Judge wants definition of 'natural born citizen'

Until each and every American citizen has personally watched through a time-portal viewer (which doesn’t even exist) the actual birth, any candidate is “possibly not eligible to run for President.”

If there is any doubt? There is always doubt. You can never, ever, be 100% certain of anything at all — not even your own existence (cogito ergo sum notwithstanding)!

This is why the legal threshold of proof for even criminal convictions, the very toughest level of proof we require for anything at all under the law, is merely “proven beyond reasonable doubt.”

So, yes, there is doubt. There is also doubt about Reagan and the Bushes. So, by your own standards of proof, my question to you still applies. Answer it!

By definition, prima facie evidence, which Obama presented in 2007, qualifies as “beyond reasonable doubt” unless and until stronger proof is shown to the contrary. The burden of proof, even if it were originally on Obama to prove his eligibility, gets shifted to the opposition by prima facie evidence (look that term up in a legalese dictionary).

“Obama never helped his own case by spending nearly a million dollars to hide his past” — No, he did no such thing. He spent about $2 million on total post-campaign expenses to his legal firm (not at all unusual), and some dishonest blogger saw that and jumped to the conclusion that that must all have gone to hiding his birth certificate.

“Besides if he was eligible to begin with, why did he have foreign student aid card?”

Because he was a foreign student at the time. Natural Born Citizen does not mean that you never set foot off of U.S. soil in your life. Not that it’s relevant, because the short form birth certificate (Certification of Live Birth) alone counts as prima facie evidence.

“Why is his SS number (middle numbers 42) from a state he never resided in?”

Because that’s not how SSNs work, contrary to what you read from Birther sources. Read it for yourself at the Social Security Administration’s own website, from a page that has not been changed since long before the average American citizen had even heard of Barack Obama. Not that it’s relevant, because the short form birth certificate alone counts as prima facie evidence.

“Why is his selective service number false?”

Because a Birther used his illegally published SSN to hack into his selective service records and altered his selective service number, then attempted to use that alteration to discredit him, and gullible people like you fall for it. Not that it’s relevant, because the short form birth certificate alone counts as prima facie evidence.

“You see, you don’t want to know the truth, which makes you a possible terrorist of this country.”

You’re the one who accepts the flimsiest of fraudulent “evidence” if it supports your pre-conceptions (look up the psychological phenomenon of Confirmation Bias), rather than doing any search for truth of your own. Then you try to falsely accuse me of serious crimes, which is a violation of SodaHead Terms of Use which you agreed to when you signed up here.

The only records he needs to be President he has revealed: his birth certificate. None of the other stuff is required. Much of what your side has asked for is irrelevant, and some of it is a federal crime to even ask for (e.g. his law practice client list — Attorney-Client Privilege. Look it up. You can spend hard time in prison just for asking for that of any attorney!).

Never mind that your side keeps falling for hoax after hoax after hoax. You’re just so desperate for him to be ineligible, since you couldn’t beat him in the actual election, and you know you won’t this November either (which is why Romney’s finding it so hard to find anyone willing to be his VP running mate — they know that whoever his Veep is, that will be it for his or her political career, for life — she’ll be a sacrificial lamb, just like Romney himself).

The GOP has made it clear that they’re throwing in the towel on the 2012 White House. They’re hoping for gains in Congress and the Senate instead, and in State Governorships, and in State Legislatures, hoping to set the stage for a 2016 win. This is why Romney is the de facto nominee — he’s a token, just there to make it look like we’re actually having an election — and not any of the GOP candidates who might actually have been able to give Obama a good run, or at least stand on principles. Heck, Santorum or Gingrich or Cain would’ve been better than Romney! Or Ron Paul, or even Jon Huntsman or Gary Johnson or Buddy Roemer! Some of the best potential candidates wouldn’t even run this time: Chris Christie, Condoleeza Rice, etc.

You do realize that many fundie Christian GOPers (the very staunchest of the GOP base with the possible exception of the legacy billionaires and investor class) absolutely refuse to vote for Romney, even if it means a second Obama term, just because Romney’s a Mormon? (Granted, Huntsman would also’ve had that problem.)

Today’s Supreme Court ruling pretty much did the GOP in for 2012, even in Congress, Senate, Governorships,and Legislatures.

I know that a lot of Birther literature claims that, but it is simply not true (like so many of their other claims).

#1, Vattel’s “The Law of Nations” had no English translation available when the Constitution was being framed nor ratified, nor would it for over another decade. Many of the Founders, including Washington, could not read French, and so could not possibly have been directly referring to that work.

#2, The passage from that book that Birthers cite is from a flawed translation of Vattel’s French into English. He was not defining Natural Born Citizen. He was defining natives or indigenous (“Les Naturels, ou Indigènes”), and the Birthers go out of their way to make it clear that those are not the same thing when it comes up in other sources, so why would this be any different?

#3, Even Vattel’s work never says that “two” or “both” parents must be citizens. The full sentence often cited, in the original French, is “Les Naturels, ou Indigènes sont ceux qui sont nés dans le pays, de Parens Citoyens.” Merely, “of parents [plural] who are [plural] citizens [plural].” In both French and English, both at the time and today, the plural can be used to refer to one or more of something, while the singular is only used when referring to one and only one (or less than one, in the case of fractions) of something. A sign that says, “No Dogs [plural] Allowed,” does not mean that you can bring in one dog.

#4. The same applies to Minor v. Happersett and every other Supreme Court decision and Federal law that the Birthers have brought to date to support this case. No such law nor case has ever, to the best of my knowledge, actually specified “two” nor “both” parents. The basic rules of English grammar, which even grade-schoolers know or should know, regarding singular and plural, apply here. There is no need for these laws to have jumped through such grammatical hoops as, “… of (a) parent(s) who is/are citizen(s).” If the number isn’t actually specified, the rules of English grammar says that use of the plural can include one as well as more than one, so long as it isn’t referring to one and only one.

“Sorry but you are a believer, anything that the guy does you believe without question.”

Not true. I verify everything. I do not trust politicians on any side.

“Nothing he has shown has not been tampered with.”

Not true. I demonstrate with an actual very easy experiment you can do yourself, with your own computer, scanner, and known genuine filled-in form-type document, that all (and I do mean all) of the alleged evidences of tampering on the long-form birth certificate (Certificate of Live Birth) simply don’t hold up. You’ll see the same type of “evidences” on your own document scanned on your own scanner and computer, right before your very eyeballs, in minutes!

“His social security number isn't really his, his selective service number is fake. He came into this country going to school on a foreign student loan program, citizens of this country can't do that.”

I ripped all three of those to shreds already in my previous Reply to you a few minutes ago.

“Even people on his side are now admitting he was born in Kenya.”

Name one, and link to it.

“Both parents have to be born citizens in order for their offspring can run for VP or President.”

Wrong. No U.S. Law nor Supreme Court decision currently in effect nor in effect in 1961 says that, nor has any ever said that to the best of my knowledge, The current law (U.S. Code, Title 8, §1401) does require both parents to be citizens in a very specific circumstance that does not apply to Obama no matter where he was born (which was Hawaii).

Schwarzeneggar does not have any U.S. citizen parents (both were Austrian citizens), nor was he born in the USA nor any of its territories, so he indeed is not an NBC.

Rubio’s parents were naturalized American citizens four years after he was born, but that doesn’t matter since he was born in the USA (in Miami), and under sub-§ (a) of the aforementioned §1401, he is in fact a Natural Born Citizen regardless of his parents’ status. Had he been born in Cuba and then brought over here, he would indeed not be a Natural Born Citizen.