizens”…plural.

    “Whereas there is no evidence of the intention of the Framers or any Congress to limit the constitutional rights of children born to Americans serving in the military nor to prevent those children from serving as their country’s President;”

    “Whereas John Sidney McCain, III, was born to American citizens on an American military base in the Panama Canal Zone in 1936: Now, therefore, be it…”

    http://www.opencongress.org/bill/110-sr511/text

  42. This is off the topic but an interesting bit of information from 2010, in view of the current events. Did the US media report it? .

    “Gaddafi praised Barack Obama as a “friend” and said there is no longer any dispute between his country and the US. He said, “Now, ruling America is a black man from our continent, an African from Arab descent, from Muslim descent, and this is something we never imagined – that from Reagan we would get to Barakeh Obama.”

    http://israelinsider.net/profiles/blogs/libyas-gaddafi-blesses-obama

  43. Its “natural born Citizen” NOT natural born citizen or
    natural-born American citizen, etc..

    Some of the recent Acts for a Bill do not specify
    “natural born Citizen” with a Capital “C”…..Dan, NY

    Lets hope they get the proper “grammar” in
    the “Bill”.
    Article II, section 1, clause 5 ….
    No Person except a natural born Citizen (Capital “C”), or a Citizen…
    The Capital “C” is used 11 times in the “Articles”, two times in the Amendments and once in the Declaration.
    The small cap “c” was not introduced
    until the (14th) Amendment XIV, section 1, clause 1. All persons born
    or naturalized in the United States,
    and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.

    There were “two” classes of Citizens
    during that time period. State and Federal.

    Citizen= naturally born to two u.s citizen Parents on the soil, except in
    cases of Ambassador’s children born abroad.

    Then “citizen”= native born on the soil (subject to the jurisdiction thereof), or born a naturalized citizen to at least “one” u.s. citizen. (dual citizen).

    Fourteenth Amendment

    http://topics.law.cornell.edu/constitution/amendmentxiv

    Slaughter House Cases (appears just past half way down the page)

    http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0083_0036_ZO.html

    That its main purpose was to establish the citizenship of the negro can admit of no doubt. The phrase, “subject to its jurisdiction” was intended to exclude from its operation children of ministers, consuls, and citizens or subjects of foreign States born within the United States.

    Obama admits he was born a British subject, as his father was never a u.s. citizen. He is not a “natural born Citizen”. IF he was born in Hawaii, he would only be a “native born citizen”, as his mother was to young to confer “any” citizenship onto him. At the time of his birth
    Federal Law stated that you must be
    10 years a resident (citizen), 5 of which must be
    over the age of 14. (19)

    Stanley Ann Dunham (mother) was only 18 years old (shy by 3 months)

    a. section 301 Dec 24, 1954 (see page 18 of 101)

    http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/86757.pdf

    I’m not making this stuff up, read it yourselves……Dan Smith, NY

    To this date NO Legal Birth Certificate has been shown by Obama.

    (attached comment)

    Originally Posted by bluecat6
    Now going beyond just ‘citizenship’ (a common term used by politicians and truthers [better known as “Obots”]). It is important to remember that the President [must] qualify as a ‘natural born Citizen.’ Note – no hyphen and a capital C, though this version of the actual Article II term is commonly misrepresented.

    The reasons I point out the lack of a hyphen and a capital C are more than just being anal re-tentative about legal wording. Many say that ‘natural born Citizen’ is not defined. I say it is defined as the framers intended. They did not create a formal term and leave it out of the document. ‘Citizen’ IS formally defined – THAT IS WHY IT IS CAPITALIZED. [A proper noun refers to “a specific entity or person,” as opposed to “an unspecified member of a class of objects.”] Any lawyer or paralegal or anyone who reads lots of contracts knows this. “Citizen” [meant] “a Citizen of one of the States.”

    So what [about] ‘natural born’. Those are merely adjectives [or, rather, that is an adjectival or modifying phrase,] that narrow[s] what type of Citizen can be President. Using modern dictionaries, you can find what the founders intended – easily. ‘Natural’ can also be described as ‘inherent, not acquired; Having a particular character by nature; Not produced or changed artificially; not conditioned’. See here. ‘Born’ can be viewed as ‘from birth’ [or ‘by birth’ or ‘according to birth’]. Note ‘from birth’, not ‘at birth’ as often referenced.

    So the definition and intent of the founders is abundantly clear. A ‘natural born Citizen’ is a Citizen who is a citizen only through inherent, standard, non-artificial means and has remained that way since birth.
    [Begging the question. Please explain how you made this (apparently unsupported) leap of logic to ‘since birth,’ a concept not mentioned before in this discussion.] The ‘natural born’ adjectives put a strong burden on the Citizen who wants to be President. Not only is this a declaration of status ‘at birth.’ It is a meaning of the Citizen ‘since birth.’ [So you say. But in any court, the most insignificant Supreme Court precedent would outweigh your logic.]

    To highlight why I feel the above provides all we need to understand why the Founders did not feel the need to ‘define ‘natural born Citizen,’ let me relay a scenario that has been floated in this [or] another forum.

    Some have said that Article II phase is to define a status ‘at birth’. Well, this partially correct. Some have even then asked the question – if that is the case, is it possible to be an ‘natural born Citizen’ at birth, but then lose your citizenship – AND STILL BE CONSTITUTIONALLY QUALIFIED TO BE PRESIDENT! Yes, this has been floated around! Because – what if Obama is not a Citizen now, but he was a ‘natural born Citizen’ at birth? (Important note – I am setting aside the whole birth issue for this discussion for now).

    [If SCOTUS uses “from birth,” “by birth,” or “according to birth” to demarcate “natural born citizen,” then only one who has maintained U.S. citizenship continuously since birth qualifies as a nbc. Whoever has allowed his U.S. citizenship to lapse must be naturalized to become a U.S. citizen again. Thereafter, such a citizen is a “naturalized citizen” and can never again be a “natural born Citizen.” (This assumes that “naturalized” and “natural born” are mutually exclusive.)

    But if perchance SCOTUS uses “at birth” to demarcate nbc, then all bets are off, we return to the fantasy realm of the “living Constitution,” and “natural born citizen” means whatever Assoc. Justice Anthony Kennedy says it means on any given day. No future Supreme Court interpretation of “natural born Citizen” is a foregone conclusion.

