Barack Obama’s already impressive parade of triumphs as President of the United States have blown away virtually everyone, and silenced even his most bitter detractors; but even in the face of the runaway success he has been so far, his presidency hit a new high yesterday as he unveiled a brand new tax that is sure to change your life for the better. Performing at the announcement of the new tax was Bruce Springsteen and the E-Street band, who played a 25 minute rendition of Born in the USA, complete with an elaborate pyrotechnics display, which served as an appetizer for what was to be a sumptuous buffet of an evening.

“America,” Obama boomed in a confident, nearly God-like baritone, “we have seen some tough times over the past year.” He said bashfully as if to deflect the over-gracious praises coming from every corner of the globe. “We must dig deep, and think not just of ourselves, but of our neighbors, our children, our families, our communities and our colleagues. We must work together, we must forge a new path, we must look to the future. And that is why I have enacted this new tax that will truly build a strong foundation for job recovery and everything good that you can possibly think of with 100% of your brain. It will literally do it all.”

As the historic speech finished, the crowd let out a deafening roar unseen since the time of dinosaurs when T-Rexes prowled the primeval jungles. Obama gazed off into the distance with a strong, manly look in his eye before taking the oversized pair of scissors from Matt Damon’s hands and cutting the ceremonial ribbon in front of the bill. Streamers rained from the ceiling and carried by the jubilance of the crowd, Barack flashed his hundred megawatt smile along with a fist pump, and pointed into the wild throng at Bono, who grinned and nodded his head in approval.

The new tax will tax all purchased goods by 50%.

(pdf)

The Supreme Court first observed that even though born of Italian Parents, he was a dual citizen at birth.

Petitioner Mandoli was born in this country, of unnaturalized Italian parents. These circumstances made him a citizen of the United States by virtue of our Constitution and a national of Italy by virtue of Italian law.

Did he even have to elect citizenship when reaching the age of majority?

The Nationality Act of 1940, 9 though not controlling here, shows the consistency of congressional policy not to subject a citizen by birth to the burden and hazard of election at majority. This comprehensive revision and codification of the laws relating to citizenship and nationality was prepared at the request of Congress by the Departments of State, Justice and Labor. The State Department proposed a new provision requiring an American-born national taken during minority to the country of his other nationality to make an election and to return to the United States, if he elected American nationality, on reaching majority. The Departments of Justice and Labor were opposed and, as a consequence, it was omitted from the proposed bill.

On Perkins v Elg

What it held was that citizenship conferred by our Constitution upon a child born under its protection cannot be forfeited because [344 U.S. 133, 139] the citizen during nonage is a passive beneficiary of foreign naturalization proceedings. It held that Miss Elg had acquired a derivative dual-citizenship but had not suffered a derivative expatriation. In affirming her right to return to and remain in this country, it did not hold that it was mandatory for her to do so.

Les oreilles du Boss ont dû siffler… Comme nous l’apprend un journal local, le Cliffview Pilot (lire ici), Chris Christie, le nouveau gouverneur républicain du New Jersey, a fait jouer Born to Run et Badlands de Bruce Springsteen lors de son discours de victoire le 4 novembre 2009.

Certes, Bruce Springsteen est le musicien préféré de Chris Christie. Mais, sachant que les engagements politiques de Bruce Springsteen sont fort éloignés des siens, une telle récupération est-elle acceptable ? Ou bien, la musique de Bruce Springsteen  appartient-elle à tout le monde ? Vos avis sont attendus !

Bruce Springsteen a interprété trois titres lors de la soirée de charité Stand up for heroes (debout pour les héros) le 4 novembre 2009 à New York.

1. This Hard Land
2. Born To Run
3. The Rising

Cliquez ici pour lire un compte-rendu de cette soirée, qui avait lieu dans le cadre du New York Comedy Festival, au profit de la Bob Woodruff Foundation.

Elle était animée par Brian Williams, présentateur du journal du soir de NBC et grand fan de Bruce Springsteen.

A noter : Elvis Costello a fait une apparition-surprise.

La Bob Woodruff Foundation se consacre au soutien financier et psychologique aux vétérans de guerre. Un sujet qui préoccupe Bruce Springsteen depuis Born in the USA…

1. You can only be kicked around so much in a “dead man’s town” before you realize something’s up.

2.  When having toast for breakfast at said “dead man’s town”, stay away from the “hometown jam”. You may end up getting “a rifle in (your) hand” and shipped off to Vietnam.

3.  Beware of people sending you “off to a foreign land to go kill the yellow man.” Euthanizing people with terminal hepatitis outside of your own country won’t be easy without the right connections.

4.  The efforts of your “brother at Khe Sahn” to destroy the Vietcong were all for naught. History has shown us that you can’t kill a determined and industrious people with only mind bullets.

5.  If you are a traumatized Vietnam War veteran looking for added dramatic effect, stand in front of a refinery and let the raging fires reflect in the dead pool of your eyes.

6.  “U.S.A.! U.S.A.! U.S.A.!” (edf)

Une bande dessinée de Ward Sutton retrace l’héritage de l’album Born in the USA de Bruce Springsteen, paru il y a 25 ans.

Excellent ! A découvrir en ligne en cliquant ici.

In Plyler v Doe, the Court observes

Appellants seek to distinguish our prior cases, emphasizing that the Equal Protection Clause directs a State to afford its protection to persons within its jurisdiction, while the Due Process Clauses of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments contain no such assertedly limiting phrase. In appellants’ view, persons who have entered the United States illegally are not “within the jurisdiction” of a State even if they are present within a State’s boundaries and subject to its laws. Neither our cases nor the logic of the Fourteenth Amendment support that constricting construction of the phrase “within its jurisdiction.” ^[n10]

Footnote 1o explains the reasoning, referring to the Court’s ruling in Wong Kim Ark

10. Although we have not previously focused on the intended meaning of this phrase, we have had occasion to examine the first sentence of the Fourteenth Amendment, which provides that “[a]ll persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States. . . .” (Emphasis added.) Justice Gray, writing for the Court in United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898), detailed at some length the history of the Citizenship Clause, and the predominantly geographic sense in which the term “jurisdiction” was used. He further noted that it was

impossible to construe the words “subject to the jurisdiction thereof,” in the opening sentence [of the Fourteenth Amendment], as less comprehensive than the words “within its jurisdiction,” in the concluding sentence of the same section; or to hold that persons “within the jurisdiction” of one of the States of the Union are not “subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.”

Id. at 687.

Justice Gray concluded that

[e]very citizen or subject of another country, while domiciled here, is within the allegiance and the protection, and consequently subject to the jurisdiction, of the United States.

Id. at 693. As one early commentator noted, given the historical emphasis on geographic territoriality, bounded only, if at all, by principles of sovereignty and allegiance, no plausible distinction with respect to Fourteenth Amendment “jurisdiction” can be drawn between resident aliens whose entry into the United States was lawful, and resident aliens whose entry was unlawful. See C. Bouve, Exclusion and Expulsion of Aliens in the United States 425-427 (1912).

June 14, 1967

NATURAL BORN CITIZEN

Mr. VIGORITO. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the gentleman from Texas [Mr. DOWDY] may extend his remarks at this point in the RECORD and include extraneous matter.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Pennsylvania?
There was no objection.

Mr. DOWDY. Mr. Speaker, for a number of years, I have heard and read the discussions, pro and con, regarding the meaning or construction that should be placed on the phrase, “natural born citizen,” as used in the U.S. Constitution, limiting eligibility for the office of President. This has been a recurring discussion, as various persons, born outside the United States, of U.S. citizen parentage, have been mentioned as possible candidates for the offices of President and Vice President. The question is again current.

I have never undertaken to brief the question, but have read most of the papers, articles, essays, and briefs that have been written about it over a period of many years, including some prepared prior to my lifetime.

I have just recently read an unpublished essay or brief on the meaning of the phrase as it may apply to a current prominent possible candidate for the office of President, the same having been written by the Honorable Pinckney G. McElwee, of the bar of the District of Columbia. As it is not otherwise available, and may be of interest to the Members of this Congress and others, I would incorporate in the RECORD as a part of my remarks, that it may be easily available for consideration with other dissertations on the subject, to shed whatever light it merits:

(The meaning of the term “Natural born citizen” as used In clause 4, section 1 of Article II of the Constitution of the United States relating to eligibility for the Office of President, by Pinckney G. McElwee of D.C. Bar.)

Mr. George Romney, present Governor of the State of Michigan, has been frequently mentioned in recent news media as a prospective candidate for the Office of President of the United States. In 1968. According to “Who’s Who” he was born In Chihuahua, Mexico, on July 8, 1907. A question exists whether he would be eligible to be inaugurated, If he should be elected to the Presidency because of a specific requirement of the Constitution of the United States that the President be “a natural born citizen”. The answer to this question should be found In advance of the party nominating conventions, not only In respect to his ability to serve If elected, but also because of the effect that the existence of such question would have on the outcome of an election, If he became the nominee of a party.

The Constitution of the United States was adopted In 1789. In the 4th clause of section 1 of Article II It provides:

“No person, except a natural born citizen, or citizen of the United States at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that office who shall not have attained the age of thirty-five years and been fourteen years a resident within the United States.”

The language used In the Constitution must be construed with reference to the English Common Law. As stated In 1 Kent’s Commentaries, par. 336:

“It Is not to be doubted that the Constitution and laws of the United States were made In reference to the existence of the common law …. In many cases, the language of the Constitution and laws would be inexplicable without reference to the common law; and the existence of the common law Is not only supported by the Constitution, but it is appealed to for the construction and Interpretation of its powers.”

It has been frequently held by the U.S. Supreme Court that the language of the Constitution cannot be properly understood without reference to the common law. Moore v. United, States, 91 US 270 (274), United, States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 US 649 (654), Smith v. Alabama, 124 US 478. It was stated in Moore v. United States by Justice Bradley In a unanimous opinion, page 274:

“The language of the Constitution and of many acts of Congress could not be understood without reference to the common law.”

It was stated In United States v. Wong Kim Ark at page 654:

“The Constitution of the United States, as originally adopted, uses the words ‘citizen of the United States’ and ‘natural born citizen of the United States’. By the original Constitution, every representative In Congress is required to have been ’seven years a citizen of the United States’ and every Senator to have been ‘nine years a citizen of the United States’ and ‘no person except a natural born citizen or a citizen of the United States at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President’. The Fourteenth Article of Amendment, besides declaring that ‘all persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside’ …. The Constitution nowhere defines the meaning of these words, either by way of inclusion nor of exclusion, except insofar as this Is done by the affirmative declaration that ‘all persons born or naturalized In the United States, and subject to the Jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States’. In this, as in other respects, it must be interpreted in the light of the common law, the principles of history of which were familiarly known to the framers of the Constitution. Minor v. Happersett, 21 Wall 162, Ex parte Wilson, 114 US 417, 422, Boyd v. United States, 116 US 616, 624, 625, Smith v. Alabama, 124 US 465. The language of the Constitution, as has been well said, could not be understood without reference to the common law. 1 Kent Com. 336, Bradley, Jr. In Moore v. United, States, 91 US 270, 274.”

The cited provisions of the 14th Amendment had a purpose to enfranchise the recently freed negro slaves, whether they were native born or naturalized. The purpose was to make non-citizens citizens. It did no more than establish citizenship where none previously existed. It did not even purport to make a foreign born citizen a natural born one.

