What is Citizenship?

[syrakusos]

Citizenship is not absolute, but exists in degrees. The right to vote and the privilege of serving on a jury are basic.

But to be President of the United States - the highest attainment of citizenship - you must be born in the country, be at least 35 years of age, and have been a resident in the USA for fourteen years.

According to the US Constitution:

No Person shall be a Representative who shall not have attained to the Age of twenty five Years, and been seven Years a Citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an Inhabitant of that State in which he shall be chosen.

No Person shall be a Senator who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty Years, and been nine Years a Citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an Inhabitant of that State for which he shall be chosen.

To be governor of Texas you must "...be at least thirty years of age, a citizen of the United States, and shall have resided in this State at least five years immediately preceding his election." Each of the States has its own requirements for political office.

Generally, to hold local office, you must be at least 18 and a citizen (naturalized citizenship is typically acceptable). However, again, in Texas, some munipalities - "Home Rule City" - can require that the Mayor be at least 21.

It would seem, then, that there are degrees or ranks of citizenship.

You do not need to be a citizen to join the armed forces. Serving America under arms is one way to prove that you want to become a citizen. The French Foreign Legion provides a similar opportunity. Largely, in most places, immigrants never become citizens, no matter how many generations are born in their adopted land. Citizenship is an attained status. However, the creation of the United States of America changed history. This is a nation of immigrants. Therefore, you do not need to be a citizen at all to enjoy trial by jury, freedom of religion, security from unreasonable search and seizure. and so on.

[Peter]

Michael M. wrote:

This is a nation of immigrants. Therefore, you do not need to be a citizen at all to enjoy trial by jury, freedom of religion, security from unreasonable search and seizure. and so on.

end quote

Just one justified dig at Michael M., who is a professed Anarchist. By definition immigrants are here voluntarily and place themselves under the jurisdiction of the Government unlike an Anarchist who IS BORN in this country but then feels “enslaved” by the Government because he does not recognize its Constitutional Authority. Sovereign Citizen my rumple! May I use the “I word” for Anarchists? Irrational. I am a citizen of Rome. I am an American citizen. I am nobody. Citizens of more evolved nations call anarchists, a native, or a savage, and sometimes they are called prey to be exploited, or converted to an obnoxious religion. Now I feel better.

Back to Citizenship. I would not measure Citizenship in degrees, you either are or you aren’t but some immigrants are given varying degrees of “natural rights” while they place themselves under our jurisdiction.

Can you be Presidential or Vice Presidential material under the US Constitution if your parents were not born in the United States, and they were not citizens when the future Presidential contender IS Born in the United States, and later those two parents do become citizens? What is a “natural born citizen?”

From Wikipedia:

Status as a natural-born citizen of the United States is one of the eligibility requirements established in the United States Constitution for election to the office of President or Vice President. This requirement was an attempt to allay concerns that foreign aristocrats might immigrate to the new nation and use their wealth and influence to impose a monarchy.

The Constitution does not define the phrase natural-born citizen, and various opinions have been offered over time regarding its precise meaning. The Congressional Research Service has stated that the weight of scholarly legal and historical opinion indicates that the term means one who is entitled under the Constitution or laws of the United States to U.S. citizenship "at birth" or "by birth," including any child born "in" the United States (other than to foreign diplomats serving their country), the children of United States citizens born abroad, and those born abroad of one citizen parent who has met U.S. residency requirements.[1]

The natural-born-citizen clause has been mentioned in passing in several decisions of the United States Supreme Court and lower courts dealing with the question of eligibility for citizenship by birth, but the Supreme Court has never directly addressed the question of a specific presidential or vice-presidential candidate's eligibility as a natural-born citizen.

end quote

Semper cogitans fidele,

Peter Taylor

[syrakusos]

I am not an anarchist. Do I have to say it three times in succession?

"I am not an anarchist. I am not an anarchist. I am not an anarchist. "

We use labels here freely and I am not too concerned, usually. While Francisco d'Anconia never denied anything, I merely deny very little. In this case, It seems relevant to provide some nuance for those who can only perceive another person as a catalog of labels: "Scots Presbyterian progressive Republican woman bureaucrat" like six sides of a box, a coffin perhaps.

Without an encyclopedic expostition of everything all at once, let me say that I believe that an open market, free of political regulation, works best. There may be some exceptions, as would be likely in all human affairs, but over all, I have yet to see a good case where politics triumphs commerce successfully. That may even apply to law. The Uniform Commercial Code and the Hague Convention on Private International Law of 1898 suggest that we can craft good law, we do not need to inherit it.

That said, my interest is only in the exploration of ideas and their consequences.

It is also obvious by inspection that we have governments because they meet human needs.

I do not advocate the end of government. I certainly do not advocate the overthrow of government.

Just which social structures and their functions should be public-choice or private-enterprise is an open question which we all explore in forums such as this.

Be that all as it may, I am not an anarchist.

[syrakusos]

Gulch8's posts on the meaning of "natural born citizen" caused me to stop and think. If this discussion is too theoretical for anyone else, then, please, feel free to read something you can understand.

[Selene]

Michael:

It was absurd to call you an anarchist.

However, as to your question of "citizenship," the Supreme Court case of Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162 [1875], specifically addressed the issue as follows:

Before its adoption the Constitution of the United States did not in terms prescribe who should be citizens of the United States or of the several States, yet

there were necessarily such citizens without such provision. There cannot be a nation without a people. The very idea of a political community, such as a nation is, implies an

[p166]

association of persons for the promotion of their general welfare.

Each one of the persons associated becomes a member of the nation formed by the association. He owes it allegiance and is entitled to its protection. Allegiance and protection are, in this connection, reciprocal obligations. The one is a compensation for the other; allegiance for protection and protection for allegiance.

For convenience it has been found necessary to give a name to this membership. The object is to designate by a title the person and the relation he bears to the nation. For this purpose the words "subject," "inhabitant," and "citizen" have been used, and the choice between them is sometimes made to depend upon the form of the government.

Citizen is now more commonly employed, however, and as it has been considered better suited to the description of one living under a republican government,

it was adopted by nearly all of the States upon their separation from Great Britain, and was afterwards adopted in the Articles of Confederation and in the Constitution of the United States. When used in this sense it is understood as conveying the idea of membership of a nation, and nothing more.

To determine, then, who were citizens of the United States before the adoption of the amendment it is necessary to ascertain what persons originally associated themselves together to form the nation, and what were afterwards

admitted to membership

.

Looking at the Constitution itself we find that it was ordained and established by "the people of the United States,"

[n3]

and then going further back, we find that these were the people of the several States that had before dissolved the political bands which connected them with Great Britain, and assumed a separate and equal station among the powers of the earth,

[n4]

and that had by Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union, in which they took the name of "the United States of America," entered into a firm league of

[p167]

friendship with each other for their common defence, the security of their liberties and their mutual and general welfare, binding themselves to assist each other against all force offered to or attack made upon them, or any of them, on account of religion, sovereignty,

trade

, or any other pretence whatever.

[n5]

Whoever, then, was one of the people of either of these States when the Constitution of the United States was adopted, became ipso facto a citizen

-- a member of the nation created by its adoption.

He was one of the persons associating together to form the nation, and was, consequently, one of its original citizens. As to this there has never been a doubt. Disputes have arisen as to whether or not certain persons or certain classes of persons were part of the people at the time, but never as to their citizenship if they were.

Then the Court goes on, at length, to discuss the ?natural born citizen," the naturalized citizen and the birthright citizen.

This decision which came out of the State of Missouri by a suffraget suit against the Missouri Secretary of State, who denied her right to vote, is instructive and elucidates the issue of "citizenship," and its' meaning on route to upholding the lower court]s decision to deny the woman "citizen" the right to vote.

Well worth the read.

http://www.law.corne...88_0162_ZO.html

Adam

[Peter]

It is also obvious by inspection that we have governments because they meet human needs . . . I do not advocate the end of government . . . Be that all as it may, I am not an anarchist.

end quote

I looked for the suspiciously anarchist quote from you that I vaguely remember but it was around early 2010 and the archives only go back a year. I will try to remember you in an acquaintance category other than, “anarchist.” OK. Sorry if I mischaracterized you. But you did not say, “I am not a witch.”

Christine O’donnell, former Senatorial candidate, who is not a Wiccan spoke at a Tea Party, anti- local regulation rally at the Millsboro Delaware Fire Hall, about a fifteen minute drive from me a week ago, but I did not go. The local statists are pushing a five year comprehensive Plan to control the lives and property of others including telling people they cannot tear a historic out house down because George Washington once urinated there.

Semper cogitans fidele,

Peter Taylor

Eyal once wrote for TOC. His views are interesting but not necessarily mine – and may not jibe with Adam’s link exactly. Peter

From: Eyal Mozes <eyal@cloud9.net>

To: "" <objectivism@wetheliving.com>

Subject: Re: OWL: Citizenship

Date: Mon, 9 Jun 2003 17:52:25 -0400

Allen Weingarten's post on citizenship conflates two totally different question.

The first question is whether there should be any restrictions on immigrants' ability to live and work in the United States and have their rights protected. The second is whether there should be requirements for *citizenship*.

On the first question, the essence of Allen's argument is:

>Why should America have immigration? Surely for her own benefit, and not for the gain of others. Guests in one’s home have no rights. (If someone demanded that before entering one’s home he would have to be supported, would anyone invite him?) So it is with immigrants. If an immigrant has the right to medical services, education, protection against removal, why invite him? Immigration requires “invitation and contract”.

End quote

The most obvious problem with this argument is that it is absurd to claim that "guests in one's home have no rights". An individual who had a guest in his home, and robbed, assaulted or kidnapped that guest, clearly does violate that guest's rights, and would be prosecuted. So even if there were some validity to the analogy of non-citizens to "guests in one's home", it would still be true that non-citizens do have rights, and their lives, liberty and property has to be protected against violation, both by individual criminals and by tyrannical government officials.

But more fundamentally, Allen's argument is based on a thoroughly collectivist premise. He is assuming that the United States as a whole belongs to the citizens as a group, and the group can therefore treat immigrants as "guests in one's home". If we instead approach the question from an individualist perspective, it is clear that a non-citizen has a right to engage in all the same trading activities that citizens can engage in, and these trades determine his contractual status vis a vis individual citizens. When he takes a paying job, he is an employee; when he rents a home, he is a tenant; when he buys a home, he is a home-owner; when he stays as a guest in someone's home, he is a guest in that person's home. In all these respects he is no different from a citizen engaging in the same interactions.

>Our government cannot have the objective of defending the rights of non-citizens, since any institution is predicated upon the needs of its members. (A business may benefit the world, but its objective can only be to benefit its owners.) Now a charitable institution can try to benefit outsiders, since that is what its members want. So why can’t the members or citizens of the US establish a government geared to the rights of outsiders? This is because the essence of our government is to protect the rights of its citizens, while the aim of doing so for non-citizens would undermine that purpose. ... Should some or most citizens wish that our republic have a non-national purpose, with the objective of protecting non-citizens, that would not merely require a constitutional amendment, but a new contract. (This should have been required before education and medical benefits were granted to non-citizens.) It is akin to a business, where some partners decide that the profits of their business belong in part to outsiders. That was not the contract on which the business was founded. Such a change in government is not a matter of calling for an amendment, but rather requiring that the original contract be declared null and void, before a new constitution is devised. Moreover, the original contract was inspired by the notion of protecting its members’ inalienable rights. No basis for a nation helping non-members can be found in “The Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God”.

End quote

This is wrong, not only as a matter of philosophy, but also as a matter of history. The constitution, both in its body and in the amendments in the bill of rights, regularly refers to the rights of *people*, not of citizens; and as a matter of documented fact, the framers intended these clauses to also guarantee the rights of foreigners living in the United States as well (of course with the shameful contradiction of slavery). So on the contrary, limiting the protection of rights to citizens only would require a radical re-writing of the contract.

This mistake is one with very important practical consequences, because it is shared by many people in the United States, including some people with a lot of power, such as George W. Bush and John Ashcroft; as demonstrated by some of their actions in the past two years, with flagrant disregard for the rights of immigrants.

And this mistake is also directly relevant to one of the requirements for an immigrant to become a United States citizen. One of the requirements is to pass a test demonstrating knowledge of the history and principles of the United States (as it happens I will be taking that test in two weeks, so right now I know quite a lot about it). One of the questions which regularly appears on the test is: "Whose rights are guaranteed by the Constitution and the Bill of Rights?". The correct, expected answer is "all people living in the United States". But in fact many immigrants do agree with Allen, and instead answer the question with "the citizens of the United States". These immigrants have their answer marked as incorrect; and, if they give incorrect answers to a sufficient number of other questions on the test, are denied citizenship.

Which leads to the second question: should there be requirements for citizenship? The main privilege of a citizen, which is not granted to a non-citizen, is the vote; should there be some requirements for being

allowed to vote? I think the answer is yes; and the mistake I discuss above is an example of why.

One benefit of the current requirements for citizenship, is that those immigrants who are granted citizenship, and consequently get to vote and have a voice in setting future government policy, are less likely to make this mistake. The main problem with the requirements as they are now, is that they are only applied to immigrants, not to those born in the United States; and therefore the benefit of this requirement is severely limited.

Consider what the effect would be if the same requirement for citizenship were also applied to those born in the United States. Consider the effect on the oppression of immigrants by Bush and Ashcroft. If Bush and Ashcroft honestly believe their actions are consistent with the constitution, then this requirement would have meant their ignorance would have caused them to be denied citizenship, and then they would never have been able to reach the offices they now hold and take these actions. Or if (as I find much more likely) they in fact know they are violating the constitution, and are relying on the ignorance of the voters not to realize that, they would not have been able to rely on this, since voters would be better informed about the constitution. So it is likely such a requirement would have made individual rights in the US much more secure.

So my conclusion is that there should indeed be some requirements for citizenship; simply being born in the United States should not be enough. The current requirements as applied to immigrants - especially the required civics test - are a reasonably good model for the sort of requirements that should also be applied to those born in the United States. Eyal Mozes

[syrakusos]

When does a minor become an adult? At 18, when they can sign contracts? At 22 or some other measurable time when the brain stops growing and the cranial sutures knit? At 25 when an insurance company will let you rent a car? At 16 when you can be married (with parental consent; which becomes a bridge to adulthood); or 17 when you can join the Army (again parental consent takes you across the boundary). Perhaps the first act of adulthood occurs in middle school or junior high when you choose your first elective class.

By the same measure - considering Gulch8's propositions - I suggest that we do, indeed, have degrees of citizenship. Being eligible for the Presidency is the highest rank of citizen. Simply being here - as an immigrant or child - is the lowest rank. But you still enjoy the Bill of Rights as promised; and you still get to pay taxes; and you can served in the armed forces. For that matter, a president could appoint a non-citizen to a cabinet post or an ambassadorship, provided the Senate concurred; and with Congress in recess, even that would not be required. You could be appointed ambassador to India, but if you are under 25, you cannot be elected as a Representative in Congress.

Suspicious of aristocracy, nobility, and royalty, the founders of our republic did not establish any formal gradation. Yet, clearly these strata do exist. And perhaps they should. To my knowledge "new nation" cliques and cults tend to be egalitarian

[Brant Gaede]

When does a minor become an adult? At 18, when they can sign contracts? At 22 or some other measurable time when the brain stops growing and the cranial sutures knit? At 25 when an insurance company will let you rent a car? At 16 when you can be married (with parental consent; which becomes a bridge to adulthood); or 17 when you can join the Army (again parental consent takes you across the boundary). Perhaps the first act of adulthood occurs in middle school or junior high when you choose your first elective class.

By the same measure - considering Gulch8's propositions - I suggest that we do, indeed, have degrees of citizenship. Being eligible for the Presidency is the highest rank of citizen. Simply being here - as an immigrant or child - is the lowest rank. But you still enjoy the Bill of Rights as promised; and you still get to pay taxes; and you can served in the armed forces. For that matter, a president could appoint a non-citizen to a cabinet post or an ambassadorship, provided the Senate concurred; and with Congress in recess, even that would not be required. You could be appointed ambassador to India, but if you are under 25, you cannot be elected as a Representative in Congress.

Suspicious of aristocracy, nobility, and royalty, the founders of our republic did not establish any formal gradation. Yet, clearly these strata do exist. And perhaps they should. To my knowledge "new nation" cliques and cults tend to be egalitarian

A two yo can be elected to Congress. He won't be accepted by Congress into Congress but he sure can be elected.

A minor becomes an adult when he acts like an adult.

There are two degrees of citizenship: born and acquired. The latter can be kicked out, I can't. The closest thing to American royalty was the Kennedy family, bootlegger in and media contrived and yet to be more than the SOBs of Joe, the biggest SOB of all. (It seems Rose was even worse.)