    We are in uncharted waters wherever America under the Constitution adjoins the Obama Nation under the usurpation. This is not your forefathers’ America. This is a collision between civilizations, world views, ideologies, and religions:
    between the social structures of the third millennium A.D. and a throwback caliphate from the 9th century;
    between freedom to do what is right under Almighty God, the Lord Jesus Christ, and slavery to the state under godless communism or slavery to the powers that be under a toxic, murderous system encompassing church and state and dictating all of life;
    between Christendom, following Jesus Christ, and Is|am, an ideology of conquest, terrorism, torture, slavery, and death which masquerades as a religion, one based upon the ancient Arab moon god, al’Ilah, the hometown of devotees of al’Ilah, and a recitation from al’Ilah imparted by a spirit messenger which Muhammed originally thought was a demon.]
    So, let’s explore the concept that ‘natural born Citizenship’ is ONLY a point in time – i.e. at birth – definition. Then, the literal read[ing] of Article II would NOT require the President to be a CURRENT citizen. If ‘natural born Citizen’ only applied at the time of birth, then to ensure the President was a current citizen, another requirement would need to be added to Article II – ‘Citizen’ without any additional adjectives or qualifiers.

    [The set (group) of “natural born Citizens” is a subset of the set (group) of “citizens”. Therefore, it would seem self-evident that, in order to be a natural born citizen (now), one must be a citizen (now).]

    Now let’s look at what the founders did put in Article II and ensure we apply normal English language constructs [which] the founders understood as learned men. In Article II, ‘Citizen’ is a noun, and since it is capitalized, it is a defined entity or what an good English teacher calls a proper noun – see here for details of proper nouns if a refresher is needed.

    Now for ‘natural’ and ‘born’. Both are standard adjectives. Adjectives add ADDITIONAL details or enhance or refine the description of noun. But adjectives do not CHANGE the definition of nouns, especially proper nouns! So adding ‘natural’ and ‘born’ did not change the definition of the capitalized ‘Citizen’.

    So the founders clearly wanted the President to be a Citizen – a current Citizen. Had the founders left out the words ‘natural born,’ the definition of a Citizen would still be the same. And it would be perfectly clear that they meant the President must be a CURRENT Citizen. Then you can add the adjectives. The current Citizen must be a Citizen through inherent, standard, universally accepted, unambiguous means (natural) and have that status since birth (born). [“Natural”, yes. “Continuously since birth,” intuitively, yes, but that interpretation lacks, needs, and begs for authority from the Constitution as amended and/or Supreme Court precedent.]

    So a natural born Citizen is such the day [he is] born, the day [he turns] 18, and the day [he becomes] President. So adoption that impacts citizenship could [stumble on] the Article II requirement. And if Obama [officially] claimed [and attested under oath before a government official] to be a foreign national or dual citizen after the age of majority, he would not qualify as a natural born Citizen, since the definition is not a point in time status at only birth. It is a status that must be maintained every hour, every day – SINCE BIRTH.

    I am not sure that I agree completely with your logic, but I am sure that most judges will not restrict or bind their understanding of nbc to your logic. Therefore, their results may vary from yours.

    For example, any attorney for the usurpation, if he is worth his salt, will or would bring up the second half of Art. ii, § 1, ¶ 5:
    “neither shall any person be eligible to that office who shall not have attained to the age of thirty five years, and been fourteen Years a resident within the United States.”

    “Fourteen years a resident within the United States” obviously allows for extended sojourns outside the United States, even for an ongoing visit at the present. But Art. ii, § 1 makes no provision for expatriation or renunciation of U.S. citizenship.

    One who is a natural born Citizen now must have been a nbc continuously since birth, because, if one is now a U.S. citizen after an interruption in that status, he must have undergone naturalization in order to regain U.S. citizenship. Therefore, he has become a naturalized citizen of the U.S., and he can never again be a “natural born Citizen” of the U.S..

    Of course, for Mr. Obama, we can’t find any record of naturalization either, so his citizenship status most likely is still illegal alien
    (i..e., born in Kenya to a Kenyan father, a British Protected Subject, and an 18-year-old mother, at a time when the U.S. citizen parent had to be at least 19 to confer his or her U.S. citizenship to his or her foreign born baby of an alien and a U.S. citizen. Barack Obama II probably qualifies as a natural born citizen of Kenya.)

  44. EXTORTION Money or What?
    For a proposed Bill to an Act. HB 1116

    http://www.therightsideoflife.com/2011/01/27/hawaii-pay-100-to-see-obamas-birth-certificate/

    Led by Hawaii Rep. Rida Cabanilla (D) who wants American Citizens and taxpayer’s to pay $100 to view Our elected President and Commander in Chief vital Records to prove citizenship. Please take note of the specific wording in the proposed Bill. It is beyond bizarre.

    Why should the “Employer’s”(Us) of Elected Officials have to pay
    $100 to see a Birth certificate to prove citizenship?

    First of all, “any” Elected Official must be a U.S. citizen to hold a Public
    Office.

    HB 1116 (IN PART) SECTION 2
    “”Person of civic prominence” means a person who is a candidate for, or elected to, a public office that requires the person to be a United States citizen, either natural born or naturalized, to hold the public office for which they are a candidate or to which they have been elected.”

    notice the play on the wording and spelling.
    to be a United States citizen (small cap), either natural born or naturalized. (They left out natural born Citizen)
    Article II, section 1, clause 5 reads: natural born Citizen (Capital “C”)
    NOT “c” small cap.

    BEWARE OF THE MISPELLINGS REFERRING TO
    “natural born Citizen” (in any news article you read)

    Article II, section 1, clause 5, the word Citizen is spelled with a Capital “C” not a small cap “c”. There were two classes of citizens at that time, State & Federal. The word “Citizen” is used 11 times in the VII Articles of Our Constitution. (It is used 2x in the XI Amendment and 1x in The Declaration
    of Independence)

    Lets go to Article I, section 2 concerning the Qualifications requisite
    for Electors. clause 2:
    No Person shall be a Representative who shall not have attained to the Age of twenty five Years, and been seven Years a Citizen of the United States,…….

    Then there is, Article I, section 3, clause 3….
    No Person shall be a Senator who shall not have attained to the Age of
    thirty Years, and been nine Years a Citizen of the United States…….

    Now lets go to the “Article” that started all this mess.
    Article II, section 1, clause 5.
    No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States,
    at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the
    Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who
    shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen
    Years a Resident within the United States.

