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

Skip to comments.

4 Supreme Court Cases define "natural born citizen"
The Post Mail ^ | 10/18/2009 | John Charlton

Posted on 03/14/2010 12:04:10 PM PDT by etraveler13

4 Cases have been decided by the Supreme Court of the United States that define the status of Natural Born Citizen.

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


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Government; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: banglist; birthcertificate; birthers; certifigate; eligibility; fraud; ineligible; lawsuit; naturalborn; naturalborncitizen; obama; qualification; ruling; scotus; usurper
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 251-300301-350351-400401-424 next last
To: curiosity
On what basis?

That the parent rejected the crown in immigrating and wanted to be a U.S. citizen.

351 posted on 03/15/2010 10:05:38 PM PDT by edge919
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 347 | View Replies]

To: etraveler13

Let me know when any of this gets Obama out. Meanwhile I think the better effort is in producing new better candidates to take out Democrats and to promote more conservatism in the REPUBLICAN party.


352 posted on 03/15/2010 10:06:27 PM PDT by A CA Guy ( God Bless America, God bless and keep safe our fighting men and women.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Spaulding
First, edge919 and Curiosity use the now familiar nonsense to try to keep the public confused, relying on the readers to not try to read Wong Kim.

You need to read more of my posts before you lump me in with anything curiosity has posted. You clearly don't understand what I've been commenting on or haven't picked up on the fact that I disagree with him. I would encourage everyone to read Wong Kim Ark.

353 posted on 03/15/2010 10:07:38 PM PDT by edge919
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 350 | View Replies]

To: Lmo56
LOL. You can't even comprehend the texts you quote! Case in point.

Calvin's Case clearly states that a child can only be a natural born subject if he is born within the sovreign's dominion AND under actual obedience to that same sovreign. That obedience was transmitted through the parents - BOTH parents had to be under actual obedience to the sovreign.

Yeah. All that means is that the parents are subject to the King and have to obey his laws at the time and place of the birth. In a republic without a King, the analogous concept is that the parents are subject to the jurisdiction of the the government at the time of birth, which was the case with both Wong's parents as well as Obama's.

Actual obedience means solitary allegiance -

Uh, no. Allegiance and obediance have different meanings.

All "actual obedience" means is that the parents are living in territory under the King's rule and obligated to obligated to obey the King at the time and place of their child's birth.

Applied to a republic, it just means that the parents are living in the sovereign territory of the Republic and are only obligated to follow that Republic's laws at the time of the child's birth. That is also clearly the case with Obama's parents, as well as Wong's.

354 posted on 03/15/2010 10:14:15 PM PDT by curiosity
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 345 | View Replies]

To: curiosity
Unless you have some evidence to the contrary, the law presumes that what's in the state's vital record is the truth.

We haven't seen any state's vital record yet. There's nothing to assume, except that Obama is hiding his vital records.

That is, if his long form says he was not born in the Hospital, but still says he was born in Hawaii (and the revelations of the Hawaii DOH don't leave any room to doubt that), then the presumption still is he was born in Hawaii.

Instead of assuming what the long form says, let's make it public for everyone to see.

If you want to say he was born elsewhere, you'll have to prove it. To this day, no credible evidence of a birth outside Hawaii has been produced (and no, transparently phony Kenyan birth certificates aren't credible evidence).

Sorry, but the Kenyan birth certificate with the footprint is at least as credible as Obama's redacted (and alleged) COLB. At least the Kenyan certificate contains signatures and information that can be cross-checked. Obama's alleged COLB, not so much.

Actually, I don't think that's true. It's not criminal fraud to lie in a book or to lie to the public in speaches.

Yes, but once you sign affadavits claiming to be eligible for president on the basis of your claims ... that is criminal fraud.

Besides, he could always claim his mother concealed the truth from him and didn't find out he was born at home until now, so he wasn't really lying. And, frankly, I don't see how anyone could possibly prove otherwise.

I think this is extremely possible. I really, truly think that Obama cannot prove where he was born and may not know.

And, frankly, I don't think many people would care wheher he was born in a hospital or at home. Though I doubt very much he was born anywhere other than Kapiolani medical center.

If he wasn't born at the hospital, he may not have been born in Hawaii. That's the point. Who can affirm where he was born?? At least in a hospital, the doctors are pretty reliable sources of information. An unattended birth reported by Granny, not so much. Based on his nonsequential certificate number, I think it's very, very, very unlikely Obama was born in a Hawaii hospital.

355 posted on 03/15/2010 10:16:03 PM PDT by edge919
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 348 | View Replies]

To: curiosity
It's not criminal fraud to lie in a book or to lie to the public in speaches.

No it is not - it is despicable, but not criminal.

