Posted on 04/04/2011 10:31:21 AM PDT by Bridgetteb
What is the name of the Doctor who delivered Obama Junior.
I'm not sure what your point is, though. Surely you are not suggesting that the only way for Obama to prove his eligibility to you would be to personally send to you a state-certified COLB with registrar's signature and seal.
I see, so you are alleging that Hawaii lies on its official documents. Good to know.
As even Gov Neil Abercrombie admitted when he told a Star Advertiser columnist that what they have in Hawaii is not likely to convince doubters that Obama was born in Hawaii.
Or course not, because the doubters won't be convinced no matter what evidence is shown to them.
The father not being a citizen was known to every American well before the election and nomination. To every Constitutional scholar, to every media attorney, to everyone, everyone, EVERYONE!!!
Why did NO ONE ever utter in public, “Wait a sec. Is he even natural born, if his father wasn’t a citizen???”
This is like topsy turvy bizarro world.
While I don’t really think there even IS a long form for Obama, because why wouldn’t he have shown it by now, or why couldn’t Abercrombie find it, I need to inject a tiny tiny point of devil’s advocate here:
Could it be possible in 1961 that when the date for each birth was filed, the files go into In-Boxes of various clerks at the vital statistics bureau, and one clerk got the Nordyke twins, and whipped through his file cases, while a different clerk got Obama’s, and was slower getting the documentation out? That is one possible explanation.
Still, I love your post, because it’s another inconsistency that needs explaining, for sure.
I think this is what a lot of Americans think. That all you need to be is popped out of a vagina onto American soil. You all had better be wrong, or we may one day have an anchor baby as a President.
The problem is that NBC is not perfectly clearly explained in the Constitution.
The conservative definition is that NBC means born on American soil or territory to two American citizens. The medium definition is born to one American citizen on American soil. Yours is the most liberal, though I fear a lot of people think it's the right definition. It really can't be, if we want to have our sovereignty last.
Well, you need a little more than that. You have to be under US jurisdiction at the time of your birth, which means your mother and father can't be diplomats, enemy invaders, or travelers in transit.
You all had better be wrong, or we may one day have an anchor baby as a President.
If the parents are illegal aliens, the extent to which they are "subject to jurisdiction thereof" is a little murkey and hasn't been fully resolved. However, there is no question if the parents are legal residents.
The problem is that NBC is not perfectly clearly explained in the Constitution.
No, but it is in case law, and it is abundantly clear that in the founders day, it meant "citizen at birth."
Why does it matter?
Thanks American Constitutionalist for the link.
Yeah it matters, with that scar on the side of his dead, and without a LFBC maybe Dr, Frankenstein made BHOzo..
Tim Adams is interview on this blog:
http://www.blogtalkradio.com/rcr
He states the long form no longer exists but there’s an “index notation” that it should be there. Problem: Hawaii allowed a birth outside the “state or territory” to be registered if a parent had been a resident of Hawaii at the time of birth. So a birth certificate, in and of itself, does NOT prove the birth took place in Hawaii.
Supposedly there are pictures of Obama’s mother in a bikini a couple months before the birth date... not showing a bump. She also was registered at college in Seattle.
No death certificates for his mother or grandmother.
???
Anchor Baby 2012
You offering to give me "a life", troll? You really could, you know. As a matter of fact, I'm almost sure that you will.
And that makes me smile.
That's some airtight logic there, my friend. I've been asking the after-birthers to just go ahead and prove that I'm crazy for years now.
Usually, that just sets them off worse than they already are.
No, but it is in case law, and it is abundantly clear that in the founders day, it meant "citizen at birth."
I'm afraid you're wrong on both counts, as has been endlessly documented on Free Republic in the last three years. Here's an article which should help enlighten you on the definition of Natural Born Citizen:
Friday, April 2, 2010
Founder and Historian David Ramsay Defines a Natural Born Citizen in 1789
In defining an Article II “natural born Citizen,” it is important to find any authority from the Founding period who may inform us how the Founders and Framers themselves defined the clause. Who else but a highly respected historian from the Founding period itself would be highly persuasive in telling us how the Founders and Framers defined a “natural born Citizen. ” Such an important person is David Ramsay, who in 1789 wrote, A Dissertation on the Manners of Acquiring the Character and Privileges of a Citizen (1789), a very important and influential essay on defining a “natural born Citizen.”
David Ramsay (April 2, 1749 to May 8, 1815) was an American physician, patriot, and historian from South Carolina and a delegate from that state to the Continental Congress in 1782-1783 and 1785-1786. He was the Acting President of the United States in Congress Assembled. He was one of the American Revolution’s first major historians. A contemporary of Washington, Ramsay writes with the knowledge and insights one acquires only by being personally involved in the events of the Founding period. In 1785 he published History of the Revolution of South Carolina (two volumes), in 1789 History of the American Revolution (two volumes), in 1807 a Life of Washington, and in 1809 a History of South Carolina (two volumes). Ramsay “was a major intellectual figure in the early republic, known and respected in America and abroad for his medical and historical writings, especially for The History of the American Revolution (1789)…” Arthur H. Shaffer, Between Two Worlds: David Ramsay and the Politics of Slavery, J.S.Hist., Vol. L, No. 2 (May 1984). “During the progress of the Revolution, Doctor Ramsay collected materials for its history, and his great impartiality, his fine memory, and his acquaintance with many of the actors in the contest, eminently qualified him for the task….” www.famousamericans.net/davidramsay.
In 1965 Professor Page Smith of the University of California at Los Angeles published an extensive study of Ramsay's History of the American Revolution in which he stressed the advantage that Ramsay had because of being involved in the events of which he wrote and the wisdom he exercised in taking advantage of this opportunity. “The generosity of mind and spirit which marks his pages, his critical sense, his balanced judgment and compassion,'' Professor Smith concluded, “are gifts that were uniquely his own and that clearly entitle him to an honorable position in the front rank of American historians.”
In his 1789 article, Ramsay first explained who the “original citizens” were and then defined the “natural born citizens” as the children born in the country to citizen parents. He said concerning the children born after the declaration of independence, “[c]itizenship is the inheritance of the children of those who have taken part in the late revolution; but this is confined exclusively to the children of those who were themselves citizens….” Id. at 6. He added that “citizenship by inheritance belongs to none but the children of those Americans, who, having survived the declaration of independence, acquired that adventitious character in their own right, and transmitted it to their offspring….” Id. at 7. He continued that citizenship “as a natural right, belongs to none but those who have been born of citizens since the 4th of July, 1776….” Id. at 6.
Here we have direct and convincing evidence of how a very influential Founder defined a “natural born citizen.” Given his position of influence and especially given that he was a highly respected historian, Ramsay would have had the contacts with other influential Founders and Framers and would have known how they too defined “natural born Citizen.” Ramsay, being of the Founding generation and being intimately involved in the events of the time would have known how the Founders and Framers defined a “natural born Citizen” and he told us that definition was one where the child was born in the country of citizen parents. In giving us this definition, it is clear that Ramsay did not follow the English common law but rather natural law, the law of nations, and Emer de Vattel, who also defined a “natural-born citizen” the same as did Ramsay in his highly acclaimed and influential, The Law of Nations, Or, Principles of the Law of Nature, Applied to the Conduct and Affairs of Nations and Sovereigns, Section 212 (1758 French) (1759 English). We can reasonably assume that the other Founders and Framers would have defined a “natural born Citizen” the same way the Ramsay did, for being a meticulous historian he would have gotten his definition from the general consensus that existed at the time.
Ramsay’s article and explication are further evidence of the influence that Vattel had on the Founders in how they defined the new national citizenship. This article by Ramsay is one of the most important pieces of evidence recently found (provided to us by an anonymous source) which provides direct evidence on how the Founders and Framers defined a “natural born Citizen” and that there is little doubt that they defined one as a child born in the country to citizen parents.
This time-honored definition of a "natural born Citizen" has been confirmed by subsequent United States Supreme Court and lower court cases such as:
1) The Venus, 12 U.S. (8 Cranch) 253, 289 (1814) (Marshall, C.J., concurring and dissenting for other reasons, cites Vattel and provides his definition of natural born citizens);
2) Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. 393 (1857) (Justice Daniels concurring took out of Vattel’s definition the reference to “fathers” and “father” and replaced it with “parents” and “person,” respectively);
3) Shanks v. Dupont, 28 U.S. 242, 245 (1830) (same definition without citing Vattel); Slaughter-House Cases, 83 U.S. 36, 21 L.Ed. 394, 16 Wall. 36 (1872) (in explaining the meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment clause, “subject to the jurisdiction thereof,” said that the clause “was intended to exclude from its operation children of ministers, consuls, and citizens or subjects of foreign States born within the United States;”
4) Elk v. Wilkins, 112 U.S. 94 (1884) (“the children of subjects of any foreign government born within the domain of that government, or the children born within the United States, of ambassadors or other public ministers of foreign nations” are not citizens under the Fourteenth Amendment because they are not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States);
5) Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162, 167-68 (1875) (same definition without citing Vattel);
6) Ex parte Reynolds, 1879, 5 Dill., 394, 402 (same definition and cites Vattel); United States v. Ward, 42 F.320 (C.C.S.D.Cal. 1890) (same definition and cites Vattel);
7) U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898) (quoted from the same definition of “natural born Citizen” as did Minor v. Happersett);
8) Rep. John Bingham (in the House on March 9, 1866, in commenting on the Civil Rights Act of 1866 which was the precursor to the Fourteenth Amendment: "[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 your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen. . . . ” John A. Bingham, (R-Ohio) US Congressman, March 9, 1866 Cong. Globe, 39th, 1st Sess., 1291 (1866), Sec. 1992 of U.S. Revised Statutes (1866)).
(bullet points mine)
The two-citizen-parent requirement would have followed from the common law that provided that a woman upon marriage took the citizenship of her husband. In other words, the Framers required both (1) birth on United States soil (or its equivalent) and (2) birth to two United States citizen parents as necessary conditions of being granted that special status which under our Constitution only the President and Commander in Chief of the Military (and also the Vice President under the Twelfth Amendment) must have at the time of his or her birth. Given the necessary conditions that must be satisfied to be granted the status, all "natural born Citizens" are "Citizens of the United States" but not all "Citizens of the United States" are "natural born Citizens." It was only through both parents being citizens that the child was born with unity of citizenship and allegiance to the United States which the Framers required the President and Commander in Chief to have.
Obama fails to meet this “natural born Citizen” eligibility test because when he was born in 1961 (wherever that may be), he was not born to a United States citizen mother and father. At his birth, his mother was a United States citizen. But under the British Nationality Act 1948, his father, who was born in the British colony of Kenya, was born a Citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies (CUKC) which by descent made Obama himself a CUKC. Prior to Obama’s birth, Obama’s father neither intended to nor did he become a United States citizen. Being temporarily in the United States only for purpose of study and with the intent to return to Kenya, his father did not intend to nor did he even become a legal resident or immigrant to the United States.
Obama may be a plain born “citizen of the United States” under the 14th Amendment or a Congressional Act (if he was born in Hawaii). But as we can see from David Ramsay’s clear presentation, citizenship “as a natural right, belongs to none but those who have been born of citizens since the 4th of July, 1776….” Id. at 6. Hence, Obama is not an Article II "natural born Citizen," for upon Obama's birth his father was a British subject and Obama himself by descent was also the same. Hence, Obama was born subject to a foreign power. Obama lacks the birth status of natural sole and absolute allegiance and loyalty to the United States which only the President and Commander in Chief of the Military and Vice President must have at the time of birth. Being born subject to a foreign power, he lacks Unity of Citizenship and Allegiance to the United States from the time of birth which assures that required degree of natural sole and absolute birth allegiance and loyalty to the United States, a trait that is constitutionally indispensable in a President and Commander in Chief of the Military. Like a naturalized citizen, who despite taking an oath later in life to having sole allegiance to the United States cannot be President because of being born subject to a foreign power, Obama too cannot be President.
Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
April 2, 2010
http://puzo1.blogspot.com/
Do you know the name of the birth doctor? A simple yes or no. If you know his name pls tell us. It is on his birth certificate.
******
Yes. That's a great idea of yours: Do you think that you could contact Obama and have Obama tell Hawaii officials to send me a copy of Obama's Hawaii short form birth certificate that we have seen on several websites like Obama's website over the past two years?
1. Also , make doubly sure that the Obama birth certificate comes directly to me from the Hawaii government, because I do not trust anything whatsoever that originates out of the Obama camp or that first passes through the Obama camp before it goes out to the public and to persons like me, especially a so-called copy of Obama's birth certificate.
2. Or, if Obama is hesitant in asking the Hawaii government to send his Hawaii birth certificate to just one person such as me, then I would be more than happy if Obama gave Hawaii officials permission to send copies of his Hawaii birth certificate---either the short form or the long form, if it even exists---to the news media like ABC---to whom Trump released his long form birth certificate---, CBS, NBC, and FoxNews.
3. My point is this: While it says right there on the Obama Hawaii short form birth certificate that we can only see on our computer monitor on the internet that the birth certificate is accepted for legal purposes, it doesn't mean that states, like, say, Alabama or New York have to accept it just because Hawaii says so, because Alabama and New York are independent states who decide for themselves what they will or will not accept as valid documents from other states.
4. Also, while the Obama short form birth certificate we see on the internet and on Obama's website states that the document is valid for legal purposes, it doesn't say that a downloaded copy of the short form birth certificate is valid for legal purposes.
5. That is, if Obama has to present a copy of his birth certificate in court for some reason, I don't think that a judge will be very happy if Obama tells the judge that the copy of his birth certificate he presents to the court is one he downloaded from his own website, because I would think that since there so much controversy surrounding the Obama short form birth certificate that we see on Obama's website, the judge would like to see Obama's short form up close and in person so that he can touch it and run his fingers over the Hawaii state seal to make sure that the seal is legitimate.
6. As I see it, a judge will tell Obama something like this: A downloaded copy of a birth certificate off the internet is not accepted by the court as proof that Obama is who he says he is, and so Obama will have to contact Hawaii and tell Hawaii to send to the court directly a fresh copy of Obama's short or long form birth certificate with the Hawaii raised state seal prominently displayed.
7. Again, I don't think that any court in the country will accept as a legal document a copy of Obama's short form birth certificate that Obama admits he downloaded from his own website.
8. Again, if you could contact Obama and ask him to give Hawaii permission to send me---or the newsmedia---a copy of his short form or long form birth certificate, if the long form even exists---I would most thankful.
9. Again, when you contact Obama, makes sure you tell him to have Hawaii officials send a copy of Obama's birth cetificate---long or short form---directly to me or to the newsmedia like CBS and ForNews and not to Obama campaign headquarters, because as I said earlier, I don't trust anything that originates from the Obama camp.
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.