    Notice the difference in the requirements, seven Years a Citizen, nine Years a Citizen, and then specifically a “natural born Citizen”.
    note: 25 years a born citizen 7 years a Citizen
    Representative: could mean 7 years over the age of 18= 25
    Senator: could mean 9 years over the age of 21= 30

    Article I, might allow that a “foreigner” who has become a Citizen by means of
    “swearing an Oath of Allegiance” to Our Country as a naturalized Citizen.

    The 14th Amendment changed the spelling of Citizen to citizen (small cap “c”), which allowed for children born on Our soil of Foreign parents to
    be called a “native born” citizen, subject to the jurisdiction thereof. This
    allows for “dual” citizenship to those countries who accept that. Some
    countries do not accept “dual” citizenship such as Indonesia

    If Our Founders of Our Constitution wanted to allow simply for a “native” born citizen to be President they would have stated so.

  45. (Sneaky bastards is right Leo. Thanks for the heads up about another scam to get obama on the ballot even though he can’t provide any documentation validating his US citizenship. The natural born question is almost moot because you must be a citizen before you can be a natural born citizen. Up to this point obama has provided nothing that can be verified to validate his US citizenship. Nothing.)

    2 main facts about the “certification of live birth” the obama campaign put on the internet

  46. Per ARS 16-311, why not have someone who is a complete foreigner get on the Arizona ballot and admit they are born in a foreign country, and still self-attest they are eligible. If the SoS deviates from his no-criteria for Ofraud, then SUE for discrimination, and if he asks for “facts” then demand same for Ofraud or SUE for discrimination.

    Bueller? Bueller?

  47. @ KJ,

    A small point…If you look back at my post I referred to her as a “legislator” which covers senators and representatives.

    A bigger point…I should have been more clear in the last sentence of my second paragraph. It would have been better stated as ” …the bill surreptitiously permits a child born in the U.S. to ONE FOREIGN NATIONAL PARENT to be a natural born citizen as long as that child is also born to one parent who owes no allegiance to any foreign sovereignty (i.e. one parent who is only a U.S. citizen).”

    The language of the bill is ridiculous in that it does not prevent the situation of a child owing an allegiance to a foreign sovereignty because it takes only one foreign national parent for this to occur. The situation can definitely be prevented if both parents are U.S. citizens and ONLY U.S. citizens. I say “definitely” rather than “only” because I am not certain that a child born on U.S. soil to a parent with dual citizenship (e.g. U.S./British) would not also have the dual citizenship of the parent.

    It’s akin to having two doors in the fuselage of a commercial passenger aircraft and closing only one before you take off on your ascent to 35,000 feet. Only two closed doors keep you warm and pressurized at altitude.

  48. The entire Natural Born Citizen clause was obviously placed in Constitution intentionally by Madison et al. It wasn’t an inadvertent act. Those gentlemen pondered and debated every adjective, verb, pronoun and noun. I believe our Justices, well most of them anyway, who have ever pondered the reason for that idiom could only come to one conclusion.

    A Natural Born Citizen had a single allegiance from birth. An American Father and an American Mother having a child born in Iowa, had successfully produced an offspring with a natural, sole allegiance to America.

    Proving Obama was Born outside Hawaii is irrelevant. If we ever proved that he was born in Kenya, so what? He’s now a liar. There’s no Constitutional requirement that a President be born on US soil. John McCain wasn’t. Craig is correct. Without a legal definition, any challenge to Obama’s legitimacy is just a personal attack.

    As it legally stands, Natural Born Citizen means absolutely nothing. Unless the Supreme Court actually looks at the precedent and historical background. Obama will not be impeached or deposed.

    ed. Yes there is a requirement a person be born on US soil… McCain was not eligible and never will be. – Leo

  49. Attn.: AF Intel

    RE:” “deciding moment”, even if Scotus says they’re not interested in hearing Hollister, they may be more inclined to hear Mr. Craig’s request for a simple definition. At some point, they’ll have to decide whether to “Interpret” the phrase; or not. Either way, there will be a decision. If they decide not to hear any of these cases….”

    I was hoping that you meant something more positive about “deciding moment”. In my opinion they have decided already. No such case will have the 4 votes to hear on merit.

    I am aware of Mr. Craig’s case and wish him all the luck. It is a very clever approach but with the current composition of SCOTUS, one can not be optimistic. It is not that his case is not presented superbly. It is that SCOTUS can pretend, without any consequence whatsoever, that this is not a vital constitutional issue.

    They will not rule on merit nor will they define nbc unless Congress forces them to do so. However, Congress is not interested to do that, as the GOP leadership believes that using the eligibility issue would hurt the chances of 2012-GOP candidates. Furthermore, they believe that they can get the White House on policy issues alone.

    Of course they cannot, and by using this approach they are securing the Prez’ second term. But as SCOTUS is not under pressure to do anything they will do nothing, making the constitution unenforceable.

  50. Attn.: evergreen

    RE: “Per ARS 16-311, why not have someone who is a complete foreigner get on the Arizona ballot and admit they are born in a foreign country, and still self-attest they are eligible…”

    Because, they would throw the book at him for fraud. He is not the exempt Messiah.

  51. borderraven Says:

    In USA v Wong Kim Ark, the question to SCOTUS was Ark a US Citizen, and after a long discussion about Natural Born Citizen, SCOTUS declared him a US Citizen.

    See photos at:

  52. borderraven Says:

    Perkins v Elg (1939)
    The U.S. Supreme Court concluded that Marie Elizabeth Elg, who was born in the United States of Swedish parents naturalized[1] in the United States, had not lost her birthright U.S. citizenship because of her removal during minority to Sweden and was entitled to all the rights and privileges of that U.S. citizenship. In this case, the U.S. Supreme Court affirmed the decree that declared Elg “to be a natural born citizen of the United States.”
    Elg’s mother’s benefitted from the policy of derivative naturalization, in effect from 1855 to 1922. When Marie Elg was born in New York State, both of her parents being US Citizens, therefore Marie was not only a US Citizen, but a US Natural Born Citizen.:

    http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=307&invol=325

    1. Per SCOTUS decision in Perkins v Elg (1939) Obama did not lose US Citizenship status when taken out of the USA as a minor, and he did not need to claim US Citizenship status on return or on reaching the age of majority.