--Brant

[BaalChatzaf]

I have one for you guys. A baby is born in Antartica, which is not claimed or governed by any nation on earth. Antarctica has research communities funded by various governments and private sources, but are claimed by no sovereign power. They are operated strictly as voluntary scientific communities (and the people involved take a great deal of pride in that). Anyway assume the child is born to a female of U.S. citizenship and she ain't breathing a word about who the father is. In due course mother and child come back the the U.S. and thirty five years later the child, now grown wish to run for president. He has been a resident of the U.S. for the entire time (say). Is he or is he not eligible to be President of the United States?

Second situation. A child is born to an American female on a ship sailing the high seas. Assume the ship sails under a Panamanian Flag. The master of the vessel, a licensed master, duly notes the time and place (in GMT Zulu, the date, the latitude and longitude, verifying that the birth took place in international waters). After the journey the child comes home to the U.S. where he resides for 35 years and wants to run for President. Is he eligible? He has a certificate made out by a genuine licensed sea captain, properly witness by the first and second officers stating when and where the child was born and that it was on his ship. As birth certificates go, it can't get better than that.

Third situation. A child is born to an American women in a foreign country. The women is traveling on business and her labor started a day before she was scheduled to fly back home. The birth took place in a hospital in this foreign country and the time and location is certified by the doctor in charge and witnessed by hospital staff in good standing. Mother and child return home in due course and thirty five years later the child, now grow want to run for President. Is he eligible?

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Philip Coates]

Subject: Anarchists, Witches, and Citizenship Subthread

> A baby is born in Antartica [sic]...A child is born on a ship sailing the high seas...A child is born to an American women in a foreign country......... [baal]

> But you did not say, “I am not a witch.” [Peter Taylor]

Peter, I often disagree with Mike Marotta, but here I want to put down my scotch and nachos and rise to the full upright position in my armchair during halftime to valiantly defend him:

He is not a witch and neither is Baal Chatzaf.

The scientific proof is very simple. Do the "UnderWitches Laboratory" test - to be performed separately on each man? creature?:

1. Tie each subject up so he can neither dogpaddle nor propel himself to the bottom.

2. Drop him in a giant vat of boiling water.

3. Once waterlogged, he will sink right to the bottom.

4. Everyone capable of Scientific Induction knows that all witches float: That is why they are light enough to be able to be airborne on a simple broomstick.

(Side issue: Sinking is on the other hand a conclusive proof of Hidden Anarchist Beliefs.)

(Second aside: In my case, I have too much body fat to sink. So witch/vampire/schoolmarm is still an open question. Science is a matter of multiple confirmatory experiments, so does anyone have a further test that doesn't involve silver bullets?)

[Peter]

Ba'al Chatzaf posed these three situations:

One - A child is born in Antarctica to a female of U.S. citizenship and the father is unknown. Thirty five years later the child, now grown, has been a resident of the U.S. for the entire time. Is he or she eligible to be President of the United States?

Two - A child is born to the same American female on a ship sailing the high seas. Assume the ship sails under a Panamanian Flag.

Three - A child is born to the same American woman in a foreign country. The women is traveling on business and her labor started a day before she was scheduled to fly back home. The birth took place in a hospital in this foreign country.

I would say in all cases the child is a natural born citizen. I have cousins born in the former French West Africa and Naples, Italy to a military family. I was born at College Park Pennsylvania, (alas, they have found a replacement for the beloved football coach, JoePa.) but if my Dad had been stationed in Germany or Japan I would still be a natural born citizen. Oddly, *intent* is a consideration. If a woman went to Nigeria to have her child so the child could be a Nigerian citizen and not an American citizen, then her wishes would be the determining factor. Now, what if the child was then brought back to America around age two or three, and 35 years later decided to run for the Presidency?

Semper cogitans fidele,

Peter Taylor

[syrakusos]

... Anyway assume the child is born to a female of U.S. citizenship and she ain't breathing a word about who the father is. ... A child is born to an American female on a ship sailing the high seas. ... A child is born to an American women in a foreign country.

Ba'al, thanks for that! You blow the entire "De Vettel Argument" out of the water. I missed it. The 18th century philosophes and Federalists never assumed that a woman would willingly bear a child out of wedlock - and that such a child would be normally accepted into society on her or his own terms. That is a logical extension of MLK's "Dream" and Ayn Rand's essay on "Racism" - that each person be judged on their own character, not their ancestory.

In our time, it is not necessary for a person to have two identified parents. ... How does that square with Constitutional originalism?

Philip Coates - we will have to have Scotch together some time. I do not need to post a link here to the Monty Python Holy Grail scene where they bring foreward the witch and syllogize medievally. I am a pretty good swimmer: in high school, we had to do a mile to pass gym; and pass gym to graduate. Not bad for a kid who had a heart operation...

[Peter]

Phil, what is wrong with you? You drink scotch? Disgusting. Bourbon, beer and prune juice are the drinks of choice for warriors.

PhilCo wrote:

In my case, I have too much body fat to sink. So witch / vampire / schoolmarm is still an open question. Science is a matter of multiple confirmatory experiments, so does anyone have a further test that doesn't involve silver bullets?

end quote

Elementary, Watson. Witches and vampires require your permission to cross your doorstep although after the first invitation they can come and go as they please. How would you like to wake up with one of them breathing on your neck? (Calm down, Phil. Don’t run with it.) Garlic, wild rose, and hawthorn plant are harmful to them. A crucifix, rosary, or holy water will burn them. A witch or vampire cannot walk on consecrated ground like a church or temple so the entire Vatican is off limits to their kind. You can’t see them in a mirror, and they cast no shadow. In addition to that, witches must first graduate from Hogwarts.

Semper cogitans fidele,

Peter Taylor

[Selene]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O7qEH-tKoXA&feature=player_embedded

[william.scherk]

I am going to go all Phil on this thread. Sorry to be late to the party.

• The Headline is misleading. What is Citiizenship? That is a great question.
  
• The Headline had better have said: Why is Obama President if he does not fit the Constitutional citizenship criteria?
  
• A better headline would reveal multiple infelicities of thought
  
• I have Peter on a No Fly list for a reason. Why MM would respond to his uninformed rants and bigotry and slop is beyond me.
  
• What is citizenship could be reframed to be What is citizenship but designated membership in a group, granted by some power or infallible law?
  
• Peter Taylor is at his dopiest and most sloppy when he gets hung up on words like "immigrant" as if the word correctly corrals all those who have moved from place to place in the world -- missing concepts and missing data about refugees and war and shifting boundaries -- missing concepts like officially Displaced Persons, or stateless people, or those who flee for their lives from their homes.
  
• As Ba'al and the other Reality-Dwellers point out repeatedly, Obama is President, there is Zero chance of him being disqualified on any ballot in America because of 'citizenship,' and chasing after and predicting and yearning for events that cannot possibly happen is a sign of Crazy.
  
• No concept of Citizenship can take shape and do work without referent to the Object that does work, the actual entity that grants or acknowledges or restricts Citizenship. Nor can citizenship as a concept do any work without putting it to work. What does Citizenship do? What are its limits? What does it guarantee to the holder and what does it forbid?
  
• For those contributing to an endless wet trudge round the dreary cul-de-sac of Barack Obama's eligibility for office, come in, change your socks, sit down for a snack and a refreshing beverage.
  
• Have any of you people gumming this well-gummed bone considered that there are Other Important Issues?
  

[syrakusos]

<p> </p>

<div style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, Verdana, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; color: rgb(34, 34, 34); background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); ">

<p style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; ">

</p>

<ul class="bbc" style="padding-right: 40px; ">

<li>The Headline had better have said: <strong><em>Why is Obama President if he does not fit the Constitutional citizenship criteria?</em></strong></li>

<li>A better headline would reveal multiple infelicities of thought</li>

<li>Have any of you people gumming this well-gummed bone considered that there are Other Important Issues?

</li>

</ul>

<p style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; ">William, while it is true that the "Natural Born Birther" topic impelled this inquiry, I am pursuing something totally different, more abstract, an inquiry into the objective definition of citizenship. We accept it as an absolute, but it is not. Clearly, there are degrees of citizenship. The most stringent requirements are assigned to the President and Vice President. No standards determine whether the Senate will confirm a Supreme Court nominee. If you check their bios, you will see that not all even now hold <em>juris doctorates</em>. In the past, none did. There is no age limit for the Supreme Court. Some have been naturalized citizens. </p>

<p style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; "> </p>

<p style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; ">We Americans experiment with constitutions. Colonial charters, the Albany Plan of Union, the two confederations, the fifty states (some of which have had several constitutions) and the entire range of processes for amendments all gave and give us opportunities to consider political theory. Moreover, "new country" advocates such as the several Atlantises, the Republic of Minerva, etc., all follow in a long tradition. I cite easily <em>California's Utopian Colonies</em> by Robert V. Hine and <em>Unusual World Coins</em> by Colin Bruce II and George Cuhaj. (The second catalogues money objects created by micronations, failed states and independence movements.) All of which is to say, that Objectivists have not given much thought to this. So, I opened the door.</p>

<p style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; "> </p>

<p style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; ">It has nothing to do with President Obama's birth certificate. </p>

<p style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; "> </p>

<p style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; "><em>In The Secret of the League</em> by Ernest Bramah, the UK is reorganized like a joint stock company, with one share equal to one vote. Shares cost 500 pounds (about like $250,000 today). </p>

<p style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; "> </p>

</div>

[Peter]

William Scherk wrote, “I have Peter on a No Fly list for a reason. Why MM would respond to his uninformed rants and bigotry and slop is beyond me.” fini au quote

And Monsieur Sherk’s interests are: fringe beliefs, pseudoscience, pseudophilosophy, fringe psychology, moral panics, satanic ritual abuse/recovered memory therapy controversy, True Believers, cult dynamics, Grand Guignol, and snarkiness. Not one thing “normal.” But he is from our 51st State, Canadia, so I will cut him some slack, especially since he says he is not reading this. That would be like poking a nearsighted bear with a stick. I will let him return to his dimension.

Semper cogitans fidele,

Peter Taylor

[Peter]

Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you're being had. - Michael Crichton

Michael M. wrote:

<p> </p>

< div style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, Verdana, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; color: rgb(34, 34, 34); background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); ">

< p style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px;

end quote

Could you resend that Michael? It is jumbled in my inbox and on OL.

Semper cogitans fidele,

Peter Taylor

[Philip Coates]

Michael, you said:

p style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; "> </p>

<p style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; ">

<p style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; "> </p>

<p style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; "><em>

I have to strongly disagree. Especially with this:

p style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; "> </p>

</div>

[BaalChatzaf]

You wrote:

But he is from our 51st State, Canadia, so I will cut him some slack, especially since he says he is not reading this. That would be like poking a nearsighted bear with a stick. I will let him return to his dimension.

Semper cogitans fidele,

Peter Taylor

I respond:

52 nd state. Israel is the 51 st state

Ba'al Chatzaf

[syrakusos]

Sorry Peter. The Politics header does not allow an edit. It is not my problem, but something that happens with the IP Board software when it attempts to automagically present a formated display of text. In other Topics, when I can edit, I have redone the work, but here, we are stuck with it. It happens most often with the Mac, but also on my PC.

The Headline had better have said: <strong><em>Why is Obama President if he does not fit the Constitutional citizenship criteria? ... A better headline would reveal multiple infelicities of thought ... Have any of you people gumming this well-gummed bone considered that there are Other Important Issues?

William, while it is true that the Natural Born Birther topic impelled this inquiry, I am pursuing something totally different, more abstract, an inquiry into the objective definition of citizenship. We accept it as an absolute, but it is not. Clearly, there are degrees of citizenship. The most stringent requirements are assigned to the President and Vice President. No standards determine whether the Senate will confirm a Supreme Court nominee. If you check their bios, you will see that not all even now hold juris doctorates. In the past, none did. There is no age limit for the Supreme Court. Some have been naturalized citizens.

We Americans experiment with constitutions. Colonial charters, the Albany Plan of Union, the two confederations, the fifty states (some of which have had several constitutions) and the entire range of processes for amendments all gave and give us opportunities to consider political theory. Moreover, "new country" advocates such as the several Atlantises, the Republic of Minerva, etc., all follow in a long tradition. I cite easily <em>California's Utopian Colonies</em> by Robert V. Hine and <em>Unusual World Coins</em> by Colin Bruce II and George Cuhaj. (The second catalogues money objects created by micronations, failed states and independence movements.) All of which is to say, that Objectivists have not given much thought to this. So, I opened the door.

It has nothing to do with President Obama's birth certificate.

In The Secret of the League</em> by Ernest Bramah, the UK is reorganized like a joint stock company, with one share equal to one vote. Shares cost 500 pounds (about like $250,000 today).

[Peter]

Ba'al Chatzaf wrote:

52nd state. Israel is the 51st state

end quote

Let me count them on my fingers. Idaho in 1890, Wyoming, Utah, Oklahoma in 1907, New Mexico, Arizona, Alaska in 1959, Hawaii, Israel, Canadia . . . What was I thinking? Of course, you are right! I remember Benjamin Netanyahu putting it like this, “. . . Israel is the last and farthest outpost of America.”

And just as I thought, Afghanistan is too old hat for Obama. Flash, bang and awe are what we need. Our President is going to be a hands on “war President” going into the 2012 election.

Semper cogitans fidele,

Peter Taylor

From the web

January 4^th 2012 'US deploys troops in Israel for Iran war'

The US military is preparing a massive military campaign against Iran, sending thousands of American troops, warships and weaponry to Israel. An unnamed source said the military deployment of US anti-missile ships and accompanying support personnel will occur in January and later this spring, Global Research reported. Commander of the US Third Air Force based in Germany Lt.-Gen Frank Gorenc said it is not just an "exercise," but a "deployment," The Jerusalem Post said.

Washington and Tel Aviv have planned to hold what they call the largest-ever joint military exercise this spring. The US commander visited Israel two weeks ago to confirm details for “the deployment of several thousand American soldiers to Israel.” The US General also visited one of Israel's three Iron Dome anti-missile outposts. The Israeli Air Force has announced plans to deploy a fourth Iron Dome system in coming months. While US troops will be stationed in Israel for an unspecified amount of time, Israeli military personnel will be added to United States European Command (EUCOM) in Germany.

This is while the US is reportedly bringing its Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) and ship-based Aegis ballistic missile systems to Israel. The White House has resumed its anti-Iran war rhetoric after the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) released a report in November, in which Tehran was accused of conducting activities related to developing nuclear weapons. Iran strongly dismissed the allegations.

US analyst Robert Parry said the documentary evidence showed that IAEA Director General Yukiya Amano was installed with the support of the US and that he privately indicated to US and Israeli officials that he would help advance their goals regarding Iran. In December, Iran's Navy launched massive 10-day military drills in the strategic Strait of Hormuz to show that the country is ready to defend itself against any attack.

"We wanted to send this message to certain powers that Iran is always prepared to defend itself against foreign aggression," Iran's Navy Deputy Commander Admiral Amir Rastegari told Press TV.

Meanwhile, US President Barack Obama on Saturday signed into law fresh economic sanctions, targeting Iran's Central Bank and financial sector. Anti-Iran measures provoked by the US and Israel are aimed to deny Iran's right of having peaceful nuclear program. Tehran, as a signatory to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and a member of the IAEA, has repeatedly stated that its nuclear activities are solely for civilian purposes.

AGB/HGH/IS

[syrakusos]

Anti-Iran measures provoked by the US and Israel are aimed to deny Iran's right of having peaceful nuclear program. Tehran, as a signatory to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and a member of the IAEA, has repeatedly stated that its nuclear activities are solely for civilian purposes.

AGB/HGH/IS.

And after annexing the Sudetenland and Austria, Germany would retreat into Gemuetlichkeit.

The United States of the Enlightenment is faced off against Genghis Khan. Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait on the assurances of the US Ambassador that the USA would not get involved in Arab affairs... though of course, they (we) did.... But the fact remains that Saddam Hussein was, like Noonian Singh Khan, a man of the primitive 20th century. He had the fifth land largest army in the world, but was tied for zeroeth with 180 other nations for satellite reconnaissance and ground-based air forces. So, too, has Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad lost contact with globalist capitalist reality. He should read cyberpunk science fiction. I recommend Islands in the Net by Bruce Sterling. If Ahmadinejad wants a place in history, he should open universities to women ... maybe see about getting some Zionist women in parliament.

I am not kidding. Look at Israel. They have anti-Zionist pro-Arab parties seated in the Knesset, and the deputies are often women. Show me an Arab state that can make an equivalent claim.

I understand the Palestinian argument: if the Europeans felt so guilty about the Holocaust, why did they not give the Jews Liechtenstein instead of Palestine? I also understand that even though the universe had no creator, Zionist Jews suffer under the delusion that "God" gave them Trans-Jordan. Myself, when I look at a picture of Earth from Space, I fail to see any lines. Israel (Is-unreal), Iran (I ran away), whatever... You know, about 1000 years ago, I saw Gary Cooper in Northwest Mounted Police (1940) and after he followed the pretty girl for about a mile, his buddy said, "Hey, aren't you in the United States?" It can be so hard to tell...

But it still makes a difference. Until every woman in Iran has the same rights as every woman in Israel, it is important to keep the absolutes identified.