On the other hand, it IS criminal to file for candidacy in each state, since you have to swear that you are eligible to the office.

If the AZ legislature passes the eligibility act that is now before them, then Obama might be in a world of sh*t ...

If passed, he would have to prove his eligibility - including NBC in order to be on the ballot in AZ. The AZ SOS might deny him, under the NBC part. Since he cannot prove it by documentation [the term NBC has not been defined], he then has three options:

1. He could take it to court - and it would be appealed all the way to SCOTUS [regardless of being affirmed or denied in the lower courts].

SCOTUS would then have to decide to affirm, which would open the door to posssible "agent provocateurs" being POTUS in the future.

or

SCOTUS could deny and Obama would be out of the presidential race - and I don't know what they do with the laws he signed in his first term. He would then also be potentially liable to answer to criminal prosecution for affirming [in all 50 states] that he was eligible the first time around.

2. Obama could decide NOT to file in AZ [in which case, he would forfeit AZ's electoral votes] - but that would instill mis-trust in other states, meaning "what does he have to hide?". This could be devastating [electorally] in the so-called "swing states" and he could lose the election.

3. He could choose NOT to run at all for a second term. He would not have to reveal anything - but he would not be POTUS after January 20, 2013.

356 posted on 03/15/2010 10:19:07 PM PDT by Lmo56
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 348 | View Replies]

To: Uncle Chip
In a copy of the handwritten copy of the Constitution that I have, the "L" and "N" of "the Law of Nations" in Article I, Section 8 is most definitely capitalized.

Did you notice that every noun (following in the German style) is capitalized in it?

357 posted on 03/15/2010 10:51:25 PM PDT by FreedomCalls (It's called the "Statue of Liberty" and not the "Statue of Security.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 95 | View Replies]

To: Uncle Chip
"the Law of Nations" is the final phrase at the end of line 12 under Section 8. And "L" and "N" are definitely capitalized.

As are all the other nouns in it as well.

358 posted on 03/15/2010 10:54:13 PM PDT by FreedomCalls (It's called the "Statue of Liberty" and not the "Statue of Security.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 109 | View Replies]

To: etraveler13
That makes it Possessive, which links it to a document, book, essay, etc. Since they historically quote Vattel, it fits IMO.

Every noun in the original handwritten Constitution is capitalized. Capitalization of those two nouns means nothing more than the capitalization of all the rest means -- which is that those are nouns.

359 posted on 03/15/2010 10:56:44 PM PDT by FreedomCalls (It's called the "Statue of Liberty" and not the "Statue of Security.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 120 | View Replies]

To: Red Steel
My excellent copy of the Constitution that I downloaded from Congress's website (not there anymore) also has the "Law of Nations" in capital letters. The left has been doing a subtle campaign to change the meaning and intent of the Constitution for who knows how long.

Or perhaps it means that we no longer capitalize all our nouns any more just as we no longer use the "long s" letter either.


360 posted on 03/15/2010 11:06:13 PM PDT by FreedomCalls (It's called the "Statue of Liberty" and not the "Statue of Security.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 115 | View Replies]

To: Lmo56
It is encouraging to see the appearance of more really well informed responses and, by implication, contributors. In this thread there was the absurdity of two trolls trying to dominate the discussion by responding to each other. They discourage the sincerely interested who might have begun to believe the Alinsky-controlled major media from understanding that eligibility may be Obama’s real Achilles’ heal.

I have read a bit about Calvin's case in “English Nationality Law: Soli or Sanguinis” in the Grotrian Society Papers of 1972. Can you recommend another source? James Wilson is a dazzling writer, and refers to Vattel, Pufendorf, Grotius, and others, discussing citizenship extensively, but not natural born citizenship - I suspect because there was so little doubt about its wisdom. Kent Story and Hamilton all confirm Vattel’s major role, and do mention natural born citizenship, deferring to Vattel, but I'd like to find scholarship more narrowly focused on natural born citizenship?

Of course, the principal challenge now is to inform as many as possible of the fact of Obama’s ineligibility. Public opinion certainly affects the willingness of political appointee judges to grant standing, though in a perfect world the law should prevail. Ridicule is a powerful weapon. For many it seems far fetched that no major legal authority would challenge a candidate who told everyone that he, because of his father, was born a British subject. They understandably figure "he told everyone so how could there be anything wrong with his eligibility?" "Someone would have said something!" The sad truth is that it was like a chess game where the Republicans knew they were vulnerable, but daren't say anything or they would lose immediately. Having hidden what they knew, they are now complicit in the coverup.

