Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Obama's "natural born" problem
Renew America ^ | http://www.renewamerica.us/columns/huntwork/081212 | David Huntwork

Posted on 12/12/2008 9:18:49 PM PST by ckilmer

December 12, 2008

Obama's "natural born" problem
By David Huntwork

By now you are probably aware that there have been a multitude of lawsuits filed in regards to the question of whether or not President-elect Barack Obama is in fact eligible under the "natural born" provision of the Constitution of the United States of America to be the President of the United States (POTUS).

The Constitutional provisions are very specific when it comes to the minimal qualifications for President. One is to be over thirty-five. He is. Two, is being in the country fourteen years. He has been. Three, is to be a natural-born citizen. The latter remains unproven, a matter of contention, and appears to be increasingly unlikely to be true.

There are several variations on this theme, but the general and most often made argument is relatively simple and straightforward.

The Plaintiff in one of the filed suits put it this way.

The Obama campaign had insisted from the very beginning that Barack Obama was in fact born in the state of Hawaii which would automatically make him eligible for the highest office of the land. All US citizens are issued a birth certificate within a short time after birth. It would be very simple, and take about five minutes, for the Obama organization to put this rumor to rest and prove once and for all that this is just some wild conspiracy from the Internet rumor mill that should be mocked and ignored as simply "sour grapes" by a die hard few.

Except that Obama has steadfastly refused to release his birth certificate and has shown the willingness to spend a large amount of money on legal fees while enduring increasingly bad publicity by refusing to release it or any hospital records associated with a birth in the state of Hawaii.

One of the cases filed with the Supreme Court also raised the circumstances of Obama's time during his youth in Indonesia, where he was listed as having Indonesian citizenship. Indonesia did not allow dual citizenship at that time, raising the possibility of Obama's mother having given up his U.S. citizenship. Any subsequent U.S. citizenship then, the case claims, would be "naturalized," not "natural-born."

There have also been suspicions that Obama's college records may indicate he received aid as a foreigner, and that could be the reason why those records were never released.

The questions of his birth certificate and constitutional eligibility for POTUS have been ongoing for months. Unlike the convoluted conspiracies and "innovative" conjectures that have been leveled against various presidents including Bill Clinton and the current holder of the office, this particular allegation of constitutional ineligibility would be extremely easy to refute and the entire mess could be over in just a matter of minutes. The logical conclusion is that there has to be some sort of reason that this document (if it exists) has not been released. There is obviously something to hide here and I am not alone in my interest in what that may be.

Months ago the Obama campaign, in an attempt to "answer" this question, posted a copy of what was said to Obama's "Certification of Live Birth" on the official Obama website. The Main Stream Media and the Progressive blogosphere quickly and proudly pointed to it and proclaimed the case closed. Unfortunately, the posting of that document actually raised as many or more questions than it had supposedly answered. The computer-generated "Certification of Live Birth" is used by the state of Hawaii in lieu of the "Certificate of Live Birth," or if originally filed, a "Delayed Certificate of Birth," or even a "Certificate of Hawaiian Birth." For verification purposes, however, the "Certification of Live Birth" does not indicate which birth record "root document(s)" that the Certification is based upon.

Hawaii Revised Statute 338-178 allows registration of birth in Hawaii for a child that was born outside of Hawaii to parents who, for a year preceding the child's birth, claimed Hawaii as their place of residence. Obama's certification of live birth doesn't list a hospital, attending physician, or any witnesses of the birth that could be tracked down and investigated. The posted document is essentially worthless as any sort of proof that Obama was born in the United States and simply put does not prove natural-born status. Yet that document is the only evidence that Barack Obama has so far produced that he is in fact eligible to be the President of the United States.

My initial hunch was that Obama was in fact not born in Kenya, but that the name on the birth certificate was not "Barack Obama" but some other, possibly "Barry" with perhaps even a different last name (his mother's?). It is also perhaps an amended birth certificate (not uncommon in cases of adoption by a step parent) listing his now legal name as "Barry Sotoero" and thus somehow a cause of embarrassment or a potential political liability. Obama's adoption in Indonesia by his stepfather Lolo Sotoero would make that a very plausible scenario.

Such speculation is obviously conjectural. But much of Obama's youth is shrouded in mystery especially in regards to his Islamic schooling, upbringing in Indonesia, drug use, and later ties to a variety of radical and questionable characters and mentors. With that in mind, perhaps an actual birth in Kenya wouldn't be all that surprising but merely the icing on the cake when it comes to the strange, twisted and contradictory tale of Barack Obama's life.

There was some whispering about Senator John McCain's own natural-born citizenship status and POTUS eligibility early on and to his credit he produced his long form birth certificate in record time putting such questions to rest very quickly. Meanwhile, many months later, we are still sifting through rumors, Supreme Court petitions, multiple lawsuits from all over the country, and articles like this one while the Obama camp continues playing "whack a mole" in regards to questions about Obama's natural-born status.

Three things have made me take an interest in this sideshow saga and made me at least somewhat increasingly open to the idea that Barack Obama may in fact have been born in Kenya. The first is that the Kenyan ambassador to the United States has openly admitted that Obama was born in Kenya.

The sound clip can be found at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zH4GX3Otf14.

The second is that soon to be Secretary of Commerce and current New Mexico governor Bill Richardson is on record as stating that Obama is "an immigrant." An odd thing to say if it were not true, and an outright lie otherwise. You can view the video clip at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s5OUdj_YIpo&eurl=http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=83114&feature=player_embedded.

Perhaps the strongest anecdotal evidence is that Obama's own paternal grandmother has said on multiple occasions that she was there when Barack was born in Kenya. Obama's Kenyan half brother and half sister have also stated that Obama was born in Kenya. None of this anecdotal evidence is conclusive but combined with Obama's steadfast refusal to release his long form birth certificate it plants the seeds of suspicion and makes you really want to ask a simple question. What is he hiding? And why?

The real fun to be had with this story is not that Obama for any reason would be somehow decreed ineligible as the next President of the United States (it won't happen) but that there apparently is no oversight at all to the election process and a candidates eligibiliy for that office. Wouldn't it, and shouldn't it, be common sense and standard practice that some official or semi-official body like the Federal Election Commission or the respective major political parties require that all candidates for President of the United States provide proof that they meet the requirements for the office as stated in the Constitution? Is that really too much to ask?

Barack Obama has held elected office on the federal level, won his parties nomination for President, and then was elected President of the United States, all without providing proof that he is in compliance with the provisions laid down very plainly in the Constitution. One should be able to declare such a scenario as inconceivable, yet it appears to be all too true.

And for those of you who have studied history in any detail, the truth is far more often stranger than fiction. Obama may fall, and in many ways he already does, into that category. Who would have thought that an "I vote present" product of the incredibly corrupt Chicago political machine with a Leftist ideology, a Muslim stepfather, a socialistic economic policy, a radical spiritual mentor, and who is beholden to a domestic terrorist for the launching of his political career could so easily be elected to the Presidency of the United States of America? If I had pitched that scenario to you two years ago you would have called me crazy yet that is exactly the situation we find ourselves in.

I do believe this will probably not be little more than an interesting political sideshow that will end up as just another bizarre footnote in annals of history. It is somewhat disturbing though that we are apparently willing to just wave constitutional requirements for the highest office of the land whenever we see fit. One has to believe that altering and tampering with basic constitutional provisions is probably not very wise and not healthy for our form of government.

The glaring disgrace here is that Obama should have been forced to prove his eligibility for office (they all should) before the first primary election or caucus was held and that the Democratic Party failed miserably in its duty to make sure that they were offering up a legitimate and eligible candidate as their presidential nominee.

If indeed Barack Obama is constitutionally ineligible for the highest office in the land, and could theoretically be an unconstitutional president, it is not the child who dared mention that "The Emperor has no clothes!" who is being "embarrassing and destructive" by bringing this up, but the Democratic party and the electoral system as a whole which allowed an unqualified candidate with unproven, dubious credentials to be allowed to appear on the ballot in a national election.

In the worse case scenario we will have taken just another baby step towards losing our Republic and the rule of law when that dusty and irritating Constitution becomes something to just be ignored or set aside whenever it might be inconvenient, or upset some people, or just be impractical for this particular "situation."

Maybe we have reached the point where we just set aside parts of the Constitution if they are inconvenient and that might potentially be a problem for He Who Will Slow the Rising of the Seas and the fainting, ecstatic, potentially angry mob who propelled him to power. We have already journeyed a ways down the road once traveled by ancient Rome where the elites began to worry about the mood and reactions of the masses who openly threatened disorder and mayhem if they were unhappy, while those who held the reigns of power increasingly ignored the once revered rules that had held their political system together.

At the time of the publication of this article, Barack Obama still had not proved his eligibility to serve as President of the United States as defined by Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution of the United States of America. And he probably remains unable to do so.

© David Huntwork



TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Government; News/Current Events; US: Hawaii
KEYWORDS: artbell; birthcertificate; conspiracy; csection; goofy; kook; naturalborncitizen; newbie; obama; obamatruthfile; rubberroom; scotus; tinfoil; tinfoilhat
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-59 next last

1 posted on 12/12/2008 9:18:49 PM PST by ckilmer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: ckilmer

Born? I think he was hatched.


2 posted on 12/12/2008 9:26:17 PM PST by Paleo Conservative (Drill Here. Drill Now. Pay Less.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ckilmer
Dear SCOTUS,

Does or does not the Constitution protect our Democratic Republic against a foreign leader visiting the United States, having sex with a teenage American girl, conceiving a child, indoctrinating that child with an anti-American world view for 35 years, and then running that child as a candidate for POTUS to usurp the leadership of the nation? Yes? Great! I thought so. Thank you for removing ineligible candidate(s) from the election.

--Concerned Citizen
3 posted on 12/12/2008 9:31:23 PM PST by so_real
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ckilmer

ping for later


4 posted on 12/12/2008 9:35:03 PM PST by genxer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: so_real
Does or does not the Constitution protect our Democratic Republic against a foreign leader visiting the United States

Not to worry, Resko and Blagojevich will rid us of this imposter, leaving Barry free to run again in some other local Marlboro marathon.

5 posted on 12/12/2008 9:40:26 PM PST by budwiesest (America is about to enter the scariest four years of it's history.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Paleo Conservative

LOL


6 posted on 12/12/2008 9:41:08 PM PST by freekitty (Give me back my conservative vote.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: TigersEye

interesting


7 posted on 12/12/2008 9:42:18 PM PST by pandoraou812 (Don't play leapfrog with a unicorn! ...........^............)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: ckilmer

Are you referring to the scandal-plagued Obama administration-elect?...

Remember when Bill Clinton was first elected? His buddy was president of the cable network CNN, and forbid CNN employees from mentioning the word “scandal” when referring to the so-called president Clinton.

We’re obviously seeing the same sort of self-censorship happening in the media yet again.


8 posted on 12/12/2008 9:44:45 PM PST by Cringing Negativism Network ("Free Trade" = Fire Americans. Buy another company then fire more Americans.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Paleo Conservative

Hatched? Only birds, insects and reptiles are hatched....A bird he ain’t....


9 posted on 12/12/2008 9:44:59 PM PST by fantail 1952
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: budwiesest
I keep picturing Vladimir Putin kicking himself thinking "You mean I could have knocked up a teenage American girl and bought the freaking U.S. Presidency!?! Why didn't I think of that!?!"
10 posted on 12/12/2008 9:53:16 PM PST by so_real
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: so_real

Perhaps he did.


11 posted on 12/12/2008 9:55:24 PM PST by Cringing Negativism Network ("Free Trade" = Fire Americans. Buy another company then fire more Americans.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: ckilmer

Excellent article.

Lets see what happens come monday.

Lets see if the laws of the Constitution start to be tossed aside for sake of convenience.


12 posted on 12/12/2008 9:57:29 PM PST by Eye of Unk (Americans should lead America, its the right way.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ckilmer
As posted on other threads discussing this issue:

Something to consider in the discussion on 'natural born citizen':

The term “natural born citizen” has NEVER been defined in the U.S. Constitution or in codified U.S. law.

The OPERATIVE phrase of the 14th Amendment expressly states:

“All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside ...”

It says “citizens” NOT “natural born citizens”.

In situations like this, SCOTUS has USUALLY devolved to ascertain what the “original intent” of the framers was ... What does the 14th Amendment mean and what is its intended scope, as introduced the United States Senate in 1866?

Sen. Jacob M. Howard (MI), who introduced it in the Senate, tells us (as it was being debated):

“The first amendment is to section one, declaring that all “persons born in the United States and Subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the States wherein they reside. I do not propose to say anything on that subject except that the question of citizenship has been fully discussed in this body as not to need any further elucidation, in my opinion. This amendment which I have offered is simply declaratory of what I regard as the law of the land already, that every person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States. This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons. It settles the great question of citizenship and removes all doubt as to what persons are or are not citizens of the United States. This has long been a great desideratum in the jurisprudence and legislation of this country ... I concur entirely with the honorable Senator from Illinois [Senator Trumbull], in holding that the word “jurisdiction,” as here employed, ought to be construed so as to imply a full and complete jurisdiction on the part of the United States, whether exercised by Congress, by the executive, or by the judicial department; that is to say, the same jurisdiction in extent and quality as applies to every citizen of the United States now ...”

Sen. Lyman Trumbull, Chairman of the Judiciary Committee, author of the Thirteenth Amendment, inserted the phrase:

“... All persons born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens.’ That means ‘subject to the complete jurisdiction thereof.’ What do we mean by ‘complete jurisdiction thereof?’ Not owing allegiance to anybody else. That is what it means ... Can you sue a Navajo Indian in court? Are they in any sense subject to the complete jurisdiction of the United States? By no means. We make treaties with them, and therefore they are not subject to our jurisdiction. If they were, we wouldn’t make treaties with them...It is only those persons who come completely within our jurisdiction, who are subject to our laws, that we think of making citizens; and there can be no objection to the proposition that such persons should be citizens ...”

Senator W. Williams further stated:

” ... In one sense, all persons born within the geographical limits of the United States are subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, but they are not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States in every sense. Take the child of an ambassador. In one sense, that child born in the United States is subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, because if that child commits the crime of murder, or commits any other crime against the laws of the country, to a certain extent he is subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, but not in every respect; and so with these Indians. All persons living within a judicial district may be said, in one sense, to be subject to the jurisdiction of the court in that district, but they are not in every sense subject to the jurisdiction of the court until they are brought, by proper process, within the reach of the power of the court. I understand the words here, ‘subject to the jurisdiction of the United States,’ to mean fully and completely subject to the jurisdiction of the United States ...”

Rep. John Bingham of Ohio, considered the father of the Fourteenth Amendment, confirms the understanding and construction the framers used in regards to birthright and jurisdiction while speaking on civil rights of citizens in the House on March 9, 1866:
” ... I find no fault with the introductory clause [S 61 Bill], 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 [plural, meaning two] not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen...”

Barry Soetoro, aka Barack Hussein Obama, aka Barry Obama, admits on his own website that he held British citizenship at birth due to his Father being a British subject and in no way an American. Thus Barry is precisely whom Bingham was implying is not a 'natural born citizen' regardless of where he was born, for purposes of Constitutional eligibility.

13 posted on 12/12/2008 9:59:32 PM PST by MHGinTN (Believing they cannot be deceived, they cannot be convinced when they are deceived.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: pandoraou812

There is no doubt he is hiding something.


14 posted on 12/12/2008 10:12:34 PM PST by TigersEye (This is the age of the death of reason.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: so_real

You should not have to write that letter. All that the American people should have to say is that they have the right to know who is being installed in the WH instead of playing a guessing game, because the security of every citizen (inclusive that of the SCOTUS) is at stake in this time of war.


15 posted on 12/12/2008 10:14:49 PM PST by 353FMG (The sky is not falling, yet.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: MHGinTN

Logical, clear, and concise. This reading would be a lost on many (most?) of our Senators. But I still have high hopes for the SCOTUS.


16 posted on 12/12/2008 10:15:26 PM PST by so_real
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: ckilmer

This is the first i’ve heard of this. I’m sure this story will have great legs and that people aren’t working themselves up over something that will never happen.


17 posted on 12/12/2008 10:16:56 PM PST by DemonDeac
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TigersEye

Sure he is & if he would just show the darn thing all of this would stop. I still say it should be required that when you run you produce the correct info & documents or else you can’t run for office. Make it a law!!!


18 posted on 12/12/2008 10:29:03 PM PST by pandoraou812 (Don't play leapfrog with a unicorn! ...........^............)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: ckilmer
The real fun to be had with this story is not that Obama for any reason would be somehow decreed ineligible as the next President of the United States (it won't happen) but that there apparently is no oversight at all to the election process and a candidates eligibility for that office.

Then maybe the better scenario is that he is found to be ineligible during the first term, becomes totally ineffective, can't run for a second term and we get all that America is a racist nation nonsense out of the way.

19 posted on 12/12/2008 10:40:54 PM PST by TheThinker (Shame and guilt mongering is the Left's favorite tool of control.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ckilmer; LucyT
Who would have thought that an "I vote present" product of the incredibly corrupt Chicago political machine with a Leftist ideology, a Muslim stepfather, a socialistic economic policy, a radical spiritual mentor, and who is beholden to a domestic terrorist for the launching of his political career could so easily be elected to the Presidency of the United States of America? If I had pitched that scenario to you two years ago you would have called me crazy yet that is exactly the situation we find ourselves in.

and just how many sheep who voted for him, knew any of this?

20 posted on 12/12/2008 10:44:53 PM PST by Fred Nerks (FAIR DINKUM)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Fred Nerks

Fred, he’s not even the first ‘black president elect’ because he was spawned from a white woman’s womb, not a black woman’s womb! The entire image is a scam, foisting an affirmative action poseur.


21 posted on 12/12/2008 10:46:41 PM PST by MHGinTN (Believing they cannot be deceived, they cannot be convinced when they are deceived.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: ckilmer

Thanks for posting—very well written, laid outpiece.


22 posted on 12/12/2008 10:51:18 PM PST by bushwon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ckilmer

This chart clearly demonstrates US citizen, native born US citizen and natural born US citizen requirements.

http://www.theobamafile.com/NaturalBornCitizenChart.htm


23 posted on 12/12/2008 10:52:16 PM PST by Beckwith (Typical white person)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DemonDeac
This is the first i’ve heard of this.

if you mean ALL of it, you need to read

THE OBAMA FILE:link here.

I’m sure this story will have great legs

it's all over the Net - but nothing in the MSM.

and that people aren’t working themselves up over something that will never happen.

just what is that you think will never happen?

24 posted on 12/12/2008 10:52:19 PM PST by Fred Nerks (FAIR DINKUM)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: MHGinTN
The entire image is a scam, foisting an affirmative action poseur...

and that's only IF his father was who he claims him to have been. We STILL do not know if that's true.

25 posted on 12/12/2008 11:01:45 PM PST by Fred Nerks (FAIR DINKUM)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: MHGinTN

I have repeatedly explained this, exactly as you have here, to a great many people at FR. Always the rejoinder is: show us where it is stated, in the Constitution or in statutes, that a “natural born Citizen” must be born in the United States to parents who are both U.S. Citizens.

And always I am stumped - “natural born Citizen” is never defined, either in the U.S.Constitution, nor in other Federal statutes. It has been quite frustrating.

Obviously the Supreme Court must get off their backsides and do this NOW!


26 posted on 12/12/2008 11:31:50 PM PST by SatinDoll (NO FOREIGN NATIONALS AS OUR PRESIDENT!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Curiousity; MilspecRob; Fred Nerks; Calpernia; null and void; pissant; george76; PhilDragoo; ...
Barry Soetoro, aka Barack Hussein Obama, aka Barry Obama, admits on his own website that he held British citizenship at birth due to his Father being a British subject and in no way an American.

Thus Barry is precisely whom Bingham was implying is not a 'natural born citizen' regardless of where he was born, for purposes of Constitutional eligibility.

Thanks, Fred Nerks and MHGinTN.

Pinging to "The Heart of the Matter".

27 posted on 12/12/2008 11:40:09 PM PST by LucyT
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: so_real
Does or does not the Constitution protect our Democratic Federal Republic ,,,
28 posted on 12/12/2008 11:43:27 PM PST by Celtman (It's never right to do wrong to do right.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: DemonDeac
I’m sure this story will have great legs and that people aren’t working themselves up over something that will never happen.

Your intended sarcasm expresses exactly the sort of so-called "pragmatism" that has allowed incrementalists such as Obama the opportunity to usurp the presidency. It's been building for decades, and it's no coincidence that so many aspects of "citizenship" are being sorely tested of late.

29 posted on 12/12/2008 11:52:10 PM PST by RegulatorCountry
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: ckilmer
"If in fact Obama was born in Kenya, the laws on the books.....blah, blah..

Screw the laws!

"If in fact Obama was born in Kenya then 0bama should be tossed out on his ass for forging government documents (his COLB), Lying to the nation, concealing his true identity, applying for a job that he knew full well he was unqualified for.

Nixon was canned for less.

It's the cover up, stupid!

30 posted on 12/13/2008 12:32:14 AM PST by Wil H (No Accomplishments, No Experience, No Resume No Records, No References, Nobama..)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SatinDoll

Currently, Title 8 of the U.S. Code fills in those gaps. Section 1401 defines the following as people who are “citizens of the United States at birth:”

Anyone born inside the United States
Any Indian or Eskimo born in the United States, provided being a citizen of the U.S. does not impair the person’s status as a citizen of the tribe
Any one born outside the United States, both of whose parents are citizens of the U.S., as long as one parent has lived in the U.S.
Any one born outside the United States, if one parent is a citizen and lived in the U.S. for at least one year and the other parent is a U.S. national
Any one born in a U.S. possession, if one parent is a citizen and lived in the U.S. for at least one year
Any one found in the U.S. under the age of five, whose parentage cannot be determined, as long as proof of non-citizenship is not provided by age 21
Any one born outside the United States, if one parent is an alien and as long as the other parent is a citizen of the U.S. who lived in the U.S. for at least five years (with military and diplomatic service included in this time)
A final, historical condition: a person born before 5/24/1934 of an alien father and a U.S. citizen mother who has lived in the U.S.
Anyone falling into these categories is considered natural-born, and is eligible to run for President or Vice President. These provisions allow the children of military families to be considered natural-born, for example.


31 posted on 12/13/2008 12:39:35 AM PST by allmendream (Wealth is EARNED not distributed.... so how could it be Redistributed?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: allmendream

At first I thought the bc issue was silly, people grasping at straws, however after reading everything I could find on this subject, indeed it appears he is hiding something. I want to see that sealed bc in Hawaii and why would he keep fighting and hiring attorneys instead of just showing it? I don’t think he can, there is something to this, the question is what?


32 posted on 12/13/2008 12:47:29 AM PST by KellyM37
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: allmendream; All
a good friend of mine, born in Philippines of Chinese parents immigrated to the US in the 70’s..
He told me this whole Birth cert nonsense is not important
Obuma got elected, he should be president even if he was born in Africa. The constitution cannot overrule the vote.
Allowing millions of these voters here legally and illegal over the years and this is what you get.
The immigration issue has it's effects far and wide in what type of government we end up with..a case in point.
33 posted on 12/13/2008 3:23:44 AM PST by shadowgovernment (From the Ashes of a Republican rout will raise a Conservative Party)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: shadowgovernment
DSC_0067sm
34 posted on 12/13/2008 3:49:47 AM PST by Fred911 (YOU GET WHAT YOU ACCEPT)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: LucyT

Thank, LucyT

Post #27 Ping.


35 posted on 12/13/2008 3:56:15 AM PST by Iowan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: LucyT
I am thoroughly convinced that Obama is still, legally, an Indonesian citizen. He WAS adopted by Soetoro or else he could not have attended Indonesian state schools. That's why he first went to the Catholic school (expensive). He had to, until the adoption was finalized. He then transferred into the Indonesian state school system.

By US law (United States Code), Obama had six months after his 18th birthday to reapply for his American citizenship. That period was at the heighth of his drugging. I strongly suspect he didn't comply. Further, two years later, he traveled to Pakistan, unquestionably on his Indonesian passport, since Americans weren't welcome there and Paky was off limits to Americans per the State Department.
-

36 posted on 12/13/2008 4:43:33 AM PST by Beckwith (Typical white person)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: allmendream
Here's a visual chart. It makes understanding the citizenship issue easy.

The Natural Born Citizen Chart


37 posted on 12/13/2008 4:45:49 AM PST by Beckwith (Typical white person)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: ckilmer

His father not being a US citizen automatically makes him ineligible.

Definition of Natural Born:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/2148074/posts
Law of Nations


38 posted on 12/13/2008 5:01:58 AM PST by Calpernia (Hunters Rangers - Raising the Bar of Integrity http://www.barofintegrity.us)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: pandoraou812

The birth certificate is a moot issue. Natural born is defined as both parents being US citizens. Obama Senior was not a US citizen. Obama should never have been allowed this far.

Definition of Natural Born:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/2148074/posts
Law of Nations


39 posted on 12/13/2008 5:06:42 AM PST by Calpernia (Hunters Rangers - Raising the Bar of Integrity http://www.barofintegrity.us)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: SatinDoll

Definition of Natural Born:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/2148074/posts
Law of Nations


40 posted on 12/13/2008 5:12:04 AM PST by Calpernia (Hunters Rangers - Raising the Bar of Integrity http://www.barofintegrity.us)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: shadowgovernment

That is an extremely good point. We are all subject to the mind-sets of our upbringing. An immigrant such as your friend would not, naturally, have the same care or concern the Framers (and Freepers) do in protecting the inviolability of our new government. Their children, on the other hand, raised by naturalized parents on U.S. soil under our government rule, more likely would.


41 posted on 12/13/2008 6:08:09 AM PST by so_real
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: Celtman

Thank you ... that’s what I get for posting late at night :-)


42 posted on 12/13/2008 6:09:34 AM PST by so_real
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: atlbelle44

FYI


43 posted on 12/13/2008 6:13:14 AM PST by Canedawg ("The light shines in the darkness, but the darkness has not understood it")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SatinDoll; MHGinTN
“natural born Citizen” is never defined, either in the U.S.Constitution, nor in other Federal statutes

Once upon a time, the concept of "natural born" fell into the realm of "common sense". It was understood without statement. Our leaders are now weak; our education system is poor; naturalization standards are not met. We are a dumbed-down society. "Common sense" felt unwelcome and has left the building ...
44 posted on 12/13/2008 6:15:38 AM PST by so_real
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Beckwith
It makes understanding unsubstantiated claims easy. Really “theobamafile.com” isn't a reputable source for U.S. citizenship information.

Where is the actual relevant passage that shows that a “citizen at birth” is somehow not a “natural born citizen”?

45 posted on 12/13/2008 6:57:42 AM PST by allmendream (Wealth is EARNED not distributed.... so how could it be Redistributed?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: shadowgovernment
Allowing millions of these voters here legally and illegal over the years and this is what you get. The immigration issue has it's effects far and wide in what type of government we end up with..a case in point.

Bingo.

46 posted on 12/13/2008 9:13:34 AM PST by Faith
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: Calpernia

I have three questions for you and would appreciate hearing your opinion. Actually I would like anyone to weigh in if they can answer my questions or give their opinions.

Do you think it is possible that the SC Justices will consider joining the cases together and hear them AFTER the Electoral College vote due to the fact that Obama will not actually BE “President-Elect” until AFTER the vote on Monday?

I understand that a Judge in the Washington State SC has decided to hear a case. (I hope what I heard is correct.)
Is it possible for the Washington Supreme Court Judge to issue a stay in that State’s Electoral College vote on Monday?

The Electoral College meet at each state capital to cast their votes on Monday. If one or more Electoral College members of a particular state raise the question of constitutional qualifications, does that state Electoral College group have to resolve the issue before casting their votes?


47 posted on 12/13/2008 9:16:04 AM PST by seekthetruth
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: seekthetruth

Yo no speako legalo. But, IMO, I think it would be a very dangerous precedent to set to allow the electors meet and vote at all.

To date, we have found dead and non registered voter electors and have challenged them with no procedure in place to have these electors removed.

To date, NONE of the California electors have been certified.

If the electors are allowed to meet, this election will have a precedent in place by allowing an ineligible candidate voted in by POPULAR vote and not by a working, certified, vetted electoral college.


48 posted on 12/13/2008 10:45:50 AM PST by Calpernia (Hunters Rangers - Raising the Bar of Integrity http://www.barofintegrity.us)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: SatinDoll

It is a false assertion that stumps you. Since we have—as posted—the words of the men who actually authored aspects of the Constitution, such as Bingham, we have the meaning they intended for the term ‘natural born citizen’. The negative naybobs are always playing semantic games to try and destroy hope and spread their negative perspective coloring everything they touch or address. Don’t ya know it must be hell living with such insulting little pricks (little nettles, nothing more). They must tear down hope and spit on peace in order to feel alive!


49 posted on 12/13/2008 10:56:01 AM PST by MHGinTN (Believing they cannot be deceived, they cannot be convinced when they are deceived.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: shadowgovernment

“The constitution cannot overrule the vote.” In some other nation, perhaps, but here in America—at least up until the affirmative action fraud raised his wicked inger to usurp the office of presdient—the process is followed or the Constitutional Republic is no longer valid. We have a way to vote for change to the Constitution. The recent election was not that way.


50 posted on 12/13/2008 11:01:44 AM PST by MHGinTN (Believing they cannot be deceived, they cannot be convinced when they are deceived.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-59 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson