10.23.2011

Rick Perry Is A Birther?


Parade magazine interview.

Edit: For those who thought this was "no big deal" -- Drudge posted it on Monday.

38 comments:

Anonymous said...

Obammy and Biden are both liars, so what's your point, Skippy?

wordkyle said...

"I have no reason to believe otherwise," combined with "It doesn't matter, he's the President," seems like a pretty complete and reasonable answer.

Anonymous said...

Why didn't the guy giving the interview just go ahead and ask Perry, "Are you still beating your wife?"

Anonymous said...

I do not believe that Obama has the proper citizenship to be Presient because of:

Minor v. Happersett (1875)

Anonymous said...

This is a non-issue.
Bad decision to post this.

Anonymous said...

Birthers Unite! Vote out the Interloper!

The Donald said...

WK & 12:21 are correct - there's no compelling evidence in that exchange to support the contention that JRP is a birther - it's just pot stirring.

I am pleased to know that he'd like my support. I had no idea.

Anonymous said...

The birth certificate that has been made public is a forgery and a poor one at that.

Anonymous said...

The Constitution requires that a President be a natural born citizen. Obama does not qualify.

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=88&invol=162

In this case the Supreme Court says that a natural born citizen is a citizen who was born in America and PARENTS (note that they used plural, that is to include mother and father) are citizen. Obama's father was not a citizen, so Obama is not a NATURAL BORN CITIZEN even if he were born in America and his mother was a citizen.

wordkyle said...

1014 - As Perry said, this whole thing is a distraction. Just consider Obama an anchor baby if that helps. There are many other reasons, more valid and better to discuss in opposing him, than this one. Better to focus on the many more substantial and more easily provable reasons to vote this man out of office.

Anonymous said...

10:14: Are you saying Obama is an anchor baby? WOW!! lol

gern blansten

Anonymous said...

Ron Paul 2012!!!!

Read the Constitution...man...

Anonymous said...

4:27, Minor v. Happersett did mention anchor babies and stated that it was not necessary for them to solve that issue in the case they were hearing. They defined a natural born citizen under common law as a child born in America of parents who, themselves, were American citizens. As to anchor babies they did not issue a ruling but stated: "As to this class (of citizenship) there have been doubts ..... For the purposes of this case, it is not necessary to solve these doubts."

wordkyle said...

842 - I don't purport to be a lawyer or as smart as one, but wasn't the point of that statement in Minor v Happersett simply that a child born in America of parents who, themselves, were American citizens, was most certainly an American citizen? That view does not exclude children born jus soli whose parents are foreign. One may argue the wisdom of that policy, but the Fourteenth Amendment makes it constitutional.

Anonymous said...

Wordkyle, not "simply that a child born in America of parents who, themselves, were American citizens, was most certainly an American citizen", but they were more detailed and classed them NATURAL BORN American citizens under common law.

The Devil said...

Were all anchor babies to some degree, get over it people. Move on to real issues!

wordkyle said...

936 - You imply that the court's definition of "natural born" was restricted to only the circumstances you describe. If that's your contention, please cite the passage that supports your conclusion. Here's what I based my opinion on: "... it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also." That statement is inclusive, not exclusive.

wordkyle said...

Debbul, I can't disagree with you. This particular conversation is not, in my opinion, about an "issue." It's more of a discussion of the interpretation of a court's decision. I'm highly unqualified to discuss it, but it's an exchange of ideas. I might learn something.

KatyDid said...

Perry should have better answers for these things.
"I don't think Obama's birthplace makes him unqualified to be President. I think the past 3 years make him unqualified to be President" would be fine.
Put the non-issue to bed so you don't look like a nut by keeping the issue alive..

(Incidentally, I think "natural-born citizen" is a Congressionally-defined term. This makes the Constitutional provision awkward - a constitutional mandate defined by congressional definition - but either way, Happersett wouldn't affect the situation at hand).

Anonymous said...

Perry implied that the birth certificate was fake. It's that simple. He threw in the rest to not look quite so crazy.

wordkyle finally got something right--he's highly unqualified to discuss constitutional issues and court rulings.

Rage

wordkyle said...

Did someone say "stock options?"

Anonymous said...

American grown but not American Born. LMAO

Growing up in America doesn't mean you are American Born.

Anonymous said...

Wordkyle, the entire case and specifically the entire paragraph from which you quote is very clear as to classification of those who qualify as natural born citizens. Following your quote the case reads: "These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their [88 U.S. 162, 168] parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first." This last sentence is perfectly clear to me. They say that there is no doubt as to the citizenship of natural born citizens whose parents are citizens but that there is doubt of another class of citizens (not natural born) even though born in America whose parents were not citizens. It is very clear that they distinguish this 2nd class as not natural born. They are are not talking about doubt of them being natural born citizens, they are talking about doubts of them them being citizens (but not natural born). They are implying that they may be citizens, but from their wording and explanination of natural born they are implying that they can not be citizens of the natural born class.

I for one am a citizen born in the U.S. of an American citizen father and a Canadian citizen mother. So although a citizen, I am not a natural born citizen. The language in this Supreme Court case requires my parents to be citizens, not for one of the parents to be a citizen, in order for me to be natural born.

Anonymous said...

Ron Paul would be ok if he didn't hate labor and woekwrs rights. He would legalize pot though and make us take fish oil capsules daily.

Anonymous said...

Getting rid of Unions would be phenomenal!

wordkyle said...

246 - The opinion also states this: "Additions might always be made to the citizenship of the United States in two ways: first, by birth, and second, by naturalization." There are no other classes of citizen. One becomes a citizen by being naturalized, or one becomes a citizen by birth, aka a "native" or "natural born" citizen.

A note: I'm not necessarily a 100% fan of the "citizen by birth" aspect. I take issue with abuse of the 14th Amendment. A pregnant foreign mother crossing the border at the last minute, giving birth to her "American citizen," then going back to her foreign home to live, is not quite the vision the Founding Fathers had.

Anonymous said...

Wordkyle, you do not understand what you are reading or you are not reading the same thing that I am reading. The court said explicitly that you are a natural born citizen if your parents (note PLURAL - implying both mother and father) are citizens. If you are born in America and your father is a citizen of the U.S. and your mother is a Canadian, you qualify to be an American citizen by birth but you are not a natural born citizen.

Repeat, in order to be a natural born citizen of the U.S. both your mother and your father must be American citizens.

Anonymous said...

7:45 I appreciate your argument but ALL judicial reviews have not accepted your position. You may be smarter than the rest - but I doubt it. BTW - I consider myself a citizen and eligible for the presidency. I was born in this country, to an American father and a Canadian mother (who later was naturalized).

wordkyle said...

745 - Either of your statements regarding what we have read may be correct. You say that the opinion limits the phrase "natural born" to the definition you chose. I assert that the phrase is used as a synonym for "native," meaning "one who was born here (on U.S. soil.)" You are saying that there is another class of citizen besides "natural born" and "naturalized." The passage from the opinion that I cited above contradicts that position.

Anonymous said...

9:08, in October 1874 the United States Supreme Court made their ruling and that has not been changed by any subsequent ruling.

My mother was also a Canadian but was never naturalized. Neither you nor I have both parents who were citizens and therefore we do not fit the constitutional requirement that reads: 'no person except a natural-born citizen, or a citizen of the United States at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President". Since there was no Union until the adoption of the Constitution there was no independent country to be a citizen of and hence the part reading "at the time of the adoption" was included because there were no natural born citizens until the birth of the first child to two citizens of the new union formed by a new constitution. Another way to put this is that George Washington was not a natural born citizen because he was born before citizenship of the United States existed under the Constitution. There were no natural born citizens on Day Zero of the Constitution because everyone living was born prior to its passage. Minor v. Happersett is so clear and direct that I do not see how it can be challenged. And it hasn't been. It has been ignored but no legal challenge has been made to the definition of natural born citizen that it laid out and thoroughly explained in simple English.

Anonymous said...

No, wordy, I simply maintain that anyone born on US soil is a US citizen - regardless of the parents' citizenship situation.

wordkyle said...

1224 - That's not even the topic of conversation.

1047 - It is clear to me that the court's opinion explicitly recognizes only two methods of becoming a citizen, by birthright ("native," "natural-born," etc.) or through naturalization (disregarding, of course, those who automatically became citizens at the nation's birth.) Your position seems to depend on interpreting language with a particular spin and splitting birthright citizenship into multiple categories, categories which are not mentioned in any constitutional or legal documents.

(By the way, did you realize that your latest post used your logic to "prove" that Geogre Washington was not legally elected President? "George Washington was not a natural born citizen" are your exact words.)

Anonymous said...

Would a cesarean born be a citizen as opposed to a natural born? When you try to decide citizenship based on semantics you get yourself all bamboozled. It is simple, if you are born in the U. S. you are a citizen, period.
John McCain was born in Panama but his parents were U. S. citizens so he is a citizen. If Obama had been born in Panama you all would be havin' a case of the vapors over that.

Anonymous said...

Wordkyle, you took the bait. You have not read the Constitution or you would understand how George Washington was not a natural born citizen but still he was grand fathered in by: "natural-born citizen, or a citizen of the United States at the time of the adoption of the Constitution". He was covered by the text after "natural born citizen," He was a citizen of the United States at the time of the adoption of the Constitution but never a natural born citizen. After all the citizens of the newly formed union died then the Constitution required that Presidents all be natural born citizens. I do not want to be rude but your reading comprehension could stand some improvement.

Anonymous said...

10:12, John McCain's situation was covered in Minor v. Happersett:

"the children of citizens of the United States that might be born beyond the sea, or out of the limits of the United States, should be considered as natural-born citizens"

Note that this clause also contains the same key language that requires both parents to be citizens in order for their children to be considered natural born. Otherwise, throughout their extensive ruling, the Supreme Court used the term "citizen" without the adjectives "natural born" in front of it.

We studied this in college and I never understood how members of congress, with their extensive education, would question McCain's status as a natural born citizen.

wordkyle said...

1123 - You know what? You're right about the George Washington thing. I didn't go back and re-read Article 2 before I posted. I goofed.

Now. Please cite, from official government documents, where the different categories of birthright citizenship -- which appears to be the basis of your entire argument -- are listed and defined. Try to make it something clear and unambiguous, okay? Something within my reading comprehension.

Anonymous said...

Wordkyle, I quit. You are too dense. Do your own reading. You can start with Minor v. Happersett. The various classes of citizenship are covered there. And yes they do address more than two.

wordkyle said...

Sorry I'm so dense. I guess just add me to the list of dense legal scholars and dense courts that agree with my position.