Posted on 11/19/2012 2:11:58 PM PST by KheSanh
A petition asking the Supreme Court to give a clear concise definition of the term "Natural Born Citizen".
Whitehouse.gov url to obtain the first 150 signatures:
http://wh.gov/9dpd
Obots are by job requirements snarky. Hence, I do not believe that your snark has anything to do with how acceptable you consider my answers to be.
Sure, Mario.
Whatever.
I give the level of maturity in your answer a 10, as in 10 years old.
And I respect your judgement in such matters just as much as I respect your courtroom victories.
You really are wanting in any sense. What do my courtroom victories have to do with your level of maturity?
Not at all. This is your way of trying to bluff your way out of a losing point. A CERTIFIED copy of birth certificate is self-authenticating, but a letter of verification that does NOT list relevant birth facts is NOT. Do you understand that?? Yes or no??
“A CERTIFIED copy of birth certificate is self-authenticating, but a letter of verification that does NOT list relevant birth facts is NOT.”
__
Lord, Joe, you are still being dishonest. Why do you lie and say that I am talking about a “letter of verification that does NOT list relevant birth facts”?
You yourself provided the link to the Arizona letter. You can lie all you want about how it doesn’t list facts, but anyone who follows your link and looks at it will see that you are simply not telling the truth.
You keep responding by tap-dancing around in circles. When I quote the FRE to prove that the LoV is indeed a self-authenticating document, you change the subject and tell me that it doesn’t prove that the underlying vital records are “correct.” When I point out to you that neither does the COLB prove that the underlying vital records are correct, you change the subject and tell me that it is a self-authenticating document, ignoring the fact that so is a LoV. When pushed to the wall, you lie about whether the LoV contains specific information.
Both the COLB and the LoV are self-authenticating documents. Both rely solely on exactly the same vital records. Both are official certifications of the specific birth data of which they speak.
Unless you can break out of your lying, tap-dancing circle, I don’t see the point in continuing,
Why do you lie and say that I attributed this to you??? I've addressed the problems and inconsistencies with the letters of verification and explained why they do NOT list birth facts. You pretended to be stupid ... or maybe it's not pretend.
You yourself provided the link to the Arizona letter.
AND in the same post I addressed the problems with that letter. You pretended to be stupid. Go back and read it.
When I quote the FRE to prove that the LoV is indeed a self-authenticating document, you change the subject and tell me that it doesn’t prove that the underlying vital records are “correct.”
Your citation is irrelevant. Nobody is questioning the general authenticity of the letters of verification. I never said the letters of verification were fake. Those letters however are NOT standard birth documents and they do not have the same legal value in veifying birth information because the language in the letters contain few specific RELEVANT facts. This is a conditional statement, and you're ignoring that I gave these conditions. This is MUCH different than an actual birth certificate which fits the part of the FRE I already quoted pertaining to documents that are "recorded or filed in a public office as authorized by law." Further, you seem to be ignoring that I said the letters are NOT immune from being challenged, precisely because of the ambiguity in those letters.
Both the COLB and the LoV are self-authenticating documents.
Obama's COLB is NOT self-authenticating. It has never been presented in any court of law. Probably for good reason. The LoV are only self-authenticating in showing that Alvin T. Onaka Ph.D. gave inconclusive information in the letters.
Both rely solely on exactly the same vital records.
Sorry, but there's absolutely no evidence that this is the case for any of the documents pertaining to Obama. No original vital records have ever been released ... and probably for good reason.
Both are official certifications of the specific birth data of which they speak.
No, actually they aren't. BTW, thanks for making my argument for me yet again here. The letters of verification do NOT give "specific birth data of which they speak." "The information matches" is NOT specific birth data. A claim that a birth certificate (NOTE: it does NOT say this is from an "original Certificate of Live Birth") "indicates" Obama was born in Hawaii is NOT the same thing as an official verification that he WAS born in Hawaii. It's good sleight of hand, but it's NOT an official certification of birth data.
No, you're just having a meltdown. One doesn't address points by pretending to be stupid or by falsely accusing the other person of lying.
Letters of verification do not claim to be standard birth documents; no one said they were.
No one said that Letters of verificatoion "claim to be standard birth documents." I explained why they don't have the same legal value, while you have equated these types of documents several times with these exact words:
Both rely solely on exactly the same vital records. Both are official certifications of the specific birth data of which they speak.
And here:
Everything you say about letters of verification applies identically to birth certificates.
And here:
From a logical and legal point of view, a COLB and a LoV are treated identically.
And here:
Both certify "correctness" in exactly the same sense, namely, that the information matches the state's vital records. Both are stand-alone documents certifying the facts of a vital event. And both are admissible not only as evidence, but as prima facie evidence.
Hence the reason I said,"Nobody is questioning the general authenticity of the letters of verification. I never said the letters of verification were fake."
You are misrepresenting the law.
Nonsense. This is you being a drama queen.
Your reference to the FRE is also clearly deceptive, as the section you quote that speaks of a document "recorded or filed in a public office as authorized by law" is "Rule 902, (4): Certified Copies of Public Records." That's the wrong section, because we are not talking about a copy of a public record.
Dude, you're arguing against yourself now, because what you cited also refers to "public" documents: "Domestic Public Documents That Are Sealed and Signed," which you followed up by saying, "You'll notice that no distinction whatsoever is made between birth certificates and any other form of sealed and signed documents." IOW, YOU called a birth certificate a public document.
There the FRE conclusively shows that the letter of verification is itself a self-authenticating document, not a copy of one.
Again, I said specifically: "Nobody is questioning the general authenticity of the letters of verification. I never said the letters of verification were fake." Such letters are only self-authenticating to ACTUAL facts that are attested, but in these documents NO RELEVANT BIRTH FACTS are being attested. Let this SINK IN. NO RELEVANT BIRTH FACTS are being attested. A claim that a birth certificate (NOT a Certificate of Live Birth) "indicates" Obama was born in Hawaii is NOT an actual verification of fact and it is NOT an attestation of fact, but an attestation of a CLAIM. It's problematic because the DoH doesn't officially maintain birth certificates, but instead, certificates of live birth. Alvin T. Onaka Ph.D. is playing word games to avoid potential perjury charges. There would be no such amibiguity or word games with an acutal CERTIFIED copy of a Certificate of Live Birth or a Certification of Live Birth were one of these documents actually presented in a court of law. Obama has refused. Hawaii has refused. They only started giving out letters of verification after the April 2011 LFBC was fabricated and the AG figured out the ambiguous wording to provide to the SOS in AZ.
I could go on, but what's the point? You are still lying and dancing in circles, so it is time for me to bow out.
You already pretended you were going to stop posting earlier. Nobody forced you to reply or to accuse me of lying. Thanks for defeating your own arguments. It was fun and way too easy for me.
Here is a copy of the filled out form sent by SoS Bennett.
http://butterdezillion.files.wordpress.com/2012/06/bennett-request-and-response.pdf
The entries listed on the form (Name on Certificate, Sex, DOB, POB, parents’s names) would normally be used to search the files to ensure that the DOH has the correct record.
The title on the document sent to SoS Bennett is “Verification of Birth”. And Hawaii Statute §338-14.3 (b) states, “A verification shall be considered for all purposes certification that the vital event did occur and that the facts of the event are as stated by the applicant.”
Does the DOH assume that by issuing a “Verification of Birth” they are verifing the entries stated on the application for verification form?
It seems incongruous to say that the singular word ‘citizen’ applies only to such persons at the time the Constitution was adopted while the same singular word ‘citizen’ appears in what apparently is the present day Constitution as to eligibility for congresspersons. I grant that words can be meant to be anything desired but events of history bound by words is more than just someones desire/intentions.
For example one must be a “citizen” to be a U.S. Senator. We have had U.S. Senators who were citizens at the time of adoption. We have had Senators who were natural born citizens. We have had Senators who were naturalized as U.S. citizens. We never have had a non-citizen of the USA as a U.S. Senator - and THAT is what is forbidden by this language.
Natural born citizens are “citizens”, naturalized citizens are “citizens”, and those who were citizens at the time of the adoption of the Constitution are ALSO “citizens”.
So who claimed that “citizens” only applies to such persons who were citizens at the time of the adoption of the Constitution? That is apparently a strawman of your own invention.
I would group this slightly differently.
There are "citizens" and there are "natural born citizens."
Because of the placement in Article II Section 1 ("No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President;"), "natural born citizens" are of two kinds: "natural natural born citizens" and "grandfathered natural born citizens." This is because the grandfather clause is in relation to eligibility to be president, not eligibility to be a citizen. Citizenship was declared via the Declaration of Independence to all residents of the colonies at the time of the declaration.
So now there are three groups of citizens: "natural born citizens" (the posterity of We the People), there are "citizens" (people born here with non-citizen parents - not We the People), and "naturalized citizens" (people who were born elsewhere and became citizens.
"Citizens" can be Representatives and Senators, but not President. Only "natural born Citizens" can be President, because only this group "secures the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our posterity."
-PJ
The Constitution only mentions the possibility of three types of U.S. citizens - natural born, naturalized and those who were citizens at the time of the adoption.
Those who were ‘grandfathered’; i.e. citizens at the time of the adoption - were mostly natural born subjects of England - they were not, nor did they consider themselves, natural born citizens of the USA.
If they did they would have said “natural born citizens, including those who were citizens at the time of the adoption of the Constitution”. They did not (one type - OR- another type; not one type INCLUDING those grandfathered in).
The clear language of the Constitution says that two DIFFERENT types of citizens are eligible for the Presidency - natural born citizens and those who were citizens at the time of the adoption of the Constitution.
If there are only “citizens” and “natural born citizens” then are you claiming that a “natural born citizen” cannot be a Senator?
The language of the Constitution says a Senator must be a “citizen”. If “citizen” is its own category, separate from “natural born citizen” - then the clear implication would be that a “natural born citizen” wouldn’t be eligible for the office.
Now that right there is funny.
"Natural born citizen" is a subset of the group "citizen"; those "citizens" who are born in the country, to parents who are both "citizens" themselves.
What then can we make of the argument that “citizen” is its own category apart from “natural born citizen”? I don't make much of it, as it is ridiculous. That is the point of my post, that “citizen” is not its own separate category - it is inclusive of THREE types of U.S. citizen mentioned in the Constitution.
Of course "citizen" is the broadest category that includes "natural born citizen." Anything that applies to citizens applies to natural born citizens, but the reverse is not true.
-PJ
I know/agree that all ‘natural born citizens’ are citizens. However, and this is the important distinction, not all ‘citizens’ of any class are ‘natural born citizens’. Something like all chicken eggs are eggs but not all chicken eggs are brown eggs. No attempt on my part to set up a strawman in honest discourse/debate.
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.