In Smith v. Alabama, 124 US 465, at page 478 Justice Matthews stated:

“There is, however, one clear exception to the statement that there is no national common law. The interpretation of the Constitution of the United States is necessarily influenced by the fact that its provisions are framed in the language Of the English Common law, and are to be read In the light of its history.”

According to information furnished to me, which I have no reason to doubt, facts regarding the birth and citizenship of Mr. Romney are as follows. His grandfather was Miles Park Romney. In 1885 he left his family In Arizona and moved to Chihuahua, Mexico. One of his children was Gaskel R. Romney, born in the United States in 1871. He did not accompany his father to Mexico, but followed and with the family Joined him in 1887, Gaskel R. Romney being then 16 years old. Gaskel R. Romney was married to Anna Aurelia Pratt in Mexico about 1898. They had 4 children, born in the State of Chihuahua, Mexico: George, the 4th Child, being born there on July 8, 1907. This family then moved to El Paso, Texas, where the 5th, 6th and 7th children were born.

It will be seen from the foregoing that Mr. George Romney was born in Chihuahua, Mexico of an American born father and by virtue of the birth and citizenship of his father in the United States, George was born with dual citizenship, being a citizen of Mexico by birth and becoming a citizen of the United States at birth automatically by naturalization pursuant to the Act of Congress granting automatic naturalization in such circumstances. This type of American citizenship is a qualified one and requires an election on his part upon arriving at his majority, or within a reasonable time thereafter. In re Reed, 6 F S 800, State v. Jackson, 65 A 661, Ludlam v. Ludlam, 26 NY 371, Van Dyne on Cit. 38. Mr. Romney appears probably to be a citizen of the United States. But, the question under consideration is not one of simple citizenship but rather, whether he is a “natural born citizen” as prescribed in the Constitution of the United States for the Presidency.

The Constitution itself does not define the term natural-born citizen. At the time of the adoption of the U.S. Constitution, under the common law, the terms native born citizen and natural born citizen were synonymous, but. the customary usage was to refer to such type of citizenship as “natural born” instead of “native born.”

The words “natural” and “native” are both derived from the latin word “natus” meaning birth. Blackstone’s Commentaries, Chapter X,  defines natural-born subjects as:

“Natural-born subjects are such as are born within the dominions of the crown of England; that Is, within the ligence, or, as it is generally called, the allegiance of the king; and aliens such as are born out of it.”

The first definition of the word “natural” in Webster’s Dictionary Is “of, from or by birth” Literally translated both “naturalborn citizen” and “native-born citizen” mean citizen by and from birth. Black’s Law Dictionary defines “native” as “a naturalborn subject or citizen by birth; one who owes his domicile or citizenship to the fact of his birth within the country referred to.”

Black defines “natural born” as “In English law one born within the dominion of the King.” Black defines “naturalize” as “to confer citizenship upon an alien; to make a foreigner the same, in regard to rights and privileges, as if he were a native citizen or subject.” Bancroft’s History of the U.S. (1876) VI, xxvi. 27, states. “Every one who first saw the light on the American soil was a natural-born American citizen.”

There were several naturalization statutes enacted by Parliament which “declared” or “deemed” persons born outside of the dominions of the King, whose parents were subjects, to be subjects. 29 Car II Cap. 6 (1676) related to children of subjects born during “the late trouble” In foreign countries between June 15, 1641 and March 24, 1660 and required such person to receive the sacrament and take an oath of allegiance and file a certificate with a court. 7 Anne Cap V, par. 31 (1708) naturalized foreign born protestants of natural-born subjects by providing they shall be “deemed” natural born subjects, 4 George II Cap XXI (1731) repeats the Act of 1708 In 7 Anne; and again in 13 George III Cap 21 (1773) repeats the same naturalization act. All of these statutes of naturalization demonstrated that the citizen by birth was the genuine “natural born citizen.” As stated in Van Dyne on Citizenship of the United States, pp. 32:

“It was almost universally conceded that citizenship by birth in the United States was governed by the principles of the English common law. It is very doubtful whether the common law covered the case of children born abroad to subjects of England. Statutes were enacted in England to supply their deficiency. Hence, it was deemed necessary to enact a similar law In the United States to extend citizenship to children born to American parents out of the United States.”

Statutes 11 and 12 of William III, Cap 6 (1700-1707) was a statute to permit Inheritance of children born outside of the King’s realm and dominion of his majesty’s natural born subjects as though such children “had been naturalized or natural-born subjects.” (See McCreary v. Sommerville, 22 U.S. 354 l.c. 356,357),

Generally, when we speak of the English Common Law we mean the lex non scripta or unwritten law as defined by Blackstone. that portion of the law of England which is based, not on legislative enactment, but on immemorial usage and the general consent of the people. Levy v. McCartee, 31 US 16 Pet) 102. As stated in the latter case, “It is too plain for argument, that the common law is here spoken of, in its appropriate sense, as the ‘unwritten law of the land: independent of statutory enactments.”’ In Bouvier Law Dictionary it is stated in respect to common law, “Those principles, usages, and rules of action applicable to the government and security of persons and of property, which do not rest for their authority upon any express or positive declaration of the will of the legislature.” Citing 1 Kent Com. 4.29. It should be borne In mind that the English common law did not become the common law of the United States. But, the English common law is referred to in explaining the meaning of the language used by ‘the framers of the Constitution who were familiar with its terminology. Thus, in determining the meaning of the term “natural-born citizen,” as used in the Constitution, we should inquire what the language meant to the members of the Constitutional convention, and not what the English common law and statutory law was in all of its ramifications relating to the subject of citizenship. It is clear that under the English common law this term “natural born” meant “native born”, i.e. within the realm and dominion of the King. While naturalization and other acts of Parliament had afforded to foreign born allen children of English parentage certain rights to citizenship and inheritance by being “deemed” to be “natural born” (i.e. “deemed” native born when not so born), st!ll, the fact remains that the genuine “natural-born” citizens were the “native-born” citizens. It was this genuine “native-born” citizen (rather than one who was not. but by act of Parliament was “deemed” to be) to which the framers of the Constitution referred when they used the term “natural-born citizens” as one of the qualifications for the President. The English common law is explained In detail in Calvins case, 7 Coke 1.

In Wong Foong v. U.S., 69 F 2d 681, the court said:

“Under the common law of England a child born abroad of a father who is a subject of England does not become a citizen of England.”

And in Weedin v . Chin Bow, 274 US 657, l.c. 663, the court said

“under the common law which applied in this country, the children of citizens born abroad were not citizens, but aliens.”

In Doe v. Jones, 4 T.R. 300, 308, 100 Reprint 1031, Lord Kenyon stated:

“The character of a natural-born subject, anterior to any or the statutes, was incidental to birth only; whatever were the situations of his parents, the being born in the allegiance of the King, constituted a naturalborn subject.”

Shedd ins v. Patrick, 1 Macg 535, l.c. 611 (House of Lords) The Lord Chancellor stated:

“I need not state to your Lordship that, Independently of statute, everyone born abroad is an alien. I state the proposition too generally, because the children of Ambassadors and some other persons were excepted; but as a general proposition, all persons born abroad were aliens. That state of law was interferred with first by a very early statute …. In the reign of Queen Anne, it was enacted by statute, passed for ‘naturalizating foreign protestants’ that children of all natural-born subjects born out of the ligence of his majesty should be ‘deemed,’ ‘adjudged’ and ‘taken’ to be natural-born subjects of his Kingdom.”

The case In Re Guerin (Queen’s Bench), 37 Weekly Reporter 269, (Feb. 2, 1889) dealt with the term “natural-born” In the Extradition Act of Parliament and the term “nativeborn” in an extradition treaty with France. It was contended by Guerin that a person born abroad of British parents was a “natural-born” British subject within the meaning of the extradition treaty with France. Sir Alfred Wills, Judge, speaking for the’ Court stated:
“The first question in this case in logical order is whether Guerin is a person to whom the extradition treaty with France applies; and that depends on whether he can bring himself within the exception which says that “native-born or naturalized subjects” are exempt, from the operations of the treaty. The onus of proving that he comes within the exception lies on the prisoner. Now there are only two methods in which a person, other than a temporary resident in the kingdom, can acquire status as a British subject; viz, by naturalization or by reason of the circumstances of his birth. I am unable to draw any distinction between the expression .’naturalborn’ used in the Extradition Act and ‘native born’ used in the treaty. It means a person who is a native by reason of the circumstances of his birth.”

In Dicey’s Conflicts of Law (1896) It is stated: (pp.173).

“Natural-born subject” means a British subject who has become a British subject at the moment of birth.

“A naturalized British subject means any British subject who is not a natural-born British subject. (pp 175) Rule 22. Subject to the exceptions herinafter mentioned. any person who (whatever the nationality of his parents) is born within the British dominions is a natural-born British subject.”

In the “comment” which followed it was stated:

“This rule contains the leading principle of English law on the subject of British nationality. ‘Allegiance is the tie, or ligamen, Which binds the subject to the King, In return for that protection which the King affords the subject’. But every person born within British dominions does, with rare exception, enjoy at birth, the protection of the Crown. Hence, subject to such exceptions. every child born within the British dominions is born ‘under the ligence’ as the expression goes, of the Crown, and is at and from the moment or his birth a British subject: he is, in other words, a natural-born subject.”
The exceptions mentioned are those whose fathers are alien enemies or ambassadors or diplomatic agents.

In the case of Lynch v. Clarke, 1 Sandf. 583, N.Y.), the Vice-Chancellor stated that he entertained no doubt “that every person born within the dominion and allegiance of the United States, whatever the situation of his parents, was a natural born citizen.” He added that “this was the general understanding of the legal profession, and the universal impression of the public mind.”

In the case of Minor v. Happersett In the U.S. Supreme Court, 88 US (21 Wall) 162, It.he court said:

“The Constitution does not In words, say who shall be natural born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. 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 parents who were its citizens became themselves upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural born citizens as distinguished from aliens and, foreigners. 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 purpose of this case it is not necessary to solve these doubts. It is sufficient for everything we now have to consider that all children born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction are themselves. citizens.

In the Dred Scott Case, 60 U.S. 393, l.c. 576 in his separate opinion, Justice Curtis stated:

“The first section of the second Article of the Constitution used language “a natural born citizen.” It thus assumes that citizenship may be acquired by birth. Undoubtedly, this language of the Constitution was used in reference to that principle of public law, well understood In this country at the time of the adoption ot the Constitution, which referred citizenship to the place of birth.

The fourth clause of section 8 of Article I of the Constitution of the United States gives to Congress authority “to establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization ….. , and Congress has established and frequently amended uniform rules for the naturalization of children born outside of the jurisdiction of the United States (i.e. aliens) in Section 1401 et seq. of Title 8, U.S. Code. To many It has granted automatic naturalization, provided timely advantage is taken of the rights by the person concerned. Examples of these were persons whose fathers were citizens, later (1934) persons of whom either of the parents were citizens (not including illegitimates), and still later (1952) illegitimate children whose mothers were citizens. To other aliens having no citizen parents the process of naturalization required an application to and order of a federal court. But, whether the naturalization be automatic due to citizen parentage Or by court decree for others, the fact remained, that for all persons born outside Of the jurisdiction Of the United States a naturalization by authority of Congress has been required, in order to become a citizen. Native born citizens hold, citizenship by birth. U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, Supra.

