Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

4 Supreme Court Cases define "natural born citizen"
The Post & Email ^ | Oct. 18, 2009 | John Charlton

Posted on 01/10/2010 6:03:15 PM PST by STE=Q

Oct. 18, 2009) — The Post & Email has in several articles mentioned that the Supreme Court of the United States has given the definition of what a “natural born citizen” is. Since being a natural born citizen is an objective qualification and requirement of office for the U.S. President, it is important for all U.S. Citizens to understand what this term means.

Let’s cut through all the opinion and speculation, all the “he says”, “she says”, fluff, and go right to the irrefutable, constitutional authority on all terms and phrases mentioned in the U.S. Constitution: the Supreme Court of the United States.

First, let me note that there are 4 such cases which speak of the notion of “natural born citizenship”.

(Excerpt) Read more at thepostemail.com ...


TOPICS: Extended News; Government; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: article2section1; birthcertificate; birthers; certifigate; citizen; colb; constitution; kenyanvillageidiot; naturalborn; naturalborncitizen; obama; ruling; scotus; usurper
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-164 last
To: STE=Q
The following is excerpted from the November 12, 2009 decision of the Indiana Court of Appeals in the case of Ankeney v The Governor of Indiana which attempted to find both John McCain and Barack Obama ineligible to receive Indiana's Electoral College votes. B. Natural Born Citizen Second, the Plaintiffs argue that both President Barack Obama and Senator John McCain are not “natural born Citizens” as required for qualification to be President under Article II, Section 1, Clause 49 of the U.S. Constitution, and that therefore because neither person was constitutionally eligible to become President, “[t]he Governor . . . should [have been] prohibited by order of [the trial court] . . . from issuing any certificate of ascertainment, or any other certified statement, under the State Seal of the State of Indiana . . . .” Appellants’ Appendix at 13. Before addressing the Plaintiffs’ specific arguments, we think it helpful to point out the context in which this claim arises. Leading up to the 2008 Presidential Election [9] The Plaintiffs cite the “natural born Citizen” clause as Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 of the U.S. Constitution, but it is properly cited as Article II, Section 1, Clause 4. See also Ind. Code § 3-8-1-6. and in the ensuing months after, a number of lawsuits were filed nationwide challenging both President Barack Obama and Senator John McCain’s10 status as “natural born Citizens” under Article II of the U.S. Constitution. See, e.g., Berg v. Obama, 574 F. Supp. 2d 509 (E.D. Pa. 2008); Hollander v. McCain, 566 F. Supp. 2d 63 (D.N.H. 2008); Cohen v. Obama, No. 08-2150, 2008 WL 5191864 (D.D.C. Dec. 11, 2008), aff’d by 2009 WL 2870668 (D.C. Cir. Sept. 8, 2009); Wrotnowski v. Bysiewicz, 958 A.2d 709 (Conn. 2008). As to President Obama’s status, the most common argument has been waged by members of the so-called “birther” movement who suggest that the President was not born in the United States; they support their argument by pointing to “the President’s alleged refusal to disclose publicly an „official birth certificate” that is satisfactory to [the birthers].” Rhodes v. MacDonald, No. 4:09-CV-106, 2009 WL 2997605, at *1 (M.D. Ga. Sept. 16, 2009), reconsideration denied by 2009 WL 3111834 (M.D. Ga. Sept. 18, 2009). The Plaintiffs in the instant case make a different legal argument based strictly on constitutional interpretation. Specifically, the crux of the Plaintiffs’ argument is that [10] The United States Senate passed a resolution on April 30, 2008 which explicitly recognized Senator John McCain as a natural born citizen. S.J. Res. 511, 110th Cong. (2008). Also, the supposed authority cited by the Plaintiffs to support their claim as to the meaning of Article II, Section 1, Clause 4 of the U.S. Constitution does not support the argument that John McCain is not a natural born citizen. Plaintiffs state in their brief that the difference between being a “citizen of the United States” and a “natural born Citizen” “involves having [two] parents of U.S. Citizenship, owing no foreign allegiance.” Appellant’s Brief at 23. The Plaintiffs then concede that “John McCain . . . qualifie[s] as a „citizen of the United States,” by being born of [two] parents who were in turn „citizens of the United States,‟ and owed no foreign allegiance . . . .” Id. Their brief continues that “John McCain was born „subject to the jurisdiction‟ of the United States, but he was not born in one of the 50 States of the Union under Article IV of the Constitution, and thus was not a „natural born Citizen . . . .