    2. Per SCOTUS decision in Perkins v Elg (1939) Obama is not a US Natural Born Citizen.

    [1] http://www.scribd.com/doc/47380218/Perkins-v-Elg-1939-Versus-Obama-Eligibility

    Elg’s mother’s benefitted from the policy of derivative naturalization, (Act of Congress 1855) in effect from 1855 to 1922. When Marie Elg was born in New York State, both of her parents being US Citizens, therefore Marie was not only a US Citizen, but a US Natural Born Citizen.

  53. borderraven Says:

    Timeline Barack H Obama II 1961 to 1982

    If Barack H Obama II was born in the USA to a US citizen mother and a US citizen father, then he would be a US Natural Born Citizen, therefore his citizenship would not be affected by the British Nationality Act of 1948 or the 1963 Kenyan Constitution.

    Barack H Obama II was born in the USA to a US citizen mother and a British citizen so at birth he was a Native Born US/British Dual Citizen, his citizenship was affected by the British Nationality Act of 1948 and later by the 1963 Kenyan Constitution, therefore he is a US Citizen, but not a US Natural Born Citizen.

  54. borderraven Says:

    TIMELINE: Barack Hussein Obama II (1961 to 1982) V2.0

    Barack Hussein Obama II, was born on August 4, 1961.
    [Need certified long form birth certificate]

    What conditions existed on that day?

    He was born in the US, subject to the 14th Amendment, and is a US Citizen, eligible to serve as an Article I US Senator. He was born to a British citizen father and subject to the British Nationality Act 1948.

    The UK recognized jus sangunis dual-nationality in 1961, and the US recognized Jus soli.

    Barack Hussein Obama II, was born after the British Nationality Act 1948, but before the British Nationality Acts 1981 and 1983, and he was born a first-generation jus sanguinis UK citizen.

    Since Barack Hussein Obama II, was born a first-generation UK citizen, not a naturalized UKC, living in the US, he remained a British citizen in the eyes of the British government, until Kenya Independence on December 12, 1963.

    “Various countries do base their nationality laws first and foremost on jus sanguinis. The UK departed from the common law tradition when it brought the British Nationality Act 1981 into force and required that at least one parent have permanent residence in the UK for a child born in the UK to be a British citizen at birth.”

    In 1961, Barack Obama Sr, was in the US on a non-immigrant student visa, and he had a home (permanent residence) in Kenya British Protectorate which “he had no intention of abandoning.”

    THE CONSTITUTION OF KENYA
    On December 12, 1963, with Kenya Independence, Barack Obama Sr. and Barack Hussein Obama II lost UK Citizenship
    On December 12, 1963, with Kenya Independence, Barack Obama Sr. became a Kenya Citizen, with child custody of Barack Hussein Obama II.
    On December 12, 1963, with Kenya Independence, Barack Hussein Obama II’s mother became a dual USA/Kenya Citizen, if she was married to Barack Obama Sr. [in dispute]
    On December 12, 1963, with Kenya Independence, Barack Hussein Obama II, became a dual USA/Kenya Citizen.

    On March 6, 1964, on divorce from Barack Obama Sr, Barack Hussein Obama II’s mother lost Kenya citizenship and became a US Citizen.
    On March 6, 1964, his parent’s divorce granted Barack Obama Sr “reasonable visitation, with child support TBD”, thus by connections Barack Hussein Obama II, remained a dual USA/Kenya Citizen.

    [ need the Obama-Soetoro Indonesia time line, but it has no effect on Barack Hussein Obama II’s US Citizenship. Perkins v. Elg, 307 U.S. 325 (1939) ]

    1971 Barack Hussein Obama II was 10 years old and returned to Hawaii on a US passport.

    1979 Barack Hussein Obama II was 18 years old.

    US Selective Service System. The registration requirement was suspended in April 1975. It was resumed again in 1980 by President Carter in response to the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. Registration continues today as a hedge against underestimating the number of servicemen needed in a future crisis. “On July 2, 1980, however, President Carter signed Proclamation 4771, Registration Under the Military Selective Service Act, retroactively re-establishing the Selective Service registration requirement for all 18–26 year old male citizens born on or after January 1, 1960.”

    1981 The British Nationality Act 1981 was effective from the date it was enacted, not retroactive, but had no effect on Barack Hussein Obama II, since on December 12, 1963, with Kenya Independence Barack Hussein Obama II lost UK citizenship.

    1982 Barack Hussein Obama II was 21 years old, ceased being under the CONSTITUTION OF KENYA, lost Kenya citizenship, and remained a US Citizen, but never was a US Natural Born Citizen.

    CAVEAT:
    Barack Hussein Obama II, lost foreign citizenships, because he didn’t choose to take them, but that did not gain him natural born citizenship, which can only be acquired at birth, under the circumstance of two US citizen parents.

    Before 1983, as a general rule British nationality could only be transmitted from the father through one generation only, and parents were required to be married. See History of British nationality law.

    If Barack Hussein Obama II was born in the USA to a US citizen mother and a US citizen father, then he would be a US Natural Born Citizen, therefore his citizenship would not be affected by the British Nationality Act of 1948 or the 1963 Kenyan Constitution. Barack Hussein Obama II is not a US Natural Born Citizen and is ineligible under US Constitution Article 1 to serve as a US President.

    Barack Hussein Obama II was born in the USA to a US citizen mother and a British citizen so at birth he was a Native Born US/British Dual Citizen, and later his citizenship was affected by the British Nationality Act of 1948 and the 1963 Kenyan Constitution, therefore he is a US Citizen. Barack Hussein Obama II is a US citizen eligible under US Constitution Article 1 to serve as a US Senator.

    Remember:
    It is not so much that you should worry about a foreign government having control over a US President who is born a dual-citizen; but you should worry that a US President who is born a dual-citizen would exercise loyalties towards a foreign nation.

    Let’s not forget how Ferdinand Marcos, former elected President of the Republic of Philippines, declared a national emergency, and put the nation under martial law for 14 years.

