Skip to comments.On "Birthers"
Posted on 07/29/2009 7:25:35 PM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
So... If we can't ask about Obama's birth certificate without being dismissed as nutjob, tinfoil-hat conspiracy theorists, can we ask a few other questions without being maligned solely through the use of childish name calling, silly syllogism and sorry sophistry?
Ok. So let's forget the birth certificate for a moment and ask Mr. Obama a couple of other questions...or are we still allowed to do that?
* Kindergarten records (not even a kindergarten record?)
* Punahou school records
* Occidental College records
* Columbia University records
* Columbia thesis
* Harvard Law School records
* Harvard Law Review articles
* scholarly articles from the University of Chicago
* medical records
* files from his years as an Illinois state senator
* Illinois State Bar Association records
* baptism records, if any
* adoption records
All missing or otherwise unavilable.
There is no American birth certificate for Obama. None. Zero. Zip. Nada. A COLB is not an original, legal, birth certificate, nor is an ad in the lifestyle section of a local newspaper considered to be a legal birth certificate. Public statements by politicians and bureacrats are not legal birth certificates. Although such things can be considered as evidence, they are not proof. They are hearsay evidence, only. (In fact, Mr. Obama's sister, Maya Soetoro, has a Hawaiian COLB and she was born in Indonesia.)
The COLB from Hawaii is the same document that journalists and activists from both sides, as well as bureaucrats and politicians across the nation are offering as primary support of assertions that Mr. Obama is a natural born citizen of the U.S. If, in fact, he is a legal citizen, it does notnecessarily follow that he is a natural-born citizen. There is a difference. Follow-up question regarding his mother's citizenship status are also valid and do not require a tinfoil hat or a mental illness in order to ask them.
In view of other evidences, in view of his personal and business associations, and in view of Mr. Obama's apparently missing or hidden background and resume, the question about his birth certificate remains valid. In fact, it is the most important question of all.
Assuming there is no legal birth certificate (and at this point in time and in view of the lack of an original birth certificate, it can only be assumed that there isn't one), this means that the Electoral College never verified his eligibility before they voted for him. It means that FEC never verified his eligibility. It means that the DNC never verified his eligibility. It means that the state legislatures and state governors who signed off on the results of the Electoral College never verified his eligibility. It means that the House and Senate never verified his eligibility. 'Eligibility' meaning, in this case, that no one has actually *seen* an original, legal, 'long form' American birth certificate for Mr. Obama.
In all, it means that The Constitution has been effectively nullified either thorough incompetence or by corruption at every step of the political process. It means that American social and political contracts are completely broken down. This is why the question is so important.
The question remains valid. Where is the - original - birth certificate?
Conspiracy theories, tinfoil hats, mental illness and even rascism are not a requirement for asking such questions. In fact, such accusations against innocent Americans who are simply asking questions of their leadership tell us something about American discourse and freedom that should send shivers down your spines.
For the judicial system at all levels to declare that any American citizen has no standing to file a suit requesting to verify any elected official's qualifications says other things about America that should give you pause.
see also: http://obamaism.blogspot.com/
It's got to be making him crazy that he made it to the mountaintop, yet can't enjoy his time in history because of the approaching storm.
He's no more than a cornered rat in a palace, but he's committed a crime of almost unimaginable proportions. The repercussions will be likewise almost unimaginable for him.
He's gonna need more drugs than MJ to cope.
It is not true that in order to be a natural born US citizen that both parents must be US citizens. Only one must be, but there is both an age and a residency requirement for that one if the baby is born out of the USA.
I think I have that right.
For example, Obama would not be a natural born US citizen, even if his mama were a US citizen, if he had been born out of the US prior to her having attained X age + X years of residency over a certain age.
I was basing these stipulations on the following page from theobamafile.com
Note in the section defining natural born citizen there is a judicial citation supporting the two-parent rule...
NATURAL BORN CITIZEN
Both are U. S. Citizens
Born in the U.S. mainland
Per the following...
US Constitution Art. II, Sec. 1, Cl. 5. U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898)
Perkins v. Elg, 307 U.S. 325 (1939)
“being a “natural born citizen” are 1) being born in the U.S. and 2) both parents must be U.S. citizens,”
What this means is that no clone or unnaturally birthed person can be President......that might disqualify the House majority leader as third in line.
Please, he’s arrogant enough. Don’t give him any more ideas. He already thinks he’s the second coming.
Is Satan a US Citizen?
Or was he a citizen at the time that Obama was conceived?
I always look to you for the dry, textbook response.
Here is the current US Code. Para G is the issue, iirc. I understand that the law for natural-born citizenship at the time of birth is the law that determines. Pissant has, I believe, a link to what the actual law was in 1961 when Obama was born.
The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth:
(a) a person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof;
(b) a person born in the United States to a member of an Indian, Eskimo, Aleutian, or other aboriginal tribe: Provided, That the granting of citizenship under this subsection shall not in any manner impair or otherwise affect the right of such person to tribal or other property;
(c) a person born outside of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents both of whom are citizens of the United States and one of whom has had a residence in the United States or one of its outlying possessions, prior to the birth of such person;
(d) a person born outside of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is a citizen of the United States who has been physically present in the United States or one of its outlying possessions for a continuous period of one year prior to the birth of such person, and the other of whom is a national, but not a citizen of the United States;
(e) a person born in an outlying possession of the United States of parents one of whom is a citizen of the United States who has been physically present in the United States or one of its outlying possessions for a continuous period of one year at any time prior to the birth of such person; (f) a person of unknown parentage found in the United States while under the age of five years, until shown, prior to his attaining the age of twenty-one years, not to have been born in the United States;
(g) a person born outside the geographical limits of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is an alien, and the other a citizen of the United States who, prior to the birth of such person, was physically present in the United States or its outlying possessions for a period or periods totaling not less than five years, at least two of which were after attaining the age of fourteen years: Provided, That any periods of honorable service in the Armed Forces of the United States, or periods of employment with the United States Government or with an international organization as that term is defined in section 288 of title 22 by such citizen parent, or any periods during which such citizen parent is physically present abroad as the dependent unmarried son or daughter and a member of the household of a person
(A) honorably serving with the Armed Forces of the United States, or
(B) employed by the United States Government or an international organization as defined in section 288 of title 22, may be included in order to satisfy the physical-presence requirement of this paragraph. This proviso shall be applicable to persons born on or after December 24, 1952, to the same extent as if it had become effective in its present form on that date; and
(h) a person born before noon (Eastern Standard Time) May 24, 1934, outside the limits and jurisdiction of the United States of an alien father and a mother who is a citizen of the United States who, prior to the birth of such person, had resided in the United States.
But as was pointed out, there is a difference between "nationals" and "citizen" and "native born citizen" and "natural-born citizen."
A child born in the US to two illegal immigrants in the US is a citizen of the US, but he is not eligible for the Presidency.
The question is where is "natural-born citizen" defined?
Your non-answer to a very simple question is telling.
“nationals and citizens...AT BIRTH” = “natural born”
“Natural born” is all about being “born” a citizen of the US.
Some are not “born” citizens and have to be granted citizenship at some point AFTER birth. Many believe that is the case with Obama. There is no doubt that he is NOW a citizen. The question is whether he was automatically a citizen at birth.
If his mother, 18 at the time of his birth, was overseas with her man, Obama Sr., in his native country, then BO’s mom did NOT fulfill the 5 year requirement for residency after the age of 14 listed in the law above.
I understand that to be the legal argument against BO’s “born a US citizen” status.
I believe that citizen-at-birth is a necessary, but not a sufficient basis for finding "natural born citizen" for constitutional purposes, under the intention of the founders.
If one adopts the construction you advocate, then an infant born to illegal aliens, literally with allegiance to a foreign nation, and raised with allegiance to a foreign nation, is "natural born" and therefore eligible. But the writings of the day bothered to notice the allegiance of the parents. Your analysis doesn't notice the allegiance of the parents, at all.
Right or wrong (I think it’s wrong), the way the current law is written, the infant of illegal aliens, if that infant is born in the USA, is a natural born US citizen.
See paragraph “a” in post 128, which is a copy/paste of Title 8, Section 1401 US Code.
That’s why folks get upset over “anchor babies.”
Some lawyer can feel free to correct me, if I’m wrong.
The word "natural" (and therefore the legal term of art, "natural born citizen") does not appear in 8 USC 1401. 8 USC 1401 defines "citizenship," and that terms appears as a qualifier for Congress.
-- That's why folks get upset over "anchor babies." --
Not exactly. The anchor baby phenomenon irks people because the babies are used to give immigration/naturalization preference to people who broke the immigration laws in the first place.
The qualification for the presidency is an issue that occurs infrequently, and to a small fraction of the population.
While the location of birth is highly relevant in a citizenship inquiry (countries tend to want to "control" everybody born on their turf), the citizenship of parents is ALSO highly relevant, and in some cases is absolutely determinative.
Naturalization Act of 1790 (http://pds.lib.harvard.edu/pds/viewtext/5596748?op=t&n=1)
And the children of citizens of the United States that may be born beyond fea, or out of the limits of the United States, fhall be confidered as natural born citizens: Provided, That the right of citizenfhip fhall not defcend to perfons whofe fathers have never been refident in the United States
You do realize that under xzin's Constitutional find that Spock has a chance to be elected.
Spock is the son of Vulcan ambassador Sarek and human Amanda Grayson.
This lady was holding this sign at an LA Times freep back in Oct.
The document is about "Acquisition of US Citizenship by Birth Abroad to a US Citizen Parent." Obama wasn't born abroad, so I don't see how this is at all relevant. Please clarify.
None of the other documents the woman is asking for are in any way relevant to his eligibility to be president.
By conflating the two issues, you are contaminating the legitimate one (lack of transparency) with an absurd one (eligibility).
Your belief is wrong. See US v. Kim Wong Ark.
The citizenship of the parents is only relevant when the child is born abroad. If born on US soil, it is not.
This need not justify anchor babies, however. To be a natural born citizen, a child needs to be born in the US and be "subject to the jurisdiction thereoff." That's why US-born children of diplomats aren't citizens at birth.
While a legal resident alien is clearly under US jurisdiction, it has been argued that an illegal alien, and therefore his offspring, is not. SCOTUS has not definitively resolved this matter.
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.