‟” Id. at 23-24. Plaintiffs do not cite to any authority or develop any cogent legal argument for the proposition that a person must actually be born within one of the fifty States in order to qualify as a natural born citizen, and we therefore do not address Plaintiffs argument as it relates to Senator McCain. See Loomis, 764 N.E.2d at 668. “[c]ontrary to the thinking of most People on the subject, there’s a very clear distinction between a „citizen of the United States” and a „natural born Citizen,” and the difference involves having [two] parents of U.S. citizenship, owing no foreign allegiance.” Appellants’ Brief at 23. With regard to President Barack Obama, the Plaintiffs posit that because his father was a citizen of the United Kingdom, President Obama is constitutionally ineligible to assume the Office of the President. The bases of the Plaintiffs’ arguments come from such sources as FactCheck.org, The Rocky Mountain News, an eighteenth century treatise by Emmerich de Vattel titled “The Law of Nations,” and various citations to nineteenth century congressional debate.11 For the reasons stated below, we hold that the Plaintiffs‟ arguments fail to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, and that therefore the trial court did not err in dismissing the Plaintiffs‟ complaint. Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution governs who is a citizen of the United States. It provides that “[a]ll persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States . . . .” U.S. CONST. amend XIV, § 1. Article II has a special requirement to assume the Presidency: that the person be a “natural born Citizen.” U.S. CONST. art. II, § 1, cl. 4. The United States Supreme Court has read these two provisions in tandem and held that “[t]hus new citizens may be born or they may be created by naturalization.” Minor v. [11] Plaintiffs do not provide pinpoint citations to the congressional debate quotations to which they cite. Happersett, 88 (21 Wall.) U.S. 162, 167 (1874). In Minor, written only six years after the Fourteenth Amendment was ratified, the Court observed that: The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. 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. Id. at 167-168. Thus, the Court left open the issue of whether a person who is born within the United States of alien parents is considered a natural born citizen.12 Then, in U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, 18 S. Ct. 456 (1898), the United States Supreme Court confronted the question of “whether a child born in the United States, of parents of Chinese descent, who at the time of his birth are subject to the emperor of China . . . becomes at the time of his birth a citizen of the United States, by virtue of the first clause of the fourteenth amendment . . . .” 169 U.S. at 653, 18 S. Ct. at 458. We find this case instructive. The Court in Wong Kim Ark reaffirmed Minor in that the meaning of the words “citizen of the United States” and “natural-born citizen of the United States” “must be interpreted in the light of the common law, the principles and history of which were familiarly known to the framers of the constitution.” Id. at 654, 18 S. Ct. at 459. They noted that “[t]he interpretation of the constitution of the United States [12] Note that the Court in Minor contemplates only scenarios where both parents are either citizens or aliens, rather in the case of President Obama, whose mother was a U.S. citizen and father was a citizen of the United Kingdom. is necessarily influenced by the fact that its provisions are framed in the language of the English common law, and are to be read in the light of its history.” Id. at 655, 18 S. Ct. at 459 (quoting Smith v. Alabama, 124 U.S. 465, 478, 8 S. Ct. 564, 569 (1888)). The Wong Kim Ark Court explained: The fundamental principle of the common law with regard to English nationality was birth within the allegiance-also called „ligealty,‟ „obedience,‟ „faith,‟ or „power‟-of the king. The principle embraced all persons born within the king‟s allegiance, and subject to his protection. Such allegiance and protection were mutual,-as expressed in the maxim, „Protectio trahit subjectionem, et subjectio protectionem,‟-and were not restricted to natural-born subjects and naturalized subjects, or to those who had taken an oath of allegiance; but were predicable of aliens in amity, so long as they were within the kingdom. Children, born in England, of such aliens, were therefore natural-born subjects. But the children, born within the realm, of foreign ambassadors, or the children of alien enemies, born during and within their hostile occupation of part of the king‟s dominions, were not natural-born subjects, because not born within the allegiance, the obedience, or the power, or, as would be said at this day, within the jurisdiction, of the king. This fundamental principle, with these qualifications or explanations of it, was clearly, though quaintly, stated in the leading case known as „Calvin‟s Case,‟ or the „Case of the Postnati,‟ decided in 1608, after a hearing in the exchequer chamber before the lord chancellor and all the