    AUTHORITIES:
    USA v Wong Kim Ark (1898)

    http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0169_0649_ZO.html

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/22246938/Wong-Kim-Ark-US-v-169-US-649-1898

    Wong Kim Ark Question & Answer

    Perkins v. Elg, 307 U.S. 325 (1939)

    http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=307&invol=325

    British Nationality Act 1948

    http://www.uniset.ca/naty/BNA1948.htm

    The Statesmans Year Book 1950

    http://www.archive.org/details/statesmansyearbo030477mbp

    United Kingdom Treaty 1952

    http://travel.state.gov/law/legal/treaty/treaty_1507.html

    Indonesian Nationality Act dated 29 July 1958

    http://www.expat.or.id/info/familylaw.html

    Is it Possible Obama was born in Kenya?

    http://www.nigerianobservernews.com/4112008/4112008/news/news1.html

    What does a Hawaii Long Form Birth Certificate look like?

    http://the.honoluluadvertiser.com/article/2008/Dec/22/ln/hawaii812220320.html

    THE CONSTITUTION OF KENYA

    http://www.constitutionnet.org/files/KEL63-002.pdf

    US Selective Service System

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Selective_Service_System

    http://moniquemonicat.wordpress.com/2008/12/01/test-ss-reg/

    British Nationality Law

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_British_nationality_law

    British Nationality Before 1983

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_nationality_law#Before_1983

    US STATE DEPT – Acquisition of Citizenship

    http://travel.state.gov/law/citizenship/citizenship_782.html

    US STATE DEPT – FAM 1110 Acquisition of US Citizenship by Birth in US

    http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/86755.pdf

    US STATE DEPT – USA recognizes dual-citizenship

    http://travel.state.gov/travel/cis_pa_tw/cis/cis_1753.html

    Natural Citizenship

    http://uspolitics.about.com/od/politicaljunkies/a/natural_citizen.htm

    Multiple Citizenship

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiple_citizenship

    Map: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Dual_Citizenship.svg

    US Presidential Eligibility
    See http://www.scribd.com/doc/46145949/US-President-Eligibility

    How did Barack Hussein Obama get through the election process?
    See http://www.scribd.com/doc/21382712/Isnt-the-Birther-Movement-Really-About-Racism

  55. borderraven Says:

    Aliens and Nationality – 8 USC Section 1401c (PROPOSED)

    Sec. 1401c. Natural Born Citizens of United States at birth
    The following shall be Natural Born Citizens of the United States at birth:

    (a) a person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, where both parents are US citizens under 8USC1401.

  56. borderraven Says:

    I don’t know how the law was in 1961,…

    The term “US soil” can be construed as “Soil under control of the US military.” Which would place military bases, Navy Hospitals, Embassies, Consulates, and conveyances (ships and aircraft under US control), in US waters, or airspace.

    But, should not be construed to apply to non-immigrant, transient aliens, as defined by
    (8USC1101(a)
    (15) The term ‘‘immigrant’’ means every alien
    except an alien who is within one of the following
    classes of nonimmigrant aliens—
    (A)(i) an ambassador, public minister, or career
    diplomatic or consular officer who has
    been accredited by a foreign government, recognized
    de jure by the United States and who
    is accepted by the President or by the Secretary
    of State, and the members of the alien’s
    immediate family;
    -thru-
    (F)(i) an alien having a residence in a foreign
    country which he has no intention of abandoning,
    who is a bona fide student qualified to
    pursue a full course of study and who seeks to
    enter the United States temporarily and solely
    for the purpose of pursuing such a course of
    study consistent with section 1184(l) 1 of this
    title at an established college, university,
    seminary, conservatory, academic high school,
    elementary school, or other academic institution
    or in a language training program in the
    United States, particularly designated by him
    and approved by the Attorney General after
    consultation with the Secretary of Education,
    which institution or place of study shall have
    agreed to report to the Attorney General the
    termination of attendance of each nonimmigrant
    student, and if any such institution
    of learning or place of study fails to make reports
    promptly the approval shall be withdrawn,
    (ii) the alien spouse and minor children
    of any alien described in clause (i) if accompanying
    or following to join such an alien, and
    (iii) an alien who is a national of Canada or
    Mexico, who maintains actual residence and
    place of abode in the country of nationality,
    who is described in clause (i) except that the
    alien’s qualifications for and actual course of
    study may be full or part-time, and who commutes
    to the United States institution or
    place of study from Canada or Mexico;
    -thru-
    (8USC1101(a)(15)(V)

    As you see consuls and students are in the same category.
    Obama’s father was under (8USC1101(a)(15)(F)(i))

    ed. I have not seen any evidence McCain was born on a military installation, but even if he was, he’s still not eligible.

    U.S. State Department policy (as codified in the department­’s Foreign Affairs Manual) at 7 FAM 1114 (c)(1) reads:

    “Despite widespread popular belief, U.S. military installati­ons abroad and U.S. diplomatic or consular facilities are not part of the United States within the meaning of the 14th Amendment. A child born on the premises of such a facility is not subject to the jurisdicti­on of the United States and does not acquire U.S. citizenshi­p by reason of birth.”

    – Leo

  57. borderraven Says:

    Did SCOTUS define Natural Born Citizen in Perkins v. Elg, 307 U.S. 325 (1939)?

    “The District Court overruled the motion as to the Secretary of Labor and the Commissioner of Immigration and entered a decree declaring that the plaintiff is a native citizen of the United States but directing that the complaint be dismissed as to the Secretary of State because of his official discretion in the issue of passports. On cross appeals, the Court of Appeals affirmed the decree, 69 App.D.C. 175, 99 F.2d 408. Certiorari was granted, December 5, 1938, 305 U.S. 591 , 59 S. Ct. 245, 83 L.Ed. –. …

    First.-On her birth in New York, the plaintiff became a citizen of the United States. Civil Rights Act of 1866, [307 U.S. 325, 329] 14 Stat. 27; Fourteenth Amendment, Section 1, U.S.C.A.Const.; United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 , 18 S.Ct. 456.

    Second.-It has long been a recognized principle in this country that if a child born here is taken during minority to the country of his parents’ origin, where his parents resume their former allegiance, he does not thereby lose his citizenship in the United States provided that on attaining majority he elects to retain that citizenship and to return to the United States to assume its duties. 2 [307 U.S. 325, 330] This principle was clearly stated by Attorney General Edwards Pierrepont in his letter of advice to the Secretary of State Hamilton Fish, in Steinkauler’s Case, 1875, 15 Op.Atty.Gen. 15.

    Third.-Petitioners invoke our treaty with Sweden of 1869…. . Article I of the treaty provides:

    ‘Citizens of the United States of America who have resided in Sweden or Norway for a continuous period of at least five years, and during such residence have become [307 U.S. 325, 337] and are lawfully, recognized as citizens of Sweden or Norway, shall be held by the government of the United States to be Swedish or Norwegian citizens, and shall be treated as such.
    ‘Reciprocally, … to be American citizens, and shall be treated as such.