In a recent case of the U.S. Supreme Court (Montana v. Kennedy, Attorney General, 366 U.S. 308) It was held that the petitioner was not a citizen of the United States despite the fact that his mother was a native born citizen of the United States. The reason for the holding was that at the time of the birth of the petitioner in England the Act of Congress only authorized automatic naturalization for a person whose father was a native born citizen, but not a person whose mother had been a native born citizen. The Act of Congress was amended to include children of a mother who had lost her citizenship on March 2, 1907 (Montana v. Kennedy, supra) and again in 1934 (48 Stat 797) to include children of any native born mothers.

In U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. at page 655, the court said:

“The fundamental principle of the common law with regard to English nationality was birth within the allegiance, also calling ‘ligealty,’ ‘obedience,’ ‘faith,’ or ‘power’ of the King. The principle embraced all persons born within the King’s allegiance and subject to his protection. Such allegiance and protection were mutual -as expressed in the maxim, protecti trahit subjectionem, et subjectio protectionem- and were not restricted to natural-born subjects and naturalized subjects, or to those who had taken an oath of allegiance; but were predicable of aliens in amity, so long as they were within the kingdom. Children, born in England, of such aliens, were therefore natural-born subjects. But the children, born within the realm of foreign ambassadors, or the children of alien enemies, born during and within their hostile occupation of part of the King’s dominions, were not natural-born subjects, because not born within the allegiance, the obedience or the power, or, as would be said, to this day, within the jurisdiction Of the King.” (Thus, a child born In Mexico of English parents was not a natural-born subject, despite his automatic naturalization by Act of Parliament). Later In the same opinion (l.c. 658) the court said: “It thus clearly appears that by the law of England for the last three centuries, beginning before the settlement of this country, and continuing to the present day, aliens, while residing in the dominions possessed by the Crown of England, were within the allegiance, the obedience, the faith or loyalty, the protection, the power, the jurisdiction of the English Sovereign; and therefore every child born in England, ot alien parents, was a natu.ral born subject, unless the child of an ambassador or other diplomatic agent of a foreign state, or an alien enemy in hostile occupation ot the place where the child was born.

“The same rule was in force In all of the English Colonies upon this continent down to the time of the Declaration of Independence, and in the United States afterwards, and continues to prevail under the Constitution as originally established.”

The same ruling upholding American citizenship of children born in the United States are found In 9 Op Atty Gen 373, and lOOp Atty Gen 328, 394, 396. The Act of March 26, 1790 (1 Stat 103) provides in pp 104: “And the children of citizens of the United States that may be born beyond the seas, or out of the limits of the United States shall be considered as naturalborn citizens.”

In Osborn v. Bank, 22 US (9 Wheat) 738, l.c. 827, Chief Justice Marshall said:

“A naturalized citizen is indeed made a citizen under an Act of Congress, but the Act does not proceed to give, to regulate, or to prescribe his capacities. He becomes a member of the society, possessing all the rights of a native citizen, and standing, in the view of the Constitution, on the footing of a native. The Constitution does not authorize Congress to enlarge or abridge those rights. The simple power of the national legIslature, is to prescribe a uniform rule of naturalization, and the exercise Of this power exhausts it, so far as regards the individual. The Constitution then takes him up, and, among other rights, extends to him the capacity of suing in the Courts of the United States, precisely under the same circumstance under which a native might sue. He is distinguishable in nothing from a native citizen, except SO far as the Constitution makes the distinction. The law makes none.”

Thus the Act of March 26, 1790 would be unconstitutional if it attempted to enlarge the rights of a naturalized citizen to be equal to those of natural-born citizens under the Constitution.

Although it is not within the power of Congress to change or amend the Constitution by means of definitions of languages used in the Constitution so as to mean something different than intended by the framers (amendments being governed by Article V) an argument might be advanced to the effect that the use of identical language by Congress substantially contemporaneously might be considered in later years by a court to reflect the same meaning of the same words by the framers of the Constitution; and under this argument to attach importance to the Act of congress of March 26, 1790 (1 stat 103).

This argument fades away when it is found that this act used the term “natural-born” through inadvertence which resulted from the use of the English Naturalization Act (13 Geo. III, Cap 21 (1773) as a pattern when it was deemed necessary (as stated by Van Dyne) to enact a similar law in the United States to extend citizenship to foreign-born children of American parents. In the discussion on the floor of the House of Representatives in respect to the proposed naturalization bill of a committee composed of Thomas Hartley of Pennsylvania, Thomas Tudor Tucker of South Carolina and Andrew Moore of Virginia, Mr. Edamus Burke of South Carolina stated, “The case of the children of American parents born abroad ought to be provided for, as was done In the case of English parents in the 12th year of William III.” (See pp 1121, Vol 1 (Feb. 4, 1790) of Annals of Congress.) The proposed bill was then recommitted to the Committee of Hartley, Tucker and Moore, and a new bill containing the provision in respect to foreign-born children of American parentage was included, using the Anglican phrase “shall be considered as natural born citizens.” Manifestly, Mr. Burke had given the wrong reference to the Act of Parliament of the 12th year of WIlliam III which was an Inheritance law. But, it was a naturalization bill and the reference to the English acts shows the origin of the inadvertent error in using the term natural-born citizen instead of plain “citizen” came from copying the English Naturalization Act.

Mr. James Madison, who had been a member of the Constitutional Convention and had participated in the drafting of the terms of eligibility for the President, was a member of the Committee of the House, together with Samuel Dexter of Massachusetts and Thomas A. Carnes of Georgia when the matter of the uniform naturalization act was considered in 1795. Here the false inference which such language might suggest with regard to the President was noted, and the Committee sponsored a new naturalization bill which deleted the term “natural-born” from the Act of 1795. (1 Stat 414) The same error was never repeated in any subsequent naturalization act.

The Act of 1795 provides:

“The children Of citizens born outside of the limits and jurisdiction of the United States, shall be considered as citizens of the United States.”

In 1802, when Congress repealed entirely the law of 1790, it enacted that “the children of persons who now are, or have been citizens of the United States, Shall, although born outside of the limits and jurisdiction of the United States, be considered as citizens of the United States” (2 stat 153). (R.S. 1993) This was followed by the Act of 1855 (10 Stat 604) which repealed the Act of 1802.

Congress, In its exclusive control of naturalization, could make any person born outside of the limits of the United States a citizen, either automatically or by pursuit of a proper court proceeding; but, It is not within the power of Congress in its control of naturalization to alter the fact of place of birth to make a foreign born child a “natural-born” citizen as described In clause 4, section 1 of Article II of the Constitution so as to become thereby eligible to become the President.

In United, States v. Perkins, 17 F S 117. the syllabus reads:

“Child born In England of mother who had been born in United States, and had married Englishman In England, held not a ‘natural born citizen,’ within the provisions of Federal Constitution, whether child became citizen at birth by reason of mother’s citizenship or by her subsequent repatriation (Oable Act. 8 U.S.C.A. §§ 9, 10, 367-370; 8 U.S.C.A. §§ 6 and note, 7, 8, 399c(a); Rev. St § 1993; Convention with Great Britain May 13, 1870, art. 1, 16 Stat. 775) .”

And the text of the opinion on page 179 reads:

“But I think it is immaterial, for the purpose of the instant suit, whether petitioner became an American citizen at his birth by reason of his mother’s citizenship or later by means of the repatriation Of his mother. I do not think the authorities sustain his claim that he is a natural-born citizen within the meaning of the provisions of the Constitution, eitheof section I, clause 4, or article 2, that ‘No person except a natural born citizen or a citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption Of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President: or of the Fourteenth Amendment, that ‘All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the Jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the-State wherein they reside.’

In the case of ‘United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, at page 688, 18 S.· Ct. 456; 472, 42 L ed 89, It was said: “This sentence of the fourteenth amendment is declaratory of existing rights, and affirmative” of existing law, as to each of the qualifications therein expressed-’born in the United states,’ ‘naturalized in the United States’ and ’subject to the jurisdiction thereof’ in short, as to everything relating to the acquisition of citizenship by facts occurring within the limits of the United States. But it has not touched the acquisition of citizenship by being born abroad of American parents; and has left that subject to be regulated, as it had always been, by Congress, in the exercise of the power conferred by the Constitution to establish an uniform rule of naturalization.” And again on page 702, “Citizenship by naturalization can only be acquired by naturalization under the authority and in the forms of law. But citizenship by birth is established by the mere fact of birth under the circumstances defined in the Constitution. Every person born in the United states, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, becomes at once a citizen of the United, States and needs no naturalization. A person born out Of the jurisdiction Of the United States can only become a citizen by being naturalized, either by treaty, as in the case of the annexation of foreign territory, or by authority of Congress, exercised by declaring certain classes of persons to be citizens, as in the enactments conferring citizenship upon foreign-born children Of citizens, or by enabling foreigners individually to become citizens by proceedings in the judicial tribunals, as in the ordinary provisions of the naturalization acts.” Petitioner claims that these statements are mere dicta as applied to his claim and not entitled to consideration. But the Supreme Court in that case went fully into the whole question of citizenship in all of its aspects and this court could not ignore the carefully expressed opinions of the Supreme Court, even if this court should differ from that opinIon. Also see Schautus v. Attorney General, 45 F S 61, l.c. 67.

In State v. Rhodes (C.C. Ky.) 27 Fed. Cas 785, 879 (1866), Justice Swayne of the Supreme Court said:

“All persons born in the allegiance Of the king are natural born subjects, and all persons born in the allegiance of the United, States are natural born citizens. Birth and, allegiance go together. Such is the rule of common law, and It is the common law of this country, as well as of England.”

In Rawle’s view on the Constitution of the United States, page 86, It Is stated:

“Every person born within the United States, its territories or districts, whether the parents are citizens or aliens, is a natural born citizen within the sense of the Constitution, and entitled to all rights and privileges appertaining to that capacity.”

In Luria v. United States, 231 US 9, in a unanimous decision Justice Van Deventer, speaking for the court, at page 22, stated:

“Under our Constitution, a naturalized citizen stands on an equal footing with the native citizen in all respects, save that oj eligibility to the presidency.” Cited with approval by Justice Frankfurter in Baumgartner VB. U.S. 322 U.S. 673.

In Knauer v. United States, 328 U.S. 654, in a separate opinion, at page 677, Justice Rutledge stated:

“I do not find warrant in the Constitution for believing that it contemplates two classes of citizens, excepting only for two purposes. One is to provide how citizenship shall be acquired, Const. Art. 1, p. 8; Amend XIV, p. 1, the other to determine the eligibility for the presidency. The latter is the only instance in which the charter expressly excludes the “naturalized citizen” from any right or privilege the “native born” possesses.

In Husar v. United,:States, 26 F 2d 847, in the Circuit Court of Appeals of the 9th Circuit the court stated:

“True”, there is no express requirement that the United States District Attorney for China shall be a citizen of the United States. Nor, so far as we have been able to discover, Is there such express requirement respecting any other officer of the United- States, excepting only the President and members of Congress. (Const. US Art 2, par 1, subd 5); and these constitutional provisions were for the apparent purpose, not of insuring against alien office holding, but requiring American birth in the one case and prescribed, periods of citizenship in the other two.”

A child born in a foreign country of American parents may claim United States citizenship at majority. In Re Reed, 6 FS 800-It required an election on his part when he attained his majority. State v. Jackson, 79 Vt. 504, 65 A 657.

In 1854 an article appeared in 2 Am Law Reg. P 193, which pointed out among other things that, due to the language of the Act of 1802, all children of American families “born in a foreign country” are aliens. This article resulted in the passage of the Act of Congress of 1855 (10 Stat 604) which repealed the act of 1802 (2 Stat 153). Had Mr. Romney been born between 1802 and 1855 he would not even be a citizen through his father.