judges of England, and reported by Lord Coke and by Lord Ellesmere. Calvin’s Case, 7 Coke, 1, 4b-6a, 18a, 18b; Ellesmere, Postnati, 62-64; s. c. 2 How. St. Tr. 559, 607, 613-617, 639, 640, 659, 679. The English authorities ever since are to the like effect. Co. Litt. 8a, 128b; Lord Hale, in Harg. Law Tracts, 210, and in 1 Hale, P. C. 61, 62; 1 Bl. Comm. 366, 369, 370, 374; 4 Bl. Comm. 74, 92; Lord Kenyon, in Doe v. Jones, 4 Term R. 300, 308; Cockb. Nat. 7; Dicey, Confl. Laws, pp. 173-177, 741. * * * * * Lord Chief Justice Cockburn . . . said: „By the common law of England, every person born within the dominions of the crown, no matter whether of English or of foreign parents, and, in the latter case, whether the parents were settled, or merely temporarily sojourning, in the country, was an English subject, save only the children of foreign ambassadors (who were excepted because their fathers carried their own nationality with them), or a child born to a foreigner during the hostile occupation of any part of the territories of England. No effect appears to have been given to descent as a source of nationality.‟ Cockb. Nat. 7. Mr. Dicey, in his careful and thoughtful Digest of the Law of England with Reference to the Conflict of Laws, published in 1896, states the following propositions, his principal rules being printed below in italics: “British subject’ means any person who owes permanent allegiance to the crown. „Permanent‟ allegiance is used to distinguish the allegiance of a British subject from the allegiance of an alien, who, because he is within the British dominions, owes „temporary‟ allegiance to the crown. „Natural-born British subject’ means a British subject who has become a British subject at the moment of his birth.’ ‘Subject to the exceptions hereinafter mentioned, any person who (whatever the nationality of his parents) is born within the British dominions is a natural-born British subject. This rule contains the leading principle of English law on the subject of British nationality.‟ The exceptions afterwards mentioned by Mr. Dicey are only these two: „(1) Any person who (his father being an alien enemy) is born in a part of the British dominions, which at the time of such person‟s birth is in hostile occupation, is an alien.‟ „(2) Any person whose father (being an alien) is at the time of such person’s birth an ambassador or other diplomatic agent accredited to the crown by the sovereign of a foreign state is (though born within the British dominions) an alien.‟ And he adds: „The exceptional and unimportant instances in which birth within the British dominions does not of itself confer British nationality are due to the fact that, though at common law nationality or allegiance in substance depended on the place of a person’s birth, it in theory at least depended, not upon the locality of a man‟s birth, but upon his being born within the jurisdiction and allegiance of the king of England; and it might occasionally happen that a person was born within the dominions without being born within the allegiance, or, in other words, under the protection and control of the crown.‟ Dicey, Confl. Laws, pp. 173-177, 741. It thus clearly appears that by the law of England for the last three centuries, beginning before the settlement of this country, and continuing to the present day, aliens, while residing in the dominions possessed by the crown of England, were within the allegiance, the obedience, the faith or loyalty, the protection, the power, and the jurisdiction of the English sovereign; and therefore every child born in England of alien parents was a natural-born subject, unless the child of an ambassador or other diplomatic agent of a foreign state, or of an alien enemy in hostile occupation of the place where the child was born. III. The same rule was in force in all the English colonies upon this continent down to the time of the Declaration of Independence, and in the United States afterwards, and continued to prevail under the constitution as originally established.13 Id. at 655-658, 18 S. Ct. at 459-460. Also, as quoted in Wong Kim Ark, Justice Joseph Story once declared in Inglis v. Trustees of Sailors‟ Snug Harbor, 28 U.S. (3 Pet.) 99 (1830), that “Nothing is better settled at the common law than the doctrine that the children, even of aliens, born in a country, while the parents are resident there under the protection of the government, and owing a temporary allegiance thereto, are subjects by birth.” Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. at 660, 18 S. Ct. at 461 (quoting Inglis, 28 U.S. (3 Pet.) at 164 (Story, J., concurring)). The Court also cited Justice Curtis‟s dissent in Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. (19 How.) 393 (1856): The first section of the second article of the constitution uses the language, „a natural-born citizen.‟ It thus assumes that citizenship may be acquired by birth. Undoubtedly, this language of the constitution was used in reference to that principle of public law, well understood in this country at the time of the adoption of the constitution, which referred citizenship to the place of birth. [13] According to Westlaw, Wong Kim Ark has been cited to in over 1,000 cases. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. at 662, 18 S. Ct. at 462 (quoting Dred Scott, 60 U.S. (19 How.) at 576 (Curtis, J., dissenting)). The Court in Wong Kim Ark also cited authority which notes that: 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. Id. at 662-663, 18 S. Ct. at 462 (quotations and citations omitted). The Court held that Mr. Wong Kim Ark was a citizen of the United States “at the time of his birth.”14 Id. at 705, 18 S. Ct. at 478. Based upon the language of Article II, Section 1, Clause 4 and the guidance provided by Wong Kim Ark, we conclude that persons born within the borders of the United States are “natural born Citizens” for Article II, Section 1 purposes, regardless of the citizenship of their parents. Just as a person “born within the British dominions [was] a natural-born British subject” at the time of the framing of the U.S. Constitution, so too were those “born in the allegiance of the United States [] natural-born citizens.”15 [14] We note the fact that the Court in Wong Kim Ark did not actually pronounce the plaintiff a “natural born Citizen” using the Constitution‟s Article II language is immaterial. For all but forty-four people in our nation‟s history (the forty-four Presidents), the dichotomy between who is a natural born citizen and who is a naturalized citizen under the Fourteenth Amendment is irrelevant. The issue addressed in Wong Kim Ark was whether Mr. Wong Kim Ark was a citizen of the United States on the basis that he was born in the United States. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. at 705, 18 S. Ct. at 478. [15] We reiterate that we do not address the question of natural born citizen status for persons who became United States citizens at birth by virtue of being born of United States citizen parents, despite the The Plaintiffs do not mention the above United States Supreme Court authority in their complaint or brief; they primarily rely instead on an eighteenth century treatise and quotations of Members of Congress made during the nineteenth century. To the extent that these authorities conflict with the United States Supreme Court‟s interpretation of what it means to be a natural born citizen, we believe that the Plaintiffs‟ arguments fall under the category of “conclusory, non-factual assertions or legal conclusions” that we need not accept as true when reviewing the grant of a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim. Irish, 864 N.E.2d at 1120. Thus, we cannot say that the trial court erred when it dismissed the Plaintiffs‟ case. 16 See generally McCalment v. Eli Lilly & Co., 860 N.E.2d 884 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007) (holding that the plaintiffs‟ arguments had been sufficiently addressed by Indiana Supreme Court precedent and therefore the trial court did not err when it granted the defendant‟s motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted); see also, e.g., Diaz-Salazar v. I.N.S., 700 F.2d 1156, 1160 (7th Cir. 1983) (noting in its recitation of the facts that despite the fact father was fact that they were born abroad. That question was not properly presented to this court. Without addressing the question, however, we note that nothing in our opinion today should be understood to hold that being born within the fifty United States is the only way one can receive natural born citizen status. [16] We note that President Obama is not the first U.S. President born of parents of differing citizenship. Chester A. Arthur, the twenty-first U.S. President, was born of a mother who was a United States citizen and a father who was an Irish citizen. See THOMAS C. REEVES, GENTLEMAN BOSS, THE LIFE OF CHESTER ALAN ARTHUR 3-4 (1975). During the election of 1880, there arose a rumor “that [Arthur] had been born in Canada, rather than in Vermont as he claimed, and was thus constitutionally ineligible to become the Chief Executive.” Id. at 3. Although President Arthur‟s status as a natural born citizen was challenged in the 1880 Presidential Election on the grounds that he was born in Canada rather than Vermont, the argument was not made that because Arthur‟s father was an Irish citizen he was constitutionally ineligible to be President. See generally id. not a citizen of the United States, he had children who were “natural-born citizens of the United States”), cert. denied 462 U.S. 1132, 103 S. Ct. 3112 (1983). For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the trial court‟s grant of the Governor‟s motion to dismiss. Affirmed. CRONE, J., and MAY, J., concur.
151 posted on 01/12/2010 1:22:44 PM PST by jamese777
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: PA-RIVER
This Barn door has to be closed by the citizens in 2012 with an overwhelming vote against Obama.

