Birther Questions & Answers

A Hollywood Republican ^ | 04/25/11 | Tim Ross

[justrepublican]

Value descends the farther from the ocean and three blocks up they in the $800-900 thousand range even today.
It's still a house.

[Ladysforest]

First thing. The microfilms could very easily be forged. Very easy to do. Below you’ll read some info on microfilm production. Just be aware that although the type of film used to make service copies was changed in the 80’s, you can still get the vintage film. Even on Ebay.

The thing that my collection of copies proved beyond doubt is that the stories behind the “ORIGINAL DISCOVERIES” of obama’s newspaper birth announcement were absolutely false. Especially the first person that claimed to have gotten their “copy” at the HI State library in person. The copy they sent around could not have come from the film in that library. The copy that was supposedly emailed to “Lori Starfelt” could not have come from the film it was purported to be copied from. (By the way, it is said that Lori Starfelt died the day before Trump began speaking out about the birth certificate-and she was a filmmaker)

So, why were the stories made up if the films were on level?

We do know that when mothers check out of a hospital they are asked if they would like the announcement printed in the paper. Usually there is a little form that is checked off or signed. In addition, parents could then, and now, call in the info. In fact the Honolulu Star Advertiser still allows family to do that, just NOW A DAYS they claim to require that you provide documentary evidence of the birth before they will print the announcement. I’ll bet they didn’t back in 1961. Hell, I bet they didn’t require all that three years ago.

Butterdzillion did a better breakdown on the relationship between all of the “original discovered” announcements. It supports my findings-I did mail her second gen copies of all my original copies so she could do her own research with them.

This is just a little info on microfilms and how they are made:

1980s and 1990s
Kodak introduces polyester-based microfilm, which quickly becomes the new standard. The old “Kodak Safety Film”, which used an acetate base, had a giant drawback - the acetate begins to break down into acetic acid, otherwise known as vinegar syndrome.

Master Negative (also called:Camera or Archival or Original) The original microfilm taken directly from the microfilm camera. This is the generation that is considered for permanent archival storage.
This is the archival copy, which is used to produce a duplicate negative (see below) for the generation of use copies. The master negative should be stored in a different location from secondary copies and under conditions as close as possible to the ideal. The only subsequent use of the master negative should be the reproduction of a duplicate negative lost to damage or disaster.

Duplicate Negative (or Print-Master Negative)
This copy is almost always silver-gelatin. The duplicate negative is used to generate use copies (see below) for the collection. It should be stored under the best available conditions, since it serves as a working master, to protect the master negative. Ideally, it should be physically separated from use copies.

Use Copies (or Service Copies)
Any of the available media or formats may be acceptable, and images may be positive or negative. Good storage and handling will extend the life of use copies, thus protecting previous generations of microforms.

[jarofants]

CNN shows the address at 2:40 in this report
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bhex83PJhFg
Does not look like a house. Media lies!!!

[Coyotehockey]

No - she understands like most people do that Obama is a NBC because he was born in America.

Now, I understand you feel differently, but please don’t be offended if I disagree. While no expert, I would be more willing to entertain the idea if a single conservative group like the The Heritage Foundation or the Federalist Society agree with you. Your definition of NBC doesn’t appear to be accepted anywhere else except birther sites. Know I know you have elaborate conspiracy theories to explain that away, but that is another conversation.

[Plutarch]

WHAT THE RIGHT SAYS: Birth Certificates issued to the Nordyke twins shows their registrations number precedes the number given to Obama, even though Obama was born a day earlier.

Which is why the Registration Number and other info needs to be extracted from the COLB of Stig Waidelich,born August 1961, which was featured on CNN Propagana piece piece yesterday. The

It is barely readable on the internet video, but might be readable off a DVR of the telecast.

[mad_as_he$$]

That is the wild blowback in this conspiracy. If it was Davis then Steve has no issues other than lying. If he had come out in his book and said “bla bla bla my dad really was XXX and my mother didn't want it known” most Americans would say OK no big deal. Hiding it has made the story.

[Fantasywriter]

Whoa, James—you’re not even trying to hide it anymore. I admire your chutzpa.

I have no elaborate conspiracy theories. I just want to see some—preferably all—of Barry’s hidden records. I also realized that Fukino’s statement tells us exactly nothing; it is useless.

[AmericanVictory]

A statute, even an early one, cannot define or alter a phrase in the Constitution. Contrary to your assertions, the legal authority of the early years of this republic is quite clear that the phrase as used in the Constitution means and was intended to mean born in the United States of two parents both of whom are citizens of the United States. There is no majority of legal authority that the phrase in Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 is identical in meaning with 14th Amendment citizenship. Can you cite any? The early statute to which you refere was quickly repealed, one of the reasons given being that it wrongly attempted to define and alter the Constitution.

[AmericanVictory]

Only if you ignore the distinction, very important to the Framers, between “subjects” of the crown and “citizens” of a republic.

[kabar]

Can you cite the definition of a natural born citizen beyond what is in the Constitution? Specifically, where does it say "born in the United States of two parents both of whom are citizens of the United States?"

What is the difference between a natural born citizen and a naturalized citizen?

What is the difference between a natural born citizen and the acquisition of citizenship via jus solis or jus sanguinis?

[Ladysforest]

Being able to qualify to run for the Presidency of the United States.

[AmericanVictory]

Suggest you read the sources of the time, particularly the concurring opinion of Chief Justice John Marshall in The Venus, joined by Justice Livingston and particularly the opinion of Justice Joseph Story in Shanks v. Dupont, particularly what he say about English common law as "mere municipal law" as opposed to the law of nations from which the Framers took the law concerning citizenship. Also persuasive are the annotations on the meaning of the phrase in Article II in St. George Tucker's American edition of Blackstone and the well known essay on citizenship by Daniel Ramsay of South Carolina as well as the well known letters by John Jay to Washington just before the decision to adopt the phrase. There is also the fact that the Dred Scott decision was law until the passage of the 14th Amendment. The 14th Amendment did not purport in any way to affect the phrase in Article II and in fact its principal architect, Representative Bingham, made it clear in remarks on the record that the Article II definition taken from natural law or the law of nations was not affected.

[kabar]

Was John McCain qualified to run for the Presidency of the United States? Was Barry Goldwater qualified to run?

[kabar]

You are just proving my point. We are engaging in speculation, not settled law. I am sure you believe that John McCain was not a natural born citizen. I believe he is.

If you automatically become a citizen of this country by blood or place of birth and don't have to be naturalized, you are natural born IMO. The term "natural born citizen" is not used anywhere else in the Constitution, and it has never been the subject of any federal court ruling. Hence, its exact meaning could be subject to controversy.

[AmericanVictory]

I think that the opinion of Justice Joseph Story, speaking of a majority, is more than speculation. All of the opinions I have referred to are from those who knew the framers well and had spoken to them extensively. There is no definition section in the Constitution. It is the intent of those who wrote and adopted it that matters. None of them had a contrary opinion to those that I have cited. The opinions that I have cited have been reinforced by others. For example, Chief Justice Waite in Minor v. Happersett. Such legal authority and case law is not "speculation." We do not cite "speculation" in legal briefs, we cite authority. It is you who are speculating, and doing so in contradiction of known and ascertainable authority. Can you cite a single case or respected authority that says that the Article II phrase does not mean what Vattel said? I know of one case by an Indiana state court that is based on the speculation that the Framers were familiar with the common law and therefore adopted the phrase from it, in direct contradiction of Story, Marshall, Tucker, Ramsay and even George Mason who said that the English common law was not American common law. Indeed there is legal authority that the common law on point is not such that it would make Soetoro a/k/a Obama a legally eligible person to be President.

Tell me, if you would be so kind, what is speculative about the Story opinion in Shanks v. Dupont.

[Ladysforest]

McCain? In my opinion - no. Diplomats definitely are if they are serving the government in a different country. Military personnel.......only on a US possession.

[kabar]

Certainly those opinions will be considered by SCOTUS if and when they make a ruling. They will also consider current practice and precedent. That said, we do not know what the ultimate decision will be. We are just speculating. Who would have ever thought that the Kelo decision would turn out as it did?

Tell me, if you would be so kind, what is speculative about the Story opinion in Shanks v. Dupont.

We will see how relevant that case is to citizenship and Presidential eligibility under the Constitution. How do you view U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark and Afroyim v. Rusk as they relate to citizenship?

[kabar]

We will agree to disagree. McCain was automatically a citizen upon birth. He did not have to be naturalized. Ergo, he is entitled to all of the rights and privileges of any other US citizen.,

Here is the joint opinion of Laurence H. Tribe and Theodore B. Olson: McCain is eligible

Constitution does not define the meaning of “natural born Citizen.” The U.S. Supreme Court gives meaning to terms that are not expressly defined in the Constitution by looking to the context in which those terms are used; to statutes enacted by the First Congress, Marsh v. Chambers, 463 U.S. 783, 790-91 (1983); and to the common law at the time of the Founding. United Suites v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, 655 (1898). These sources all confirm that the phrase “natural born” includes both birth abroad to parents who were citizens, and birth within a nation’s territory and allegiance. Thus, regardless of the sovereign status of the Panama Canal Zone at the time of Senator McCain’s birth, he is a “natural born” citizen because he was born to parents who were U.S. citizens.

and

Indeed, the statute that the First Congress enacted on this subject not only established that such children are U.S. citizens, but also expressly referred to them as “natural born citizens.” Act of Mar. 26, 1790, ch. 3, § 1, 1 Stat. 103, 104.

and

Historical practice confirms that birth on soil that is under the sovereignty of the United States, but not within a State, satisfies the Natural Born Citizen Clause. For example, Vice President Charles Curtis was born in the territory of Kansas on January 25, 1860 — one year before Kansas became a State. Because the Twelfth Amendment requires that Vice Presidents possess the same qualifications as Presidents, the service of Vice President Curtis verifies that the phrase “natural born Citizen” includes birth outside of any State but within U.S. territory. Similarly, Senator Barry Goldwater was born in Arizona before its statehood, yet attained the Republican Party’s presidential nomination in 1964. And Senator Barack Obama was born in Hawaii on August 4, 1961 — not long after its admission to the Union on August 21, 1959. We find it inconceivable that Senator Obama would have been ineligible for the Presidency had he been born two years earlier.

[AmericanVictory]

In other words, even though Story specifically held that in matters of citizenship, the Framers looked to the law of nations rather than the common law of England, you do not find that relevant. How so? WKA is strictly about citizenship; it does not purport to be about the phrase used in Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 but is strictly about 14th Amendment citizenship. The questions presented in the case were only about that and the briefing was only about that. No question about Article II, Section 1, Clause 5's requirement for presidential eligibility was before the court. The architects of the 14th Amendment as stated, made it clear that they were not disturbing the established meaning of Article II, Section 1, Clause 5's phrase "natural born citizen," which remained as meaning born in the country of parents both of whom were citizens. teh very breadth of the language in the opinion, concededly may have reflected the political situation of the author of the opinion being an appointee of Chester Arthur, about whom a stink had arisen because he had been elected although his father was not an American at the time he was born although he, like Obama, spent considerable effort trying to suppress the issue being addressed.

As far as Afroyim v. Rusk goes: it is entirely about 14th Amendment citizenship and the right of expatriation and has nothing whatsoever to do with the phrase "natural born citizen" as taken from the law of nations in Article II, Section 1, Clause 5. In fact the British took the position in the era between the Revolution and the War of 1812 that those seamen who had been British subjects before the Revolution could not expatriate themselves from British citizenship and on that basis were taking American seamen by force and impressing them into the Royal Navy, which was one of the causes of the securing of the Revolution in the War of 1812. We disagreed.

In Schneider v. Rusk the Supreme Court noted in passing that only the "natural born citizen" is eligible to be President under Article II in a discussion of 14th Amendment citizenship while not otherwise discussing the difference between "natural born" and native born. This would seem to leave the opinions by Marshall, Story and Waite standing. Again, given the history of the 14th Amendment there is no reason to speculate that it impacted the original meaning of Article II, Section 1, Clause 5's requirement. I do not believe that the argument that this mention in passing consisted of the Supreme Court equating native born citizenship to the phrase "natural born citizenship" is valid.

[Ladysforest]

A citizen by statute.

A natural born Citizen would never require a statute be created to include them as a “class” of citizen.

He was a full citizen - a “native” citizen, created by a law passed to allow for his birth situation.

A citizen born of two US parents on US soil would never need such a statute. Simple as pie.