The Venius, circa 1813, is the first one. Too busy to look up the details right now.

IF you are really interested look up: http://puzo1.blogspot.com/ That is the official web-site for Kerchner, et al v. Obama, et al. The SCOTUS rulings are listed there.

Now, Obama did not try to bomb or kill anyone. Obama has pulled off the most incredible FRAUD on the American People ever commited. He is lying about his past. IF the Judicial Branch would ever allow discovery… Obama would resign overnight. The proof is there, you just can’t gain standing about it. Don’t believe me? Grant me discovery and I will prove it! Every judge, when threatning sanctions, has backed down when a credible lawyer has said they would need some discovery to fight the sanctions.

Justice Thomas admitted SCOTUS is evading the issue. Thomas said so at a Congressional hearing. So, Obama wins, just like Bill Ayers did. Just like OJ did. There is NO HONOR IN THIS TYPE OF VICTORY. Why not just release the pertenent docs and get it over with like McCain did? Obama can’t, that’s why. He has something to hide.

My, how the military must be so proud to itself for destroying the career of such a hero as LTC Lakin. What HONOR you must have to gloat over sending him to prison. The truth be damned… you kept the rules from being broken. I guess, for someone so highly trained in following the rules… that is all there is. That is all the honor you will ever have. You followed the rules, the UCMJ. To Hell with Truth , Justice and the American Way.

According to Artice 46 Military discovery practice has been quite liberal, although the
sources of this practice are somewhat scattered. See Articles 36
and 46; paragraphs 34, 44 h, and 115 c of MCM, 1969 (Rev.).
See also United States v. Killebrew, 9 M.J. 154 (C.M.A. 1980);
United States v. Cumberledge 6 M.J. 203, 204 n.4 (C.M.A. 1979).
Providing broad discovery at an early stage reduces pretrial motions
practice and surprise and delay at trial. It leads to better
informed judgment about the merits of the case and encourages
early decisions concerning withdrawal of charges, motions, pleas,
and composition of court-martial. In short, experience has shown
that broad discovery contributes substantially to the truth-finding
process and to the efficiency with which it functions.

1991 Amendment: Subsection (b)(1) has been revised to expand
the open discovery that is characteristic of military practice.
It provides the trial counsel with reciprocal discovery and equal
opportunity to interview witnesses and inspect evidence as that
available to the defense under subsection (a). See Article 46,
U.C.M.J., and R.C.M. 701(e). Enhanced disclosure requirements
for the defense are consistent with a growing number of state
jurisdictions that give the prosecution an independent right to
receive some discovery from the defense. See Mosteller, Discovery
Against the Defense: Tilting the Adversarial Balance, 74
Calif. L. Rev. 1567, 1579–1583 (1986).

Mandatory disclosure requirements by the defense will better serve to foster the truthfinding
process.

I also showed the Wong Kim Ark case supports the evidence that Natural Born meant “born in the country.” I have also shown that it is illogical to think that the Americans who held “…that all men are created equal” would make US-born citizens of US parents eligible while US-born children of foreign citizens are not eligible, without telling us (and they did not tell us).

Although the fact that virtually everyone supports this reading of Natural Born Citizen is merely an argument Ad Hominem, and it is unnecessary to show that virtually everyone supports this reading since the historic meaning and the Wong Kim Ark rulings are sufficient. Still, it is interesting to see in how much of a minority the two-parent theory is really held.

There is of course the general legal authorities, such as Black’s Law Dictionary, which says:

“Natural born citizen. Persons who are born within the jurisdiction of a national government, i.e. in its territorial limits, or those born of citizens temporarily residing abroad.” — Black’s Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition. (This adds birth to citizens abroad, a more recent legislative move, to the original definition of birth within the country.)

Then there are special law review articles specifically on the meaning of Natural Born Citizen. Yale Law Review, for example wrote: “It is well settled that “native-born” citizens, those born in the United States, qualify as natural born. ”

Such leading conservative Congressional experts on Constitutional law as Orren Hatch and Lindsay Graham also say that a Natural Born Citizen is simply one who was born in the USA:

Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC), said:

“Every child born in the United States is a natural-born United States citizen except for the children of diplomats.” (December 11, 2008 letter to constituent)

Senator Orrin G. Hatch (R-UT), said:

“What is a natural born citizen? Clearly, someone born within the United States or one of its territories is a natural born citizen.” (Senate Judiciary Committee hearing hearing on OCTOBER 5, 2004)

And rulings in the following Federal law cases ( a few of many more) follow the Wong Kim Ark precedent and hold that the US-born children of one or two foreigners are Natural Born Citizens:

Mustata v. US Dept. of Justice, 179 F.3d 1017 (6th Cir. 1999) (children born in US to two Romanian citizens described as “natural born citizens” of the US):

“Petitioners Marian and Lenuta Mustata are citizens of Romania. At the time of their petition, they resided in Michigan with their two minor children, who are natural born citizens of the United States.”

Diaz-Salazar v. INS, 700 F.2d 1156 (7th Cir. 1983) (child born in US to Mexican citizen is “natural born citizen” of US):

“Petitioner, Sebastian Diaz-Salazar, entered the United States illegally [from Mexico] in 1974 and has been living and working in Chicago since that time. *** The relevant facts which have been placed before the INS, BIA, and this court can be summarized as follows: The petitioner has a wife and two children under the age of three in Chicago; the children are natural-born citizens of the United States.”

Nwankpa v. Kissinger, 376 F. Supp. 122 (M.D. Ala. 1974) (child born in US to two Biafra citizens described as “natural born citizen” of the US):

“The Plaintiff was a native of Biafra, now a part of the Republic of Nigeria. His wife and two older children are also natives of that country, but his third child, a daughter, is a natural-born citizen of the United States.”

Also, birthers and two-fers tried to get the members of the Electoral College to change their votes from the vote determined by the November 2008 election because of their allegation that Obama was not a Natural Born Citizen. Not one changed. And birthers and two-fers tried to get the members of the US Congress to vote against Obama at the time of the confirmation of the election. But not one did. The vote to confirm was unanimous.

Answer: That was Bingham’s view in 1866. The Wong Kim Ark case was after Bingham and is definitive. Bingham gave his opinion. The ruling of the Wong Kim Ark case is LAW, and it ruled six to two, with one justice not voting, that EVERY child born in the USA is Natural Born. It also stated that Wong Kim Ark was a citizen. He was both Natural Born and a Citizen. That means that he was a Natural Born Citizen.

Further confirmation is that the Wong Kim Ark ruling UPHELD the ruling in the lower court that specifically stated that Wong Kim Ark was a Natural Born Citizen.

Ah you disagree with “..the majority in the Fuller court made in WKA, incidentally..”

But your opinion is worthless. It is the LAW.

Re: “Thomas Jefferson would have to disagree with you:
http://boingboing.net/2010/07/03/declaration-of-indep.html

I totally agree with you that citizen and subject are different things (though some of the early state Constitutions used the word “subjects,” and they are similar in one broad way, that they both confer the right to live within the country.)

But where does Jefferson say, or any of the writers of the Constitution say that a citizen requires two citizen parents, while a subject is simply someone who was born in the country. Why shouldn’t it be the other way around, a subject requires two subject parents while a citizen is simply someone who is born in the country?

You insist that the latter is not true. But where is the proof? Can you show a single AMERICAN (Swiss philosophers do not count) at the time of the writing of the Constitution who used the phrase Natural Born or Natural Born Citizen to mean “two citizen parents?”

By the way, even the Bingham quote that you show does not say that the children of foreigners are NOT Natural Born Citizens. It only says that those who are born in the USA to parents not owing allegiance ARE. That is like saying that Manx cats are cats. By saying that, you do not necessarily mean that Persian cats are not cats.

Since you have invoked Jefferson, let us consider what he said: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal.’

You say, however, that Jefferson and the other leaders of American at the time the Constitution was written did not really believe that. They really held, you say, that the US-born children of two US citizens are better than the US-born children of foreigners as far as eligibility for president is concerned.

I will grant you that it COULD be true, but it cannot be true unless the AMERICANS who wrote Article II of the Constitution had said somewhere that they meant two-citizen parents when they wrote Natural Born Citizen. If they did not say anything on the subject (and they didn’t), and all the quotations from them show that they used Natural Born to mean “born in the country,” then there is no legal proof that they meant ‘two citizen parents.”

Now let us talk about strict construction. Conservatives say that strict construction is a good thing. (Scalia by the way said that he does not exactly hold with it, but I think that unless there were evidence for something, he certainly would not interpret it into the Constitution out of some theory or “penumbra.”)

Under strict construction, if a law does not say “it is illegal,” it is legal. There have been plenty of cases where legislators forgot to tax something or forgot to say that something was illegal, and justices quite properly say that they cannot tax the thing or make it illegal by judicial ruling. The fact that liberal justices have in fact changed the law by their interpretation of “the penumbra” in the past does not make it right. And, if it is not right, no conservative justice would do it—despite the temptations to get back at liberals for doing the same thing. If it is wrong in principle, it is wrong.

And yet, you say that the justices should interpret Natural Born Citizen to mean “two citizen parents” even though the actual words of the Constitution do not say “two citizen parents.” Not only would this be strictly disobeying strict construction, but it disobeys even loose interpretations of strict construction because the Federalist Papers and in fact NO writings of the American leaders at the time of the writing of the Constitution use Natural Born Citizen to mean two citizen parents.

What we know is that the meaning of Natural Born at the time stemmed from the British common law. The writers of the Constitution were 60-70% lawyers and judges. When they talked Natural Born, they were not referring to Vattel. They were referring to the way that they had always used the phrase, which always referred to the place of birth and NEVER referred to the parents at all.

Re: “ I also love how Wikipedia was scrubbed of the correct statement that the Wong Kim Ark case only determined WKA was a citizen and never attempted to determine his status as an NBC. ‘

Answer: I didn’t scrub it. I agree with you that the Wong Kim Ark case determined that he was a US citizen. That was the entire purpose of the case. The essential question was whether he was a citizen or not. But in the course of it, the court defined Natural Born and said that Wong was Natural Born because he and every child born in the USA (except for the children of foreign diplomats) is Natural Born. And, it upheld the ruling of the lower court that said that Wong was a Natural Born Citizen.

This all simply shows the meaning of Natural Born is a geographic term. And it is very clear that the phrase Natural Born can be used to modify Citizen just as cross-eyed can be used to modify Citizen. A cross-eyed citizen is a citizen with crossed eyes, and a Natural Born Citizen is a citizen who fulfills the criterion of Natural Born, the original meaning of which was “born in the country.”

Would the men who wrote: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal” have written a constitution that made the US-born children of citizens superior to the US-born children of foreigners WITHOUT TELLING US? Would a conservative justice find that Natural Born Citizen refers to two citizen parents if the actual words of the law do not say it, and no American writers at the time can be found to confirm that meaning? Certainly not. There wouldn’t be even four justices to call the case

My, my Granite, that’s quite the interpretation of Wong Kim Ark you have there. Unfortunately for you, it’s only an interpretation that directly contradicts the ruling itself (please re-read my pull-quote from the ruling). It also doesn’t help your case that WKA was predicated on the 14th Amendment whose very author, Rep John Bingham, stated in the Congressional Record on March 9th, 1866: “I find no fault with the introductory clause, which is simply declaratory of what is written in the Constitution, that every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of the Constitution itself, a natural born citizen;”
http://lcweb2.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llcg&fileName=071/llcg071.db&recNum=332
So much for your interpretation that jus soli is sufficient for NBC status.

And for those who believe that to understand “natural born citizen” one can simply substitute “citizen” for “subject” to get the same meaning (the same unfounded leap the majority in the Fuller court made in WKA, incidentally), Thomas Jefferson would have to disagree with you:
http://boingboing.net/2010/07/03/declaration-of-indep.html

I also love how Wikipedia was scrubbed of the correct statement that the Wong Kim Ark case only determined WKA was a citizen and never attempted to determine his status as an NBC. I can’t even find cached pages of it in the Way Back Machine. They’ve simply gone down the Orwellian memory hole, it seems. I’m sure someone will say I didn’t see what I saw much in the same way they try to tell us we’ve seen Obama’s birth certificate when, of course, we haven’t.

Finally, to Noisemaker, here is Obama’s Perkins-Coie tab at 1.7 million as of October, 2009.
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=114202

Like I said, blinded by their own brilliance.

Any idiot can get a passport.

I presume that means you have one.

And for those who believe that to understand “natural born citizen” one can simply substitute “citizen” for “subject” to get the same meaning (the same unfounded leap the majority in the Fuller court made in WKA, incidentally), Thomas Jefferson would have to disagree with you:
http://boingboing.net/2010/07/03/declaration-of-indep.html

I also love how Wikipedia was scrubbed of the correct statement that the Wong Kim Ark case only determined WKA was a citizen and never attempted to determine his status as an NBC. I can’t even find cached pages of it in the Way Back Machine. They’ve simply gone down the Orwellian memory hole, it seems. I’m sure someone will say I didn’t see what I saw much in the same way they try to tell us we’ve seen Obama’s birth certificate when, of course, we haven’t.

Finally, to Noisemaker, here is Obama’s Perkins-Coie tab at 1.7 million as of October, 2009.
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=114202

Like I said, blinded by their own brilliance.