    Fourth.-We think that petitioners’ contention under Section 2 of the Act of March 2, 1907,24 is equally untenable. That statutory provision is as follows:

    ‘That any American citizen shall be deemed to have expatriated himself when he has been naturalized in any foreign State in conformity with its laws, or when he has taken an oath of allegiance to any foreign State.

    Fifth.-The cross petition of Miss Elg, upon which certiorari was granted in No. 455, is addressed to the part of the decree below which dismissed the bill of complaint as against the Secretary of State … But the Secretary of State, according to the allegation of the bill of complaint, had refused to issue a passport to Miss Elg ‘solely on the ground that she had lost her native born American citizenship.’ … The court below, properly recognizing the existence of an actual controversy with the defendants [307 U.S. 325, 350] (Aetna Life Ins. Co. v. Haworth, 300 U.S. 227 , 57 S.Ct. 461, 108 A.L.R. 1000), declared Miss Elg ‘to be a natural born citizen of the United States’ ”

    NOTE: Act of Congress 1855, granted derivative naturalization to Elg’s mother by marriage to her father.

  58. Let’s see how many iterations of proposed succinct definitions of ‘natural born Citizen’ that might be made. My entry being;

    “…a person born within the territorial limits of a Constitutionally admitted ‘State’ whose natural parents were both U.S. Citizens at the time of birth.”

  59. James G. Borden Says:

    The eight elected officials who voted for this bill are American traitors.

  60. my letter to representatives of AZ, please help me fix it

    Dear Representatives:

    SBs 1308/1309 are flawed in many ways. They try to change the Constitution, they try to change history, they try to re-define age old definitions. For what? Let’s look at the history and some examples of the flaws.

    Our Founders knew these two terms, naturalized citizen and natural born Citizen (NBC), meant something entirely different. Plus, prior to the Civil War each of the States had held sole authority to define who was a citizen. It was only after the Civil War that the gross inequities among the States came to light, and gave rise to what became the 14th Amendment so that the rules to becoming a U.S. Citizen would be the same in every state. It was only then that the definition of “citizen” became a federal issue. NBC is not mentioned in the 14th ammendment which reinforces the fact that the legislators at that time (1866-1868) knew NBC to be a term defined totally separate from “citizen”, “naturalized citizen”, “non-native born citizen”. As a matter of fact there are no examples of natural born citizen saying that one citizen as parent qualifies. No where.

    The author of the 14th amendment, John Bingham, in the 37th Congress 2nd Session House of Representatives 1862, Said:
    “Who are natural born citizens?

    All persons born within the Republic, OF PARENTS OWING ALLEGIANCE TO NO OTHER SOVEREIGNTY, ARE NATURAL BORN CITIZENS.”

    Note the plural, parents, not parent. NOTE OF PARENTS OWING NO SOVEREIGNTY. THESE BILLS COMPLETELY IGNORE ONE OR THE OTHER PARENTS (whether living or dead) !?

    In 2008,2008 Senate Bill S.Res511 recognizing John McCain as a natural born citizen twice identifies the born to requirement as “Americans” and “citizens”…plural.

    “Whereas there is no evidence of the intention of the Framers or any Congress to limit the constitutional rights of children born to Americans serving in the military nor to prevent those children from serving as their country’s President;”

    “Whereas John Sidney McCain, III, was born to American citizens on an American military base in the Panama Canal Zone in 1936: Now, therefore, be it…”

    http://www.opencongress.org/bill/110-sr511/text

    Again note the plural, it was also during this resolution that Patrick Leahy , Senator from Vermont said: “…natural born citizen requires two parents to be US Citizens”. Chertoff replied, “that is my understanding also.”

    Therefore by the above repeated demonstration OBAMA does not qualify.

    http://www.thepostemail.com/2010/05/17/the-senate-defined-natural-born-citizen-in-2008-and-obama-didnt-qualify/

    So the question are SB1308/1309 changing a definition that has been known, and taught , throughout the ages in Civics classes in USA?

    What does this say about OBAMA being elected in first place? You can’t change a definition AFTER the fact, that means he was not qualified in 2008? You also do not have the 75% of states to change the Constitution into something that it was not intended when it was written.

    This is what happens when you get a usurper in office. Blackmail. You are basically blackmailing the anchor babies using the OBama usurper to gain something for nothing. This is yet another reason why it is wrong and unconstitutional.

    If you want anchor babies in Arizona not to be citizens pass a separate law. If you want the president of USA to be qualified as dual citizen, and that is what you are saying here, then pass a separate law and get 75% of states to change the constitution.

    Let’s look at the bills’ “illogical ” no allegiance wording. If a person has two parents from two different citizenships you can NEVER lose allegiances. That is the same as saying that someone born in the USA loses his/her US citizenship. SB1308/1309 are basically stripping the citizenship of birth from one nation or the other. And that is illegal. The codes and constitution of USA does not allow for that.

    Let’s say someone is born of parents with two allegiances. One can not ever lose one allegiance as noted above. Let’s say they were born here, and moved to North Korea (or some other anti-American nation) and the parents had more siblings. Then one of them moves back here. Would you say they had no allegiances? What about the other siblings? Uncles? Aunts? Cousins (did you know OBAMA’s cousin is brutal dictator of Kenya? Can you say OBAMA’s family (tribe/clan) has no allegiance? I don’t think so.) The bill makes no sense in terms of “no allegiance”. What does “no allegiances” mean these bills? Whoever wrote the bills has no comprehension of our nations’ history or the meaning of natural born Citizen, allegiances, and US code on citizenship.

    What is wrong with keeping the age old definition of a natural born citizen has two US parents as citizens AND born on US soil (US jurisdiction)? That simplifies the matter doesn’t it? There is absolutely no question of allegiance, is there?

    In summary, these bills attempt to qualify someone with dual citizenships/dual allegiances as president of USA. The Constitution and our founding framers NEVER intended this. The question is why? The answer is obvious: to protect the usurper OBAMA. George Washington, Jefferson, Adams, Hanccok, Vattel, Leahy, and Bingham set precedence. These bills are trying to change definitions and precedence without just cause, logic, history.

    Do the right thing, re write these bills, reject them in current written form.

    Best Regards

  61. borderraven Says:

    California Government Codes Sections 240’s and 270’s say:
    The people, as a political body, consist of:
    (a) Citizens who are electors.
    (b) Citizens not electors.

    The citizens of the State are:
    (a) All persons born in the State and residing within it, except the children of transient aliens and of alien public ministers and consuls.
    (b) All persons born out of the State who are citizens of the United States and residing within the State.*

    Persons in the State not its citizens are either:
    (a) Citizens of other States; or
    (b) Aliens.

    Every person while within the State is subject to its jurisdiction and entitled to its protection.

    Allegiance is the obligation of fidelity and obedience which every citizen owes to the State.

    Allegiance may be renounced by a change of residence.

    A citizen of the United States who is not a citizen of theState, has the same rights and duties as a citizen of the State not an elector.

    An elector has no rights or duties beyond those of a citizen not an elector, except the right and duty of holding office and voting.

    * Note if the Wisconsin legislators, after abandoning their district, cross state lines to enter California, they surrender Wisconsin citizenship, vacate their office, and Governor Walker will be authorized to appoint replacements.

  62. KJ Kaufman Says:

    CJ,

    Here is an update on my further correspondence with Representative Burges.

    I wrote to her saying:

    I apologize for bothering you again on this matter, but in my several emails to you, I’ve asked you a couple of times to vote against SB1308 and have not received a response to you regarding this specific matter. I want to once again impress upon you that the wording of SB1308 allows for a person born to only one citizen parent to be a natural born Citizen. That means a dual citizen at birth would be considered a natural born Citizen of the U.S. How is that possible? Can you please explain to me your position on this and how you view SB1308 now that this information has been brought to your attention? I fully understand that SB1308 is attempting to deal with 14th Amendment citizens, but the wording they chose in the bill produces the result I have described. I humbly request a reply. Thank you for your time.

    She replied which I believes shows where she is at in playing games. Anyway here is her reply:

    I have not read the bill yet. Judy

    To which I replied:

    I gave you the pertinent portions in my original email where I show you that they define natural born Citizen as only needing one citizen parent leaving a dual citizen at birth under their definition to be a natural born U.S. Citizen. I’m just asking that you be straight with me on what your thoughts are on that and whether or not you support that definition. Here once again are the pertinent portions of SB1308:

    ARTICLE 6. INTERSTATE BIRTH CERTIFICATE COMPACT…

    ARTICLE II

    Definition

    As used in this compact, “subject to the jurisdiction of the United States” has the meaning that it bears in section 1 of the fourteenth amendment to the United States Constitution, namely that the person is a child of at least one parent who owes no allegiance to any foreign sovereignty…For the purposes of this compact a person who owes no allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is a United States citizen …

    ARTICLE III

    Terms

    …A person who is born subject to the jurisdiction of the United States is a natural born United States citizen.

    To which I am now awaiting her reply and don’t anticipate getting one.

  63. borderraven Says:

    We need to revise birth certificates to require from the parents, their nationality and immigration status. We need a list of acceptable documents that prove birthplace, nationality, and immigration status, with blocks for such verifying data. Requiring hospitals and a state agency (DMV, State Police, Employment Development Dept, etc.) to independently verify the data.

    I guess there might be a constitutional challenge by ACLU.

  64. borderraven Says:

    Ineligible candidates becoming US Presidents do not set precedence and we do not suspend our laws because people prove they can get away with crime.

  65. ed. If the comments attributed to Burgess at this blog are accurate, and I have no reason to believe they aren’t, HB 2544 is dead and dusted. Furthermore, I am comfortable with the following prediction – NOT ONE BILL REQUIRING POTUS CANDIDATES TO SUPPLY ANY FORM OF US CITIZENSHIP DOCUMENTATION WILL BE PASSED. You won’t even get to see Obama’s real COLB. The photocopy of the COLB that has become well known has never been shown to any election official and it never will be so shown. That’s my opinion. What just happened with SB 1308 in Arizona is the scariest damn thing I’ve seen yet in this fight. All that language in 1308 about birth certificates and COLB etc., none of it has any meaning in the bill. None of it. This compact was cleverly designed to look as if it had some teeth while it’s really support for Obama at the expense of anchor baby citizenship. Why does that not surprise me? The Constitution is confetti. – leo

    (If what you say is true Leo, and I do believe it is, our government and especially our “president” is lawless. My question to you is what should Americans do to maintain our liberty and freedom?)

  66. Purpose

    Authorizes and directs the Governor to enter into an Interstate Birth Certificate Compact (Compact) with other states.

    Background

    The Citizenship Clause in the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution states that, “All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.”

    Article 1, Section 10, Clause 3 of the U.S. Constitution reads: “No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any Duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay.”

    According to A.R.S. § 36-333, birth certificates are required to be registered within seven days after a child’s birth in Arizona. A local, deputy or state registrar will register a birth certificate if it is accurate, complete and properly submitted. A.R.S. § 36-333 also specifies the responsibilities for certain persons regarding the requirements for birth certificates, including: a) who must obtain the information, including social security numbers and signatures; b) who must fill out the birth certificate; and c) who must submit the birth certificate to the registrar.

    The fiscal impact associated with this legislation is undetermined.

    Provisions

    Terms

    1. Requires each party state to make a distinction in the birth certificates, certifications of live births or other birth records issued in the party states between:

    a) a person born in the party state who is born subject to the jurisdiction of the U.S.; and

    b) a person who is not born subject to the jurisdiction of the U.S.

    2. Specifies that a person who is born subject to the jurisdiction of the U.S. is a natural born U.S. citizen.

    Definitions

    3. Defines subject to the jurisdiction of the U.S. as the meaning that it bears in § 1 of the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which is that the person is a child of at least one parent who does not owe allegiance to any foreign sovereignty, or a child without citizenship or nationality in any foreign country.

    4. Specifies that a person who does not owe allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is a U.S. citizen or national, an immigrant accorded the privilege of permanent U.S. residency, or a person without citizenship or nationality in any foreign country.

    Enforcement

    5. Requires the governor of each party state to enforce the Compact.

    6. States that a taxpaying resident of a party state has standing in the courts of any party state to require the governor of any party state to enforce the Compact.

    Administration

    7. Designates the governor of each party state or their designee as the Compact administrator.

    8. Requires a Compact administrator to:

    a) maintain an accurate list of party states;

    b) formulate the necessary and proper procedures to effectuate the Compact;

    c) delegate tasks to other state agencies; and

    d) furnish information or documents that are reasonably necessary to facilitate the administration of the Compact to other party state administrators.

    Entry into Effect and Withdrawal

    9. States that the Compact is deemed accepted when at least two states deliver a specified notice of confirmation, to each other’s governor, the Office of the Clerk of the U.S. House of Representatives, the Office of the Secretary of the U.S. Senate, the President of the U.S. Senate and the Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives.

    10. Requires Congressional consent pursuant to Article 1, § 10, cl. 3 of the U.S. Constitution for the Compact to take effect.

    11. Allows a party state to withdraw four years after the Compact first becomes effective.

    Miscellaneous

    12. Includes a findings and declaration of policy section.

    13. Includes a construction and severability section, which includes an intent clause.

    14. Becomes effective on the general effective date.

    Amendments Adopted by Committee

    Corrects a drafting error in the definition of “subject to the jurisdiction of the U.S.”

  67. AZGuardDog Says:

    The eight elected officials who voted for this bill are need to be tried ans given the stiffest sentence possible.

  68. Correction:

    7 FAM 1113 NOT INCLUDED IN THE MEANING OF “IN THE UNITED STATES”

    c. Birth on U.S. Military Base Outside of the United States or Birth on U.S. Embassy or Consulate Premises Abroad:

    (1) Despite widespread popular belief, U.S. military installations abroad and U.S. diplomatic or consular facilities abroad are not part of the United States within the meaning of the 14th Amendment. A child born on the premises of such a facility is not born in the United States and does not acquire U.S. citizenship by reason of birth.

    http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/86755.pdf

  69. Most of the proponents of jus soli use the Wong Kim Ark court’s holding, (as opposed to the decision) based on Lord Coke in Calvin’s case, where they concluded that a child of an alien, visiting, temporarily is an English ‘natural born subject’ so therefore a US Article II ‘natural born Citizen’ is one who is born of an alien, as long as they are born in USA.

    But if you read Calvin’s case, where Calvin was deemed a ‘natural born subject’ of England, you will find that Lord Coke actually said:
    “Calvin the Plaintiff naturalized by PROCREATION and birth right”

    “There is found in the law four kinds of ligeances: the first is, ligeantia naturalis, absoluta, pura, et indefinita,42 and this originally is due by NATURE and birthright, and is called alta ligeantia42a and he that oweth this is called subditus natus.”

    This was NEVER mentioned in the WKA court.

    A reading of Calvin’s case proves that sanguinis was ONE of the TWO essential elements to qualify a ‘natural born’.

    Quite the opposite to what the WKA court held.

    It proves an error in the holding WKA court and this error has festered and grown ever since.

    Here is more from Lord Coke in his report on Calvin’s case…..

    “that issue is no subject to the King of England, though he be born upon his soyl, and under his meridian, for that he was NOT BORN UNDER THE LIGEANCE OF A SUBJECT,”

    Bottom-line is that sanguinis IS essential in English common law & not only soli for ‘natural born’.

    The very legally educated framers with their very learned and comprehensive knowledge of English common law, must have seen this holding of sanguinis and soli in Coke’s report of Calvin’s case, and the principle of sanguinis and soli was applied in the USC Art. II for a US ‘natural born Citizen’.

    Given the clear intention of the framers to protect and secure the office of POTUS from any foreign influence and claim, the TWO element qualification principle was a perfect fit.

  70. borderraven Says:

    February 26, 2011 at 1:28 AM
    We need to revise birth certificates to require from the parents,

    In my pursuit to be ‘certified’ as being a natural born citizen I included not only my BC but those of BOTH my parents.

    There was no acknowledgment of that fact in either of the ‘decisions’ or response by the AG’s office so I remain being acknowledged of ‘only’ being a ‘native born U.S. citizen’.

    I mention it being in full agreement that the ‘HHS/Dept of Vital Statistics’ could easily add a couple of boxes for those parents who wish to have their child recognized at birth as being a natural born Citizen with the providing of additional documentation.

    There are currently 100’s of ‘boxes’ for data collection that are included in the ‘Standard BC’, (and also ‘Still Born and Death Certs, etc) mandated to ALL Health service facilities wanting to be certified and eligible for ‘federal’ and or State funds.

    To suggest that ONLY ‘birth date and parents names’ have EVER been sufficient is to deny the history of ALL Civil Societies.

    Anyway, for what it is worth, I agree and we can NEVER allow such an occurrence happen again by a person of low character crawling though a ‘legal loop-hole’.

  71. borderraven Says:

    slcraig,

    Vital statistics are now collected via computer software requiring more questions than a birth certificate can answer. The data are distributed in many reports to state and federal departments and agencies too numerous to count. My suggestion is to revise the laws and change birth certificates to require from both parents proof of their birthplace, nationality and immigration status, as this will combine to determine the citizenship and nationality of the child.

    Congress should enact laws defining citizenship and nationality as a determination of jus soli and the parents’ jus sangunis, in equal weight.

    1. A US citizen, eligible to serve in the Legislative Branch, and Judicial Branch, but not the Executive Branch, is:
    a. any naturalized US Citizen
    b. A US-born US citizen using the formula: (SOIL)+(MOM)+(DAD) = BABY CITIZENSHIP
    Thus:
    i. (USA)+(USA)+(ALIEN) = US NATIVE BORN DUAL CITIZEN
    ii. (USA)+(ALIEN)+(USA) = US NATIVE BORN DUAL CITIZEN
    c. A foreign-born US citizen using the formula:
    i. (FOREIGN)+(USA)+(ALIEN) = FOREIGN BORN US DUAL CITIZEN
    ii. (FOREIGN)+(ALIEN)+(USA) = FOREIGN BORN US DUAL CITIZEN

    2. US Natural Born Citizen, eligible to serve in the Legislative Branch, the Executive Branch, and the Judicial Branch, is:
    a. Using the formula: (SOIL)+(MOM)+(DAD) = BABY CITIZENSHIP
    Thus:
    i. (USA)+(USA)+(USA) = US NATURAL BORN CITIZEN

  72. John Cabrera jr Says:

    Ok, i dont know what this has to do with my school. In school they mentioned that this bill had something to do with dating abuse?

  73. John Cabrera jr Says:

    So i looked up more about this bill and it says One “Dating partner” inflicting physical harm to the other. Us high schoolers would handle it if someone was beating on a friend of ours.

  74. Hmmm. Nobody knows WHEN Obama was born, just because he CLAIMS to be born on that date doesn’t mean that he actually was.
    He has lied about everything else, probably his birth date as well.
    Let’s see the REAL BIRTH CERTIFICATE!

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: