Not on the Hawaiian Certificate of Live Birth, at least not in the early 1960s.
Posted on 07/27/2009 10:45:58 AM PDT by EveningStar
Ann Coulter brushes off the nirth certifikit kooks as just a few cranks, nothing to worry about, pay no attention, it’s the media trying to make conservatives look bad again...
And over at Free Republic, hundreds of commenters are now convinced that Ann Coulter is a RINO and a traitor...
(Excerpt) Read more at littlegreenfootballs.com ...
Not on the Hawaiian Certificate of Live Birth, at least not in the early 1960s.
Maybe it did and maybe it didn't. That one, the bad photos from factcheck, was fake too. The letter cast shadows, among other issues.
The word "past" does not appear in that clause, but wouldn't change the meaning if it did, as far as I can "parse". But yest it would be a problem, at least for those instances where he did not vote "Present".
Good point.
That is an exaggeration. What is not is that LGF is completely down the toilet.
Thanks for missing the point entirely.
Elg spent far more time in Sweden than Obama did in Indonesia.
Was Obama a US citizen at time of birth?
If yes, and he never renounced it, then he never lost his citizenship.
“The question in “Elg” was could she lose her citizenship, natural born or otherwise, on account of the treaty with Sweden, and the actions of her parents. The answer to that was no. But she first had to be a citizen, and in her case she was a natural born citizen.”
I am not using Elg case to justify Obama’s natural-born citizenship status. I am using Elg case to debunk the red herring about other nation’s citizenship status somehow ‘un-making’ his US citizenship status. It holds no water.
I hope you at least agree with me on these basic facts that relate to Elg and US law:
1) IF OBAMA WAS A CITIZEN AT TIME OF BIRTH, HE NEVER LOST IT (SINCE HE NEVER RENOUNCED US CITIZENSHIP)
2) ACTIONS OF OTHER NATIONS HAD NO EFFECT ON OBAMA’S US CITIZENSHIP STATUS, ONLY US LAW APPLIES
3) HIS PARENTS COULD NOT RENOUNCE HIS CITIZENSHIP FOR HIM (WITHOUT HIS EXPLICIT CONSENT) (this is US law)
I will add this one:
4) IF OBAMA WAS BORN IN HONOLULU, HE IS A US CITIZEN BY 14TH AMENDMENT BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP CLAUSE AND SCOTUS WONG KIM ARK RULING
I am deliberately leaving out ‘natural-born’ in #4 to at least make sure where our common ground is.
“Children of parents owing their allegiance to foreign governments born on U.S. soil required an interpretation from the Supreme Court to even be considered “citizens” (see Wong Kim Ark)”
It was a simple application the 14th Amendment, so “to even be considered” citizens is a misnomer. Children of foreign parents who born in the USA are considered citizens at time of birth (unless those parents are invaders or diplomats); they are ‘under the jurisdiction’.
” — natural born was off the table entirely.”
Wrong. No court have ever ruled that way. The simple fact is this: Natural-born citizen and citizen acquired at time of birth are one and the same.
SCOTUS in Wong Kim Ark did *not* rule he wasnt natural-born US citizen and indeed were that the question, the reasoning of the court would have led to the answer “yes”. It was not explicitly the question, only citizenship was. However, “natural-born” was the English common law term of those who acquired subjecthood/citizenship through soil at time of birth. The Wong ruling used the English common law understanding to apply the term ‘under the jurisdiction’. in terms of ‘allegiance’, they read it in terms of being ‘in the realm’, ie having to follow the laws. So resident aliens who have children here have those children ‘under the jurisdiction’. The common law usage used the term of art “natural-born” to describe those situations. See the Wong Ark ruling itself:
“In U. S. v. Rhodes (1866), Mr. Justice Swayne, sitting in the circuit court, said: ‘All persons born in the allegiance of the king are natural- born subjects, and all persons born in the allegiance of the United States are natural-born citizens. Birth and allegiance go together. Such is the rule of the common law, and it is the common law of this country, as well as of England.’ ‘We find no warrant for the opinion that this great principle of the common law has ever been changed in the United States. It has always obtained here with the same vigor, and subject only to the same exceptions, since as before the Revolution.’” United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, 662-663 [cit. omitted.]
Note, if the CHILD is in the allegiance of the US (ie under its jurisdiction), the child is a ‘natural-born citizen’. It doesnt matter if the parents are citizens or not.
Bingham’s quote does not contradict that in any way that, and in some ways confirms it. Bingham merely states the common understanding of the law in his time and place.
He merely is restating the common understanding in common law of what natural-born citizen is - AND he is asserting ‘lets expand it to anyone born in the jurisdiction’ which the 14th did. I think he wrote prior to the 14th amendment, which settled the birthright citizenship matter for US citizens for the most part. US law has filled in the details, such that even if Obama was born overseas to a single US mother and an alien father, he’d be a citizen at birth. Likewise for Senator McCain, even though it required a statute to put into effect that McCain was a citizen at birth, it was and is viewed as clear that if McCain was a citizen at birth (he was) then he was/is ‘natural-born’ and thus eligible to be President.
More on the common equivalence between ‘natural-born citizen’ and ‘citizen at time of birth’ in this briefing concerning McCain’s eligibility:
http://leahy.senate.gov/issues/Judiciary/McCainAnalysis.pdf
“If the Panama Canal Zone was sovereign
U.S. territory at the time of Senator McCain’s birth, then that fact alone would make him a
“natural born” citizen under the well-established principle that “natural born” citizenship
includes birth within the territory and allegiance of the United States. See, e.g., Wong Kim Ark,
169 U.S. at 655-66. The Fourteenth Amendment expressly enshrines this connection between
birthplace and citizenship in the text of the Constitution. U.S. Const. amend. XIV, § 1 (”All
persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are
citizens of the United States .... “) (emphases added). Premising “natural born” citizenship on
the character of the territory in which one is born is rooted in the common-law understanding
that persons born within the British kingdom and under loyalty to the British Crown-including
most of the Framers themselves, who were born in the American colonies-were deemed
“natural born subjects.” See, e.g., 1 William Blackstone, Commentaries on the Laws a/England
354 (Legal Classics Library 1983) (1765) (”Natural-born subjects are such as are born within the
dominions of the crown of England, that is, within the ligeance, or as it is generally called, the
allegiance of the king .... “).”
Now it is used commonly as an identification number, and the statement has been removed from the card (I still have my original).
It is likely that their SSNs were not used for that reason, a convention which has changed considerably.
How about the issue regarding the newspaper announcement? The thing that pushed Hot Air into rejecting that something was fishy?
Apparently, neither Dunham nor Obama ever resided in the place of residence that’s presented on that birth announcement in the papers.
A leftist professor named Orland Scott Lefforge and his wife did. He died in 2007 and she died 10 days before this newspaper announcement was “discovered.”
Well, you keep pretending to miss my point, so why should I hit yours? ;-)
LGF isn’t a legit source any longer.
Thanks justiceseeker93. What’s with that Coulter bound pic being so small? ;’)
“Rep. A. Smyth, Virginia, House of Representatives, December 1820:... Could history be any more clear?”
Surely, you jest. History IS clear. This statement of 1820 PRECEDED the 14th Amendment. The 14th Amendment reset our laws on birthright citizenship:
“All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States . . . .”
The 14th Amendment defined Constitutionally the conditions of citizenship at birth, superceding any prior definition in law of birthright citizenship. The common understanding of that birthright citizenship clause is that if you are born in the USA and subject to our laws (ie not an invader or diplomat) you are a US citizen:
Now, you can argue against the above common view and even argue against SCOTUS Wong Kim Ark ruling, but one thing you cannot credibly argue is a difference between ‘natural-born citizen’ and any other form of citizenship acquired at birth. They are one and the same. See:
http://nativeborncitizen.wordpress.com/2009/07/24/steinkauler-continued/
“First it established that the term ‘native born’ is equivalent to the term ‘natural born’ and that a ‘native born American citizen … can become President of the United States’.”
The court case quote itself: “Young Steiukauler is a native-born American citizen. There is no law of the United States under which his father or any other person ran deprive him of his birthright.
He can return to America at the age of twenty-one, and in due time, if the people elect, he can become President of the United States; “
So the SCOTUS is saying “native-born citizen” means eligible for the Presidency! I just found the above linked blog, which is going through point-by-point on the birther court cases.
“I cannot see how you can spin Bingham’s quote to support your position.”
Bingham has suggested to extend citizenship from just that anyone born in the US should be made a citizen at birth, the position adopted in the 14th amendment. You are misreading the semantics of his quote simply because he elided natural-born in part of the paragraph. In no place does his explicitly create 2 categories, that is your (mis)interpretation of it.
The question asked: Was Obama a US citizen at time of birth?
The core issue: is zer0 eligible to be president of the United States? Other questions just muddy the waters. I have no argument as to whether zer0 is a U.S. citizen. It has no bearing on the core issue.
I think LGF is running scared. It’s a shame CJ was first rate.
The first question is: Was Obama a citizen at birth?
How come you won’t answer that question directly?
“I have no argument as to whether zer0 is a U.S. citizen. It has no bearing on the core issue.”
LOL. What a silly thing to say. Since you need to be a citizen to run for office, of *course* it has bearing. Jeez.
How can I answer? I have never seen his birth certificate.
LOL. What a silly thing to say. Since you need to be a citizen to run for office, of *course* it has bearing. Jeez.
It has no bearing because he is not a natural-born citizen of the United States and therefore not eligible to be president no matter where he was born, and no matter whether he is a U.S. citizen, a citizen of the U.S. or a native-born citizen of the U.S.
If you still have trouble understanding plain English, I can't help you. You may now re-re-re-re-repeat your question and continue to jeer at me.
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.