In the case of Ludlow v. Ludlow, 26 NY 356, 84 Am. 0 193, the sole issue was one of citizenship in order to be able to inherit real estate in New York state. In the opinion Judge Selden uses the term “natural born citizen” on two occasions. A careful reading In the second instance shows that he was using the word” “natural” in the sense of “native” wherein he said “among the facts found by the court are the following, viz:

“That Richard L. Ludlow, the father of said Maximo M. Ludlow and of the plaintiff, In the latter part of the year 1822, voluntarily expatriated himself from the United States, where he was a natural born citizen for the purpose of becoming a permanent resident of Lima, in Peru, South America, and of establishing his permanent domicile there.” As the case shows that Richard L. Ludlow was born In the United States in 1804 the use of the term “natural born” meant native born.

In U.S. v. Fisher, 48 F S 7, the court said:

“A naturalized citizen, broadly speaking, enjoys all of the rights of the native citizen, except so far as the Constitution makes the distinction. Const. rt. 2, par 1, cl 4 and this constitutional exception is limited alone to the occupancy of the office of President of the United States.”

In Elk v. Wilkins, 112 US at page 101, Justice Gray said:

“The distinction between citizenship by birth and citizenship by naturalization is clearly marked in the provisions of the Constitution by which ‘no person, except a “natural born” citizen, or a citizen of the United States at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of the President;’ and ‘the Congress shall have power to establish a uniform rule of naturalization”’.

In 2 Bancroft’s History of the U.S. Constitution 192, reference is made to the fourth cIa use of the 1st section of article II. In the Constitutional Convention, says Mr. Bancroft:

“One question on the qualifications of the president was among the last decided. On the twenty-second of August, the Committee of Detail,” fixing the requisite age of the president at thirty-five, on their own motion, and for the first time required only that the president should be a citizen of the United States, and should have been an inhabitant of them for twenty-one years. On the fourth of September, the Committee of States, who were charged . with all unfinished business. limited the years of residence to fourteen. It. was then objected that no number of years could, “properly’ prepare a foreigner for that place; but, as men of other lands had spilled their blood in the cause of the United States, and had assisted at every stage”of the formation” of their institutions, on the seventh of September, it was unanimously settled that foreign-born residents of fourteen years who shall be citizens at the time of the formation 0f the Constitution are eligible to the Office of the President.” (Corroboration for the statements of Bancroft are to be found in Vol 5 of Johathan Elliott’s “Madison Papers,” pages 462, 507, 512 and 521, and in Vol. 3 of Henry D .. Gilpin’s “Madison Papers” pages
1398,1437 and 1516) .

It will be seen from the foregoing that a distinction was made between natural-born citizens and foreign-born citizens. The very exception made as to foreign-born citizens who were citizens at the time ‘of the adoption of the Constitution proves conclusively the intent of the framers of the Constitution to limit eligibility for all others to nativeborn citizens. There was no Act then making a foreign born child a citizen.

The word inhabitant means “a permanent resident.” The substitution of natural-born citizens took the place of a permanent residence for 21 years. Manifestly, the meaning of the Committee of States that “no number of years could properly prepare a foreigner for that place” may properly be translated to ‘mean that being an inhabitant” in the United States for all of the years of the life of the individual concerned was not sufficient. What then is to be concluded that they meant to say when they used the language that the President shall be a “naturalborn citizen.” Is not the proper conclusion that if a lifetime of inhabitance is insufficient, native birth was contemplated? Suppose a candidate for President be 60 years Old. Could this provision of the Constitution contemplate a foreign birth of a German mother and American father and continuous foreign residence for 46 years so long as the last 14 years were in residence of the United States, merely because a parent of the foreign-born candidate happened to be an American citizen, if a lifetime of inhabitance was not sufficient? It seems apparent that the Committee was trying to establish an eligibility requirement of a far greater degree than 21 years inhabitance-and at the same time reducing the residence requirement to 14 years. Could this increased requirement be satisfied by a foreign birth and foreign rearing until the character, patriotism and loyalty qualities were firmly fixed by the 46 years-foreign residence to be followed by only 14 years’ residence In the United States from a mere American parentage? It seems to me that the question answers itself-that “natural born citizen” meant “native born citizen.” The framers of the Constitution could not have attached such importance to American parentage of a foreign born and reared person when a lifetime of inhabitance (permanent residence) was considered insufficient.

I do not find in court decisions and legal literature of the time of adoption of the Constitution of the United States any reference to “native-born,” when reference is made to a native born citizen or subject. The word invariably used was “naturalborn.” As an example, a “denizen” was an “alien-born” person who had obtained a denizenation by gift of the King, (i.e. letters patent to make him an English subject). This patent was the exercise of a high royal prerogative. Naturalization could only be accomplished by Parliament. A denizen could take and hold lands by purchase or devise which an alien could not do; but could not take title by inheritance. The children born before denizenation could not Inherit from him, but those born afterwards could inherit. It Is Interesting to note In 1 Blackstone Comm. 374 in commenting on the denizen he says, “A denizen Is a kind of middle state, between an alien and a natural-born subject, and partakes of both.” Note that he does not use native-born subject, as this term Is now used. The distinction was drawn between an allen and a natural-born citizen, not native-born citizen. See Fries Case 9 Fed Case i26, Case No. 5126 and Collingwood v. Pace, 1 Ventries (Eng.) 419.

Mr. Binney, in the second edition of a paper on the Alienigenae of the United States, printed In pamphlet at Philadelphia with a preface bearing his signature and the date of December 1, 1853, on page 22, said:

“The right of citizenship never descends in a legal sense, either by the common law, or under the common naturalization acts. It is incident to birth in the country, or it is given personally by statute. The child 0f an alien, if born in the country, Is as much a citizen as the natural-born child of a citizen, and by operation of the same principle. See Amer. Law Register for Feb. 1854 2 Amer. Law Reg. 193, 203, 204.”

The comparison was made to alien and natural born, not native born.

To a letter written in New York by John Jay to George Washington, President of the Federal Convention, on July 25, 1787 has been attributed the provision in the Constitution requiring that the President shall be a “natural-born citizen.” This letter said:

“Permit me to hint whether it would not be wise and reasonable to provide a strong check to the admission of foreigners into the Administration of our National Government, and to declare expressly that the command in chief 0f the American Army shall not be given to, nor devolve on, any but a natural-born citizen.”

The “hint” of John Jay that the Command in Chief of the American Army should not be given to, nor devolve on, any but a natural-born citizen bore fruit, and it was accordingly provided that the President shall be a natural-born citizen. Note that his “hint” distinguished natural-born citizens from foreigners. Everyone of the 55 persons constituting the Federal Convention had been born on English soil and was a natural-born citizen.

Three articles have appeared in Journals on the same general subject as this article. The first was In the Albany, New York Bar Journal (66 Albany Law Journal 99) in 1904, both of which concluded that a foreign-born child of American parentage came within the term natural-born and was eligible to become President. The second In 1950 was 35 Cornell Law Quarterly 357. The first was so inadequately considered and lacking in citation as not to deserve mention. The only reference was to the inadvertent use of the term natural born In the Act of 1790 (1 Stat. 103). He did not seem to know that it was Mr. Madison who had participated in the drafting of the Constitution who had discovered the error and authorized the bill to correct it by deleting the term from the act of 1795 (1 Stat. 445). This first article did, however, apparently serve to encourage the author of the article In the Cornell Law Quarterly which was apparently inspired by a desire to accomplish a desired result, namely, to urge eligibility or the Presidency on behalf of Mr. Franklin Delano Roosevelt, Jr. who was born at the family summer home at Campobello, New Brunswick, Canada. His article attached great importance to the naturalization acts of the English Parliament which had “deemed” the children of English parentage born abroad to be natural born. The author seemed to have lost sight of the fact that the English common law in respect to citizenship did not become the common law of the United States and that the framers of the Constitution in making one qualification for the Presidency that the person be a “natural born citizen” referred to the genuine natural born citizen rather than one who by legislative act was “deemed” to be. A great weakness of his argument was later revealed by the decision of the U.S. Supreme Court in 1961 in Montana v. Kennedy, Attorney General, 366 US 308, holding that his subject would not even have been an American citizen if his citizenship had depended on the citizenship of his mother, Eleanor Roosevelt, and that he only had dual citizenship because Congress in the exercise of its constitutional authority to establish uniform rules of naturalization had seen fit to grant to him automatic American citizenship due to the citizenship of his father.

Both articles assume that the restriction to natural-born citizens was based upon the law of blood of parentage, Jus Sanguinis, rather than the place of birth, Jus Soli; and without legal basis, claim that the former was of a higher order than the latter. Based upon such assumption they conclude that it is not the place of birth in the United States which controls, but the American parentage of the child that complies with the requirement of the Constitution. The fact is, however, that the blood relationship had nothing whatsoever to do with the requirement, and the sole basis for the requirement was place of birth. This Is demonstrated from the notes of Mr. James Madison, made on the spot, at the Constitutional Convention and reported in Bancroft’s History of the Constitution showing that the initial proposal of the Committee of Detail called for 21 years of inhabitance (permanent residence) which relates solely to place and is entirely unrelated to blood. But, objection was made that “no number of years could properly prepare a foreigner for that place, i.e., a lifetime of residence could not properly prepare one of foreign birth. (place again)” It was then that the Committee of States changed the requirement to call for native birth, as “natural-born” was meant by Blackstone, et al. (again place), but exception was made to those foreigners who were residents at the time of the adoption of the constitution-again place! Indeed, the claim of citizenship by blood or descent was expressly overruled in favor of the rule of citizenship by place of birth, in U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 US 649, l.c. 674 in which the court stated:

“There is nothing to countenance the theory that a general rule of citizenship by blood, or descent has displaced in this country the fundamental rule of citizenship by birth within its sovereignty. So far as we are informed, there Is no authority, legislative, executive, or judicial, in England or America, which maintains or intimates that the statutes (whether considered as declaratory, or as merely prospective), conferring citizenship on foreign-born children of citizens, have superseded or restricted, in any respect, the established rule of citizenship by birth within the dominion.”

The 1904 article said “a forced or restricted construction of the constitutional phrases under consideration would be out of harmony with modern conceptions of political status, and might produce startling results,” (i.e. the Constitution is to be amended by judicial fiat to achieve desired results) . Continuing, It says, “it remains to be decided whether a child of domiciled Chinese parents, born in the United States, Is eligible, If otherwise qualified, to the Office of President and to all privileges of the Constitution.” (This had already been decided in the affirmative In U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 US 649), “and It would be a strange conclusion, In another aspect, the child of American parents, born In China, should be denied corresponding rights and privileges In the United States.” It would seem that the “strange aspect” was that a person whose skin was yellow could be President because of being born in the United States, whereas, a person whose skin was white could not if born In China. If racial prejudice is disregarded, there is nothIng strange about the fact that the Constitution requires that the President be a nativeborn citizen.

