When Rush Limbuagh suggested that his listeners vote in the 2008 Democratic presidential primaries — so-called “Operation Chaos” – MSNBC’s Dan Abrams called it “un-American,” and others suggested it might be “criminal.” I wonder what Abrams thinks about MSNBC’s own Ed Schultz, who last week declared he would commit voter fraud to prevent Scott Brown from winning the special election to fill Ted Kennedy’s old Senate seat in Massachusetts. Discussing the election on his radio show this past week Schultz said :
I tell you what. If I lived in Massachusetts I’d try to vote ten times . I don’t know if they’d let me or not but I’d try to. Yeah, that’s right. I’d cheat to keep these bastards out. I would. Because that’s exactly what they are.
It’s pretty shocking to hear a prominent media personality embracing voter fraud like that, but there you have it.
Derrick says:
It’s also unbelievable that a candidate for Senate wouldn’t believe the parentage of the President of the United States but we’ve got that going for us as well.
January 17, 2010, 4:09 pmAJK says:
What does “not believing the parentage” of Obama mean?
January 17, 2010, 4:28 pmChris Travers says:
that’s the most sexist typo I have seen in a while ;-) [Oops. Fixed. JHA]
But you are right, it is very discouraging when folks encourage cheating in this way. I suspect bad times are coming for this great republic…..
January 17, 2010, 4:29 pmBrett Bellmore says:
I find it quite easy to believe that a candidate for Senate wouldn’t take his opponent’s word on a factual question he hadn’t researched himself. He didn’t, after all, say Barrak’s parents weren’t married when he was born. He said he didn’t know that they were.
At any rate, the only shocking thing here is the admission, not the sentiment. It’s not like it’s a secret the Democratic party goes berserk any time somebody proposes making voter fraud more difficult.
January 17, 2010, 4:38 pmtamerlane says:
I’ve just been watching Obama’s stump speech in Massachusetts live on television. If this is the best the Dems have got then voter fraud should be the only way they can win the special election on Tuesday. Coakely is personally not terribly impressive, her political past is riddled with policy disasters (see the Fells Acre Daycare case and sequelae for an example), and she’s run a thuggish and negative campaign that has not even been redeemed by effectiveness. Her latest gaffe was to be recorded in an on-air interview saying that she does not think devout Catholics should be allowed to work in hospital emergency rooms. Scott Brown is definitely the brightest bulb on this particular electoral tree.
January 17, 2010, 4:41 pmB.D. says:
Wow, that wasn’t nearly as titillating as advertised.
January 17, 2010, 4:43 pmChris Travers says:
It was particularly funny for folks who can read a bit of German…..
January 17, 2010, 4:47 pmJack Marshall says:
Coakley’s shot at so-called conscience clauses was impolitic but correct. The comment that will lose her more votes is her statement that Curt Schilling is “a Yankee fan.” Baseball is not trivia in Massachusetts: if Coakley is ignorant of the biggest cultural event in the state over the last three decades—the Red Sox winning the World Series in 2004—she is unqualified to live in the Bay State, much less represent it.
And if that video clip of Brown saying “I don’t know about that” regarding Obama’s parent’s marital status is what Mass. Democrats think is a “gotcha,” they really are desperate. I think Coakley is going down, incredibly, and seldom has a defeat been more deserved.
January 17, 2010, 4:55 pmJK says:
For the record, not that anyone but me cares, I think it’s appalling, immoral and unamerican for Schultz to make this comment. It is unfortunate that Mr. Adler didn’t weigh in on his personal feelings regarding the Limbuagh statement and how it compares rather than just use it to make a preemptive charge of hypocrisy against a obscure news person who is, AFAIK, no longer on the air.
For me, the Limbuagh suggestion seemed less inherently wrong, kind of a “dark grey” area, but more serious in the sense that it appeared to be an actual attempt to persuade people to engage in the actual behavior. The Schultz statement was truly immoral, but seemed more likely to be a type of (poor taste) hyperbole or the spontaneous statement of heightened emotions.
It will be interesting to see whether Schultz stands by his immoral suggestion the way Limbuagh did, or later repudiates it as poorly thought out exclamation.
January 17, 2010, 4:58 pmarbitraryaardvark says:
Election fraud in Mass. has a long history. Ted Kennedy’s grandfather John”Honey Fitz” Fitzgerald, a long time mayor of Boston, was expelled from congress in 1922 for vote fraud. Ted’s other grandfather, Patrick Kennedy, a Boston machine boss, had a large group of repeaters, people who would vote multiple times. Ted was expelled from Harvard for cheating on a spanish exam. His father Joe Kennedy amassed a fortune by various forms of embezzlement, blackmail, stock manipulation, and such as well as some more legitimate enterprises, and used the loot to bankroll politicians including FDR and JFK.
January 17, 2010, 5:04 pmNickM says:
JK – Limbaugh was urging listeners to vote in the Dem primary in states that allow non-Dems to do so (or that allow you to register election day as a Dem). That’s a legal tactic. In fact, in states where such voting is allowed, I have seen official communications from party organizations urging people to vote in the other party’s primary that way.
The availability of such organized mischief was a major reason that the U.S. Supreme Court struck down CA’s blanket primary system.
Nick
January 17, 2010, 5:14 pmgeokstr says:
Bu…but…but…Bush…Cheney…Palin…
Amazing. More phony moral equivalency.
Whatever Brown said about Obama’s parentage apparently means that he’s just as despicable as a leftist (who’s being urged to carpetbag to run for the senate) encouraging his party to commit outright election fraud.
And then we have Chris Mathews (who is alse considering a senate run) being discouraged that there aren’t as many votes for the Dems to buy in MA anymore:
Matthews
If Brown wins by less than 4%, look for boxes of ballots to suddenly be discovered in electoral officials’ trunks and vote recounts that far exceed the number of registered voters in many districts.
If Coakley wins by less than a couple %, watch for the attempts to disqualify all the military absentee ballots, and certify the winner several seconds after the polls close.
They’ve got stealing close elections down to a science now.
January 17, 2010, 5:18 pmArthurKirkland says:
A great number of prominent Americans have said stupid things lately. Perhaps Schultz didn’t want to be left out. He belongs on the list. I hope he possesses the character to apologize.
If geokster genuinely believes that Democrats are engaged in systematic misconduct with repect to elections, he should arrange a consent decree against the Democratic Party.
To match the one already in place with respect to the Republican Party.
January 17, 2010, 5:22 pmBill Poser says:
Any chance that this was hyperbole and not actual encouragement of fraud?
Regarding Coakley, her record as a prosecutor is indeed disturbing, but are her opponents any better? From what I’ve heard (and I haven’t followed this race closely), Brown’s views on the criminal justice system are equally disturbing.
January 17, 2010, 5:23 pmConstantin says:
Not quite as unbelievable as the wife of the President of the United States similarly questioning her own husband’s “parentage,” on more than one occasion (here’s one):
She’s never struck me as very bright anyway. But now she’s got that going for her as well.
January 17, 2010, 5:29 pmSteve2 says:
For that matter, I’ve seen candidates ask for such votes as part of their campaign. For instance, back in 2002 I had a candidate going door-to-door in my neighborhood to explain to people that the neighborhood had been redistricted from Republican-Safe to Democrat-Safe and ask us presumably mostly Republican new members of the district to vote in the Democratic primary instead of the Republican one. He explained that the only real thing to vote for in the Republican primary was governor, which wasn’t going to be a close election, and that he could really use our votes to help him beat Cynthia McKinney’s dad in the Democratic state house primary. This was, of course, to take advantage of Georgia’s open primary.
January 17, 2010, 5:42 pmDG says:
This sort of hyperbole is un-american. I know thats unfashionable to say, but people who engage in any sort of “meta-gaming” of elections, from either party, need to be slapped.
January 17, 2010, 5:42 pmConstantin says:
Yes, because we know that these things are “arranged” solely on the merits, and moreover, that this Justice Dept. calls them right down the middle.
January 17, 2010, 5:59 pmRKV says:
DG, Morally wrong yes, un-American, no. Election fraud has been with us for quite a while, more is the pity. Ask the folks in Washington state about their current governor, or one recent example. Maybe the names Whitey Bulger (still on the FBIs 10 most wanted btw) and State Sen. William Bulger come to mind in Massachusetts. ACORN voter registration fraud, etc.
January 17, 2010, 6:02 pmJack Marshall says:
Have you ever listened to Schultz? He wasn’t engaging in hyperbole…he out-Becks Beck: cruder than O’Reilly, less civil than Limbaugh, less nuanced than Olberbman.I’d say he’s the Left’s Michael Savage, who used to be the bottom of the barrel, but Savage is smarter, revolting though he may be.
January 17, 2010, 6:11 pmArthurKirkland says:
Is there a point buried in there? A consent decree requires the consent of the party to be disadvantaged, as well as court approval. The Justice Department is not necessarily part of the mix. What are you attempting to say?
January 17, 2010, 6:12 pmScott says:
I am sure that the 2 people who actually listed to Ed Schultz agree with him.
January 17, 2010, 6:46 pmSammy Finkelman says:
I guess a few people made a few statements about barack Obama’s prents without stopping to think. Barack Obama’s parents weren’t married when she became pregnant. They got married, possibly as a result of that. The marriage quite possibly wasn’t legal in the final analysis, since barack Obama’s fatherm Barack Obama Sr,, was already married in Kenya and I think had children. Barack Obama’s parents separated I think when he was a toddler when barack Obama’s ftheer got a scholarship to Harvard. He had other scholarsips but the one to Harvard woul not support a family. he insiste on going to Harvard alone. While attending Harvard, h met *another* while American woman and married her – I am not sure if he went through any divorce before doing so, and took her with him back to keny where her two sons were born. At some point Barack obama’s mother arranged divorce. So – he was raised by a single mother it said. When Barack Obama was 6, or maybe a bit before, she married an Indonesian and went back with him to Indonesia in 1967 when his scholarship was cancelled after the fall of Sukarno, and Brack Obama lived in Indonesia a few years. Not too long after his sister was born in 1970 – maybe a year or two – he went to Hawaii to live with his grandparents.
January 17, 2010, 6:51 pmOctavian says:
Trying to steal a US Senate seat is nothing new in America since the US Constitution was amended to permit the direct election of US Senators (an amendment I believe should be repealed). Lyndon Baines Johnson was the ultimate master and it is pretty well documented by Robert Caro that LBJ stole his way into the US Senate.
January 17, 2010, 7:07 pmboa says:
it’s all political stuff
January 17, 2010, 7:07 pmorca says:
“Prominent media personality?”
I never heard of this guy before I read this post and as far as I can tell, his show only gets a few hundred thousand viewers a night…obscure media personality is a better description of him.
January 17, 2010, 7:12 pmJack Marshall says:
The fact that something has been done in America doesn’t mean it isn’t un-American. Un-American means contrary to American principles and ideals. Voter fraud is un-American. Obviously.
January 17, 2010, 7:13 pmJack Marshall says:
They all start out obscure, you know. Schultz needs to be an EX-media personality.
January 17, 2010, 7:15 pmBretzky says:
Ed “Prominent Media Personality” Schultz. Or, as I like to refer to him as, Ed Who.
January 17, 2010, 7:33 pmDave N. says:
I have heard of Ed Schultz. I even tried listening to him. Imagine Keith Olbermann, but without the charm.
January 17, 2010, 7:37 pmtherut says:
Chrissy Matthews was the next day lamenting the old days when money would be handed out for a meal and a ride to the voting booth. All legally of coarse by the machine people. He truly lamented these tactics and wondered why the bosses were not OUT like they used to be. His slip is showing more and more. When things do not go their way their true nature peeks out.
January 17, 2010, 7:42 pmrpt says:
I was listening live when it said it. It was hyperbole, but stupid. I expected an immediate but irrelevant fuss.
January 17, 2010, 8:39 pmMichelle Dulak Thomson says:
Um, it’s pretty shocking to see a Conspirator spell “shocking” with an extra “c,” but I should know better than to niggle about typos.
But Schultz? What has he got against bastards, anyway? Is prejudice against the illegitimate the last acceptable form of bigotry, or what?
January 17, 2010, 8:40 pmMichelle Dulak Thomson says:
Scott,
I am sure that the 2 people who actually list[en]ed to Ed Schultz agree with him.
OK, so rpt was one of them. Who was the other?
January 17, 2010, 8:43 pmMichelle Dulak Thomson says:
Bill Poser,
Regarding Coakley, her record as a prosecutor is indeed disturbing, but are her opponents any better? From what I’ve heard (and I haven’t followed this race closely), Brown’s views on the criminal justice system are equally disturbing.
I don’t know what you’ve heard. But at least “Brown’s views on the criminal justice system,” whatever they may be, are so far only views. He hasn’t yet demonstrated that he’d work actively to keep an innocent person incarcerated if it served his political interests. Which in my book puts him several steps ahead of his opponent.
January 17, 2010, 9:05 pmJack Marshall says:
Bingo, Michelle. Unless Brown’s “views” include mercilessly prosecuting people on flimsy evidence, I can’t imagine what would be “equally disturbing,” and even views aren’t as disturbing as following through on those views. Heck, if Obama had followed through on half his “views,” I suspect the Mass. race would look a lot different now…
January 17, 2010, 9:12 pm11-B.2O/B4 says:
Makes me wonder……if all of Schultz’s Mass. listeners follow his advice…..will it be enough?
January 17, 2010, 9:22 pmFedya says:
Since when did Keith Olbermann have charm?
January 17, 2010, 9:34 pmrpt says:
And what did his “advice” tell them to do?
January 17, 2010, 9:49 pmrpt says:
Whoever reported the hyperbole? Somebody in the TSP who monitors KPTK on Iradio?
January 17, 2010, 9:51 pmTweets that mention The Volokh Conspiracy » Blog Archive » Ed Schultz Would “Cheat” to Win an Election -- Topsy.com says:
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by andrew and Eugene Volokh, Wallace Forman. Wallace Forman said: Ed Schultz apparently says he would commit voter fraud to win Massachusetts election for Dems: http://bit.ly/5cZCho #fb [...]
January 17, 2010, 9:59 pmOwen H. says:
Please, this is so clearly hyperbole that whining about it is simply stupid.
January 17, 2010, 11:02 pmEli Rabett says:
Yes, and there are professors at George Mason who would kill Obama to avoid paying for health insurance. YMMV
January 17, 2010, 11:28 pmDave N. says:
Eli Rabbet,
Did you actually READ the original source? Because I did (that means clicking THROUGH the blog YOU linked to and reading his piece here). Didn’t see anything about killing Obama or anyone else. Differing minds might disagree about his overall point, but it most assuredly did not say he would “kill Obama to avoid paying for health insurance.”
January 17, 2010, 11:46 pmDave N. says:
Owen H.,
Let me ask you this. If, say, Rush Limbaugh or Shawn Hannity said something equally bizarre about stuffing ballot boxes to elect a Republican, would you be as sanguine about it?
I wouldn’t. If you would. Good for you. Otherwise, you are trolling.
January 17, 2010, 11:48 pmrpt says:
Stupid is as stupid does. Hannity and Limbaugh just way more often than Schultz. Not to mention Ann (“vote wherever I want to and get the criminal charges dropped by my FBI boyfriend”) Coulter.
January 18, 2010, 12:53 amorca says:
I remember Bryan Caplan gleefully announcing he would let old people starve rather than pay them benefits if he was appointed Social Security Czar. Libertarians are weird, scary people when the spittle starts flying.
January 18, 2010, 12:59 amCheating With Integrity « PoliSnark says:
[...] With Integrity Filed under: Uncategorized — polisnark @ 11:40 am Progressive avatar Ed Schultz is proclaiming that it is ok to cheat to prevent the Bad Guys from win…. But at least he’s being honest about it, so that makes it completely ok. Leave a [...]
January 18, 2010, 6:41 amOwen H. says:
I frequently comment on the stupidity they spout. I just don’t take them as serious statements as to Republican policy.
January 18, 2010, 7:42 amMichelle Dulak Thomson says:
rpt,
Not to mention Ann (“vote wherever I want to and get the criminal charges dropped by my FBI boyfriend”) Coulter.
Can you supply a link? Seriously, I doubt that that text belongs within quotation marks.
January 18, 2010, 8:30 amgeokstr says:
If you would occasionally visit resources that don’t slant way left, you’d know that Schultz is afflicted with terminal foot-in-mouth disease, of which this is only the latest example. However, only the right gets pilloried on DU and Kos and other similarly biased outlets like the NYT, CBS, ABC, NBC, CNN, NPR, PBS, WaPo, LAT and NewSpeak, so you won’t ever see Schultz mentioned there.
January 18, 2010, 8:39 amegd says:
Wait a minute, I thought President Obama’s illegitimacy was a well established fact? Admittedly, the wikipedia article on President Obama doesn’t address the issue, but the wikipedia article on BHO Sr. makes it clear that BHO Sr. was already married at the time he wed Ms. Dunham.
“On 2 February 1961, Obama Sr. married fellow student Ann Dunham in Maui, Hawaii, though she would not find out that her new husband was already married until much later.”
Fairly well-trod ground, I thought.
January 18, 2010, 9:37 ammack says:
Please, what is shocking about any of this? I live in Illinois and it is standard procedure to steal elections here. Third parties are illegally kept off ballots despite the candidates meeting the legal requirements to be on the ballot, through bogus lawsuits that have no merit, but none the less are allowed by party owned judges to drag out past the election cycle, only to later be dismissed or dropped after the election and after effectively keeping them off the ballot. Polls are kept open late by judicial order so buses can transport “voters” from one polling place to another in East St. Louis and in Chicago the dead continue to vote so that at times there are more votes in some precincts in Chicago than there are living voters. Not to mention the non-citizen voters who get drivers licenses and get registered to vote at the same time.
Probably, that is old school now though – should be easier with electronic no paper trail voting.
It is said there are four boxes in the following order that protect liberty – the soapbox, the ballot box, the jury box, and the cartridge box. Whenever the integrity of one of these is compromised then the people will lose faith in it and begin to rely more upon the others. How are guns and ammo sales the last two years?
January 18, 2010, 10:28 amStephen Goldstein says:
Let’s go to the tape . . . .
Ken Pittman [the radio host]: Would you pass a health care bill that had a conscientious objector [sic] toward certain procedures including abortion?
Coakley: I don’t believe that would be included in the health care bill. I don’t understand exactly what the question is. I would not pass a bill, as Scott Brown filed an amendment, to say that if people believe that they don’t want to provide services that are required under the law and under Roe v. Wade that they can individually decide to not follow the law. The answer to that question is no.
Let me count the errors here:
1. “I don’t believe that would be included in the health care bill.” It already is! There is such a provision in the Senate version of the ObamaCare bill and Ted Kennedy, reportedly, was one of the supporters.
2. “I would not pass a bill . . . .” She’s already pledged to support the current Senate bill and, indeed, the race against Brown has, largely, evolved into an opportunity for the people of Massachusetts to vote ObamaCare up or down. For her to state that she “would not” is either a lie or based on ignorance of what is in the bill (which, sadly, would not be a surprise).
3. “. . . provide services that are required under the law and under Roe v. Wade . . . .” Roe v. Wade establishes a woman’s rights is does not “require” medical practitioners to provide services.
Pittman: [starts to speak]
Coakley: And let’s be clear. Scott Brown’s filed an amendment to the bill in Massachusetts that would say that hospital and emergency room personnel could deny emergency contraception to a woman who came in who had been raped.
4. “. . . emergency room personnel could deny . . . .” True but incomplete. The amendment also required either 1) that the facility find another staff member to provide the drug to the patient (handling the case of an individual of conscience within a secular facility) or 2) that the facility refer the patient to another facility where the drug would be provided at no charge (handling the case of, say, a Catholic hospital).
Pittman: Right, if you are a Catholic, and believe what the Pope teaches that any form of birth control is a sin. You don’t want to do that.
Coakley: No we have a separation of church and state Ken, lets be clear.
5. She imagines that the state can tell the Church when and where its teachings can be applied. This turns the Establishment Clause on its head!
Pittman: In the emergency room you still have your religious freedom.
Coakley: [stammers] The law says that people are allowed to have that. You can have religious freedom but you probably shouldn’t work in the emergency room.
6. “The law says . . . .” No, the Constitution says this.
7. ” . . . that people are allowed to have that.” I’m being pesky here but people are not “allowed” to have rights — they have rights! The people allow the state to have some powers.
8. “. . . but you probably shouldn’t work in the emergency room.”
It is not clear if “should” means, that in her opinion, faithful Catholics should be forbidden from working in an ER or should, on their own, seek positions more compatible with their religious beliefs.
But this assertion is different from the others in that it expresses an opinion. Thus I can not “fact check it” but I do count it as an error because, in my opinion, it illustrates a serious error in judgment. Of all emergency room visits and treatments, only a very small portion are instances of rape-victim-patients-who-”need”-emergency contraception. So with the other provisions made for using either another staff member or referral to another facility, it does not make sense for this small detail to trump all else.
We live 1/2 mile from a Catholic hospital. Over the last 35 years our family of four has sought treatment in the ER something like 20 times — none of which involved rape or the need for emergency contraception. I don’t know the religious status of the staff but am pretty sure that some/most are faithful Catholics. Coakley’s idea that these otherwise fully qualified individuals should be disqualified from their chosen profession is a bad idea.
Anyway, that’s what I think.
January 18, 2010, 10:35 amArthurKirkland says:
Who is going to ensure, if a rape victim has the misfortune to be taken to a Catholic hospital, that the patient is advised concerning emergency contraception? Who is going to ensure that emergency contraception is available and administered with delay?
If a health care provider can’t place the patient’s interest first — is prepared to disadvantage the patient in an emergency because of personal beliefs that have nothing to do with providing professional care — I have a difficult time labeled that person “fully qualified” or even “qualified.”
If an institution is going to be permitted to advertise as an “emergency” facility (let alone receive public funds), it should not be permitted or required to withhold care on the basis of personal preferences that interfere with medical judgment or performance.
Is the institution required to have two persons participate in the counseling of every patient to ensure that one staff member’s religious positions do not deprive a patient of adequate counsel? At a Catholic institution, must 13 persons be present, to address the prospect that a dozen employees would be tempted to elevate their dogma over a patient’s interest by remaining silent about emergency contraception in concert?
Taxi drivers who prefer not to transport customers who smell of alcohol (or carry hot dogs). Public clerks who wish to avoid handing documents to same-sex couples. Cafereria workers who refuse to handle beef on Fridays or pork on those days ending in “y.” Pharmacists who wish not to tell a customer that one emergency contraceptive would be more effective than another, or object to handing a box across the counter to a customer, or decline to operate the cash register for a sale of condoms to a customer believed to be unmarried. A photographer who, upon learning that two of the bridesmaids are a same-sex couple, is unwilling to take that photograph. A nurse who objects to injections because man’s medicine is an affront to the possess or divine healing powers. A physician who prefers not to mention psychiatry or anti-depressants because of a dogmatic rejection of the concept of mental illness (and an associated preference for auditing and thetan isolation).
There seems to be enough dogma in our world to make nearly every situation a clustermuck.
Candidate Coakley seems to have the right instinct: If your devotion to dogma would cause you to deprive a patient of information or services needed to make an urgent decision concerning a crucial medical issue — such as emergency contraception in the wake of a rape — you probably should not be working in an emergency room.
January 18, 2010, 1:17 pmRPT says:
What are you talking about? What is DU? Is your point that Schultz is just as stupid as Hannity and Limbaugh? It appears that the best conservative argument one can expect here is a variation on “yeah, and your momma, too.” Pretty bad. Can’t you make an affirmative argument?
January 18, 2010, 1:26 pmRPT says:
Is your argument that a father’s bigamy makes the son illegitimate? I thought it meant being born out of wedlock. Please clarify.
January 18, 2010, 1:28 pmChris Travers says:
That’s not enough though, since they upheld Washington State’s similar primary system.
I always thought the issue was not necessarily knowing what party affiliation really was. The Washington State system used language saying “so-and-so describes himself as a Democrat/Republican/Libertarian” while iirc the California system allowed candidates to assign themselves to whatever political party they wanted. I could be wrong though.
January 18, 2010, 2:13 pmMichelle Dulak Thomson says:
RPT,
Is your argument that a father’s bigamy makes the son illegitimate? I thought it meant being born out of wedlock. Please clarify.
I would assume the argument is that a woman “married” to a man who already has a wife is not legally married.
January 18, 2010, 2:19 pmChris Travers says:
It might be enough to shut up the birthers though.
Consider this: Suppose we do believe (as far-fetched as it is) that Obama’s mother travelled to Africa to give birth. If the marriage was bigamous then it wouldn’t be legal from its starting point in the US. Which means that the citizenship laws might apply as an out-of-wedlock birth to a US mother (meaning a one-year-residency requirement and no age limit).
What this means is that it might be enough to argue that EVEN IF the main facts alleged by the birther movement are true, Obama is still a citizen from birth.
January 18, 2010, 2:19 pmChris Travers says:
Such a fact would also be enough to cause the birthers to lose on any possible grounds, since generally such marriages are not recognized in the US. It means Obama’s mother would only have had to reside in the US for one year at any time in her life for Obama to be a citizen.
January 18, 2010, 2:35 pm11-B.2O/B4 says:
The law that Brown was amending, and voted for. It requires rape victims to be informed of EC, and provided with them if desired. Brown’s amendment simply allows particular practitioners to avoid doing this personally, instead referring the victims to a doctor, hospital or nurse who has no objection to the drugs. Nothing in the bill would deny information or treatment to anyone. At the very worst, it could delay the EC treatment by an hour or two (hardly devastating, IMO). It has no effect whatsoever on treating any injuries a victim might have or doing rape kit examinations, etc. This is a serious case of “seeing what they want to see”. There is no difference between this provision and the ones in education bills exempting say…the Amish from mandatory educational requirements, or the ones governing school health care allowing certain religions to exempt their children from mandatory physicals.
Furthermore, any injuries may be an emergency in the case of a rape victim, but the possible pregnancy is not. I could be off here, but I think that the unfortunate victim has at least, say, nine months to take care of that issue if they so desire.
January 18, 2010, 2:41 pmegd says:
Umm…yes, that’s exactly what I’m saying. It’s not an “argument,” it’s the law.
Hawaii marriage law requires that “[t]he man does not at the time have any lawful wife living.”
Further, “children whose parents have not been legally married, in contemplation of chapter 572, shall be designated as children whose parents have not been married to each other at the time of the children’s birth.”
Like I said, it’s pretty well established that 1) an illegitimate child is one born to unmarried parents; and 2) a bigamous marriage is not recognized at law.
This is not some novel legal theory, and I don’t think it has any real bearing on the President’s (in)ability to run the country, or his qualifications to the Presidency.
But he was an illegitimate child.
January 18, 2010, 2:52 pmegd says:
What exactly is wrong with any of these situations? The only one I would object to would be the public clerk refusing to hand over documents to a same sex couple.
Private enterprise is free to discriminate, public officials are not.
January 18, 2010, 3:03 pmBC says:
Because as we all know, at Catholic hospitals patients are actually chained to their beds lest they go to other facilities willing to provide them with treatments that Catholic doctors and nurses find morally objectionable.
January 18, 2010, 3:05 pmRPT says:
Well, this is a new contention as far as I recall. Has it been discussed before in the birther context? Not that it has anything to do with anyone’s position on the president, or anything, of course.
January 18, 2010, 3:11 pmegd says:
It may have been discussed in the birther context, although I can’t imagine why it would be relevant. Most states have dissolved almost all distinctions between legitimate and illegitimate children.
One significant advantage is that it gives critics a sound footing to call the President a bastard.
January 18, 2010, 3:20 pm:D
Michelle Dulak Thomson says:
egd,
One significant advantage is that it gives critics a sound footing to call the President a bastard.:D
Well, according to Shultz, Brown is “bastards” plural, and that’s without any disclosure of his medical records.
January 18, 2010, 3:27 pmOwen H. says:
The issue isn’t can they go elsewhere. The issue is will they, in the midst of dealing with great trauma, be told that such an option even exists? Or will they have to think of it themselves so they can get told to leave the hospital if they want that treatment?
January 18, 2010, 3:30 pmgeokstr says:
DU = Democratic Underground.
You consider most of your arguments in this forum positive? Gosh, I never would have known that slams, smears, slanders and referring to your opponents in juvenile sexual terms were positive in nature, so thanks for educating me.
My point, which should have been obvious, was that if you ever read anything to the right of the Daily Worker you’d know that this is only the latest of a constant stream of slimey comments from Schultz. But in your fave media, you can always find RWers like Limbaugh quoted out-of-context, mischaracterized, misquoted and often with fake (but of course, accurate) quotes attributed to them.
This is what I was responding to. And you accuse me of playing “Oh yeah? And so’s your old man”?
And yes, it is my contention that Schultz is far more stupid than Limbaugh, who, say what you will about him, is very intelligent. Hanity not so much. But if your definition of intelligence is that it’s proportional to how often someone agrees with you, then Schultz would be a genius of monumental proportions – for you anyway.
Lastly:
Now there’s a meaningful Freudian slip. At last we agree on something.
January 18, 2010, 3:31 pmOwen H. says:
Most of the time, no private enterprise isn’t allowed to discriminate in that way, any more than a restaurant can refuse to serve blacks, or a real estate agency refuse to sell a house to Jews.
January 18, 2010, 3:32 pmShelbyC says:
The “parentage” angle is a dishonest little gambit by some lefties that shows how desperate some of them really are. Scott Brown, in the course of defending Bristol Palin, pointed out that Obama’s mom had him when she was 18 as well. The interviewer said, “well, she was married” and Scott said, “Well, I don’t know about that.” And he was correct, she wasn’t married, since her marriage was invalid. Now some lefties are trying to spin it into a “Scott Brown attacks Obama by questioning his legitacimy” story, which is just a lie.
January 18, 2010, 3:38 pmMick says:
Wrong. Here is the Obama- Dunham divorce decree.
January 18, 2010, 3:39 pmhttp://www.scribd.com/doc/9694026/Obama-64-Divorce-Decree-Plains-Radio
You cannot be divorced unless you were first married. The only way that Obama could be a Natural Born Citizen is if his parents were not married (provided that he was in fact born in Hi., which certainly is no slam dunk– what court takes the word of an unsworn website and anonymous investigators?). If born in Hi. he can only be a Natural Born Citizen if his mother was not married to the father, but the decree says they were married on 2/2/61 (before Obama’s birth on 8/4/61)Natural Born Citizen = Born in the US to 2 US citizen parents (see The Venus (1814), Dred Scott (1857), Minor v. Happersett (1873), Wong Kim Ark (1898), and Perkins v. Elg (1929)). There are NO SCOTUS cases that define Natural Born Citizen as anything less than Born in the US to 2 Citizen PARENTSSSS. Obama is a Usurper to the Presidency.
NickM says:
Mick, thank you for proving that you can’t read or use logic. Now go away.
Nick
January 18, 2010, 4:03 pmegd says:
Well RPT, you have your answer with regards to the birthers.
However, I do take issue with the idea that you can’t get divorced if you weren’t married. You can get a divorce decree if you were in a bigamous marriage, because a court assumes that a marriage is valid unless there is proof otherwise. Presumably if it is later established that the marriage was invalid, the divorce would be treated as an annulment.
Obviously she didn’t know at the time that BHO Sr’s previous marriage was valid (or figured the annulment process would be too difficult), so obtained a divorce instead of an annulment.
January 18, 2010, 4:05 pmMick says:
So, Show me the SCOTUS case that says that anything less than being Born in the US to 2 US Citizen PARENTSSS constitutes a Natural Born Citizen.
