Posted on 11/26/2008 9:33:26 AM PST by jcsjcm
‘President-elect Barak Obama was born in Hawaii in 1961, so he is a natural born citizen.’
That is a big leap of faith for the Library of Congress to make. Let me guess they go the information from Factcheck.org.
Exactly! I still think that the dual citizenship comment was revealing in the fact that it is not allowed for the President. BO specifically states that he held dual citizenship on his web site. So, hmmmm....
President-elect Barak Obama was born in Hawaii in 1961, so he is a natural born citizen
That statement is not supported by any evidence yet.
I absolutely agree with you! His supposed birth certificate is not valid for the post that he wishes to hold. Still the question remains about the dual citizenship of which he states he held. And then if renounced, he would then only be a naturalized citizen at best.
Leo’s case calls into question both McCain and obama’s natural born status. The foundation of the case is that obama is a self declared dual citizen of US and GB and this makes him ineligible.
“President-elect Barak Obama was born in Hawaii in 1961, so he is a natural born citizen.”
Not so fast. The gist of the Donofrio lawsuit is that The One was born a British subject by virtue of his Kenyan father, and dual-citizenship is the problem, not the place of birth. Justice Thomas has docketed Donofrio’s suit for a conference review on 5 December. Details are at:
http://www.lanlamphere.com/public/2008/11/22/what-is-a-natural-born-citizen-by-leo-donofrio/
They are also dead wrong about the federal government not bearing the responsibility to assure that presidential candidates ascribe to Article 2.
The Constitution designates powers, limitations, and responsibilites of government, chiefly federal government. Nothing in it addresses political parties (which were considered an evil to be avoided, at our nation’s founding).
I believe the lower court in the Berg case ruled that it was Congress's responsibility to implement a vetting process if they wanted one. And that it was Congress's responsiblity to ceritify the election and was capable of vetting the candidates then.
It's happened because of neglect. They never put a control in place to make sure a candidate was elligible because inelligible candidates have never come so close before.
However, the problem is that with democrats in charge of the congress, they aren't likely to put a control in place or vetthe candidates until after Obama leaves office.
That's why the court needs to intervene.
His speech in Germany with his references to ‘citizens of the world’ seems to have significant meaning in Barack Obama’s case.
1. As his website acknowledges - at birth he was a British citizen as his father was Kenyan and since their law says that the father confers citizenship.
2. When Kenya became independent, he automatically became Kenyan as that was the terms of independence. (however at age 21, that may have been voided if he failed to confirm it)
3. He became Indonesian, either through adoption or through acclaiming citizenship as indicated in his school registration and use of his step-father’s name, and probably Indonesian passport.
4. He is American in that his birth was registered in Hawaii and his mother was American (except she was technically, according to the law at the time, not old enough to pass that citizenship to him).
The founding fathers specifically addressed the situation by distinguishing ‘natural born’ and grandfathered their status (having been mainly British subjects before the Constitution) the intent of which was to not have a President who had divided loyalties.
So, here we are today - the Constitution is relegated to a novelty imprint on toilet paper, and if that is the case, the President of the United States has no authority, the Congress and the Supreme Court likewise lack all authority, since that same Constitution is what empowers them. What a fine can of worms we have here - guess we should all go fishing and ‘hope’ it will all go away and that the ‘change’ doesn’t matter.
Really? Prove it.
Yell at the library of congress for that statment! I was just the patron... :)
I understand you though, this is all that we ask. PROVE IT. I just want to make sure that you don’t think I was the one that stated that nonfactual, unsubstantiated remark! I was only the Patron asking the question and I thought it amusing their reply.
This came from the Library of Congress! It’s absolutely pathetic their standard has been so lowered. No mention that Obama’s mother was not old enough at the time of his birth to bestow citizenship upon him. No mention that Obama admittedly held dual citizenship as a British subject at birth through his father. Tragic.
Mistake #1: John McCain was not born in the Canal Zone.
Mistake #2: John McCain was born in 1936.
True: McCain has always been a natural born citizen.
McCain has fought for this country, too. BHO has never served a damn day in our nation’s miliary.
That has not been established. Senate Resolution 511 had no legal weight behind it, even if it had passed. It could be that McCain is a citizen by statute. This is in no way a diminishment of his service to his country. It would, however, preclude him from ever becoming president under the Constitution.
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.