The author of the 1950 article in the Cornell Law Quarterly argues that since under British statutory naturalization law children born to British parents outside of the dominions of the King became citizens at birth, such child was a “natural-born” British citizen, and our constitution should be so interpreted. Not only Is this argument contrary to the cited decisions of the British appellate courts, and not a part of the British common law, as pointed out in Levy vs. McCartee, 31 U.S. 102, but, as pointed out In Hawle’s View of the Constitution, the early Congress found it necessary to adopt similar naturalization law otherwise the foreign born children of American parents would not even be American citizens.
There have been two periods since the creation of the United States during which there has been no Act of Congress which naturalized the foreign-born children of American citizens. These were (1) after June 21, 1789 (the effective date of the Constitution) and the Act of March 26, 1790, and (2) between the Act of April 14, 1802 and the act of February 10, 1855. What was the meaning of the words “natural-born citizen” during these periods? Manifestly, the only meaning that these words could have had, during these periods, was what we now call “nativeborn citizen,” since birth within the United States was the only way a child could then be “born” a citizen. During those periods all foreign-born children were aliens. The meaning of the language used in the Constitution has not changed either before or after these acts of Congress. It was the Acts of Congress governing naturalization which changed from time to time-it being beyond the power of Congress to change the Constitution by legislative enactments. Thus, if prior to the first naturalization act of March 26, 1790, and again during the period from April 14, 1802 to February 10, 1855, the term “natural-born citizen” meant born within the domain of the United States-which Is the only meaning it could have had-then that meaning could not be altered by any Act of Congress naturalizing foreign-born children of American parents, and it remains the meaning today.

The third article appeared in the December 23rd, 1955 issue of U.S. News and World Report in relation to the eligibility of Herbert Hoover, Jr., Franklin D. Roosevelt, Jr., and Christian A. Herter who were born in England, Canada and France, respectively. The main point advanced by the author was that children born to American parents outside of the United States became citizens at birth, whom he called “born citizens.” From this conclusion he takes another step to call them “natural-born citizens,” although recognizing that the U.S. Supreme Court in the case of U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark 169 US 655 had held that they were naturalized citizens rather than natural-born citizens. When he says that they were “born citizens” his statement was erroneous. They were naturalized citizens. Born citizens are those who acquire their citizenship solely by birth within the United States. All persons born outside of the United States are born aliens and acquire citizenship by naturalization by compliance with an act of Congress naturalizing children born outside of the United States to American citizen parents. The article contains some false conclusions of the author reading as if they were statements of fact. For example, he states, “This leads one to focus attention on the difference In legal meaning between the two terms-as they were understood by minds steeped in the English legal tradition In 1787-and the only difference which such scrutiny reveals Is that, whereas  “natives” (except the children of foreign diplomats and Invading armies) were “natural-born subjects,” the converse of this proposition was not true. Some naturalborn subjects were not “natives” and these were none other than the foreign-born children of native parentage.” This converse proposition is a false conclusion of the author and not a correct statement of fact or law. No child born outside of the dominion of the King was ever a true “natural-born subject.” They were naturalized subjects. It Is true that by the naturalization acts under which they had become naturalized subjects had “deemed” them to be natural-born subjects (despite the fact that they were not so In fact), and the very fact that these were “deemed” to be natural-born by the naturalization act reveals that the true “natural-born” subjects were those born within the dominion of the King without the necessity of a naturalization law to “deem”  them to be in law what they were not in fact.

This subject was considered by Weston W. Willoughby In his 3-volume treaties on “United States Constitutional Law.” In Vol. 1, page 354 (par. 199), he stated:

“Natural-born citizen not yet defined. So far as the author knows, no fully satisfactory definition of the term “natural-born citizen” has yet been given by the Supreme Court. Thus, it is not certain whether a person born abroad of American citizens who have themselves resided in the United States is to be deemed a natural-born citizen or a citizen naturalized by the Act of Congress which provides that such persons shall be deemed to be citizens of the United States. To the author it would seem reasonable to hold that anyone who is able to claim United States citizenship without prior declaration upon his part of a desire to obtain such a status should be deemed a natural-born citizen. If this doctrine should be accepted, persons born abroad of parents themselves citizens would not be regarded as natural-born citizens, because, In fact, It is provided by Act of Congress of March 2, 1907 (34 Stat 1229) that such persons, in order to receive the protection of the United States are required, upon reaching the age of eighteen years to record at an American consulate their intention to become residents and remain citizens of the United States, and, moreover, are required to take the oath of allegiance to the United States upon attaining their majority. It is also to be observed that for many years there existed no statutory provision. Whatever for the citizenship of persons born abroad of American parents who had not become American citizens prior to the Act ot 1802.”

There were but two types of English citizenship-natural-born (native-born) and naturalized. The same is true of American citizenship. A citizen is either one or the other. Mr. Romney was born an alien and was naturalized automatically by Act of Congress. The U.S. Naturalization Law as it existed at the birth of Mr. Romney did not even purport to “deem” him to be a naturalborn citizen as did the British. It merely declared him to be a citizen. He is, therefore, not a native-born citizen, but Is a naturalized citizen. He is, therefore not a “natural-born citizen” according to the English common law, nor an American natural-born citizen under the Constitution of the United States. Luria v. U.S., 311 US 9.

It has been suggested that the provision calling for the President to be “a naturalborn citizen” Is a “mere technicality”. In the same sense, so are the requirements that the President shall be 35 years old and a resident for 14 years. One is just as valid and binding as . the others, and all three were purposeful, deliberately and intentionally made. Thirtyfive years of age was to insure maturity; 14 years of residence was to insure familiarity with the Government, its Institutions and people, and native birth was to insure loyalty and freedom from foreign sympathy and ideologies. The members of the convention knew that some might be more mature at 34 than others at 35; and some might have a better knowledge of the Government, its institutions and people in 12 or 13 years than’ others at 14 years; and some might possess a higher degree of loyalty and greater freedom from foreign sympathy and ideologies by residence from childhood than others of native birth. Most people are known to have a soft spot In their hearts for the country of their birth and birth in the United States saves this soft spot for the United States. I doubt that Sir Walter Scott would approve a paraphrasing of his famous question, “Breathes there a man with soul so dead who never to himself has said that is my own, my native land-Mexico!” In making rules, the line must be drawn somewhere that is reasonably calculated to accomplish the desired purpose. Individual fact cases, standing alone, can always make the wisdom of rules seem dubious. Reasonable rules are made for the general good, even though hardship may ensue In individual cases from their application. Their reason for these rules is just as valid now as when made.

To summarize; a natural-born citizen of the United States, as that term is used in the Constitution of the United States, means a citizen born within the territorial limits of the United States and subject to the laws of the United States at the time of such birth. This does not include children born within the territorial limits of the United States to alien parents who, although present with the consent of the United States, enjoy diplomatic immunity from the laws of the United States, and, as a consequence are not subject to the laws of the United States. Nor would this include children born within the territorial limits of the United States to alien enemy parents in time of war as a part of a hostile military force, and, as a consequence not present with the consent of the United States, and not subject to the laws of the United States. But, this does include children born to alien parents who are present within the territorial limits of the United States “In amity” i.e. with the consent of the United States, and subject to its laws at the time of birth. U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark 169 US 649, Luria v. U.S., 231 US 9, Minor v. Happersett 88 US 162.

I find no proper legal or historical basis on which to conclude that a person born outside of the United States could ever be eligible to occupy the Office of the President of the United States. In other words, In my opinion, Mr. George Romney of Michigan Is Ineligible to become President of the United States because he was born In Mexico and is, therefore, not a natural-born citizen as required by the United States Constitution.

Bruce Springsteen and the E Street Band
Giants Stadium
October 3rd 2009

Bruce Springsteeen is the last of a dying breed. For well over 30 years, he has held the distinction of being Jersey’s favorite son, and his popularity may well be at an all time high. Such longevity is unheard of in today’s music world. Springsteen has managed to outlive Giants Stadium, the venue that helped signal his arrival as a certified rock star when he first performed there in 1985. The Boss was tapped to close out the (somewhat) historic venue with five farewell shows before it will be reduced to rubble at the conclusion of this year’s football season.

Springsteen and the E Street Band  marked the occasion by playing one of their most successful albums in its entirety each night. On October 3rd, the choice was “Born in the USA,” the 1984 breakout that has sold over 15 million copies in the US. In addition to the album’s twelve tracks, Springsteen would add a mix of old and new that had the 50,000 in attendance in a state of complete ecstasy.

I’ll start by saying I had never seen Bruce Springsteen live before, so I was more than excited to finally get the chance to see the man many consider one of today’s best performers. The most difficult part of the show was simply getting there. The trek from Southern Connecticut somehow required four different train rides, the final one a short trip from Hoboken to the Meadowlands that resembled a college campus on homecoming weekend, with frat boys and 50 year-olds alike readying for the party.

We were lucky enough to be on the field for the show, which was divided into two different pit sections. After arriving only a half an hour before the doors opened, we found a spot in the first pit that put us relatively close to the stage. While the tickets listed the show time as 7:30, the stadium was nearly empty as that time rolled around. Apparently the Jersey faithful knew something we didn’t, for the E Street Band wouldn’t take the stage until an hour later.

Once they did, Springsteen began the marathon set with a song titled “Wrecking Ball” written just for the occasion. It wasn’t Bruce’s best work, but the fans appreciated the effort and sang along with the words displayed on the huge video screens framing the stage. The band then broke into a raucous version of “Out in the Street.”  Working on a Dream epic “Outlaw Pete” followed, complete with a desert montage presented on the  screens. The song is one of Springsteen’s most unique, but at eight minutes, it seems a little bit much for a live setting like this.

One of the highlights of the show was the next song, “Hungry Heart,” which featured the 60 year-old Springsteen leaving the stage, running about thirty yards down field, and then crowd surfing his way back to the front. The show as a whole did not rely on overblown theatrics like most  stadium shows. Instead, Springsteen provided the type of energy that is rarely seen in today’s performers, racing to all ends of the stage and firing up the crowd between songs with the enthusiasm of a southern preacher.

After an already frantic start to the show, Springsteen and the E Street Band, which at times swelled to eleven members, segued into the nights main attraction, Born in the USA. The crowd sang at the top of their lungs to the title track, and then didn’t miss a beat during lesser known numbers such as “Darlington County” and “Downbound Train.” It was apparent the crowd of 50,000 was of the die hard variety.

One of the night’s most poignant moments was “I’m on Fire,” where Springsteen sat in a chair at the end of the stage to perform the song. On the video screen, three teenage girls in the front row  sang along to every word. When Springsteen reached out and clasped hands with each of them, the look on their faces was priceless.

The next track “No Surrender” followed and was met by a huge reaction from the crowd and was another one of the night’s high points. During “Dancing in the Dark,” Springsteen brought a Syracuse orange-clad thirteen year old on stage for a “birthday dance.” While he may not be Fred Astaire, even at 60 the Boss still has the moves.

After closing out the Born in the USA portion of the set, Springsteen would assemble the members of the band that had helped make the record at the front of the stage for a great photo opportunity. It was a terrible idea to not bring my camera.

Springteen and the E Street Band would continue to thrill fans with selections both old and new. “The Promise Land” from 1978’s Darkness on the Edge of Town was followed by “Last to Die” and “Long Walk Home” from 2007’s “Magic.” The songs, and the crowd’s reaction to them is a testament to the band’s longevity and amazing staying power. Could you imagine the Rolling Stones playing two news songs that the those in the crowd not only were familiar with, but sang along to as if it were the band’s biggest hit? I can’t.

Springsteen and Co. would finish their set with an epic rendition of their signature track “Born to Run.” Without leaving the stage, the band took their bows and then began the “encore” portion of the set by taking requests from the crowd. This involved Springsteen grabbing elaborately crafted signs from those at the front, and then tallying the results. The first request was a cover of Tom Wait’s  “Jersey Girl.” This was followed by a long, drawn out version of “Kitty’s Back.” Like “Outlaw Pete,” there were many in the crowd (including myself) who were quite ready to move on by the end of the song.