January 18, 2010, 4:17 pmMick says:
All Conjecture at this point. Proof of previous marraige? Now there’s a start.
January 18, 2010, 4:25 pmRPT says:
Time to lighten up everyone.
What this thread needs is a good Hans Bader/ACORN post linking Schultz to Philadelphia, or a warning that they’re on the way to MA with 10 Schultz votes each.
Geo: I thought we had a truce re the TB issue? Can’t you give it up after someone agrees to do what you asked? Remember, I didn’t realize that the groups chose a term with a secondary meaning.
All this “lefty” vitriolic stuff is a substitute for substance.
January 18, 2010, 4:36 pmBC says:
In general, I do not consider it a terrible imposition on women, even those in the midst of dealing with great trauma, to presume that they’re aware of the existence of the “morning-after pill” and are capable of asking for it.
Nevertheless, the specific bill to which Brown sought to attach his amendment required ER staff to inform sexual assault victims about emergency contraception options; the amendment simply would have exempted those with religious conscience objections from having to physically provide the treatment, and would have instead required them to give a referral to another provider. So this issue turns out to be not much of one.
January 18, 2010, 4:51 pmNickM says:
You’re even dumber than I thought you were. The Fourteenth Amendment says so. It’s law, and the Supreme Court doesn’t get cases where the answer is that plain and simple.
Go back to worshipping Paul Andrew Mitchell and Orly Taitz.
Nick
January 18, 2010, 5:20 pmArthurKirkland says:
That’s Dr. Orly Taitz Esquire.
January 18, 2010, 5:40 pmleo marvin says:
geokstr: Volokh Conspiracy left of Daily Worker.
January 18, 2010, 5:40 pmMick says:
First off i am not a “Birther”. Obama may or may not have been born in Hi (since when is a pic on a website proof of anything?), but the real legal issue is whether he was born of 2 US Citizen parents (the Natural Born Citizen requirement is a National security requirement, to prevent foreign influence on the top 2 offices- read the Federalist Papers), no matter if born in the White House.. Obama has admitted that he was born a citizen of Britain (father was Kenyan), therefore he was subject to the jurisdiction of Britain at birth, and can never be considered a Natural Born Citizen. As for the 14th Amendment, the term “Natural Born Citizen” appears NOWHERE in the Amendment. Minor v. Happersett was in 1873, and said that the definition is not in the Constitution, so it is certainly not in the 14A (1866). Also Marbury v. Madison (1803) said that if an argument seeks to make any clause in the USC moot, that argument is INADMISSABLE. If the 14A “born citizen” is the same as a Natural Born Citizen it would render A2S1C5 moot, and is therefore INADMISSABLE. Now where is that SCOTUS case that says anything less than Born in the US of 2 US Citizen Parents is a NBC? There isn’t one.
January 18, 2010, 5:50 pmleo marvin says:
It’s a fair question. My reaction, whichever side the remark came from, would turn on whether I interpreted it as an irresponsibly stupid, but not meant to be taken seriously hypothetical,* or a thinly veiled called to action, which would be truly reprehensible. If Limbaugh said it, I’d suspect the latter, Coulter or Levin I’d bet on it, and Hannity I’d doubt it — it’s too subtle for him. But in each case body language, facial expression, tone of voice, etc. would matter. I’ve never seen or heard Ed Schultz before, and based on this clip I’d put him in the Hannity category. YMMV.
(*I’m reminded of the Jackie Mason bit about the Jew who’s never been in a fight, yet is always “just about to” have beaten the hell out of someone. “If that guy said one more word….” The point for these purposes being that hypothetical claims are typically buried under the grains of salt you have to take them with.)
January 18, 2010, 6:02 pmNickM says:
ROFL. That’s a new one. The Fourteenth Amendment is inadmissible in Mickworld.
For the rest of us on Planet Earth, it’s dispositive.
BTW, congratulations on making J. Aldridge seem reasonable.
Nick
January 18, 2010, 6:29 pmMick says:
Typically, you don’t answer the argument. Nowhere in the 14A does it say NBC (Natural Born Citizen is the requirement). Minor v. Happersett says that the definition is not in the 14A. So where is that SCOTUS case that says a NBC is less than Born in the US to 2 UWS Citizen PARENTS, genius?
January 18, 2010, 6:33 pmShelbyC says:
Why would there be? Doesn’t the constitution give Congress the authority to judge the qualifications of the candidates?
January 18, 2010, 7:13 pmMick says:
Again, your ilk avoids the question, because you have no answer. There are 4 SCOTUS cases that cases that define NBC in Dicta ( and Perkins v. Elg by inference). The Venus (1814), Dred Scott (1857), Minor v. Happersett (1873) and Wong Kim Ark (1898) all give the same definition as Vattel’s Law of Nations (where the term came from), Born in the US to 2 US Citizen Parents. The fact that the electoral college failed in it’s duty is beside the point. So where is that SCOTUS case that defines NBC as anything less than Born in the US to 2 Citizen PARENTS ? Huh, Genius #2, where is it?
January 18, 2010, 7:29 pmOwen H. says:
And yet again hypocrisy raises its head. She certainly thought she was married, for one thing. Don’t try to spin this as anything but a swipe at Obama. I have nothing bad to say about Brostol Palen, but that situation is one more bit of data against the “abstinence only” and “just say no” campaigns’ effectiveness.
January 18, 2010, 8:04 pmNickM says:
The cases you cite do not say what you imagine they say.
I cannot help you with your lack of reading comprehension. No one can.
Nick
January 18, 2010, 8:15 pmMick says:
Right, typically you deny the truth, right in front of your face, but then that’s how the Usurper got elected. Typically you have no answer for the truth, and the truth sets me free. Where is that case? They ALL say that a NBC is BORN IN THE US TO 2 US CITIZEN PARENTS.
January 18, 2010, 8:20 pmleo marvin says:
Just curious, which ilk would that be?
January 18, 2010, 9:08 pmrpt says:
NBC? How did NBC get into this thread? Is this the Golden Globes? A veiled attack on Ed Shultz of MS NBC? And where was he born? Sounds like someone here is in favor of national identity papers.
And what is this “left of the Daily Worker” business? What does that mean? What am I doing here at this libertarian home to Todd Zywicki, David Kopel, David Bernstein, and the uncommentable James Lindgren? And why does Geo care what anyone reads? Very strange and a little too intrusive. I suppose we’ll have a run on tea if Brown wins.
January 18, 2010, 9:57 pmrpt says:
Like moose only smaller.
January 18, 2010, 9:58 pmMick says:
The ilk
The ilk that denied the truth in front of their face and allowed the Usurper to get elected. So where is the SCOTUS case that says a Natural Born Citizen is anything less than Born in the US of 2 Citizen PARENTS? Huh genius #3? You want to play too? I still get no answer, because there is none.
January 18, 2010, 10:00 pmMick says:
Right genius, Here is what Minor v. Happersett says:
January 18, 2010, 10:08 pm“The Constitution does not in words say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that.”
since this was in 1874, I guess that means that it’s not in the 14A. Want to play again?
Owen H. says:
Starting with the birth certificate, why does the fact that the State of Hawaii has on more than one occasion now issued statements that the birth certificate presented to the public is in fact valid and correct not matter to you?
Secondly, as others have said, where do you get the idea that “NBC” is defined the way you claim? The cases you cite do not support that statement. Heck, you even cite a case that has been overturned. Minor v. Happersett in fact specifies citizenship as either “born” or “naturalized”, which implies that “born” is the same as “natural born”. It state sthat there have been doubts and questions, but not that the matter is as you claim. Wong Kim Ark held that a child born n the US to parents of foreign citizenship was in fact born a citizen. The Venus has nothing to do with the topic at all. So where comes your erroneous claim?
January 18, 2010, 10:30 pmleo marvin says:
In other words, pretty much everybody. Hardly much of an ilk.
January 18, 2010, 10:49 pmMick says:
You obviously have no idea of what you speak. “Born” certainly does not “imply” Natural Born (nice attempt at Straw Man tho). M v.H said that those born of Citizen ParentSSS in the US were certainly Natural Born, and that those not born of Citizens in the US may not even be CITIZENS (read the case). While the 19A gave women suffrage, that doesn’t mean that the definition of NBC was not there. WKA held that children of RESIDENT Aliens were CITIZENS, not NBCs. It even said that the “Citizen child of an ALIEN had the same rights as the NATURAL BORN CHILD of a CITIZEN”. The Venus and Dred Scott gave a definition of NBC almost exactly as Vattel in dicta, read the cases. M v.H said the defnition is not in the Constitution, so it is certainly not a “born” citizen of the 14A. You either know very little or you are obfuscating, which is it?
January 18, 2010, 10:56 pmMick says:
No, only the unholy alliance of the educated idiots, young and dumb and minorities (52%, which is not everyone, but probably covers you).
January 18, 2010, 10:58 pmShelbyC says:
How could it possibly be a swipe at Obama when Brown was the one defending women in that position? Wasn’t it just a refutation of his opponent’s position that Bristol’s situation was differnent than Obama’s mom?
January 18, 2010, 11:37 pmleo marvin says:
I’m afraid “[t]he ilk that denied the truth in front of their face and allowed the Usurper to get elected” is a good deal broader than “the unholy alliance of the educated idiots, young and dumb and minorities” who voted for “the Usurper,” even if you believe every Obama voter fits that description. You see, 77% of Americans believe Obama is American born. While that does leave an embarrassingly large 58% of Republicans who share your doubts, the “ilk” you described still amounts to an overwhelming majority of Americans.
But another question just for my curiosity. You said you’re not a “birther.” What qualifies one as a birther, and how do you differ?
January 19, 2010, 12:05 amJonathan H. Adler says:
Mick –
The cases you cite do not stand for the proposition that only those born on U.S. soil to two U.S. citizens are “natural-born citizens.” At most, they are equivocal. In any event, they do not justify your cavalier comments (nor your tone nor the constant references to the President of the United States as the “Usurper”).
To take one example, the relevant passage in Minor v. Hapersett provides:
That’s not much to hang your argument that only those who are born on U.S. soil to two U.S. citizens are themselves “natural-born citizens,” and Wong Kim Ark provides extensive evidence that, at common law, the phrase “natural-born subjects” included all those born within the kingdom save for the children of ambassadors and hostile forces. Can you cite the language from these opinions that you think suggests otherwise?
JHA
January 19, 2010, 12:36 amSimon says:
“It’s also unbelievable that a candidate for Senate wouldn’t believe the parentage of the President of the United States but we’ve got that going for us as well.”
There’s no “question” about it. Brown was stating a simple fact – Obama was conceived before they were married. He doesn’t make a big deal out of it – nobody cares – he’s just demonstrating the appalling double-standard of the woman he’s debating.
Either you’re ignorant or disingenuous – either way you are worthless.
January 19, 2010, 1:41 amMick says:
I have doubts as to birth place (what kind of proof is a pic on an unsworn website, and a supposed inspection by anonymous hands? To a lawyer, this cannot mean anything), but again you fail to grasp the real legal issue that is not a “conspiracy theory”. HIS FATHER was NEVER a CITIZEN. The 5 cases I cited are not on point about NBC as it pertains to the POTUS, but they do discuss it. ALL 5 give the Vattel Law of Nations definition from which the term came (almost exactly).
From Law of Nations:
“The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens.”
The Birth Certificate issue is a distration from the legal issue that is already admitted by Obama. That is that he was a British Citizen at birth (Father was Kenyan).
There are NO CASES that define NBC as anything less than Born in the US of 2 Citizen PARENTS, and if I am wrong (I’m not) show it to me.
January 19, 2010, 7:24 amMick says:
Mr. Adler,
January 19, 2010, 8:07 amIt is a pleasure, but i must say that I am dismayed by your lack of grasp of the Natural Born Citizen concept. I am further dismayed that you would think that the term comes from the term “Natural Born Subject”. We are not “Subjects”, we are “Citizens”. We are sovereigns, subjects are bound to the state. British Common Law is what our founders fought to relieve themselves of for goodness sake. The Constitution and it’s Natural Law is our Law, not British Common Law! I quoted the appropriate text from Law of Nations defining NBC. The Venus (1814–only 27 years after the USC ratified), Dred Scott, Minor v. Happersett, and Wong Kim Ark all directly quote Vattel’s Natural Law definition. There is NO SCOTUS case that says it is otherwise.
Minor did not say that there were doubts as to whether those born of aliens were NBCs, it said that there were doubts as to whether they were even CITIZENS (read it again). You also neglect (typically) to acknowledge the text from WKA about “the CITIZEN child of an ALIEN has as many rights as the NATURAL BORN child of a CITIZEN” (sic). Further Perkins v. Elg (1929) discussed all 3 classes of Citizenship discribed in the USC (the Usurper’s apologists like to say there are only 2, “born”, and “naturalized”, setting up the straw man, and forgetting about A2S1C4,5). Miss Elg, born of Naturalized parents (naturalized before her birth) is specifically deemed a NBC. Mr. Steinkauler born of Naturalized (before his birth) parents is deemed NBC “with the ability to run for POTUS”. Mr. Bohn, BORN IN THE US OF ALIEN PARENTS is an AMERICAN CITIZEN. They clearly delineated the difference. Further, you (typically) ignore the part in M v. H that says that the definition of NBC is NOT IN THE USC. That being 1874, it is certainly NOT IN the 14A (1866). Maybe you can show me that SCOTUS case that says that a NBC is anything less than Born in the US to 2 Citizen PARENTS??!! (I doubt it). Come now Mr. Adler, the well known expressed reason for the NBC requirement is national security (see St. G. Tucker, Treatise on the Constitution (1803– only 16 years after ratification):
“That provision in the constitution which requires that the president shall be a native-born citizen (unless he were a citizen of the United States when the constitution was adopted,) is a happy means of security against foreign influence, which, wherever it is capable of being exerted, is to be dreaded more than the plague.”
If the reason was to prevent foreign influence, how can you say that anyone born here, willy nilly, to aliens, who owe jurisdiction to foreign powers, is a NBC? it defies logic. Obama knows he is not qualified. You should also, but maybe Constitutional Relativism won’t allow you to know.
Mick says:
I am not a Birther because regardless of WHERE he was born (he could have been born in the White House, on the Presidential desk, with a big star overhead), he is not a NBC because of the ADMITTED FACT that he was a Dual Citizen of Britain at birth (father was Kenyan). That disqualifies him, just like if he was only 34 years old, or 13 years residence.
January 19, 2010, 8:11 amegd says:
One data point against “abstinence only,” compared to soaring rates of out-of-wedlock births caused by the propagation of the “safe sex” education campaign.
A Møøse once bit my sister.
January 19, 2010, 9:39 amBrian Epps says:
Exept that Sarah Palin is not and never was a supporter of “abstinence only” or “just say no”. She has always supported contraception education, just not graphic demonstrations of fisting or scat games to school kids. (Hyperbole, but you should get my drift.) This continued lie needs to be nipped in the bud.
We now return to the latest tiresome birther argument.
January 19, 2010, 10:55 amMick says:
It’s not a “Birther” argument. It’s a “Dualer” argument. Dual Citizens at birth cannot be Natural Born Citizens. But that sentiment is only for those that care about following the Constitution, not you.
January 19, 2010, 11:11 amToken Conservative · Some prominent Democrats weigh in on the Massachusetts Senate election says:
[...] first is from left-wing commentator Ed Schultz, who prescribes the tried-and-true remedy of Democrats (New York, New Jersey, Illinois, Maryland, [...]
January 19, 2010, 1:06 pmq says:
Clearly Mick believes the Supreme Court is the end-all-be-all of Constitutional interpretation. Yet, somehow I doubt he would be satisfied if the Supreme Court interpreted that clause to include those born on U.S. soil to non-U.S. citizens. Even if it was decided unanimously, which undoubtedly it would be.
January 19, 2010, 3:13 pmq says:
If the reason for your strict interpretation of the clause is to prevent foreign influence, then how can you say that Obama, born and raised in the U.S. by a U.S. citizen, who attended American institutions through most of his life and is by all definitions American in terms of language, cultural tastes, attitudes, etc. is somehow more likely than any other candidate to be influenced by a foreign power? It defies logic.
Also, a big middle finger to you for implying that I, who was born to two non-U.S. citizens (at the time) yet have lived here all my life and can probably speak better American English than you, am somehow susceptible to foreign influence.
January 19, 2010, 3:18 pmOwen H. says:
yet another claim with no basis in reality. Can you provide a cite that says this? I mean actually says it, as opposed to your previous cites which do not support your claims or say what you claim they do.
January 19, 2010, 3:48 pmOwen H. says:
Oddly enough, the parochial schools here have a higher incidence of teen pregnancy than the public schools do. Even back in the 70s several of those high schools had maternity uniforms. It has been shown that “abstinence plus” education (which it has been pointed out Palen supports, much to my surprise) not only lower the incidence of teen pregnancy, but delay the start of sexual activity more effectively than “abstinence only” programs do.
January 19, 2010, 3:52 pmMISHA MARCHENKO says:
Really punk Derrick. You mean like comparing Bush with Hitler. Right punk?
January 19, 2010, 4:24 pmsmrstrauss says:
Re: “Barack saw his mother, who was very young and very single when she had him, and he saw her work hard to complete her education and try to raise he and his sister.”
That means that she was a single mother. A lot of divorced mothers are single mothers.
January 19, 2010, 4:33 pmMick says:
The Supreme Court is the sole arbitter of Constitutional terms per Marbury v. Madison (1803). Who else would decide. And No they would not decide that those born of aliens on US soil are Natural Born, since there is a lot of precedent that says otherwise. Of course you offer nothing to refute what I say, which is typical of the Usurper’s apologists.
January 19, 2010, 5:23 pmMick says:
I’ve already cited it, look at my previous posts above. I offer you to tell me which Supreme Court cases say otherwise. (you can’t)
January 19, 2010, 5:25 pmMick says:
The object was to provide the highest possibility of No Foreign influence, and yes it is a strict interpretation, as it should be since it is the requirement to be President, duh. I provided the citation as to the rationale above from the Treatise on the Constitution (1803). It is not a right to be POTUS. You have to qualify, just like you have to be 35 and 14 years resident. You have you be born with no competing allegiances. Your reaction is typical of those born into your circumstances, but No. you are not a Natural Born citizen. Where is your self righteousness about 34 year olds?
January 19, 2010, 5:33 pmOwen H. says:
The cases you cited do not say what you claim. They state that particular situations do in fact constitute “natural born citizenship”, but do not state that those are the only conditions and certainly do not explicitly state that having one or both parents not US citizens means the child is not a natural citizen, nor that dual citizenship at birth means anything. And as mentioned, you even used a case that has been overturned. Please cite a case that explicitly states what you claim, that having one parent not a US citizen means the child is not a natural born citizen, or that dual citizenship means that.
Your argument that there is no case refuting your claims is fatuous.
January 19, 2010, 5:36 pmOwen H. says:
Wrong again. He is a citizen, natural born. You may not like it, but that is the fact. And so is Obama. Again, you may not like it, but it’s a fact.
January 19, 2010, 5:38 pmMick says:
Nope, you’re wrong. Cite me the case that says anything less than Born in the US to 2 US Citizen Parents is a natural Born Citizen, genius. (Psst., You can’t). I give citations, cases, Treatises, you? nothing.
January 19, 2010, 5:53 pmMick says:
Of course it is the only condition, the only definition. We are talking about the POTUS not the president of the Bridge club! They all define Natural Born Citizens exactly as I claim, they don’t give any alternative definitions. Read the cases (I know that you haven’t).
January 19, 2010, 5:56 pmMontana says:
Larger turnouts usually favor the Dems, its all in the numbers.
January 19, 2010, 6:09 pmMick says:
Just so you all know that my argument is NOT Partisan. John McCain is not a Natural Born Citizen (born in Panama, and even if it were on the base it wouldn’t matter– see Naturalization Act 1795), and Bobby Jindal is not a Natural Born Citizen (born in La. of resident alien, non citizens).
January 19, 2010, 6:24 pmOwen H. says:
I did. Were you aware that in Wong Kim Ark, the Court ruled that he was a citizen from birth, despite being born to parents that were not citizens? And that in the dissent, it was opined that this ruling would lead to the possibility of persons born to parents just passing through the country could eventually become President, which strongly implies that “citizen from birth” and “natural born citizen” are one in the same in the eyes of the Court?
Mind you, in the eyes of that dissent, John McCain would not have been eligible.
January 19, 2010, 6:43 pmOwen H. says:
But hey, good luck with those arguments. Get back to us on how it goes.
January 19, 2010, 6:45 pmq says:
lol, you’re delusional. Ever hear of the “political question” doctrine? If you think the Supreme Court would rule in favor of you, both procedurally and substantively, then I invite you to file a complaint with your local district court, if Obama’s election is that big of a deal to you.
I don’t need to. Nobody except the looney fringe cares that Obama’s father was not a U.S. citizen. Not your average voter, your average politician, or your average Supreme Court justice. If you really think anyone on the Supreme Court would disqualify a sitting President purely based on some ambiguous language in the Constitution, then you’re insane. Yes, “natural born citizen” is ambiguous, nor have you at all established the Framers’ intent was to only include those whose parents were U.S. citizens.
Besides, Wong Kim Ark:
“[E]very child born in England of alien parents was a natural-born subject . . . . The same rule was in force in all the English colonies upon this continent down to the time of the Declaration of Independence, and in the United States afterwards, and continued to prevail under the constitution as originally established.”
The Supreme Court has spoken, cased closed.
January 19, 2010, 6:56 pmOwen H. says:
Also from Wong Kim Ark-
oops, q beat me to it.
January 19, 2010, 6:57 pmMick says:
There is NOTHING that says Citizen from birth means Natural Born Citizen. They specifically said Wong was a “citizen” not Natural Born Citizen, even after they discussed NBC in depth earlier. Like I said before, Minor v. Happersett (1874) said that the definition is not in the USC, so it is not a “Born” citizen of the 14A (1866). WKA also specifically said that the CITIZEN child of an alien has the same rights as the NATURAL BORN Child of a Citizen, clearly delineating the difference. They had the same civil rights, but only the Child of Citizen parents could be POTUS.
January 19, 2010, 6:58 pmleo marvin says:
Do you suppose Jonathan Adler hasn’t read them either?
January 19, 2010, 7:00 pmq says:
Sorry, I am unfamiliar with the canon of interpretation that requires strict interpretation of any Constitutional clause regarding the President’s qualifications. Because there doesn’t exist one, DUH.
I advise you to actually read the Constitution. It does not say you have to be born with no competing allegiances. That might’ve been their reason for requiring a candidate be a “natural born citizen,” but nowhere in the Constitution does it require a lack of competing allegiances. Plenty of “natural born citizens” have competing allegiances. It’s hard to imagine how children of non-U.S. citizen immigrants have competing allegiances while children of those same immigrants now naturalized do not.
Thus, if “natural born citizen” should be interpreted in light of the Framers’ concern with competing allegiances, then clearly one should interpret it to at least include citizens born and raised in the U.S. where one parent is a U.S. citizen, as such people are highly unlikely to have any competing allegiances.
I’m more of one than you are. At least I can speak American English without sounding like the dirty foreigners you so seem to disdain.
January 19, 2010, 7:08 pmMick says:
We are not Subjects, we are citizens. He was quoting Dicey’s Conflicts. He also quoted Minor v. Happersett:
“. . At common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children, born in a country of
Page 169 U. S. 680
parents who were its citizens, became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners.”
He was gathering all different opinions and writings on the subject, but in the end declared Wong to be a “Citizen”. After all that discussion of NBC, and if he thought Wong was NBC he would have said so.:
“The evident intention, and the necessary effect, of the submission of this case to the decision of the court upon the facts agreed by the parties were to present for determination the single question stated at the beginning of this opinion, namely, whether a child born in the United States, of parent of Chinese descent, who, at the time of his birth, are subjects of the Emperor of China, but have a permanent domicil and residence in the United States, and are there carrying on business, and are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under the Emperor of China, becomes at the time of his birth a citizen of the United States. For the reasons above stated, this court is of opinion that the question must be answered in the affirmative.”
Bottom line— The children of Resident domiciled aliens are CITIZENS, not NBC, and that leaves out anchor babies even being citizens.
January 19, 2010, 7:14 pmq says:
I guess you missed the part about British common law being a guide for interpreting the Constitution?
I don’t know why you keep failing to include what comes next:
“Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case it is not necessary to solve these doubts.
And for some reason almost everything he cited supported the inclusion of children of non-U.S. citizens.
Do you know anything about how a Supreme Court decides cases? Have you ever heard of the term “dicta”? Whether or not Wong was a “natural born citizen” in the context of Presidential qualifications was not before the court. In fact, all of the cases you’ve cited were purely dicta with regards to Obama’s qualifications. Thus, it does not matter that the Supreme Court simply said Wong was a citizen. We’re simply looking at dicta, and all the dicta in Wong goes strongly against your argument.
You pretty much fail at legal analysis. I hope you’re not a lawyer.
January 19, 2010, 7:24 pmq says:
Also, Andrew Jackson’s parents were both Northern Irish-immigrants at the time of his birth. Pretty sure nobody cared back then either.
January 19, 2010, 7:40 pmMick says:
Right, and they never said he was a Natural Born Citizen either, just “CITIZEN”, right genius? It was a very narrowly defined case about the children of DOMICILED RESIDENT ALIENS, and they said that they were citizens not NBCs. British Common Law is dead and buried in the USC. The Common Law of the US is Law of Nations, see A1S8C10 (Natural Law- which is where the Bill of Rights, and the term NBC came). The founders fought to rid themselves of the dictatorial aspects of BCL, silly. I find it saddening to see people who are offended that the USC excludes them from the POTUS position. It’s a security measure (see St. George Tucker Treatise on the Constitution 1803- he was at the Constitutional convention). All of those cases were about some aspect of Citizenship, thus the term NBC arose and was defined, exactly as Vattel did.
January 19, 2010, 9:11 pmMick says:
THAT’S an EASY ONE. Andrew Jackson’s father was made a Citizen by treaty before Andrew was born, and at the time wives were citizens by marraige to a citizen, thus both parents were naturalized US Citizens before AJ was born. Nice Try though. There have been 200 years of Precedent of NBCs as born in the US of Citizen Parents as POTUS. The only exclusions were those Grandfathered in by A2S1C5, “..or a Citizen…”. The only other Usurper (beside Obama) was Chester Arthur, who assumed the POTUS after Garfield’s assasination. Just like today there was a big todo about WHERE he was born, but hiding in plain sight, like today, was the fact that his father was not Naturalized until Chester was 14. CA lied about his date of birth and even went as far as burning all of his family records. It was only recently discovered that his father was not naturalized before CA’s birth, and fraud is not precedent. It looks like Obama used a play from CA’s book. Incidently Horace Gray, the chief Justice who wrote the WKA decision was appointed by CA. It has been said that the dodginess of that decision was an attempt to cleanse the Non NBC status of his benefactor, Chester Arthur. It is well known as one of the worst SCOTUS decisions ever. I hope you aren’t a lawyer, i’d destroy you.
January 19, 2010, 9:23 pmMick says:
You still give me NO SCOTUS CASE where NBC is defined as anything less than Born in the US to 2 Citizen parents, but your insults are common and predictable, like they come from the same place, hmmm.
January 19, 2010, 9:26 pmMick says:
Still trying to validate yourself as NBC, able to be POTUS, I see. FAIL.
January 19, 2010, 9:28 pmq says:
Are you sure you’re not an immigrant yourself? You seem to have trouble reading English. I never said the Supreme Court said Wong was a “natural born citizen.” I’m pretty sure I said the Supreme Court never reached that question, as it was never presented to the court.
How did you know I’m a Mensa-certified genius? Stop stalking me.
Let’s be clear here. The Supreme Court said Wong was a citizen. It did not say that Wong was not an “natural born citizen.” It didn’t say Wong was a “natural born citizen.” It didn’t decide on the issue as it relates to Wong. But Wong the respondent is dead, we don’t care about him. We do care that the Supreme Court in dicta defined “natural born” to include children of non-U.S. citizens.
You’re very wrong. I have never read a Supreme Court decision stating that British Common Law could no longer be used to interpret the Constitution. But, it doesn’t matter, the Supreme Court in dicta interpreted “natural born” to include children of non-U.S. citizens. Their word is final, as you said. Their reasons are irrelevant.
LOLOL this is rich. You clearly do not know anything about the history of law in America. I invite you to look up the number of times “Blackstone” was cited in Supreme Court decisions, not to mention that up until the mid 1900′s when statutes started to become more common, British Common Law was the touchstone of all American law.
January 19, 2010, 9:29 pmq says:
I don’t know how I can make it any clearer for you:
January 19, 2010, 9:46 pm“every child born in England of alien parents was a natural-born subject”
“The same rule was in force in all the English Colonies upon this continent down to the time of the Declaration of Independence, and in the United States afterwards, and continued to prevail under the Constitution as originally established.”
And then many, many cases are cited and discussed that point to “natural born” being defined as children of non-US citizens.
v says:
前列腺炎
January 19, 2010, 10:09 pmMick says:
He was regurgitating from a book about British Common Law, AND after all that he still said that Wong was a “Citizen”. I know to relativists such as yourself, even the word “is” is an adventure to define. You fail to see truth before your eyes, but then that’s how the Usurper got elected.
January 19, 2010, 11:10 pmMick says:
They NEVER said that Wong was NBC. Now you are just lying.
January 19, 2010, 11:12 pmMick says:
Scalia is on record saying that BCL is DEAD. Wong was not a NBC and neither are you.
January 19, 2010, 11:14 pmOwen H. says:
q is right, you’re delusional.
January 20, 2010, 7:23 amPreston says:
So maybe the Brit, Neil Sankey can succeed where the Russian immigrant (from the Moldavian Soviet Socialist Republic) has failed, bring it on.
Poor little Birthers (still in denial about their losses), Judge Land and now judge Carter, smack down the crazies (case dismissed).
Not even “Fake News” Glenn Beck or Bill O’Reilly believes the crazies, how funny.
To all the birthers in La, La Land, it is on you to prove to all of us that your assertion is true (TOUGH WHEN YOU KEEP LOSING CASES), if there are people who were there and support your position then show us the video (everyone has a price), either put up or frankly shut-up. I heard Orly Taitz, is selling a tape (I think it’s called “Money, Lies and Video tape”). She is from Orange County, CA, now I know what the mean when they say “behind the Orange Curtain”, when they talk about Orange County, the captial of Conspiracy Theories. You know Obama has a passport, he travel abroad before he was a Senator, but I guess they were in on it.
In my opinion the Republican Party has been taken over the most extreme religious right (people who love to push their beliefs on others while trying to take away the rights of those they just hate) and that’s who they need to extract from their party if they real want to win. Good Luck, because as they said in WACO, “We Ain’t Coming Out”.
I wonder if she is a mail order bride, just like her law degree? She is perfect reporter material for “Fake News”, where unfounded rumors and innuendo reign supreme , unlike a our US courts of law, where you need to present documented facts, not half baked lies (prepare for more failures).
A lawyer, dentist, realtor and black belt, WOW I must say a JACK of all trades master of none
I heard that she now wants to investigate the “Republican 2009 Summer of Love” list: Assemblyman, Michael D. Duvall (CA), Senator John Ensign (NV), Senator Paul Stanley (TN), Governor Mark Stanford (SC), Board of Ed Chair, and Kristin Maguire AKA Bridget Keeney (SC). She wants to re-establish a family values party.
I can only hope that Taitz will resist the state collectors that will be hounding her like the “ruff ruff” that she is to collect the $20K.
January 20, 2010, 12:13 pm