My One and Only Post on Birthers

The Provocateur ^ | 07/29/2009 | Mike Volpe

[fiscon1]

I never really worried about the so called controversy of th birth of President Obama because I am no fan of conspiracy theories. In order to believe that President Obama wasn't born in Hawaii, you not only have to believe that a conspiracy is being created involving an entire state's bureaucratic apparatus, but you also have to believe that President Obama has been lying, or lied to, since he was a child. After all, he's maintained he was born in Hawaii since he was a kid. Either he was claiming this lie long before he wanted to be president, or his entire family lied to him about his place of birth.

[autumnraine]

Well, there’s the difference in both arguments.

If he was born in the US, there is doubt he is a US Citizen. If were born outside the US and both parents were citizens, there is no doubt if he is Citizen. It’s the natural born that’s the kicker.

There was question about McCain being born in Panama while his father was assigned there. Personally, I don’t think that should be a problem because BOTH parents were citizens and his birth there would not give him Panamanian citizenship.

There are also questions about Obama even if he was born in Hawaii. Not him being a citizen, but being a NATURAL BORN CITIZEN. By being born the subject of another nation, according to some, that means he is NOT a “Natural Born Citizen”. The citizenship itself is not an argument to my knowledge unless he was born outside the US.

[rolling_stone]

see section d

state department:

http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/86757.pdf
7 FAM 1131.6-2 Eligibility for Presidency
(TL:CON-68; 04-01-1998)
a. It has never been determined definitively by a court whether a person
who acquired U.S. citizenship by birth abroad to U.S. citizens is a natural born
citizen within the meaning of Article II of the Constitution and,
therefore, eligible for the Presidency.
b. Section 1, Article II, of the Constitution states, in relevant part that “No
Person except a natural born Citizen...shall be eligible for the Office of
President;”
c. The Constitution does not define “natural born”. The “Act to establish an
Uniform Rule of Naturalization”, enacted March 26, 1790, (1 Stat.
103,104) provided that, “...the children of citizens of the United States,
that may be born ... out of the limits of the United States, shall be
considered as natural born citizens: Provided that the right of citizenship
shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in
the United States.”
U.S. Department of State Foreign Affairs Manual Volume 7 - Consular Affairs
7 FAM 1130 Page 9 of 103
d. This statute is no longer operative, however, and its formula is not
included in modern nationality statutes. In any event, the fact that
someone is a natural born citizen pursuant to a statute does not
necessarily imply that he or she is such a citizen for Constitutional purposes

[autumnraine]

“I don’t see where you get that argument. If that was a “large concensus”, we wouldn’t be arguing over whether he was born in Hawaii or not, because it wouldn’t matter since there is no dispute that his father was Kenyan. “

The entire case of Leo Denofrio was based on that premise.

Now there are several other similiar cases with the same reasoning. They are addressing the issue of DUAL citizenship (which Obama admits he was) fitting the definition of Natural Born.

I think you are confusing “Natural Born” meaning where in a geographical location they were born. English common law would define a child being a “Natural Born” citizen if both parents were a legal citizen of the same nation, not born to two countries.

And as for your question to the difference between natural born and just plain citizen. There are many immigrants who are American Citizens but would not be considered a “Natural Born Citizen”.

[mad_as_he$$]

The law at the time had very specific requirements for being NBC. One was both parents US citizens and one was the age of the Mother - which Obmama's Mother DID NOT meet.

If you are going to cast stones at least have the basic understanding of the subject.

[autumnraine]

“OTOH, what makes Obama’s side of the story suspicious is: (1) he refuses to release his original birth certificate; (2) when one soldier challenged his orders on the grounds that the president was not natural born, his orders were rescinded.”

Yeah, and the soldier got fired from a business who has contracts with the Dept of Defense. That’s for good measure in case any other soldiers dare question Dear Leader.

The fact that they withdrew an order for a soldier to battle in a war to prevent showing what EVERYONE says is no big deal, shows me that there is DEFINITELY something he is hiding.

[autumnraine]

Yes, she said she had A birth certificate for him on file. But did you know you could obtain a birth certificate in Hawaii even if you were born elsewhere as long as you were living in Hawaii for a year previously?

So the question still remains what does the birth certificate they have in the Governors vault SAY?

And please provide evidence of the Governor stating what you say.

As far as the photograph of the COLB... that can be computer generated. Our very own Polarik showed how it can be photoshopped and he put three “seals” on it.

[Larry - Moe and Curly]

You said: “I believe you are making too much of the “parents who were it’s citizens” being plural. I believe common-law definition applies if either of the parents are citizens, and does not require both parents to be citizens.”

These are not my words. These are the words of the Supreme Court. I’m sure they were well-versed enough in the English language to say “parent who was a citizen” if that’s what they meant. When they say “parents who were its citizens”, I’m sure they meant BOTH parents.

Anyone who gets their citizenship by legislation can’t be “natural born”.

Vattel, whom the Founding Fathers were familiar with, in the Law of Nations says:

Ҥ 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.”

Again, the word “parentS”.

And “...those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers...”

And “The country of the fathers is therefore that of the children; and these become true citizens merely by their tacit consent.”

This is all historical data that means nothing unless the Supreme Court GETS the case, and then they actually try to interpret it based on what the writers of the Constitution meant. Big leap of faith on our part. In the meantime, I’m getting a heck of an education.

[CharlesWayneCT]

In the case before the court, both parents were citizens, so they used the term parents.

But the term “parents” can easily mean one or both, and doesn’t have to mean just “both”. If the case had involved a single parent who was a citizen, we’d know for certain.

But as I have asked others, I’ll ask you. If you believe that both parents must be citizens in order for the child to be a citizen, what about the teenager who sleeps with a foreign exhange student and gets pregnant. Are you saying that her child isn’t a citizen?

[Larry - Moe and Curly]

Easy question to answer. Citizen? Yes.

Natural Born Citizen - ????. The term hasn’t been judicially defined.

[bvw]

Thank you for that common sense.

[Larry - Moe and Curly]

Voiding an election does not exactly equal “Expulsion”. It’s slightly more than semantics. Expulsion means that the person was a Senator and was kicked out. Expulsions are registered in the Senate and can be reviewed by anyone getting into the Senate website.

Galatin (and Shields, another usurper) elections were voided by the Senate. Since they “never happened” they are not listed in the Senate archives as ever having been senators.

[Plummz]

There’s no evidence he ever lost his British subjecthood, actually.

[CharlesWayneCT]

By common law, a “natural born” citizen is a citizen who was born in the country in which they are a “citizen”.

[CharlesWayneCT]

THanks for the additional information.

[Arthur McGowan]

Why would it? Who in the Democratic Party would care? They don’t care now.

[Arthur McGowan]

I said there NEED be no conspiracy on the part of State officials.

I.e., the “covering up” of Obama’s Birth CertificATE is required by state law—so the fact that it is being “covered up” is not evidence that anyone in the state offices is part of a “conspiracy.”

[Lower55]

“Nobody argues that a child born within the nation’s boundaries to a mother who is a citizen would NOT be natural-born.”

If the father was not a US citizen, the child is not Natural Born. One citizen parent cannot bear a Natural Born Citizen.

[Lower55]

“Obama is a natural born citizen if he was born within the boundaries of Hawaii. “

!00% Wrong if daddy is not a citizen.

[Lower55]

“If he was born in the country, it makes no difference that his father wasn’t a citizen.”

Nope. Wrong Completely wrong.. Look it up.

[CharlesWayneCT]

Why don’t you look it up, and post the relevant law you think applies.

I say that because we have already had a post here about the Supreme Court case which indicated that there was no law governing the term “natural born”.

“Natural Born” refers to where a person is born. You are a natural born citizen if you are a citizen of a coutry at birth, and were born IN that country.

I don’t know what you think the definition of “natural born” is. Citizenship could be conferred or denied based on the status of parents; natural-born is about where you were born.

Of course, except for when you are talking about running for President, nobody really cares about the term “natural born”.

This whole conversation makes me wonder whether an adopted child could ever be President.

Of course, by your definition, if a child was born to a single mother, and the mother never indicated who the father was, they could never be considered “natural born” even if the family had come over on the Mayflower or the mother was a descendant of George Washington.