“Detroit Medley” would then follow, featuring a collection of Springsteen’s favorite 60’s Motor City classics. The collection is an appropriate tribute to the struggling city. After 2001 “American Land,” (which could easily fit on most Dropkick Murphy’s records), “Waitin’ on a Sunny Day” featured a guest appearance by a pint-sized member of the crowd who happened to know every word.

The two hour and fifty minute set would come to a close with “Thunder Road” from 1975’s Born to Run. After a long ovation, the crowd would reluctantly make their way for the exits. I was thoroughly exhausted. It’s almost unfathomable to think that Springsteen puts on such a spectacle every single night, and yet he has been doing it for decades. His energy and passion is unsurpassed, a main reason why he has been able to remain relevant for so long. Throughout Springsteen’s 30+ years career, artists, trends, and even stadiums have come and gone, but the E Street Band has remained a constant. It doesn’t look like that will be changing any time soon.

Edit this setlist | More Bruce Springsteen setlists

I saw the last concert ever at Giants Stadium by Bruce Springsteen and the E Street Band last night, and I was a little disappointed. It was far from a bad show. I’ve never left a Springsteen show feeling cheated or unsatisfied. I just didn’t love the set list and thought many very necessary songs were left unplayed. I guess I was spoiled by my favorite concert of all-time, by the very same band in the very same location, last summer.

Even Backstreets, the fan site for Bruce junkies, pretty much agrees with me: “Closing night seemed to break very little new ground, however. The set list was a near carbon copy of the previous Saturday’s show, including the reprise performance of the Born in the USA album. The crowd certainly brought the noise, as exhorted by Bruce to do so, and the band’s performance was excellent, but as a whole, the show seemed to fall short of the heights that closing night in Jersey has brought in the past.”

The July 31, 2008, show was absolutely unreal, and there will never be another one like it. But last night’s didn’t even come close. If you would have told me that Bruce Springsteen and the E Street Band would play their final show at Giants Stadium and not play Rosalita, Jungleland, Thunder Road, Candy’s Room, Backstreets, Tenth Avenue Freeze-Out, Prove It All Night or Two Hearts, I’d have probably laughed at you. I didn’t expect all of those songs, but I certainly didn’t expect none of those songs.

And while music is certainly a matter of opinion and there is no right and wrong, I’ve never been a fan of some of the songs that were played last night. Seven Nights to Rock does nothing for me. American Land is a great song, but it’s run its course. Kitty’s Back is a fantastic classic, but I would have gladly sacrificed it for one of the songs mentioned above, or two, since Kitty’s Back is well over 10 minutes long. And while I’m not a huge Rolling Stones fan and the theme of the song was appropriate for the evening, I could have done without The Last Time.

And in the, “If It’s on the Internet, It MUST Be True” department, none of the rumors being bandied about came to fruition. I read in various places that the band applied for a special permit to extend the show to 1 a.m., yet I was actually sitting on my couch watching the end of the Red Sox-Angels game minutes after midnight. And I read about special guests including Jon Bon Jovi, Mick Jagger, Elton John and Bono, yet the closest thing to a special guest was Max Weinberg’s son, Jay, playing the drums during Born to Run (and doing a stellar job, much as he did when he played the entire show at the IZOD Center a few months ago).

On a more positive note, seeing Jersey Girl live is always special, although I think 70,000 people were shocked to find out it was the last song. I love Wrecking Ball, the tribute to Giants Stadium, and sincerely hope they release a recording of it so I don’t have to rely on a bootleg. Spirit in the Night was awesome, and Tougher than the Rest was a nice surprise.

Don’t get me wrong: I am NOT bashing the band. As I said earlier, the effort and the performance last night were still fantastic, and I still believe they are, by far, the best live band around. And while I will probably not to go either of the November shows at Madison Square Garden for various reasons, many of them involving my dwindling bank account, I will definitely see them the next time they come around, although they are allegedly taking a two-year hiatus from touring. I just expected to close Giants Stadium out with an all-time epic classic show, and not an “average” Springsteen show, even though an average Springsteen show is still better than most other artists’ best shows.

Bring on your wrecking ball.

Last night’s set list:
Wrecking Ball (with Curt Ramm)
Badlands
Spirit in the Night
Outlaw Pete
Hungry Heart
Working on a Dream
Born in the USA
Cover Me
Darlington County
Working on the Highway
Downbound Train
I’m on Fire
No Surrender
Bobby Jean
I’m Goin’ Down
Glory Days
Dancing in the Dark
My Hometown
Tougher Than the Rest
The Promised Land
Last to Die (with Curt Ramm)
Long Walk Home
The Rising
Born to Run (with Jay Weinberg)
* * *
Raise Your Hand
The Last Time
Waitin’ on a Sunny Day
Seven Nights to Rock
Kitty’s Back (with Curt Ramm)
American Land
Jersey Girl

Image from Backstreets

L’info est “tombée” la nuit dernière : au cours de ses cinq shows au Giant’s Stadium dans le New Jersey, Bruce Springsteen jouera chaque soir un album entier.

Au menu
30 septembre : Born to run
2 octobre : Darkness on the edge of town
3 octobre : Born in the USA
8 octobre : Born to run
9 octobre : Born in the USA

Plus de détails sur le site du Star Ledger

Bruuuuuuce!

Sixty is the new forty.

He’s known by his full name, but he’s identifiable by his first name as easily as he is by his last. He’s the Boss, the man who might have saved rock and roll when it needed it, who might be the last American rock’n'roll icon given his impact and longetivity. He’s a wealthy man who can still write from the voice of a blue collar guy. He’s astute enough to respect the past masters while carving out his own legacy.

Many believe the stars aligned when Time and Newsweek ran him on their covers; others believe it was just a brilliant marketing campaign that took a guy with potential and anointed him the new King. But whether you believe talent trumped opportunity or a pre-Internet American Idol was created in a major label test tube, one thing is undeniable – when they sent him to the plate, he hit that ball out of the park. And as far as live performers are concerned, Bruce Springsteen is a legend, and rightfully so.

There are a million Bruce Springsteen stories out there, and you’ll hear and read several of them today. I’m saving mine for a longer essay that will run another time.  One December day long ago changed my life, and it involved a Springsteen concert, a blizzard and a woman. Don’t want to lose that one in the volume of today’s posts.

So here’s a tip of the cap to you, Mr. Springsteen. Like many of you, I’m going to get my Boss on today.

WXPN in Philadelphia is having a day-long celebration of The Boss, including a live broadcast of a tribute concert. In the meantime you can stream some of the studio cuts.

Of course Little Steven will have something to say.

An Internet buddy offers some selected covers of Bruce songs here and here.

And, of course, Bruce Springsteen Dot Net.

Update: added South Dakota

Canada Free Press is making much of the discovery that Nancy Pelosi and the DNC, sent two kinds of letters to the States to certify the election as candidates for the presidency and vice-presidency. They claim that only one, the abridged form, was submitted to (all) the States, but we know that at least Hawaii, which has very specific requirements, received the “unabridged version”. Most of the documents come from lawsuits against the Secretary Of State of various states, but since much of the State Court filings are not available on Pacer, I have yet to track down various state case filings that may shed additional light on this issue. So far I have found filings in Hawaii, Texas, South Carolina and Washington which are relevant.

In fact, there appear not to be just 2 documents but perhaps as many as 50 documents, probably because every state would like an original, notarized document. The Washington State document and the South Carolina document are two different documents, as can be seen from the signatures.

A so the mystery becomes even less and less. There may very well have been 49 letters, and one, to deal with the special requirements of Hawaii. Then again, the RNC similarly had 50 separate letters to be sent to their state headquarters for filing.

The “long form” or “unabridged” version states:

THIS IS TO CERTIFY that at the National Convention of the Democrat Party of the United States of America, held in Denver, Colorado on August 25 though 28, 2008, the following were duly nominated as candidates of said Party for President and Vice President of the United States respectively and that the following candidates for President and Vice President of the United States are legally qualified to serve under the provisions of the United States Constitution:

Presented: Hawaii

the “abridged version” states:

THIS IS TO CERTIFY that at the National Convention of the Democrat Party of the United States of America, held in Denver, Colorado on August 25 though 28, 2008, the following were duly nominated as candidates of said Party for President and Vice President of the United States respectively:

Presented: South Carolina, South Dakota, Texas, Washington.

So how to explain the difference in text?

Simple really…

Different States have different requirements for the certification. For example, we know that the letter with the complete text was sent to Hawaii. We also know that the example for the abridged document was filed in South Carolina. During the complete election cycle, and depending on the specific state laws, a candidate files a “declaration of candidacy” to run in the primaries of the State in question.  Once elected in the primaries, the state representative of the Party in question files a “certification of candidates” which verifies that the candidate meets the requirements of the State to run for office.

First let’s look at some of the “declarations of candidacy” filed by President Obama

Declaration of Candidacy

New Hampshire

The document signed by Mr Obama states that he meets the qualifications for the office of the President of the United States and is a registered member of the Democratic Party. Dec 1, 2008

Illinois

“I, Barack Obama, …. that I am a candidate for nomination to the office President of the United States of America,…, and that I am legally qualified (including being the holder of any license that may be an eligibility requirement for the office I seek the nomination for) to hold such office”

Kentucky

Arizona

“You are hereby notified that I, Barack Obama, am seeking nomination as a candidate for the office of President of the United States from the Democratic Party, at the Presidential Preference Election to be held on the 5th day of February 2008. I am a natural born citizen of the United States, am at least thirty-five years of age, and have been a resident within the United States for at least fourteen years”

Natural Born Citizen

Signature Page

Source: Presidential Preference Election Candidate Nomination Paper

State Rules

So let’s look at some state law and the known state filings. I consulted various relevant websites: Vetting Candidates at the Save our Rights Wiki,

South Carolina

The Calendar for filings shows

March 17  12:00 noon Filing opens for party primary and convention candidates for:

-  U.S. Senate
-  U.S. House of Representatives
-  State Senate
-  State House of Representatives
-  multi-county district offices
-  solicitor (circuits 1, 2, 4, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 14, 16)
- countywide and less than countywide offices

Candidates file proper forms including Statement of Intention of Candidacy with their political party.    7-11-15, 7-11-210, 7-11-220

March 31  12:00 noon Filing closes. 7-11-15

7-11-15: The statement of intention of candidacy required in this section and in Section 7-13-190(B) must be on a form designed and provided by the State Election Commission. This form, in addition to all other information, must contain an affirmation that the candidate meets, or will meet by the time of the general election, or as otherwise required by law, the qualifications for the office sought. It must be filed in triplicate by the candidate, and the political party committee with whom it is filed must stamp it with the date and time received, sign it, keep one copy, return one copy to the candidate, and send one copy to either the county election commission or the State Election Commission, as the case may be.

The candidate uses a standard form and the copy is retained by the candidate. An example form can be found here

White copy of the Statement of Intention of Candidacy is kept by the County Executive Committee. Gold copy is given to the candidate.

April 4 Yellow copy must be filed with State Executive Committee along with applicable filing fees.

April 10 12:00 noon Pink copy must be filed with your county election commission.  State political  party forwards a list of candidates to appropriate county election commission.  List must show specifically how candidates’ names should appear on ballots. All filing fees and a copy of the list of candidates sent to the county election commissions must be filed with the State Election Commission. 7-11-15, 7-13-40

September 10 12:00 noon Last day for political parties to certify Presidential candidates to State Election Commission. 7-13-350 (B)

Aug 15, 2008: DNC Chair Certifies Qualifications of Candidates

In accordance with South Carolina Code 7-13-350 and 7-11-15, as amended, the South Carolina Democratic Party is pleased to submit our list of Democratic candidates for the 2008 general election ballot.