I'd think you'd want to permanently seal the Barn Door, no? Better to have either Congressional legislation or a Constitutional amendment carefully defining what a natural born citizen is.

Just getting Obama out of office in 2012 doesn't solve the definition problem. Eventually some other candidate will arrive whose birth circumstances trigger the same arguments all over again.

152 posted on 01/12/2010 1:55:33 PM PST by kittykat77
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 148 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur
And where does the Constitution define natural-born citizenship.

The Justice Marshall defined it in the Venus decision as early as 1814 and his definition has never been challenged -- until today by the Obotocrazies.

153 posted on 01/12/2010 2:00:42 PM PST by Uncle Chip (TRUTH : Ignore it. Deride it. Allegorize it. Interpret it. But you can't ESCAPE it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 150 | View Replies]

To: Uncle Chip
The Justice Marshall defined it in the Venus decision as early as 1814 and his definition has never been challenged -- until today by the Obotocrazies.

Defined by comments made in dicta, while dissenting the majority decision. They were Chief Justice Marshall's opinion alone and thus are not legally binding. Try again.

154 posted on 01/12/2010 2:16:08 PM PST by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 153 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur
Defined by comments made in dicta, while dissenting the majority decision.

Defined nonetheless -- and defined is as defined does -- and no other Justice has ever challenged that definition or offered his own that is any different.

And it concurs with the definition used in the Senate's SR511 -- Get used to it.

You're wrong. Get used to that too.

155 posted on 01/12/2010 2:26:30 PM PST by Uncle Chip (TRUTH : Ignore it. Deride it. Allegorize it. Interpret it. But you can't ESCAPE it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 154 | View Replies]

To: Uncle Chip
Defined nonetheless -- and defined is as defined does --

That's like saying you've defined natural-born citizen -- and defined is as defined does. One Justices opinion does not a Supreme Court decision make. It counts no more or no less than your opinion or mine in terms of established law and legal precedent.

...and no other Justice has ever challenged that definition or offered his own that is any different.

So you say, though many others might say that Justice Gray did define it differently in the Ark decision. Others might point out that Chief Justice Waite did not agree with Chief Justice Marshall's blanket statement in the Happersett decision when he noted that there were different schools of thought on the subject and refused to say whether one or the other was wrong. But you keep on trying.

156 posted on 01/12/2010 2:46:24 PM PST by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 155 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur
One Justices opinion does not a Supreme Court decision make. It counts no more or no less than your opinion or mine in terms of established law and legal precedent.

