Does it make any legal difference where Obama was born? Even if he was born in Indonesia — just to make up an example — he was an American citizen — born of at least one American parent. As long as he lived his life in the states from the time he was aware — say, from the age of reason (7 years old) — would any court disallow his right to be president?
The Constitution is not clear on this — plenty of room for “judge made law.” Democratic judges would definitely rule in favor — (most of the) Republican judges would be afraid to take the heat.
Denis you have the problem backwards here. The Wingnuts STARTED with a couple of premises:
Illegitimate Over his head Affirmative action baby
And worked backwards from there: Birtherism, Teleprompter, College Records all of them are CONSEQUENCES of the initial assumptions.
Start with “illegitimate”. How would you establish that given the limited Constitutional restraints on qualifications (ones that mind you Dan Qualye and Sarah Palin are thought to meet)? Well the only point of vulnerability is “Natural Born Citizen” which in turn leads you to citing a French Monarchist who wrote a book several years before the American Revolution called “The Law of Nations” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emerich_de_Vattel Now given that we are talking about people who deny the validity of all foreign laws and any international treaties, even where the Constitution clearly cites the latter as “Supreme Law of the Land”, it would seem odd that the writings of a Cheese Eating Surrender Monkey writing about a totally different set of institutions should be dispositive. But the answer becomes clear as day once you examine the underlying premises: ‘Illegitimate’ and ‘Shut UP’.
That there is no actual evidence that the Birth Certificate is forged makes no difference once you grant the premise that one way or another there is no way Obama meets the Consitutional standard of ‘Natural Born Citizen’. Either he was born in Kenya and the Birth Certificate forged, or the ‘Law of Nations’ mandates that ‘Natural Born Citizens’ have to have two citizen parents, or his mother and step-father renounced his citizenship when he was a child in Indonesia either directly or by Soetoro adopting him. After you accept the conclusion of ‘Not Natural Born Citizen’ then ONE of them HAS to be true. Or maybe some fourth explanation.
Same with ‘Grade-gate’ and ‘Teleprompter’. Obama has an amazingly impressive academic record and is a gifted public speaker in both prepared and impromptu situations. But since he is ‘unprepared’ and ‘over his head’ that record MUST be based on forged applications and affirmative action preferences and that eloquence MUST be the result of a reliance on a Teleprompter. Because ‘Unprepared’ ‘Over his Head’ and ‘Shut Up! Shut UPP!!, SHUT UP!!!!’
Given that the idea that you can deconstruct ‘SHUT UPPPP!!!!!’ via appeal to jejeune things like facts, evidence and logic is a little futile.
The Birth Certificate HAS to be forged. Because ‘Shut up’. Which certainly has the virtue of simplicity.
To go a little meta on ya’all. There is a branch of theology/philosophy called ‘Apologetics’. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_apologetics Which in modern terms might better be called ‘Justifications’ or perhaps ‘Forensics’. That is you implicitly START with the conclusion to be reached but EXPLICITLY deny that and instead build towards it from First Principles. In western philosophy this approach is perhaps most associated with Descartes and before him St. Anselm and their respective Ontological Proofs of the Existence of God. But in reading through the proofs, which are in themselves very convincing, in part because these were two of the greatest minds in recorded history, it is hard to not think that should the line of argumentation start running to some other conclusion, that Anselm and Rene would reset the argument. It is not like either was ever going to come to the conclusion:
“Holy smokes! There is no God! I might as well believe in the Flying Spaghetti Monster!!”
Right Apologetics like its counterpart on the far side of the spectrum which is Stalinism and some stuff in between like Freudianism and Creationism simply starts with a semi-silent conclusion and builds evidence in support. What none of them brooke is Popperian Falsification as a touchstone. And the manifestation often comes in the following form:
Ideology X can not fail, it can only be failed. Just substitute Conservatism, Stalinist Marxism, Creationism, Birtherism, or Supply Side for X.
Of course the Left is not immune to this, I included Stalinism and Freudianism in the list. But the mainstream of Anglo-American liberal thought runs through Empiricism, Utilitarianism, and Pragmatism and as such as a visceral reaction against capital S System of the French, German and indeed Christian Apologist types.
