Posted on 07/30/2009 8:35:25 PM PDT by Edward Watson
The entire birther argument, that Obama was actually born in Kenya instead of the US, making him ineligible for holding the office of the President of the US, is a spurious argument. It plays into Obama and the liberals hands - they want this to continue since it makes regular conservatives and opponents into fringe wackos.
Not one of us would've looked harder at his legitimacy than Hilary Clinton and the entire Clinton smear machine during the Democratic primaries. That magic bullet would've given Hilary the presidency - and yet nada, bupkis.
There are many valid reasons to oppose Obama and the liberals, but his birthplace isn't one of them.
You mean the political challenge that the POTUS is more than likely not eligible to hold office?
If we can't verify his legitimacy than how do you expect we can accomplish anything else in terms of fighting this cabal?
BTW, welcome to FR
“Are you still ignoring the fact that he may have given up his citizenship even if he had it?”
Nope, but you are ignoring US law on citizenship in your suppositions.
Perhaps you have some definitive proof of the POTUS's eligibility and past O' wise noob
Don't worry about the dwarf, beware of the ZOT
You never did respond to my reply post 533
Here's the link again: Post 53
Sounds like you fell for O’Reilly and Bernie Goldberg’s analysis of the situation on Tuesday night...
There isn’t any other issue in the country except this one that could so easily be solved.
“”In WHOSE opinion?””
See my Post #605.....identical to their analysis.
“And why him being a con man is not an issue? “
His character is a political issue, thats a reason not to vote for him. Such suspicions are not a legal or Constitutional issue. If they were then the equally incensed loonies on the other side during the previous administration would have gotten a lot further with their silliness.
“And don’t EVER talk to me about common sense? Got it, bucko?”
I will indeed persist in this, because I see no evidence of any in your argumentation.
There were many Republicans who would have loved to do it...it just doesn’t make sense. Like most conspiracy theories, you really have to suspend disbelief.
Firstly, they already paint us as whackos. To back off of an argument for fear of the media painting us in a bad light is a losing strategy.
Secondly, look around at the resources being spent by the media and pols in defending what SHOULD be a ridiculous argument...
He is legally eligible to hold office.
He is a poor and risky choice for President.
The first is a legal issue, the second is a political one.
These are important distinctions.
Reading through the birther evidence that he was born somewhere other than Hawaii, the most reasonable conclusion is that he was born in Seattle, based on his mother’s enrollment there shortly after his birth. I wonder why the birther’s never put forth Seattle as a possible birthplace?
His past is shadow and smoke. There’s no paper trail. Why?
“The problem with your McCain post, by the way, is that you’re quoting Leaky Leahy”
You didnt even *READ* the link! The brief was by Bush solicitor general Ted Olson! It says nothing controversial but recounts basic legal understanding of what natural-born citizen means, so serves as education to birthers pushing an incorrect understanding of the term.
http://leahy.senate.gov/issues/Judiciary/McCainAnalysis.pdf
That statement came off the Dept. of State web site. I did not include a link simply for my health but for those that A) didn't know it all and wanted to learn; B) for those who wanted to verify what I was saying.
I am in total agreement with you; however, could you provide me any links as to where you got this information?
I was having a discussion with someone about this and I brought up the “million dollars trying to hide it” and they asked where I got that information. Is there somewhere that documents this?
Thanks -
“I am seeing people making interpretations of what they want “natural-born citizen” to mean rather than going back to original intent and source documents (e.g. Vattel).”
Vattel is a Swiss theorist and we ought not be in the habit of basing Constitutional interpretation on foreigners whose views were *never* put into US law directly. that goes *against* original intent. Further it goes *against* the Constitution to *ignore* the 14th amendment, which clearly redefined birthright citizenship and therefore what it meant to be natural-born citizen. Last, the view is in contradiction with English common law, which courts have held is a base for interpretation since Constitutional legal terms and contexts used that as a base.
In short, you are doing the opposite of what you claim you do when you rest your weak argument on a foreign source like Vattel.
We are better off going back to text, like 14th amendment, and SCOTUS interpretation of that, Wong Kim Ark ruling in particular, to to a foreigner like Vattel.
“I think defining NBC is an emotional issue for some”
Clearly. Why are you so invested in avoiding the obvious conlcusion that comes from looking at common-law and US court cases, that ‘natural-born citizen’ is just a term meaning ‘all those who acquired citizenship at birth’? It seems the argument is more emotional/agenda-driven than based on pure legalism.
Again, for your review:
http://leahy.senate.gov/issues/Judiciary/McCainAnalysis.pdf
The Constitution does not define the meaning of “natural born Citizen.” The U.S.
Supreme Court gives meaning to terms that are not expressly defined in the Constitution by
looking to the context in which those terms are used; to statutes enacted by the First Congress,
Marsh v. Chambers, 463 U.S. 783, 790-91 (1983); and to the common law at the time of the
Founding. United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, 655 (1898). These sources all confirm
that the phrase “natural born” includes both birth abroad to parents who were citizens, and birth
within a nation’s territory and allegiance.
In 1898, in the Wong Kim Ark case, the Supreme Court reexamined the "citizenship-by-birthplace-alone" theory, but did not decide whether it applied to natural born citizenship. The Court ruled that Mr. Ark was a citizen, but did not rule that he was a natural born citizen (SCOTUS in 'Wong Kim Ark').
” ‘At common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country, of parents who were its citizens, became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further, and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction, without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case, it is not necessary to solve these doubts. It is sufficient, for everything we have now to consider, that all children, born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction, are themselves citizens.’ Minor v. Happersett (1874) 21 Wall. 162, 166-168.”
“We want to see the physical evidence”
This has been released (COLB) and vouched for (state of Hawaii affirming his birthplace). You can choose to ignore or be skeptical of this, but let’s get off the bogus claim that there is no evidence provided. It has been.
“One last time: Do you or do you not want to see the documentation that will prove whether or not he, as an adult, affirmed his foreign citizenship?”
One last time: That’s a loaded question based on a fact-free premise being used to justify a fishing expedition.
I’m all for finding out more about Obama, but
I am not for making bogus and inflammatory allegations in order to advance these demands that just make conservatives look like gullible kooks. There is zero evidence Obama ever affirmed, acknowledged or even was a foreign citizen. There is zero evidence Obama ever renounced his US citizenship status which he acquired at birth. Claims otherwise are allegations without basis and based on a ‘guilty until proven innocent’ mindset. “Let’s say he did X,Y,Z and demand he prove his innocence of our allegation.”
You can start accusing your local pastor of being a child molestor, and demand to see his personal computer to document and prove that he’s not, and justify it by saying you are demanding proof for the sake of your child, but if you sued the pastor based on no evidence of such wrongdoing, you’d be considered (rightfully so) to be engaging in lawsuit harrassment.
Then take off the mandatory state run rose colored glasses, they’re blinding to reality.
“College is irrelevent”
“Hardly, if he attended as a citizen of a foreign power. “
Still irrelevent, even if that particular fairy tale were true. (Its not.) You dont lose natural-born US citizenship status due to some other national citizenship. See Perkins v Elg.
“Again, the burden of proof is on him, not us.”
He has given sufficient validation of being born in Hawaii, and there is zero evidence he ever renounced his US citizenship. Dismissing those facts while demanding irrelevent documentation is ‘guilty until proven innocent’ stuff.
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.