Check out Post #98.
Posted on 01/06/2010 5:41:28 PM PST by RobinMasters
Contrary to the claims of critics of citizens who demand Barack Obama produce evidence of his presidential eligibility, newspaper birth announcements in Hawaiian newspapers in 1961 did not necessarily indicate a baby was born in the state.
As WND reported, Glenn Beck ridiculed the so-called birther movement on his nationally syndicated radio show Monday, pointing to identical birth announcements published in the Honolulu Advertiser and the Honolulu Star-Bulletin as evidence Obama was born in Hawaii and, therefore, is a natural-born citizen as required by the Constitution.
Beck, and two colleagues, mocked "birthers" for purportedly believing a wild conspiracy in which Obama's parents, knowing he would someday be president, "preemptively" collaborated with two separate newspapers to publish phony announcements stating he was born in Hawaii.
(Excerpt) Read more at wnd.com ...
Nope. Persons born in Canada after 1947 have Canadian citizenship, not British.
Check out Post #98.
****Check out Post #98.*****
Strategic placement of that announcement using common sense approach to it and Hillary involvement.
BULLSH*T. Even the most ardent afterbirthers realize that is false
McCain actually was questionable. He was not born in the Canal Zone, but was born over the line in a hospital in Panama.
You can argue that he deserves to be a full citizen since his father was in the Panama Canal Zone on active duty and his wife accompanied him. But for whatever reason she chose to give birth across the border in Panama.
The whole business is very suspicious. I think the Democrats raised the McCain issue largely in order to put future Obama issues to rest. The resolution passed in the Senate seems to be directed more at Obama than McCain in some of its details.
Even if she were old enough she would only be able to pass US citizenship NOT natural born citizenship. If Obama Sr. is his father HE CAN NOT BE A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN, even if he were born in the white house.
Ahhhh, sorry but that's not on my profile nor has it ever been on my profile. My earlier statements still stand.
- Traveler
Congress only has the power to set standards for naturalization, not to redefine words.
Therefore, the US Code you quote concerns those persons who are naturalized at birth.
Hope this helps.
Kruschev(sp) said in the sixties that the only way to take the US was from within. Perhaps the reason we know next to nothing about our _redisent is that his childhood was spent being groomed for that very role. He has a history(what little we know) of being in the company of Communists. Our Constitution specifically excludes anyone without citizen parents from assuming the top two positions in our government to prevent that very thing, yet we have ignored that document and allowed the enemy to attain the highest office. Google Tom Fife and see what he has to say about his experience in Russia in the early 90’s. If he is to be believed they seemed to know more about Obama than anyone in the US.
It should be obvious that he is not a NBC because everything he does is anti-American.
YOu anywhere near Sacramento?
My understanding there is a copy of the paper available there, also availble at Stanford University.
Actually that someone filed a birth certificate. The newspapers, at least in those days, got the lists of births from the state vital statistics folks. In some places from the hospitals, but I've read that in Hawaii, they got them from the state. Makes sense since the papers don't list the hospital of birth, which is generally done when and where the hospitals supply the information.
But a birth certificate could be filed in several ways in Hawaii, in 1961. The most likely, for a child not actually born in Hawaii, would be for a parent or relative, like a Grandmother, to file it as a "home birth".
Makes you wonder why they don't want the long form to be seen, which would show who the "witness" was, a doctor or a friend/relative, and if the birth was in a hospital with the form filed by the hospital, or "at home" filed by someone other than a hospital registrar.
Seen it. Don't believe a word of it.
Or he's stirring the pot, so as to "discover" something at a convenient time, hopefully soon.
No. You know nothing about the subject.
The definition of the term, “natural born citizen”, was entered into the Congressional record of the House on March 9, 1866, in comments made by Rep. John Bingham on the Civil Rights Act of 1866, which was the precursor to the Fourteenth Amendment. He repeated Vattel’s definition when he said:
“[I] find no fault with the introductory clause, 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 not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen. . . . ” — John A. Bingham, (R-Ohio) US Congressman, March 9, 1866 Cong. Globe, 39th, 1st Sess., 1291 (1866), Sec. 1992 of U.S. Revised Statutes (1866).
In other words, anyone born in the U.S.A. to citizen parents [plural - both parents] is a natural born citizen.
Here is the true precedent from a most liberal professor. Read it and weap:
In a recent Illinois Public Law & Legal Theory written by Professor Lawrence B Solum of the U of IL, College of Law, Chicago, Solum further explains why the English common law definition of ‘natural born subject was not the definition adopted by the Framers for the Sovereign citizens of the United States of America.
[Blackstone Commentaries (1765): When I say, that an alien is one who is born out of the king’s dominions, or allegiance, this also must be understood with some restrictions. The common law indeed stood absolutely so; with only a very few exceptions: so that a particular act of parliament became necessary after the restoration, for the naturalization of children of his majesty’s English subjects, born in foreign countries during the late troubles. 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. Yet the children of the king’s ambassadors born abroad were always held to be natural subjects: for as the father, though in a foreign country, owes not even a local allegiance to the prince to whom he is sent; so, with regard to the son also, he was held (by a kind of postliminium) to be born under the king of England’s allegiance, represented by his father, the ambassador. To encourage also foreign commerce, it was enacted by statute 25 Edw. III. st. 2. that all children born abroad, provided both their parents were at the time of the birth in allegiance to the king, and the mother had passed the seas by her husband’s consent, might inherit as if born in England: and accordingly it hath been so adjudged in behalf of merchants. But by several more modern statutes these restrictions are still farther taken off: so that all children, born out of the king’s ligeance, whose fathers were natural-born subjects, are now natural-born subjects themselves, to all intents and purposes, without any exception;...]
[F.E. Edwards, Natural Born British Subjects at Common Law, 14 Journal of the Society of Comparative Legislation 314 (1914): The pro- position that British Protectorates, and consequently any less interest of the Crown, should be excluded from our definition of the King’s protection, is supported by Sir William Anson, who declares that birth within such a region is not sufficient to found a claim for British natural-born status. The real test of whether a given territory is part of the British Dominions is that it must have passed openly, completely, and unequivocally into the possession of the Crown.]
[Solum: If the American conception of “natural born citizen” were equivalent to the English notion of a “natural born subject,” then it could be argued that only persons born on American soil to American parents would have qualified. This might lead to the conclusion that McCain would not be a constitutional natural-born citizen, because the Panama Canal Zone was not the sovereign territory of the United States, but was instead merely subject to its administrative control.
The language of the Constitution recognizes a distinction between the terms “citizen” and “subject”. For example, in Article III Section 2, which confers “judicial power” on the federal courts, “citizens” of the several states are differentiated from “citizens” or “subjects” of foreign states—corresponding to the distinction between diversity and alienage jurisdiction. In the framing era, these two terms reflected two distinct theories of the relationship between individual members of a political community and the state.
In feudal or monarchical constitutional theory, individuals were the subjects of a monarch or sovereign, but the republican constitutional theory of the revolutionary and post revolutionary period conceived of the individual as a citizen and assigned sovereignty to the people.
The distinction between citizens and subjects is reflected in Chief Justice John Jay’s opinion in Chisholm v. Georgia, the first great constitutional case decided after the ratification of the Constitution of 1789:
[T]he sovereignty of the nation is in the people of the nation, and the residuary sovereignty of each State in the people of each State…
[A]t the Revolution, the sovereignty devolved on the people; and they are truly the sovereigns of the country, but they are sovereigns without subjects…]
As you can see, in England there are two very distinct meanings of ’natural born’ subject. In one hand there is the broader view & in the other there is the view of the laws of nations. What the liberal progressive constitutionalists use is the broader view and thus disregard the fact that at some point, even England used the law of nations. The Framers also knew of Englands use of the law of nations and were very aware of its importance when establishing a new nation. It has also been proven that the Law of Nations was in the hands of the Framers at the time of the drafting of the Declaration of Independence.
And as pointed out above, please do not come back with the same old lame references to Blackstone & English common law, we know for a fact from the very 1st SCOTUS Justice Washington appointed, a Justice who was only 2nd to Madison in the drafting of the Constitution that the definition for US citizens was NOT derived from English common law, but on the law of Nations which is the law of nature:
“The law of nature, when applied to states and political societies, receives a new name, that of the law of nations. This law, important in all states, is of peculiar importance in free ones. The States of America are certainly entitled to this dignified appellation…But if the knowledge of the law of nations is greatly useful to those who appoint, it surely must be highly necessary to those who are appointed…As Puffendorff thought that the law of nature and the law of nations were precisely the same, he has not, in his book on these subjects treated of the law of nations separately; but has every where joined it with the law of nature, properly called so…the law of nature is applied to individuals; the law of nations is applied to states.”
Wilson, in his 1st commentaries, blasts Blackstone’s theory by citing that the definition of ’subject’ per English common law according to Blackstone was not the definition of ‘citizen’ as adopted by the framers of the US Constitution. A ’subject’ is ruled by an all powerful central government/monarchy and the under the new Constitution of the United States, the central government’s power is derived from the people, the citizens.
Wilson also wrote the very 1st SCOTUS decision in Chisolm which is cited to this day as to the powers of the central government. He also was no right-wing conservative where the limits of the central government were concerned. Wilson felt that the Constitution did not go far enough in giving broader powers to those in Washington, but he KNEW the premise of the Constitution and stood behind it in every decision he made, regardless of his political philosophy.
Get back on the Enterprise and travel through that wormwhole, spaceboy!
Do you believe it is possible that we are seeing the culmination of a long running plan to take over the US?
She wasn't, since she was only 18 and one needed to have lived in the US for 5 years after the 14th birthday in order to do that. BUT, that only applies to births outside the US, and doesn't confer natural born status anyway. Since it's under statute law, it confers something like naturalization at birth, since Congress has no power to redefine a Constitutional term, like "natural born citizen" by passing a mere law. It would take a Constitutional amendment to do so.
The only way to be born outside the US and be natural born is for one or both parents to be serving the US in the military or diplomatic corps. Both parents must still be US citizens though. Otherwise NBC requires birth in the country to citizen parents.
Thus it really doesn't matter where BHO was born, since his father was visiting student from Kenya, and never was a US citizen, and thus he is not and cannot be a "natural born citizen".
Remember, NO birth document for BHO has been entered into evidence in any court. If it were, then it would become known, as a matter of law, that his father was BHO Sr, rather than as a matter of heresay.
In a word, no. I tend not to believe gigantic conspiracy theories that stretch over decades. Give me some better evidence of this than some guy on the internet recalling a conversation he had almost 20 years ago and maybe I'll reconsider. Until then I'll attribute Obama's election to the natural pendulum swing of politics and the Republican party's botched running of things when they were in charge, the weakness of the candidate they fielded, and other, less conspiratorial factors.
I want to hear a story from a guy who tells how he talked to some Russian KGB agent decades ago who drunkenly told him about them brainwashing John McCain while he was in that POW camp so that he'd go home, get elected to the Senate, lose the nomination in 2000, run again in 2008, win the nomination, but lose in the general election to the candidate who had been groomed from birth, but who, in spite all their careful decades of planning, might be disqualified if someone notices that he might not be a natural born citizen, depending on how you read the Wong Kim Ark decision.
“The 14th amendment has nothing to do with the NATURAL BORN citizenship.”
Actually it does. It is the only thing in the Constitution that defines citizenship. The “natural born” requirement must be interpreted in accordance with the plain meaning of the 14th Amendment. Amendments, by nature, override the original text of the Constitution.
The 14th Amendment defines citizenship and makes it a birthright that may not be impaired by the United States or the several states without due process of law.
14th amendment:
Section. 1. 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.
I don't see the words "natural born citizen" in there anywhere. I see "born" and "citizen", but not even "born citizen", let alone "natural born citizen".
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.