And vice versa. Because there is maybe no epithet considered more damning by the Right than ‘relativism’.
If US forecasts are true we should see a fall closer to normal for August. Since the US heat wave has supported some of the arming, its August change should lower global temps for August. We’ll see.
Coberly and Webb give me grief about me saying that SS is a “here and now” problem. I understand they don’t want to hear me out, but I wonder if they listen to a SS Trustee. This quote from WaPo today:
“To me, urgent doesn’t begin to describe it,” said Chuck Blahous, one of the public trustees who oversee Social Security. “I would say we’re somewhere between critical and too late to deal with it.”
“Critical” or “too late”?
Sounds like me.
Your thoughts on this, if any, would be appreciated.
Currently, Title 8 of the U.S. Code fills in the gaps left by the Constitution. Section 1401 defines the following as people who are “citizens of the United States at birth:”
Anyone born inside the United States * Any Indian or Eskimo born in the United States, provided being a citizen of the U.S. does not impair the person’s status as a citizen of the tribe Any one born outside the United States, both of whose parents are citizens of the U.S., as long as one parent has lived in the U.S. Any one born outside the United States, if one parent is a citizen and lived in the U.S. for at least one year and the other parent is a U.S. national Any one born in a U.S. possession, if one parent is a citizen and lived in the U.S. for at least one year Any one found in the U.S. under the age of five, whose parentage cannot be determined, as long as proof of non-citizenship is not provided by age 21 Any one born outside the United States, if one parent is an alien and as long as the other parent is a citizen of the U.S. who lived in the U.S. for at least five years (with military and diplomatic service included in this time) A final, historical condition: a person born before 5/24/1934 of an alien father and a U.S. citizen mother who has lived in the U.S.
* There is an exception in the law — the person must be “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States. This would exempt the child of a diplomat, for example, from this provision.
Anyone falling into these categories is considered natural-born, and is eligible to run for President or Vice President. These provisions allow the children of military families to be considered natural-born, for example.
In 2008, when Arizona Senator John McCain ran for president on the Republican ticket, some theorized that because McCain was born in the Canal Zone, he was not actually qualified to be president. However, it should be noted that section 1403 was written to apply to a small group of people to whom section 1401 did not apply. McCain is a natural-born citizen under 8 USC 1401(c): “a person born outside of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents both of whom are citizens of the United States and one of whom has had a residence in the United States or one of its outlying possessions, prior to the birth of such person.” Not everyone agrees that this section includes McCain — but absent a court ruling either way, we must presume citizenship.
BK, At best (or shopuld I say worst?) Blahous is only repeating the same line of reasoning that all the “fisers” have been relying on to create fear regarding the viabillity of the Social Security program. First, who amongst us knows enough to be able to forecast the strength of the economy during the next 20 years? Are the dire predictions based upon best case or worst case economic recovery scenarios? Furthermore, the baby boomer demands on the program will be neat their end by 2033. We’ll all be dead or nearly so by then. Buy burial plots now for a hedge on future economic maliase. Another point that is lost in the Blahous article is that the Trust Fund is not currently being depleted. Interest income is covering the benefits cost over run. As was pointed out in a CSM article from April, 2012, an article that sounds very much like the source of Blahous’s own article, that interest income support to the program will continue until 2021. “The trust funds have been paying out more in benefits than they have collected in payroll taxes since 2010. The funds, however, will continue to grow until 2021 because they will earn interest on the Treasury bonds, the trustees said.” http://www.csmonitor.com/Business/Latest-News-Wires/2012/0424/Social-Security-fund-Cash-gone-in-2033/(page)/2
it’s not that i don’t want to hear you out. it’s that you can’t hear what i have been replying to you for years now.
in the second place the trustees are not honest. the actuaries are, but the trustees are not.
BUT caluclating from the Trustees Report, it turns out that raising the payroll tax one tenth of one percent on each the employee and the employer starting in 2018 and running through 2033, then at diminishing intervals through about 2080 will entirely pay for the Trustees Projected shortfall, and leave an income rate, including interest, that is higher than the cost rate, as well as a trust fund ratio of 100.
hard to put it any clearer, or mathematically demonstrable than that.
I suspect you made your living in bonds by guessing which way the mob… or the Fed was going to go next. But that is not the same as actually understanding what the actuaries are saying.
Let me report on another loophole in SS Currently it is possible to claim spousal benefits and later change to your benefits earned (allowing the 8% per year from 66 to 70 to run) . It seems to me that this loophole should be closed so that one could apply for either, but once applied for that is the lifetime benefit you get. Since one often unmentioned benefit of SS is the spousal share which adds to its value when used as discussed above, removing the ability to game the system would make things more fair. See the early retirement blog for more details.
Krasting. Chuck Blahous was Bush’s Point Man on Social Security privatization. By law the two Public Trustees have tobe from separate party’s. Chuck is the Republican and as such essentially thr representative of Mitch McConnell although formally nominated by the President.
So OF COURSE Blahous sounds like you. He is working from the same set of talking points.
‘Public Trustee’ is a title and not a particularly apt description of the role of the two men with it. For that matter the Democratic Public Trustee Reichshauer is thoroughly a Peterson man, and directly associated with the PGP sponsored Concord Fiscal WakeUp Tour and the Brookings-Heritage Fiscal Seminar. That is both Public Trustees see it as their role to advocate ‘reforming’ Social Security through benefit cuts via changes in CPI and retirement age.
But in any event citing BLAHOUS as an independent voice fails both the laugh and Google tests. You really need to work harder here. Because no as Dale suggests I don’t spend a lot of time listening to the Trustees as such, since all six are political appointees who one way or another represent their principals (not principles). On the other hand I do listen to and read the numbers produced by the professionals of the SS Office of the Chief Actuary. So when you find quotes directly attached to Steve Goss we can talk. But BLAHOUS???
Dude the Clue Net is over there. See if you can catch one.
Denis you missed my point, perhaps because of my snark.
Birthers by and large concede Title 8 citizenship for Obama, at least at birth. But one branch denies that Title 8 citizenship translates to “natural born citizen” and appeal explicitly to de Vattel to ‘prove’ it while another holds that Obama’s step-father formally adopted him and/or adjured his citizenship on his behalf when he was a schoolboy. Now back in the day I wrote an AB blogpost called “The Nationality Act of 1940” which blew the whole Indonesian line out of the water. Short version it matters not what Soetoro or Ann Dunham or even minor Obama did in Indonesia, under the Nationality acts of 1940 and even more the Act of 1956 none of that was irrevocable as long as Obama reestablished U.S. residency by set ages. Which no one disputes.
Which is why Birfers (sic) have mostly abandoned the Barry Soetoro version in favor of either the “he really was born in Kenya” version favored by Trump and Mouth Breathers and the slightly more sophisticated “Natural Born Citizen” version based on ‘Law of Nations’.
Which is why citing the language of Title 8 of the US Code gets you nowhere. Because it at no point addresses the fundamental argument: “Shut up” he explained’ (apologies to Dorothy Parker)
And Denis as to John McCain. Although no one with a lick of sense was going to argue that a career Navy vet/POWwhose father was CINCPAC (I.e top officer and not just top admiral in the Pacific) and whose father was a famous WWII Admiral himself (my Dad served on the USS John McCain named after our McCain’s granddad) was eligible for the Presidency, his colleagues in the Senate went to the trouble of passing a resolution 99-0 to that effect, with the missing vote of course being McCain himself. So it is not like the subject wasn’t kicked around.
Does it make any legal difference where Obama was born? Even if he was born in Indonesia — just to make up an example — he was an American citizen — born of at least one American parent. As long as he lived his life in the states from the time he was aware — say, from the age of reason (7 years old) — would any court disallow his right to be president?
The Constitution is not clear on this — plenty of room for “judge made law.” Democratic judges would definitely rule in favor — (most of the) Republican judges would be afraid to take the heat.
Denis,
True. I think. However O created a forged birth certificate. Again, the coverup worse than the crime.
I understand this is an open thread but can we steer clear of conspiracy theories please? Thank you.
– Jason
sammy
i guarantee you that if there was any evidence that Obama created a forged birth certificate we’d be hearing about it on the real news.
But as it is, all you have is the Loony Toons Times.
this NOAA graph is one of the most impressive i’ve seen in a long time:
http://www1.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/cmb/images/us/2012/jul/YTD_allyears_Jul2012.png
anyone think we finally broke it?
Denis you have the problem backwards here. The Wingnuts STARTED with a couple of premises:
Illegitimate
Over his head
Affirmative action baby
And worked backwards from there: Birtherism, Teleprompter, College Records all of them are CONSEQUENCES of the initial assumptions.
Start with “illegitimate”. How would you establish that given the limited Constitutional restraints on qualifications (ones that mind you Dan Qualye and Sarah Palin are thought to meet)? Well the only point of vulnerability is “Natural Born Citizen” which in turn leads you to citing a French Monarchist who wrote a book several years before the American Revolution called “The Law of Nations”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emerich_de_Vattel
Now given that we are talking about people who deny the validity of all foreign laws and any international treaties, even where the Constitution clearly cites the latter as “Supreme Law of the Land”, it would seem odd that the writings of a Cheese Eating Surrender Monkey writing about a totally different set of institutions should be dispositive. But the answer becomes clear as day once you examine the underlying premises: ‘Illegitimate’ and ‘Shut UP’.
That there is no actual evidence that the Birth Certificate is forged makes no difference once you grant the premise that one way or another there is no way Obama meets the Consitutional standard of ‘Natural Born Citizen’. Either he was born in Kenya and the Birth Certificate forged, or the ‘Law of Nations’ mandates that ‘Natural Born Citizens’ have to have two citizen parents, or his mother and step-father renounced his citizenship when he was a child in Indonesia either directly or by Soetoro adopting him. After you accept the conclusion of ‘Not Natural Born Citizen’ then ONE of them HAS to be true. Or maybe some fourth explanation.
Same with ‘Grade-gate’ and ‘Teleprompter’. Obama has an amazingly impressive academic record and is a gifted public speaker in both prepared and impromptu situations. But since he is ‘unprepared’ and ‘over his head’ that record MUST be based on forged applications and affirmative action preferences and that eloquence MUST be the result of a reliance on a Teleprompter. Because ‘Unprepared’ ‘Over his Head’ and ‘Shut Up! Shut UPP!!, SHUT UP!!!!’
Given that the idea that you can deconstruct ‘SHUT UPPPP!!!!!’ via appeal to jejeune things like facts, evidence and logic is a little futile.
The Birth Certificate HAS to be forged. Because ‘Shut up’. Which certainly has the virtue of simplicity.
To go a little meta on ya’all. There is a branch of theology/philosophy called ‘Apologetics’.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_apologetics
Which in modern terms might better be called ‘Justifications’ or perhaps ‘Forensics’. That is you implicitly START with the conclusion to be reached but EXPLICITLY deny that and instead build towards it from First Principles. In western philosophy this approach is perhaps most associated with Descartes and before him St. Anselm and their respective Ontological Proofs of the Existence of God. But in reading through the proofs, which are in themselves very convincing, in part because these were two of the greatest minds in recorded history, it is hard to not think that should the line of argumentation start running to some other conclusion, that Anselm and Rene would reset the argument. It is not like either was ever going to come to the conclusion:
“Holy smokes! There is no God! I might as well believe in the Flying Spaghetti Monster!!”
Right Apologetics like its counterpart on the far side of the spectrum which is Stalinism and some stuff in between like Freudianism and Creationism simply starts with a semi-silent conclusion and builds evidence in support. What none of them brooke is Popperian Falsification as a touchstone. And the manifestation often comes in the following form:
Ideology X can not fail, it can only be failed. Just substitute Conservatism, Stalinist Marxism, Creationism, Birtherism, or Supply Side for X.
Of course the Left is not immune to this, I included Stalinism and Freudianism in the list. But the mainstream of Anglo-American liberal thought runs through Empiricism, Utilitarianism, and Pragmatism and as such as a visceral reaction against capital S System of the French, German and indeed Christian Apologist types.
And vice versa. Because there is maybe no epithet considered more damning by the Right than ‘relativism’.
RJS asks: “anyone think we finally broke it? “
Nope http://www.appinsys.com/GlobalWarming/Germany_files/image003.jpg
Or we can look at the tropospheric satellite temperature, which for July dropped globally from June. http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/UAH_LT_1979_thru_July_2012.png
If US forecasts are true we should see a fall closer to normal for August. Since the US heat wave has supported some of the arming, its August change should lower global temps for August. We’ll see.
Coberly and Webb give me grief about me saying that SS is a “here and now” problem. I understand they don’t want to hear me out, but I wonder if they listen to a SS Trustee. This quote from WaPo today:
“To me, urgent doesn’t begin to describe it,” said Chuck Blahous, one of the public trustees who oversee Social Security. “I would say we’re somewhere between critical and too late to deal with it.”
“Critical” or “too late”?
Sounds like me.
Your thoughts on this, if any, would be appreciated.
Bruce,
I found this: http://www.usconstitution.net/consttop_citi.html
Currently, Title 8 of the U.S. Code fills in the gaps left by the Constitution. Section 1401 defines the following as people who are “citizens of the United States at birth:”
Anyone born inside the United States *
Any Indian or Eskimo born in the United States, provided being a citizen of the U.S. does not impair the person’s status as a citizen of the tribe
Any one born outside the United States, both of whose parents are citizens of the U.S., as long as one parent has lived in the U.S.
Any one born outside the United States, if one parent is a citizen and lived in the U.S. for at least one year and the other parent is a U.S. national
Any one born in a U.S. possession, if one parent is a citizen and lived in the U.S. for at least one year
Any one found in the U.S. under the age of five, whose parentage cannot be determined, as long as proof of non-citizenship is not provided by age 21
Any one born outside the United States, if one parent is an alien and as long as the other parent is a citizen of the U.S. who lived in the U.S. for at least five years (with military and diplomatic service included in this time)
A final, historical condition: a person born before 5/24/1934 of an alien father and a U.S. citizen mother who has lived in the U.S.
* There is an exception in the law — the person must be “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States. This would exempt the child of a diplomat, for example, from this provision.
Anyone falling into these categories is considered natural-born, and is eligible to run for President or Vice President. These provisions allow the children of military families to be considered natural-born, for example.
On the same web page:
In 2008, when Arizona Senator John McCain ran for president on the Republican ticket, some theorized that because McCain was born in the Canal Zone, he was not actually qualified to be president. However, it should be noted that section 1403 was written to apply to a small group of people to whom section 1401 did not apply. McCain is a natural-born citizen under 8 USC 1401(c): “a person born outside of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents both of whom are citizens of the United States and one of whom has had a residence in the United States or one of its outlying possessions, prior to the birth of such person.” Not everyone agrees that this section includes McCain — but absent a court ruling either way, we must presume citizenship.
FUNNY
BK,
At best (or shopuld I say worst?) Blahous is only repeating the same line of reasoning that all the “fisers” have been relying on to create fear regarding the viabillity of the Social Security program. First, who amongst us knows enough to be able to forecast the strength of the economy during the next 20 years? Are the dire predictions based upon best case or worst case economic recovery scenarios? Furthermore, the baby boomer demands on the program will be neat their end by 2033. We’ll all be dead or nearly so by then. Buy burial plots now for a hedge on future economic maliase. Another point that is lost in the Blahous article is that the Trust Fund is not currently being depleted. Interest income is covering the benefits cost over run. As was pointed out in a CSM article from April, 2012, an article that sounds very much like the source of Blahous’s own article, that interest income support to the program will continue until 2021.
“The trust funds have been paying out more in benefits than they have collected in payroll taxes since 2010. The funds, however, will continue to grow until 2021 because they will earn interest on the Treasury bonds, the trustees said.”
http://www.csmonitor.com/Business/Latest-News-Wires/2012/0424/Social-Security-fund-Cash-gone-in-2033/(page)/2
Krasting
it’s not that i don’t want to hear you out. it’s that you can’t hear what i have been replying to you for years now.
in the second place the trustees are not honest. the actuaries are, but the trustees are not.
BUT caluclating from the Trustees Report, it turns out that raising the payroll tax one tenth of one percent on each the employee and the employer starting in 2018 and running through 2033, then at diminishing intervals through about 2080 will entirely pay for the Trustees Projected shortfall, and leave an income rate, including interest, that is higher than the cost rate, as well as a trust fund ratio of 100.
hard to put it any clearer, or mathematically demonstrable than that.
I suspect you made your living in bonds by guessing which way the mob… or the Fed was going to go next. But that is not the same as actually understanding what the actuaries are saying.
coberly
Let me report on another loophole in SS Currently it is possible to claim spousal benefits and later change to your benefits earned (allowing the 8% per year from 66 to 70 to run) . It seems to me that this loophole should be closed so that one could apply for either, but once applied for that is the lifetime benefit you get. Since one often unmentioned benefit of SS is the spousal share which adds to its value when used as discussed above, removing the ability to game the system would make things more fair. See the early retirement blog for more details.
Krasting. Chuck Blahous was Bush’s Point Man on Social Security privatization. By law the two Public Trustees have tobe from separate party’s. Chuck is the Republican and as such essentially thr representative of Mitch McConnell although formally nominated by the President.
So OF COURSE Blahous sounds like you. He is working from the same set of talking points.
‘Public Trustee’ is a title and not a particularly apt description of the role of the two men with it. For that matter the Democratic Public Trustee Reichshauer is thoroughly a Peterson man, and directly associated with the PGP sponsored Concord Fiscal WakeUp Tour and the Brookings-Heritage Fiscal Seminar. That is both Public Trustees see it as their role to advocate ‘reforming’ Social Security through benefit cuts via changes in CPI and retirement age.
But in any event citing BLAHOUS as an independent voice fails both the laugh and Google tests. You really need to work harder here. Because no as Dale suggests I don’t spend a lot of time listening to the Trustees as such, since all six are political appointees who one way or another represent their principals (not principles). On the other hand I do listen to and read the numbers produced by the professionals of the SS Office of the Chief Actuary. So when you find quotes directly attached to Steve Goss we can talk. But BLAHOUS???
Dude the Clue Net is over there. See if you can catch one.
Denis you missed my point, perhaps because of my snark.
Birthers by and large concede Title 8 citizenship for Obama, at least at birth. But one branch denies that Title 8 citizenship translates to “natural born citizen” and appeal explicitly to de Vattel to ‘prove’ it while another holds that Obama’s step-father formally adopted him and/or adjured his citizenship on his behalf when he was a schoolboy. Now back in the day I wrote an AB blogpost called “The Nationality Act of 1940” which blew the whole Indonesian line out of the water. Short version it matters not what Soetoro or Ann Dunham or even minor Obama did in Indonesia, under the Nationality acts of 1940 and even more the Act of 1956 none of that was irrevocable as long as Obama reestablished U.S. residency by set ages. Which no one disputes.
Which is why Birfers (sic) have mostly abandoned the Barry Soetoro version in favor of either the “he really was born in Kenya” version favored by Trump and Mouth Breathers and the slightly more sophisticated “Natural Born Citizen” version based on ‘Law of Nations’.
Which is why citing the language of Title 8 of the US Code gets you nowhere. Because it at no point addresses the fundamental argument: “Shut up” he explained’ (apologies to Dorothy Parker)
And Denis as to John McCain. Although no one with a lick of sense was going to argue that a career Navy vet/POWwhose father was CINCPAC (I.e top officer and not just top admiral in the Pacific) and whose father was a famous WWII Admiral himself (my Dad served on the USS John McCain named after our McCain’s granddad) was eligible for the Presidency, his colleagues in the Senate went to the trouble of passing a resolution 99-0 to that effect, with the missing vote of course being McCain himself. So it is not like the subject wasn’t kicked around.