When and How will the Obama Birth Certificate Forgery story break into the MSM? [Vanity]

Kevmo | August 7, 2008 | Kevmo

[Gatún(CraigIsaMangoTreeLawyer)]

“McCain’s being born in Panama is completely irrelevant, since both of his parents were U.S. citizens at the time. Any person born to two U.S. citizens, regardless of the place of birth, is a full, total, natural-born U.S. citizen. Period. That’s the law.”

McCain being born in Panama is completely irrelevant? To you, yes.

And that’s the law...Your law?

Thank you for the good laugh!!!!

[Gatún(CraigIsaMangoTreeLawyer)]

“And the military would fall solidly behind McCain on this item.”

One little small, picky problem. The military is not the Supreme Court.

[Gatún(CraigIsaMangoTreeLawyer)]

“The “dual citizenship” question above is also troubling. Has America EVER had a President with dual citizenship? “

Okay...While McCain is not president, he is a dual citizen like it or not.

Do a little homework.

[null and void]

I think he’s contemplating a Banana Republic type Military Junta, McCain was born in central America, after all...

[Tex Pete]

Hey null and void,

You don’t have to be pompous. I have read plenty, and I flatly disagree with you. I guess that is OK, I mean, if you don’t mind me breathing. I’m certainly fine with the disagreement.

Thank you, Tex Pete

[Gatún(CraigIsaMangoTreeLawyer)]

“I think that the case with McCain is different because he was born in Canal Zone (not Panama) and it was considered US territory.”

That is just it. This is what this whole argument is about. McCain was not born in the Canal Zone. He was born in Colón, Republic of Panama. At that time, it was two different countries.

Do your homework.

[Gatún(CraigIsaMangoTreeLawyer)]

“I understand what you are saying and the hospital is clearly seen on the map. but is it the actual place where he was born?”

No. He was born on the moon.

[Gondring]

Right...they don’t recognize him keeping dual citizenship.

[null and void]

I’m not quite sure you meant to address that to me.

[Non-Sequitur]

Right...they don’t recognize him keeping dual citizenship.

That's right. They don't.

[Gatún(CraigIsaMangoTreeLawyer)]

Let me tell you, null and void. Our country, as I told my cats a couple of days ago, has become a banana republic. Right now, there is no difference between crooked Panamanian politics and crooked U.S. politics. It all stinks.

[null and void]

It’s a difference in degree, not kind.

[sport]

If he takes her as his Veep, his time on this earth is very limited.

[null and void]

Two years and one day, to be exact.

21 Jan 10.

Dead or incapacitated, unless he is ruled ineligible by reason of citizenship.

[9YearLurker]

Agreed.

[raygun]

There's at least one problem with your argument:

The founders did not use the term native-born and so the Wiki is all we are left with to decipher their intent.

I'm certain that had the fouding fathers sufficient forsight with respect to the particular nomenclature, the issue would've been resolved months ago and a whole slew of issues over the last decade or so since then.

Nevertheless, and that notwithstanding, such being not the case, ALL that we have is accepted statute as presented by Wiki.

There is some debate over whether persons who were born US citizens and are classified as citizens at birth under U.S. law should also be considered citizens "by birth," or whether they should all be considered to be "naturalized." There is also some debate over whether there is a meaningful legal distinction between citizens "at birth" and citizens "by birth" since U.S. law makes no such distinction, nor does the Fourteenth Amendment use the term "at birth." Current U.S. statutes define certain individuals born overseas as "citizens at birth."

One side of the argument interprets the Constitution as meaning that a person either is born in the United States or is a naturalized citizen. According to this view, in order to be a "natural born citizen," a person must be born in the United States; otherwise, he is a citizen "by law" and is therefore "naturalized." Current State Department policy reads: "Despite widespread popular belief, U.S. military installations abroad and U.S. diplomatic or consular facilities are not part of the United States within the meaning of the 14th Amendment. A child born on the premises of such a facility is not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States and does not acquire U.S. citizenship by reason of birth." However, this does not affect those who are born abroad to U.S. citizens and who otherwise meet the qualifications for citizenship at birth.

• Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. 393 (1857): In regard to the "natural born citizen" clause, the dissent states that it is acquired by place of birth (jus soli), not through blood or lineage (jus sanguinis): "The first section of the second article of the Constitution uses the language, 'a natural-born citizen.' It thus assumes that citizenship may be acquired by birth. Undoubtedly, this language of the Constitution was used in reference to that principle of public law, well understood in this country at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, which referred citizenship to the place of birth." (Much of the majority opinion in this case was overturned by the 14th Amendment in 1868.)
• United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898): A person born within the jurisdiction of the U.S. to non-citizens who "are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity" is automatically a citizen.
• Weedin v. Chin Bow, 274 U.S. 657 (1927): A child born outside the U.S. cannot claim U.S. citizenship by birth through a U.S. citizen parent who had never lived in the U.S. prior to the child's birth. (This is still true today, although the specific statutes upon which the Supreme Court's ruling was based have changed since 1927.)
• Montana v. Kennedy, 366 U.S. 308 (1961): A person born in 1906, whose mother was a native-born citizen of the United States and whose father was a foreign citizen, who was born overseas and then moved to the United States, was not a citizen of the United States by birth. (Note that the relevant laws have changed considerably since 1906, so this decision does not necessarily apply to later cases.)
• Schneider v. Rusk, 377 U.S. 163 (1964): The Court voided a statute that provided that a naturalized citizen should lose his United States citizenship if, following naturalization, he resided continuously for three years in his former homeland. "We start from the premise that the rights of citizenship of the native-born and of the naturalized person are of the same dignity and are coextensive. The only difference drawn by the Constitution is that only the 'natural born' citizen is eligible to be President."
• Miller v. Albright, 523 U.S. 420 (1998): A child born overseas to an American father and a foreign mother (not married) is not a U.S. citizen unless paternity is established before an established age (in this case 21). This case challenged the law on the grounds that U.S. law requires no explicit acknowledgment of parenthood in the case of a foreign-born child to an American mother and a foreign father (not married).
• Nguyen v. INS, 533 U.S. 53 (2001): As in the Miller v. Albright case, the Court holds that a child born overseas to an American father and a foreign mother (not married) is not a U.S. citizen unless paternity is established before an established age (in this case 18). The child was brought to the U.S. before his sixth birthday and raised by his father; however, after a criminal conviction, deportation was ordered but the child claimed U.S. citizenship. His citizenship was denied because paternity had not been established prior to his 18th birthday. The Court upheld the law, once again affirming that Congress has the power to define citizenship outside the citizenship dictated by the 14th Amendment (citizenship by birth).

[Lancey Howard]

When and How will the Obama Birth Certificate Forgery story break into the MSM?

Answer: As soon as McCain or some other elected Republican politician gets the guts to bring it up on TV, or better yet, on the floor of the House or Senate chamber.

[solfour]

Techdude provides very little context in his analysis of Obama’s supposed COLB, making it difficult for those of us who haven’t been following the issue to understand what he is talking about. It took a fair amount of time for me to look into the whole issue closely enough to convince me that techdude is probably right.

Activist suggestion: When techdude writes up his final report, he should provide necessary context so MSM types, not known for digging in when one of their favorites is being questioned, are led down an easy path to the truth. He should also get someone less involved in this issue to read it as a check on its readability.

[FFranco]

That’s my opinion. Just like the Enquirer broke the news about Edwards, they are the medium to first break the news that Obama is not qualified to be sworn in as President. Once all the evidence comes out, the MSM cannot ignore it.

[Polarik]

Go back to June 20th, and follow my posts from that point forward.