Posted on 08/16/2009 7:56:07 PM PDT by DavidFarrar
Of course many Democrats are upset with the title, but it's true. Most Democrats know Barack Obama can't meet the provisions of Article ll, Section l, Clause 5 of the U.S. Constitution, or at least aren't sure whether he can or not.
Rather than go all over the issues again, let's just go to Congressman Bill Posey's bill:
The Presidential Eligibility Act (H.R. 1503)
Here's my point: Most people are shocked when they learn there is no formal qualification process to run for the President of the United State, once the most powerful position in the world. People see themselves being required to produce a birth certificate to place their children in public school, get a new driver's license, any number of state and federal functions now days where a person's identify is required, except when running for the Presidency of the United States. There the only thing required is your honorable word that you have meet all of the requirements.
Civil wars have been started over far less. So wouldn't it be prudent to take this Birther issue, even if you don't believe a word of it, and support legislation that would act to avoid this kind of "misunderstanding" in the future? It seems like a slam-dunk piece of common sense legislation. So why aren't Democrats crawling all over this bill?
Now I am sure we are going to hear a lot of excuses, but the bottom line is, if Democrats are so sure Barack Obama can meet the requirements of Article ll, Section l, Clause 5 of the U.S. Constitution, they should be supporting this legislation for the good of the country. And the only real reason why they aren't is because they too believe their man can't meet muster. It's as simple as that.
So if you want to know who actually believes Barack Obama can't meet his Constitutional requirements, all you have to do is look at what people do, or, in this case, what they don't do, instead of listening to their words.
ex animo
davidfarrar
ps: Note what it says in the lower left-hand corner:"DATE FILED BY REGISTRAR". This means there was some information contained in Barack Obama's "certificate of live birth" application the registrar could not independently verify. Think about it.
Brilliant!
The way I see it is this: There’s only one person responsible for the so-called “birthers”, and he can end all of this nonsense very easily. He chooses not to.
Oh so many reasons why O is ineligible. His place of birth is only one issue, as people on FR know.
The publik skools have done their socialist jobs so well, that anyone can be elected president now.
I will not used the “b” word they use to describe good Americans. We are “Constitutionalists”. We are Americans. We deserve a real president.
“ps: Note what it says in the lower left-hand corner:”DATE FILED BY REGISTRAR”. This means there was some information contained in Barack Obama’s “certificate of live birth” application the registrar could not independently verify.”
Where did you get the info please? I have wondered about that. I have seen an old one that stated date received by registrar, and your explaintion seems very reasonable, but how do you know that is what it means?
I got it straight from the horse’s mouth..here.
There was a post with what’s her name’s Hawaiian COLB that was issued at around the same time as Obama’s, only she was born in a hospital, with a birth doctor who witnessed the birth as such, and in the lower left-hand corner of her COLB it read: “DATE ACCEPTED BY THE STATE REGISTRAR.” The poster further explained that having Obama’s COLB only filed by the Registrar meant that there was some information the Registrar could not independently verify on the birth certificate application, as opposed to the other COLB whose information had been independent verified.
By the way, a good question to ask Hawaiian Health officials right about now would be, “Did they save Barack Obama’s “Certificate of Live Birth” application?”
ex animo
davidfarrar
If you do a search on FR for threads associated with this issue, you'll find lots of sourced information.
If this could somehow EVER get to a formal hearing where a judge would accept evidence - an attorney COULD argue TWO points ...
1. That he WAS NOT born in Hawaii ...
AND
2. EVEN IF he was born in Hawaii, he COULD NOT be a natural born citizen (as the Founding Fathers knew it and drafted it into the Constitution) since the British Nationality Act of 1948 recognized him as a British citizen at the moment of birth.
Obama IS a dual national, which is INCOMPATIBLE with natural born citizenship as the Founding Fathers knew it.
As the Constitution HAS NEVER been amended to modify this term to include dual nationals, he is rightly disqualified from natural born citizen status ...
Well kind of. Oddly enough, I am perhaps the only birther who does see a small wedge in your reasoning that just might be big enough for the Supreme Court to declare Barack Obama a “natural born” citizen.
I’ll give you a hint: The Supreme Court isn’t going to take judicial notice of the British Nationality Act of 1948. They will confine themselves to the U.S Constitution and the meaning of Article ll, Section ll, Clause 5.
ex animo
davidfarrar
Interesting point...
Most Democrats are Birthers too.
Of course many Democrats are upset with the title, but it's true. Most Democrats know Barack Obama can't meet the provisions of Article ll, Section l, Clause 5 of the U.S. Constitution, or at least aren't sure whether he can or not.
Rather than go all over the issues again, let's just go to Congressman Bill Posey's bill
Ping to Article.
I’ll give you a hint: The Supreme Court isn’t going to take judicial notice of the British Nationality Act of 1948.
They will confine themselves to the U.S Constitution and the meaning of Article ll, Section ll, Clause 5.
***
SCOTUS has ruled that there IS NO Common Law in the United States. However, absent any CLEAR understanding of the language and law in the Constitution, SCOTUS has suggested time and again that Common Law ought be consulted in order to arrive at a decision.
See Wheaton v. Peters (January Term 1834), Minor v. Happersett (March 29, 1875), Smith v. Alabama (January 30, 1886), and United States v. Wong Kim Ark (March 28, 1898).
Mind you, I said ought be consulted - not bound by ...
Why, you may ask ???
Because the Founding Fathers, in separating from England, DID NOT ENTIRELY abandon Common Law - they ONLY abandoned what they objected to specifically. * (See COMMENT, below).
In fact, the MAJORITY of Common Law became the basis of U.S. law. The lawyers amongst the Founding Fathers were schooled in Common Law (Blackstone) and (to a lesser extent) the Law of Nations (Vattel).
Now, you need to examine and FULLY read Blackstone’s Commentaries on the Laws of England Book I, Chapter X: Of the People, Whether Aliens, Denizens, or Natives VERY CAREFULLY. It describes WHO is a natural-born subject.
Blackstone declares that, “ ... the children of aliens, born here in England, are, generally speaking, natural-born subjects, and entitled to all the privileges of such ...”.
The OPERATIVE phrase is “GENERALLY SPEAKING” - it is NOT a definitively declarative statement, therefore, there MUST be AT LEAST one condition where children born of aliens in England ARE NOT natural-born subjects.
In order to ascertain this, you THEN need to examine the traits AND characteristics of a natural-born subject.
Per Blackstone, “ ... the natural-born subject of one prince cannot by any act of his own … put off or discharge his natural allegiance … and cannot be divested without the concurrent act of that prince to whom it was first due. Indeed the natural-born subject of one prince, to whom he owes allegiance, may be entangled by subjecting himself absolutely to another; but it is his own act that brings him into these straits and difficulties, of owing service to two masters; and it is unreasonable that, by such voluntary act of his own, he should be able at pleasure to unloose those bands, by which he is connected to his natural prince ...”.
” ... Local allegiance is such as is due from an alien … for so long time as he continues within the king’s dominion and protection: and it ceases, the instant such stranger transfers himself from this kingdom to another. Natural allegiance is therefore perpetual, and local [allegiance] temporary only ...”.
” ... An alien born may purchase lands, or other estates: but not for his own use; for the king is thereupon entitled to them. If an alien could acquire a permanent property in lands, he must own an allegiance, equally permanent with that property, to the king of England; which would probably be inconsistent with that, which he owes his own natural liege lord ...”.
” ... And this maxim of the law proceeded upon a general principle, that every man owes natural allegiance where he is born, and cannot owe two such allegiances, or serve two masters, at once ...”.
” ... A Denizen is an alien born, but who has obtained ex donatione regis letters patent to make him an English subject … A denizen is in a kind of middle state between an alien, and natural-born subject, and partakes of both of them … And no denizen can be of the privy council, or either house of parliament, or have any office of trust, civil or military, or be capable of any grant from the crown ...”.
” ... Naturalization cannot be performed but by act of parliament: for by this an alien is put in exactly the same state as if he had been born in the king’s ligeance; except only that he is incapable … of being a member of the privy council, or parliament, etc. ...”.
Assuming he was born in Hawaii, Obama fits the GENERAL definition of a natural-born subject since he was the child of an alien who was born in the U.S.
HOWEVER, Obama FAILS to meet the traits AND characterisitics of a natural-born subject. That is because he DOES NOT owe a SINGULAR natural allegiance to ONE sovereign or government.
Why, you may ask ???
Because, per the 14th Amendment, he is a citizen of the U.S. AND, per the British Nationality Act of 1948, he is a British subject.
Obama is a dual national which, if you look CLOSELY at Blackstone, EXACTLY fits his definition of a DENIZEN. A DENIZEN enjoys MOST of the rights of a natural-born subject, except that he CANNOT hold high office.
COMMENT:
Per Blackstone, a natural-born subject cannot sever ties with his sovereign. However, the Americans (who were natural-born subjects of King George III) did just that.
Their justification MUST have been rooted in Vattel’s Law Of Nations:
Chapter XIX: Of Our Native Country And Several Things That Relate To It
§ 220. Whether a person may quit his country.
“ ... 1. The children are bound by natural ties to the society in which they were born; they are under an obligation to show themselves grateful for the protection it has afforded to their fathers … They ought, therefore, to love it, as we have already shown, to express a just gratitude to it, and requite its services as far as possible, by serving it in turn … But every man is born free; and the son of a citizen … may examine whether it be convenient for him to join the society for which he was destined by his birth. If he does not find it advantageous to remain in it, he is at liberty to quit it ...”.
This shows that the Founding Fathers DID NOT entirely rely on Common Law.
FYI:
Per Vattel:
§ 212. Citizens and Natives.
... The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens ... those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights ... The country of the fathers is therefore that of the children ... I say, that, in order to be of the country, it is necessary that a person be born of a father who is a citizen; for, if he is born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country ...
§ 213. Inhabitants.
The inhabitants, as distinguished from citizens, are foreigners, who are permitted to settle and stay in the country ... though they do not participate in all the rights of citizens ... Their children follow the condition of their fathers ...
§ 215. Children of citizens born in a foreign country.
It is asked whether the children born of citizens in a foreign country are citizens? The laws have decided this question in several countries, and their regulations must be followed. By the law of nature alone, children follow the condition of their fathers, and enter into all their rights (§ 212); the place of birth produces no change in this particular, and cannot, of itself, furnish any reason for taking from a child what nature has given him ...
IF THE FOUNDING FATHERS STRICTLY ADHERED TO VATTEL AND NOT COMMON LAW, OBAMA WOULD NOT EVEN BE A CITIZEN - SINCE THE CHILD FOLLOWS THE FATHER UNDER VATTEL.
HOWEVER, THE 14TH AMENDMENT STILL MAKES OBAMA A CITIZEN OF THE U.S. AND, UNDER VATTEL, HE IS A BRITISH CITIZEN - THUS, MAKING HIM A DUAL NATIONAL ...
De nada.
Impeccably reasoned, and I generally agree. As you say, the Supreme Court will have to go to the “natural” allegiance of Barack Obama to determine if he meets Art.l, Sec, ll, Cls. 5.
And I must say here, although I am no presidential historian, the question of Barack Obama’s “natural” allegiance can be called into question far, far more than any other president’s, which one would think would be reason enough to call for the publication of his Certificate of Live Birth and other supporting documents.
Depending on how accurate his present history is reflected by the record: being born in Hawaii, adopted by an Indonesian, returned to Hawaii, brought up by his U.S. citizen grandparents while his mother was Indonesia, went to college in U.S., his natural allegiance might just be as a natural born U.S. citizen, according to the present makeup of the Supreme Court.
But, of course, without access to Obama’s record, little can be determined in this regard, which is precisely why he is blocking its release. One can further speculate that since Obama is blocking the release of this material that may offer him vindication, it may be different than what the present record reflects.
ex animo
davidfarrar
Agree completely with your post # 9.
That statement presumes, of course, that the Supreme Court will eventually assume jurisdiction over this controversy, which is highly speculative.
But, even assuming that they did, there have have been precedents in recent years for foreign law to find its way into the reasoning of SCOTUS decisions. Then, too, references to English law, specifically, were very common in the SCOTUS decisions in the late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries. So it would hardly be breaking new ground if the SCOTUS did take judicial notice of the British Nationality Act of 1948.
“... his natural allegiance might just be as a natural born U.S. citizen.” David, what is your opinion regarding natural allegiance of Barry Soetoro if he entered Occidental college at age 18 as a foreign student and perhaps used his Indonesian passport in 1982 and maybe later also? Has he defaulted to Indonesian citizenship and thus abrogated his natural born status by proving dividied allegiance under such circumstances?
I note that you displayed the image of the forgery first put forth by Obama, Factcheck, and DailyKOS, the image which had no raised seal, the item which was added in subsequent images of this same forgery posted on the Internet. Sadly, that forgery is what an idiotic partisan judge cited as proof Obama had shown his birth bone fides. That forgery is also what media obama kneepad sycophants are waving about as his ‘birth certificate’! They are now openly lying for their socialist messiah.
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.