I have news for you -- every Supreme Court Decision is made up of multitudes of opinions, facts, dicta that lead up to a final decision -- many of which then are cited as precedents in future cases.

Furthermore Marshall's dicta was factual not opinion -- as it was the fact upon the Republic operated at that time and no one debated that or opined otherwise at all.

So you say, though many others might say that Justice Gray did define it differently in the Ark decision.

Can you name these "many others" for us??? Would those "many others" include your alter egos on this site???

Others might point out that Chief Justice Waite did not agree with Chief Justice Marshall's blanket statement

Can you name those "Others" or are you just referring to yourself and the handful of Obots who have no documentary evidence for anything they say.

157 posted on 01/12/2010 3:27:30 PM PST by Uncle Chip (TRUTH : Ignore it. Deride it. Allegorize it. Interpret it. But you can't ESCAPE it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 156 | View Replies]

To: Uncle Chip
I have news for you -- every Supreme Court Decision is made up of multitudes of opinions, facts, dicta that lead up to a final decision -- many of which then are cited as precedents in future cases.

And I have news for you. Only the majority decision are binding precedent. Concurring opinions, dissenting opinions, obiter dictum may be used as persuasive precedent or in support of judicial argument but they do not in and of themselves ratio decidendi.

Furthermore Marshall's dicta was factual not opinion -- as it was the fact upon the Republic operated at that time and no one debated that or opined otherwise at all.

It was opinion, not established legal fact.

Can you name these "many others" for us??? Would those "many others" include your alter egos on this site???

They would all be non-Birthers, yes.

Can you name those "Others" or are you just referring to yourself and the handful of Obots who have no documentary evidence for anything they say.

Unlike you they are people who understand the law, the Constitution, and how the courts work.

158 posted on 01/12/2010 5:09:59 PM PST by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 157 | View Replies]

To: Uncle Chip
Notice how the arrogant ass eventually brays to reveal it is a donkey?... Unlike you they are people who understand the law, the Constitution, and how the courts work. And these insulting chaps/chapettes (faggots ... meatballs to the English) are a protected species at FR, especially during funds raising.
159 posted on 01/12/2010 5:25:05 PM PST by MHGinTN (Obots, believing they cannot be deceived, it is impossible to convince them when they are deceived.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 158 | View Replies]

To: MHGinTN

Yep


160 posted on 01/12/2010 6:17:47 PM PST by Uncle Chip (TRUTH : Ignore it. Deride it. Allegorize it. Interpret it. But you can't ESCAPE it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 159 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur
Unlike you they are people who understand the law, the Constitution, and how the courts work.

Sham wow -- all of that and yet they can't understand Justice Marshall's words in the Venus decision. Go figure.

161 posted on 01/12/2010 6:47:34 PM PST by Uncle Chip (TRUTH : Ignore it. Deride it. Allegorize it. Interpret it. But you can't ESCAPE it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 158 | View Replies]

To: kittykat77
Far better to get all the paperwork in order as soon after a child's birth than to try to reconstruct events and chase down documents and "witnesses" 40 or more years later -- as is happening now.

To what purpose? Just in case your child is the one of 300,000,000 who runs for president or vice president once every four years?

Please note the reason, the supposed ONLY reason the documents have to be hunted down, etc. is that the person who is supposed to qualify under the Constitution is not as forthcoming with his documentation as any kindergarden student in the US must be to be enrolled.

If not for that resistance to releasing records which simply could not have all been lost by accident, this would be a piece of cake.

In order to get a job in the area I live, in the field in which I work, (Nothing that special, no security clearance, and not handling vast sums of money), you have to undergo drug testing, provide proof of citizenship, undergo a background check, driver's license check, and even a credit check. Now, none of us have the 'football' within a few dozens of feet, nor the authority to release nuclear weapons and utilize them, but the guy who won't show his records does. If that does not give you at least a twinge of concern, considering this was to be the administration of "transparency", I do not know what would short of DEFCON 1.

Even more dangerous however, is the blatant disregard for the Constiutional bounds of the Federal Government, by this same person, a pattern of behaviour which indicates complete disregard for the foundations of this nation, and the nation itself.

As for the documentation not costing much, let's say it only costs 10 dollars, on average to get all this through per child. (When the filing of birth certificates, and keeping those records already exists, along with records of paternity, maternity, etc.) the expense would fall upon the taxpayer, and at 10 dollars a head, the expense would have been three billion dollars for the existing pool of people in the US. Versus twenty bucks a head for the twenty odd candidates to produce their documents every four years.

No brainer, if you ask me. Considering that the candidates already spend from tens to hundreds of millions of dollars campaigning, even if it cost them a few hundred dollars to prove that they qualified, the insignificance of that sum compared to the cost of preemptively certifying everyone pretty much spells it out.

Obama's records exist, but they have been ordered sealed. Don't you even wonder why???

How many times have we all been told the old canard "You shouldn't object if you have nothing to hide.", or words to that effect?

Ergo, Obama has something to hide.

162 posted on 01/12/2010 9:07:06 PM PST by Smokin' Joe (How often God must weep at humans' folly. Stand fast. God knows what He is doing.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 146 | View Replies]

To: AuH2ORepublican
If, however, he was born in Hawaii, then, irrespective of what Lolo Soetero may have done in Indonesia, Barack Obama would have been a U.S. citizen at birth.

Unless he claimed foreign citizenship in order to obtain a scholarship, in which case he would have forfeited his US Citizenship.

Admissions and Financial aid records would shed light on this facet of the discussion.

Maybe someone can help me out here, (I still have my original draft card somewhere, and I remember the AuH2O bumper stickers), but is failure to register for Selective Service a felony? If so, that raises a few questions, too.

Early on, Obama allegedly would not release his original records to avoid "embarassment". The question is, just how deep would that run?

Is the birth father listed as other than B.O. Sr?, Is his mother listed as "unwed", or words to that effect?, Or was the BC issued by a foreign government and thus he'd be subject to the embarassment of being disqualified after a very slick campaign?

We don't know,

One good thing has come of all this, and that is the intrusion of doubt into the matrix of Hope and Change. Those who will take the time to think critically are no longer buying Obama's blather at face value, even many of those who supported him.

163 posted on 01/12/2010 9:25:37 PM PST by Smokin' Joe (How often God must weep at humans' folly. Stand fast. God knows what He is doing.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 144 | View Replies]

To: Smokin' Joe

I think it was Debbie Schlussel (sp?) that wrote extensively on Obama’s Selective Service registration and showed that the application submitted by Obama was most likely a fraud. And, yes, not registering is a felony.

If Obama claimed to be a foreigner in financial aid or scholarship applications then that’s probably another felony right there. However, unless he freely and intentionally renounced his U.S. citizenship (which I can’t imagine was the case, since he kept living in the U.S. and presumably dud not register as a resident alien, not to mention the fact that he purported to be a citizen by registering to vote and running for office, it would be very unlikely that courts would declare him to have renounced his citizenship. I think that if he was born in Hawaii then he’s still a citizen today, but that if he was born abroad then he likely has never been a U.S. citizen (unless he was naturalized at some point and there exists a conspiracy of absurd proportions).

If Obama was born in Hawaii, what could his long-form birth certificate say that makes him refuse to provide it? I have no idea, since even if it said that his real father was Malcolm X or his birthname was Charles Manson Dunham it wouldn’t be as bad as having people speculate that he’s not even a U.S. citizen.

While we’re considering conspiracy theories, we should keep in mind that if Obama was born in Kenya but his biological father was not Obama, Sr. but a U.S. citizen, then he would be a U.S. citizen at birth. Obama’s past is so unclear that such possibility cannot be ignored.


164 posted on 01/13/2010 5:24:44 AM PST by AuH2ORepublican (If a politician won't protect innocent babies, what makes you think that he'll protect your rights?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 163 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-164 last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson