Posted on 01/03/2009 1:58:35 PM PST by Puzo1
I’m with you, betting that the original BC probably says something that would now be embarrassing. For instance, his birth name might have been Barry Dunham, father’s name unknown, stuff that would contradict his later stories.
Or perhaps as others have pointed out, perhaps he kept his Indonesian citizenship to attend college more cheaply.
Perhaps it’s more embarrassing than disqualifying.
This is what I find so perplexing regarding this issue presented to the Federal Courts and the Supremes. It is “We the People” that the constitution was written and our laws to be governed by/for. I have been following each of these issues surrounding the NBC issue since July. Each case that I have read and the comments regarding these cases has boggled my mind as to why this is being ignored by the highest court of this land. Even the case Hellar v D.C. regarding the 2nd Amendment has Scalia quoting from the book “The Law of Nations” in which our Constitution was derived.
Reference from “The Law of Nations” provided by: http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/.
§ 212. Citizens and natives.
The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. As the society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights. The society is supposed to desire this, in consequence of what it owes to its own preservation; and it is presumed, as matter of course, that each citizen, on entering into society, reserves to his children the right of becoming members of it. The country of the fathers is therefore that of the children; and these become true citizens merely by their tacit consent. We shall soon see whether, on their coming to the years of discretion, they may renounce their right, and what they owe to the society in which they were born. I say, that, in order to be of the country, it is necessary that a person be born of a father who is a citizen; for, if he is born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country
If Scalia used the reference from this book as a basis for the Judgment passed for Hellar v DC, then why would the court ignore this very book in its decision regarding a Natural Born Citizen. Clearly, Obama has allegiance to Kenya. The proof is his involvement with the election of his Cousin, Odgina, not to mention his own admission of his Fathers foreign citizenship.
Maybe his birth certificate says he is Barack Hussein Obama, Jr.
For some odd reason he calls himself Barack Hussein Obama II. Maybe he thinks it sounds classier, but it only sounds stupid. He is a Jr. because his father had the same name.
If his grandfather had his name (and was still living) and his father had a different name then he could be BHO II.
That’s a seriously twisted way of looking at it.
No part of the Constitution, and no subsequent law, amendment, or case law has ever defined a non-citizen, a dual citizen, a dual-’native’ or whatever citizen, any naturalized citizen etc., as a natural born citizen. Know why? Because no one in history, until today, would imply that the citizenship clause has anything to do with anything other than loyalty. You know, you’re whole “show me” stuff.. Well show me where it’s defined to include dual-citizens?
I also doubt Congress could legally make an amendment defining it to include dual-citizens even if they wanted to.
It most certainly would not be right, or good, or true if they were to do so.
So, um, is that you, Mario? I’ve admired your work and have already taken to posting some of it here on FR.
The theory reads like it was written by an economist who went to law school.
What do you think of such a man as Obama examining the possibility of forging the original BC? It would have had to happen a while ago, or if he started in on the project late, he’d need complicity from high up the food chain (such as the RINO guvner).
Not even close!
You'll find me somewhat to the right of Alan Keys and nowhere near the Goracle.
Regards,
GtG
Kenya has no such rule.
Just being born in the US is not what makes one a natural born citizen. But I can understand why your ilk want it to be interpreted that way. That way anchor babies with no American citizen parents can become president and you can wipe your nasty behind with the Constiution and live under democrat socilaism rule. Nice, but you’ll see pretty soon that being a natrual born citizen relates to the parent’s citizenship. ... And don’t call me friend, DU troll.
Because at this point it doesn't matter. Even addressing it would lend credibility to what is currently a non-issue, and he has no need to do so because as things stand he is going to be inaugurated on January 20.
Historically, when someone from a town or city has been elected president, plaques have been posted, buildings declared historical monuments, and locals have come forward with stories of the family. You believe a hospital or a nurse, who would now be retired would not be proud to claim him, as well as various others who would have known about the birth?
Goes against human nature and our own experience.
That's not true. From age six to age ten, four years, he lived in Jakarta Indonesia.
Actually it matters a lot. If violence erupts at any point over this stuff - then either he isn’t a qualified candidate OR He incited insurrection grandstanding and pulling a divisive political stunt.
There is no third possibility - period.
If he is a Natural citizen but is with holding the documents anyway - then the very best that can be said of him by you personally or anyone else is that he was just pulling a divisive political stunt - whats wrong with that? a little violence never hurt anyone.
And history will judge him and those who supported this nonsense in that light. There will be no way to say those who rose up had no cause.
So yes it does matter. He needs to produce his birth certificate to insure that this ends peacefully.
Good points. Former gradeschool, high school and college classmates, room mates, etc - where are they? Neighbors? Anyone? Hello?
One freeper said she knew two (IIRC, maybe three) people who had been to Columbia with 0bama. I pinged her a while ago and asked her what their opinion of him was. She didn’t respond. I can freepmail you more if you are so inclined.
What you wrote is exaclty what I would have written. Bet we are right too.
They should, we all should. Could a team of lawyers be hired to represent hundreds of thousands of Americans demanding he prove his eligibility?
To: bronxboy
Well, obamanoid troll,
You answered the question that I’ve been wanting to ask.
Maybe he is legitimate, but after basing himself as the first black president, the embarassment would be that he’s really caucasian.
______________________________
Yes. I think this is a very real possibility.
I believe that obama, in the interest of “transparency,” has an obligation to produce his birth certificate and to clear up any issue regarding his place of birth. But ultimately he will get a pass no matter where he was born. On the other hand, if his birth certificate shows that he’s been dishonest about his racial/ethnic identify, he could be in trouble.
I suspect there are bigger players who are calling the shots.
_________________________
It does seem odd that obama would consider himself to be a viable candidate. Perhaps he had some assurances that he would do well?
Welcome to FR.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.