The South Carolina Democratic Party certifies that each candidate meets, or will meet by the time of the general election, or as otherwise required by law, the qualifications for the office for which he/she has filed.

Aug 29, 2008: DNC and Pelosi’s official letter of nomination is accepted by the SC Election Committee (abridged format)

Hawaii HRS 11.113

(1)  In the case of candidates of political parties which have been qualified to place candidates on the primary and general election ballots, the appropriate official of those parties shall file a sworn application with the chief election officer not later than 4:30 p.m. on the sixtieth day prior to the general election, which shall include:

(A)  The name and address of each of the two candidates;

(B)  A statement that each candidate is legally qualified to serve under the provisions of the United States Constitution;

(C)  A statement that the candidates are the duly chosen candidates of both the state and the national party, giving the time, place, and manner of the selection.

Tennessee

No later than the first Tuesday in February (February 5, 2008) in a year in which presidential electors are elected, a Presidential Preference Primary will be held in Tennessee for each statewide political party.  TCA §§2-5-205 and 2-13-302.  There are two methods by which candidates for nomination to the Presidency by either the Democratic or Republican Party may qualify to appear on the ballot in the Presidential Preference Primary in Tennessee.

One method is to be named by the Secretary of State, who is required to submit a list of names to the State Election Commission no later than the first Tuesday in December (December 4, 2007).  TCA §2-5-205.  The Secretary of State has sole discretion to include
only those candidates that he has determined are generally advocated or recognized as candidates in national news media throughout the United States.  TCA §2-5-205.

In response, Ms. Henry-Robertson replied:

If what you are asking relates to placing the names of Presidential and Vice Presidential candidates on the November general election, then after each recognized political party has conducted a national convention, they certify to us the name of their Presidential and Vice-Presidential candidates.

Tennessee does not review the qualifications or the eligibility of the candidates certified to us by the recognized political parties. Presumably, legitimate challenges to the qualifications of Presidential and Vice-Presidential candidates have been reviewed and decided before the parties certify the names of their candidates to us. However, in Tennessee, a candidate who lost the election has standing to file a contest of election.

Specifically, TCA 2-17-103(a) states, “contests for the office of presidential and vice presidential elector shall be decided finally and unreviewably before the last day of November by the presidential electors tribunal composed of the governor, secretary of state and attorney general and reporter.”

Texas

§ 192.031.  PARTY CANDIDATE’S ENTITLEMENT TO PLACE ON BALLOT.

A political party is entitled to have the names of its nominees for president and vice-president of the United States placed on the ballot in a presidential general election if:

(1) the nominees possess the qualifications for those offices prescribed by federal law;
(2) before 5 p.m. of the 70th day before presidential election day, the party’s state chair signs and delivers to the secretary of state a written certification of:

(A) the names of the party’s nominees for president and vice-president; and
(B) the names and residence addresses of presidential elector candidates nominated by the party, in a number equal to the number of presidential electors that federal law allocates to this state; and

(3) the party is:

(A) required or authorized by Subchapter A of Chapter 172 to make its nominations by primary election; or
(B) entitled to have the names of its nominees placed on the general election ballot under Chapter 181.

Acts 1985, 69th Leg., ch. 211, § 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1986.  Amended by  Acts 1997, 75th Leg., ch. 864, § 203, eff. Sept. 1, 1997. Amended by: Acts 2005, 79th Leg., Ch. 1109, § 21, eff. September 1,  2005.

According to this “MEMORANDUM OF COMPLAINT OF ELECTION FRAUD AGAINST BOYD L. RICHIE, CHAIR, TEXAS
DEMOCRATIC PARTY and REQUEST FOR INVESTIGATION”:

On August 27, 2008 Boyd L. Richie, Chair, Texas Democratic Party, signed  2 (two) separate Certifications of Nomination swearing Barack Obama, the D party candidate for POTUS, is a NBC, both of which Certifications he submitted to Texas elections officials so they would print Mr. Obama’s name on the Texas general election ballot.  Boyd Richie submitted 2 (two) documents to Texas elections officials confirming Mr. Obama was  the D party nominee:  1) a letter to elections official certifying Mr. Obama had been “nominated” as POTUS; and 2) an “OFFICIAL CERTIFICATION OF NOMINATION” swearing Mr. Obama had been “duly nominated” as the D party candidate.  That is, he had been nominated in accordance  with D party rules and procedures.  http://falseflagrag.wordpress.com/

Texas Democratic Party Certification	Republican Party Fax Cover Sheet	Republican Party Certification
Republican Party Official Form	Texas Democratic Party Certification

South Dakota

No requirement to state eligibility or qualification.

A political party loses the right to participate in the primary election for failure to meet the definition of political party as defined in § 12-1-3.

Source: SDC 1939, § 16.0201; SL 1974, ch 118, § 28; SL 1976, ch 105, § 12; SL 1984, ch 107, § 1; SL 1986, ch 115, § 2; SL 1997, ch 75, § 2; SL 2007, ch 74, § 1; SL 2007, ch 81, § 5.

12-5-3.16. Certification of names of national convention nominees for President and vice-president–Alternate certification. The chairperson of the national convention of each political party recognized pursuant to § 12-1-3 or 12-5-1 shall certify the names of the convention nominees for President and vice-president of each political party to the secretary of state immediately following the convention. If the national certification is not received or is inconclusive, the names shall be certified by the state chairperson of that party at the request of the secretary of state.

12-5-3.14. Notice by candidates or supporters of intention to enter presidential primary. Any candidate, committee, or group supporting a candidate in any presidential primary, shall, by the last Tuesday in March prior to the presidential primary election, notify the secretary of state of an intention to have the name of the candidate placed on the presidential primary election ballot or submit a slate of candidates or both.

Source: SL 1977, ch 107, § 11; SL 1987, ch 120; SL 1997, ch 75, § 5; SL 2007, ch 81, § 7.

Arguing that Vattel and not common law guided the Founders, the Birthers proclaim that

The answer to this lies with none other than Thomas Jefferson, who penned Virginia’s Citizenship statue in 1779,

“Be it enacted by the General Assembly, that all white persons born within the territory of this commonwealth and all who have resided therein two years next before the passing of this act, and all who shall hereafter migrate into the same; and shall before any court of record give satisfactory proof by their own oath or affirmation, that they intend to reside therein, and moreover shall give assurance of fidelity to the commonwealth; and all infants wheresoever born, whose father, if living, or otherwise, whose mother was, a citizen at the time of their birth, or who migrate hither, their father, if living, or otherwise their mother becoming a citizen, or who migrate hither without father or mother, shall be deemed citizens of this commonwealth, until they relinquish that character in manner as herein after expressed: And all others not being citizens of any the United States of America, shall be deemed aliens.” As can be seen Jefferson is equating citizenship of the child to that of the parents, and not the land.

Strangely enough they omit the 1783 Virginia statute

SECT. 2. Be it therefore enacted by the General Assembly, That all free persons, born within the territory of this Commonwealth ; all persons, not being natives, who have obtained a right to citizenship under the Act, intituled, ” An Act declaring who shall be deemed citizens of this Commonwealth;” and also all children, wheresoever born, whose fathers or mothers are or were citizens at the time of the birth of such children, shall be deemed citizens of this Commonwealth,

However, in both statutes, the case is clearly not Vattel but rather Common Law, mimicking English Common Law which declares anyone born on its soil a citizen including children born to fathers abroad. The 1783 statute extends this right to fathers and/or mothers.

Bruce Springsteen’s classic song “Born in the USA” appeared on the hit album of the same name in 1984. The song was written about problems Vietnam veterans encountered when they returned from the war. It is one of the most misinterpreted songs of all time, as many believe it to be a patriotic anthem about American pride.

The United States has long been the world leader in musical influence, pouring forth the revolutionary sounds of blues, jazz, rock and roll, country and western and hip hop in a seemingly endless parade of creativity and forward-thinking innovation. As the first decade of the new millennium nears its end, it would seem our national leaders have had the foresight to add yet another ground breaking development to that list — the art of musical torture.

 Various media outlets recently broke stories regarding the American militaries use of music to induce sleep deprivation, prolong capture shock and disorient detainees during interrogations of enemy combatants in Iraq. While the militaries use of high-volume noise as a tool of harassment is nothing new, playing music in order to break the will of detainees while attempting to gain information is an entirely unprecedented technique.

 As troubling as this revelation may be on its surface, the list of songs the military has deemed torture worthy is not only disconcerting but almost mind-bendingly surreal. That list, as printed in “Mother Jones” magazine, includes in no particular order: “Born in the USA” by Bruce Springsteen; “White America” and “Kim” by Eminem; the “Barney” theme song; the “Meow Mix” TV commercial song; the “Sesame Street” theme song; “Stayin’ Alive” by The Bee Gees; “All Eyes on Me” by Tupac; “Dirrty” by Christina Aguilera; “America” by  Neil Diamond; “Bulls on Parade” by  Rage Against the Machine;  “American Pie” by  Don McLean; “Raspberry Beret” by Prince  and a little ditty called “F***  Your God” by Deicide.

 While any of these songs, played at sufficient volume, would be enough to keep a prisoner awake for extended periods, the emphasis on tracks containing lyrics deemed culturally offensive to Muslims and patriotically supportive of the United States points out a few glaring ironies inherent in these choices.

Taking the Springsteen and Rage Against the Machine tracks as examples, one can only surmise that the military geniuses behind this plan never actually took the time to listen to the lyrics to these songs which, in the case of the former, uses the words of a struggling war veteran to criticize U.S. involvement in Vietnam,  while the later bemoans the greed and callousness of profiteers who use war as a means to line their own pockets. As Ronald Reagan found out during his ‘84 presidential run, when he attempted to co-op “Born in The USA” as his campaign song, it helps to actually be familiar with a song’s lyrical content before attempting to put it to extracurricular use.

 Even Reagan wouldn’t have been obtuse enough to use the Eminem track “White America,”  which takes the nation-gone-wrong theme to an almost absurd level. With lyrics that include everything from urinating on the White House lawn to a description of America as a “democracy of hypocrisy,” you’d be hard pressed to dig up a more blatantly unpatriotic song if you tried. Using music like this to terrorize a U.S. hating enemy combatant is the equivalent of using hard-core rap to break down a gang-banger.

 Not only do these song choices play into the terrorists hatred of America, but several of them give voice to their views of women as untrustworthy, subservient beasts of burden whose lives are of little value ( “Kim”) as well as their fanatical intolerance of any faith that worships a god other than their own (the cartoonishly satanic “F*** Your God.”) And while I can only guess that Neil Diamond and Don McLean were added simply because their songs include the word America, the use of the theme songs to “Barney” and “Sesame Street” are just downright bizarre. And for the love of God, can someone please explain the inclusion of “Raspberry Beret.” Frankly, the only choice that makes any sense to me at all is the “Meow Mix” jingle, which I’ve often found excruciatingly irritating even in short doses.

 That particular song is one of the few on the list that doesn’t rely on lyrics that the military would deem culturally offensive to the enemy.  Which brings up yet another ridiculous lapse in reason: In order for these detainees to be disturbed by a song’s lyrical content they would have to actually be able to understand the lyrics in question. As I’m assuming that the vast majority of the detainees have a somewhat limited grasp of the English language, the only possible reason for choosing these songs is for the gratification of the interrogators themselves. If you can picture a group of uniform clad, women hating, unpatriotic Satanists who have a secret fetish for TV shows that feature prepubescent children frolicking with adults in animal costumes, well, perhaps you have a fairly accurate image of the kind of people who came up with this scheme.

 All humor aside, and apart from any questions about whether these methods violate either the law or the spirit of the Geneva Convention, these juvenile tactics disgrace not only the instigators and the artists whose work they’ve involved, but everyone who considers themselves an American.

 Lets hope the rest of the world doesn’t follow our lead and seek to imitate this shameful chapter in our nations history as eagerly as they’ve clamored to assimilate the life affirming sounds and creative exploits of our past — and greatest — musical exports.

Burning love (Elvis Presley), Born to be wild (Steppenwolf), No surrender en acoustique, Born in the USA à la fin du show… Pour son ultime concert en Europe de la tournée Working on a dream, Bruce Springsteen et le E Street Band ont réservé une setlist de rêve aux spectateurs de Saint-Jacques-de-Compostelle (Espagne).

Un concert assombri, selon El Pais, par des incidents à l’entrée du stade.

Source : LOHAD
Start : 22 h 10
intro – Rianxeira
1) Badlands
2) Out In The Street
3) Hungry Heart
4) Outlaw Pete
5) Spirit In The Night
6) Working On A Dream
7) Adam Raised A Cain
Murder Incorporated
9) Johnny 99
10) Darkness On The Edge Of Town
11) Raise Your Hand
12) Burning Love
13) Born To Be Wild
14) My Love Will Not Let You Down
15) Waitin’ On A Sunny Day
16) The Promised Land
17) This Life
18) Backstreets
19) Lonesome Day
20) The Rising
21) Born To Run

22) No Surrender (version acoustique)
23) Land Of Hope And Dreams
24) American Land
25) Glory Days
26) Dancing In The Dark
27) Rocking All Over The World
28) Twist & Shout
29) Born In The USA

end : 1 h 15

He was born in Hawaii on August 4th, 1961. Now STFU!

President Obama's alleged birth certificate

Did the state of Hawaii, factcheck and the Annenberg Foundation just have a big old luau, roast a pig on birth certificate records- including President Obama’s, for the entire state and the voter wasn’t invited?

Lou Dobbs of CNN did a story (6/23/09) on a topic that some of us by now have reasonably asked ourselves- where is Obama’s Birth Certificate to prove his validity as natural born citizen? In questioning the so-called birthers, the shit hit the fan as CNN’s president as Jon Klein President of CNN allegedly said in an email-

“It seems this story is dead- because anyone who still is not convinced doesn’t really have a legitimate beef.” Klein asked CNN researchers to dig into the question of why Obama couldn’t produce the original birth certificate. The researchers contacted the Hawaii Health Dept. and confirmed that paper documents were discarded in 2001 when the department went paperless. That reportedly includes Pres. Obama’s original birth certificate. http://www.mediabistro.com/tvnewser/cnn/jon_klein_on_birthers_it_seems_this_story_is_dead_122546.asp#more

If the story were dead, why did the President of a major media outlet request the research in the first place?  Is Klein letting Dobbs be the fall guy?  Dobbs has expressed his personal belief that Obama was born in Hawaii.

I disagree with Klein in that I as an American citizen do, and am quite entitled to have a legitimate beef with a man as a sitting president who will not, or can not, and definitely has not provided proof- beyond any reasonable doubt that he is Constitutionally qualified to hold the office.

The center of attention is of course President Obama’s birth certificate, but what about his other records that he has failed to release to the public?  A full list of missing or now classified documents that he refuses to release are at  http://rightsoup.com/list-of-records-obama-refuses-to-release/.

Last year Hawaii released an official statement from the director of health Dr. Chiyome Fukino that she has seen Obama’s birth certificate and it exsits- circumventing State law (Hawai‘i Revised Statutes §338-18) which prohibits the release of a certified birth certificate to persons who do not have a tangible interest in the vital record. 

As the world turn, Dobbs said on his show July 23, 2009 that the state of Hawaii discarded Obama’s paper birth certificate eight years ago. So what the hell did the Hawaii Health Department officials see and what exactly did they mean to say in their news release of October 31, 2008?  A copy of the release is athttp://citizenwells.wordpress.com/2009/07/24/hawaii-discarded-obama-birth-certificate-lou-dobbs-cnn-july-23-2009-dobbs-wants-obama-to-produce-birth-certificate/. 

If all birth certificates were converted to electronic versions then what document is factcheck http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/born_in_the_usa.html  showing us, claiming that it has seen Obama’s birth certificate- raised seal and all?  Um, remember they are funded by the Annenberg Foundation I recall- http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/10/07/obama.ayers/–

The project’s organizing committee asked Obama to serve as the board chairman in 1995.  Annenberg Project Executive Director Ken Rollings said Ayers was not a member of that ad hoc group when the decision was made.  For seven years, Ayers and Obama — among many others — worked on funding for education projects, including some projects advocated by Ayers.

Why can you still request a printed copy of  a birth certificate from Hawaii if all records are now electronic?   http://hawaii.gov/health/vital-records/pdf/birth.pdf

This is nothing new to birthers, it just got the attention of a few more folks who just got cable TV due to the switch from analog to digital. 

Score one for CNN.

Photo props http://www.factcheck.org/UploadedFiles/birth_certificate_5.jpg

Voici la setlist du concert de Bruce Springsteen & the E Street Band le 23 juillet 2009 à Udine (Italie).

Born in the USA est enfin de retour !

Source et commentaire : Backstreets.

July 23 / Stadio Friuli / Udine, ITA
Notes: The third of three in Italy brings the tour premieres of “Summertime Blues,” “Be True,” “Streets of Fire,” and “Born in the U.S.A.” (full band). Full notes to come… European showgoers, if you’d like to help with our coverage, please send your report to onstage@backstreets.com!

Setlist:
Sherry Darling
Badlands
Hungry Heart
Outlaw Pete
Darlington County
Something in the Night
Working on a Dream
Murder Incorporated
Johnny 99
No Surrender
Raise Your Hand (instrumental)
Summertime Blues
Be True
Streets of Fire
My Love Will Not Let You Down
Waitin’ on a Sunny Day
The Promised Land
American Skin (41 Shots)
Lonesome Day
The Rising
Born to Run
* * *
Born in the U.S.A.
American Land
Bobby Jean
Dancing in the Dark
Twist and Shout

For the album release show, I’m featuring each band member during this upcoming show week! It has been so much fun interviewing the M.U.S.I.C. makers and getting deep into their musical heads and hearts! They are all ridiculously talented, intelligent, true artists and I’m honored to make M.U.S.I.C. with them! 

Today’s feature: MATT ROBERTS -guitar

The music world is a small world and I realized this even more so when the guy I always loved listening to between classes at USC, who played possibly the most beautiful music to ever come out of a guitar- Matt Roberts- also, grew up with Dre playing music and is good friend of his… I love how we’re all connected! Matt is a musical philosopher… he’s flawless in his playing… and though he can be virtuosic he still executes with such feeling. Matt loves to play jazz, rock, funk, soul, etc. and he gives each genre what it needs instinctively and effortlessly… Matt has his own group (The Matt Roberts Group) that is mostly jazz inspired and is currently playing for Solange Knowles. Other artists he has recorded and/or performed with the last few years include Lady Gaga, Pat Metheny, Terrence Howard, New West Guitar Quartet, Left Coast Funk Orchestra, etc. Matt played on “Variety Pack” on M.U.S.I.C. I’m looking forward to FINALLY performing with this musician that I’ve admired so much over the years  

-what’s your 1^st musical memory?

Dancing and singing to “Thriller” and “Born in the USA.”

-what’s the craziest thing that’s ever happened while you are on stage?

While playing with Solange in DC, some crazy guy got on stage and tried to dance with the back ground dancers…

-what’s your ultimate dream in music?

To have my own musical project, to be able to live off of my own music, and still be co-writing and producing for other artists… continuing to grow as an artist…and to sing way better than I do now…

-if you weren’t doing music what would you be doing?

Be a councelor/therapist/psychologist or a writer of philosophical books…

-songs that changed your life…

“Bohemian Rhapsody” I was 10 yrs old and for Christmas my dad bought me a boom box and and MC Hammer cassette and classic Queen…. “It’s kind of magic” was the 1^st song and I thought how weird… then I heard “Bohemian Rhapsody” and remembered it from Wayne’s World….and loved it!

-most influential artists to you and why?

Freddy Mercury was a huge early inspiration. He inspired me to take chances and to be epic. Right now some of my inspirations, Stevie Wonder for obvious reasons…Joe Satriniani when I first started playing guitar, Pat Matheney in my later teen years, and now days I love simple soulful guitar players- like John Mayer- his melodicism.. he cares about every note he plays…now I’m not as focused on what I can do but more focused on what I can give to the moment.

-what makes an amazing song?

A song is amazing if it’s true, honest, bold, and well crafted.

-what’s your theme song?

I would like it to be “overjoyed” but  this week my theme song is “Rock with you.”

-do you have musical nickname

Names are funny things because our parents assign us titles before we are developed beings… with songs and movies we give the title after the creation… with human beings we get names before we have developed… I don’t know if the name I was given portrays who I am. I’m on a quest for a name that represents more who I am now…. Matt Roberts sounds like a computer programmer…

-what song were you most likely conceived to?

Well once again there’s the song I’d like to be conceived to… and then there’s the song I was mostly likely conceived to… being that my mom was the music person, mostly likely an Al Green song or an Allman Brothers song…

-first concert you ever went to?

Joe Satriani

-first album u ever bought

Pearl Jam’s Ten

-how can we revolutionize music? 

There’s revolutionizing music and there’s revolutionizing the business of music. With the art form itself just the concept of writing a good song… not just creating something that is “marketable” or just something that will “sell.” There’s a balance between doing things the way you think they should be done and being open to listening to others ideas/perceptions. (I think it’s good to) always take others perceptions into consideration regardless if you take heed to their advice… It would be interesting if music stopped for a year… no one in the world would hear/play/create any music for a whole year- and then we write… and see what comes out… if we could step away from what we’re doing and go to the beach and meditate and listen to the ocean and fall in love and then write music again…. Also, revolutionizing radio, having radio that is more connected to the people – where people could give suggestions of indie bands that they love and the radio station could filter what is hip and new and play those songs…

-indie or major (what’s the way to go?)

a good deal is a good deal a bad deal is a bad deal…

-what inspires you musically?

Love, nature, sex, food, different surroundings…

-what can an artist do (that you’re backing) to make your job easy and fun?

Listening to the bands ideas, to be willing to take criticism, sometimes major artists can feel that they are above the band… the artist needs to trust their band… and if you make it “big” don’t take extra luxuries (better hotel room, better bus)… live on the same level as the band. Creates respect… obviously the band isn’t getting paid the same as the artist and if they see luxury is going on around them it’s not a good thing. Be humble. Be strong, lead them but be humble.

-what’s your favorite song from the album?

“come a little closer”

-advice for up and coming guitarists”

Study as many genres as possible, as you discover your strengths harness them…

-what do you hope for the show?

I hope that everyone comes out and that we will begin the revolution of music in the world!  

Check out M.U.S.I.C. at www.andreebelle.com or www.myspace.com/andreebelle!!!!

www.myspace.com/mattrobertsguitarist and www.myspace.com/mattrobertsgroup

Matt rocking out on the Tonight Show!