Better informed people will overcome the name-calling sheep who discourage the public from understanding that Obama is very much the kind of leader Article II Section 1 natural born citizenship was intended to protect us from. Obama’s dream was to realize the dreams from his father of a socialist government, perhaps built around Sharia law (though I suspect Marxism is a stronger guiding principle for Obama than submission to Allah). A citizen father would have provided a higher likelihood that Obama’s allegiances were more consistant with the natural law on which our Constitution was built, and that was clearly the intention. There are also legal implications which I don't claim to understand of ignoring the clear intention of the Constitution.

I do suggest that we not feed the trolls. Responding to them validates their involvement. Someone in the thread, Bp2 I believe, noted that one troll had argued opposite points in another thread. Perhaps an abbreviated response such as “Warning Wong Kim” or “Warning Long Form Birth” or “Warning Nat Born = Jus Soli” would signal that citizens are learning the truth?

361 posted on 03/15/2010 11:15:18 PM PDT by Spaulding
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 345 | View Replies]

To: curiosity
Yeah. All that means is that the parents are subject to the King and have to obey his laws at the time and place of the birth. In a republic without a King, the analogous concept is that the parents are subject to the jurisdiction of the the government at the time of birth, which was the case with both Wong's parents as well as Obama's.

Uh, no. Allegiance and obediance have different meanings.

All "actual obedience" means is that the parents are living in territory under the King's rule and obligated to obligated to obey the King at the time and place of their child's birth.

Applied to a republic, it just means that the parents are living in the sovereign territory of the Republic and are only obligated to follow that Republic's laws at the time of the child's birth. That is also clearly the case with Obama's parents, as well as Wong's.

I thought you might fall into this trap - I DID NOT include Dicey [from Ark] in my post. Let us see what he REALLY has to say:

" ... CHAPTER III. BRITISH NATIONALITY.1 Rule 20.

(1) "British subject" means any person who owes permanent allegiance to the Crown. [See Note, below]

(2) "Natural-born British subject" means a British subject who has become a British subject at the moment of his birth.

(3) "Naturalized British subject" means any British subject who is not a natural-born British subject.

(4) "Alien" means any person who is not a British subject.

See the Naturalization Act, 1870, 33 & 34 Viet. cap. 14; the Naturalization Act, 1872, 35 & 36 Viet. cap. 39; the Naturalization Act, 1895, 68 & 59 Viet. cap. 43. Conf. 25 Edw. III. stat. 2 ; 7 Anne, cap. 5, s. 3 ; 4 Geo. II. cap. 21, s. 1 ; 13 Geo. III. cap. 21 ; 7 & 8 Viet. cap. 66 ; Westlake, 3rd ed., chap. xv.; Foote, 2nd ed., chap. i. ; 1 Steph. Comm., 12th ed., 136 ; 2 Ibid., 405-410. See App., Note 5, Acquisition, loss, and resumption of British nationality.

NOTE: "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 ...

... 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 ..."

Now ... lets see ... Calvin's Case [1608] is the seminal case concerning natural born subjects. Calvin's Case demands BOTH being born within the dominion and under the SOLE obedience to the sovreign.

"Ligeance is a true and faithful obedience of the subject due to his Sovereign" [direct quote from Calvin's Case].

Ligeance: Allegiance; the faithful obedience of a subject to his sovreign [Black's Law].

Ligeance is the root for the modern day word "allegiance".

Allegiance = Obedience = Ligeance.

Per Dicey [and supporting English statutes], a British Subject owes permanent allegiance [obedience, ligeance] to the Crown - as opposed to temporary allegiance [obedience, ligeance].

A natural born subject owes permanent allegiance [obedience, ligeance] to the Crown - as opposed to temporary allegiance [obedience, ligeance], from the time of his birth.

Per Calvin's Case [1608], obedience is derived from the parents - and it MUST be permanent. Since allegiance = obedience = ligeance, a child born [to a father being an alien and incapable of permanent allegiance], is a naturalized British subject NOT a natural born British subject.

FYI: And Dicey notes that there are RARE circumstances when a child born within the dominion IS NOT a British subject [and we aren't talking about a child of an ambassador here].

DO SOME DAMN RESEARCH BEFORE SPEWING YOUR DRIVEL ...

362 posted on 03/15/2010 11:26:59 PM PDT by Lmo56
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 354 | View Replies]

To: Spaulding

I have read a bit about Calvin’s case in “English Nationality Law: Soli or Sanguinis” in the Grotrian Society Papers of 1972. Can you recommend another source?

***

Actually, I have read the relevant citation [Calvin’s Case 7 Coke Report 1a, 77 ER 377]. Nothing like getting it from the horse’s mouth. It pretty much sucks reading it - lots of Latin - and it is lengthy.

The link is:

http://www.uniset.ca/naty/maternity/77ER377.htm

Search for “three incidents to a subject born” to get to the meaty stuff ...


363 posted on 03/15/2010 11:39:12 PM PDT by Lmo56
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 361 | View Replies]

To: FreedomCalls; Windflier; bgill
Did you notice that every noun (following in the German style) is capitalized in it?

A quick check of my copy shows that you are correct. The first letter of every Noun in my copy of the handwritten copy of the Constitution does appear to have been capitalized.

364 posted on 03/16/2010 5:33:39 AM PDT by Uncle Chip (TRUTH : Ignore it. Deride it. Allegorize it. Interpret it. But you can't ESCAPE it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 357 | View Replies]

To: curiosity

<>The court clearly concludes that all of those cases imply that a person born under the jurisdiction of the United States, on US soil, is a natural born citizen.<>

I’ll make it easy for you. Below is the link to the Wong Kim Ark decision. Please post the words from that decision that “clearly conclude” that Wong Kim Ark was a “natural born citizen”.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0169_0649_ZO.html


365 posted on 03/16/2010 7:19:42 AM PDT by Uncle Chip (TRUTH : Ignore it. Deride it. Allegorize it. Interpret it. But you can't ESCAPE it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 337 | View Replies]

To: Lmo56
It is not according to "birther theory" - as you call it. It is according to United States law...Nothing in a Supreme Court opinion except the ACTUAL wording in the paragraph affirming or denying the petition [and the reason(s) therefore] matters.

LOL. Do you actually believe this nonsense? Think about it. If nothing in the opinion, other than the paragraph affirming or denyin the petition mattered, then why would the court bother to write the many pages that preceed it?

Why do constitutional lawyers continually cite the those paragraphs? Your assertion is complete nonsense.

Stop pretending you are a legal scholar. You make yourself look silly.

If Wong Kim Ark v. United States had settled the question of natural born citizen, ALL of the liberal attornies on cable TV would have cited it as stare decisis - which is Supreme Court precedent.

Actually, numerous lawyers of all political persuasions, not just liberals, arguing against the birther position have done just that. That includes judges sitting on the Indiana court of appeals.

366 posted on 03/16/2010 9:33:19 AM PDT by curiosity
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 340 | View Replies]

To: Uncle Chip

Your right of course:


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.

On the basis of the 14th Amendment, however, the majority opinion coined a new definition for “native citizen”, as anyone who was born in the U.S.A., under the jurisdiction of the United States. The Court gave a novel interpretation to jurisdiction, and thus extended citizenship to all born in the country (excepting those born of ambassadors and foreign armies etc.); but it did not extend the meaning of the term “natural born citizen.”


367 posted on 03/16/2010 9:35:16 AM PDT by etraveler13
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 365 | View Replies]

To: Uncle Chip
I’ll make it easy for you. Below is the link to the Wong Kim Ark decision. Please post the words from that decision that “clearly conclude” that Wong Kim Ark was a “natural born citizen”.

Gladly:

"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, 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."

368 posted on 03/16/2010 9:36:28 AM PDT by curiosity
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 365 | View Replies]

To: edge919

There is no Constitutional requirement that Obama’s father be an American citizen.
If his father isn’t at least a permanent immigrant, like the parents in Wong Kim Ark, then arguably Obama isn’t an American citizen period. Otherwise, then, yes, the father needs to be an American citizen.

If there was, the McCain/Palin campaign would have sought an injunction to stop Obama’s election; Vice President Cheney would not have certified Obama’s electoral votes; and Chief Justice Roberts would not have sworn him in as the 44th President of the United States.

You’re right. They should have sought an injunction. Failing to take action does NOT justify the transgression.


Once again, there is no US Supreme Court decision that has ever been rendered that backs up your assertion. Wong Kim Ark’s parents returned to China and neither was ever an American citizen. Barack Obama’s mother was born and died an American citizen and Barack Obama was born in Honolulu, Hawaii at 7:24 p.m. on Friday, August 4, 1961, according to the state of Hawaii. The state of Hawaii’s statements on this issue have been convincing for every Court that has looked at the issue. Thus far, 64 courts including the US Supreme Court on eight separate occasions have ruled against every plaintiff that has attempted to sue Obama or sue others for not properly vetting Obama’s citizenship.

Perhaps there was no injunction because there was no transgression to enjoin. McCain and Palin are STILL as of today the only persons who might conceivably have legal standing to sue Obama and neither of them as filed suit.


369 posted on 03/16/2010 9:38:10 AM PDT by jamese777
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 342 | View Replies]

To: Lmo56
DO SOME DAMN RESEARCH BEFORE SPEWING YOUR DRIVEL ...

You know, when you do research, it helps to read the texts you look up.

If you had done so, you would see that the very texts you are citing support my position, not yours.

Case in point, from Dicey:

(2) "Natural-born British subject" means a British subject who has become a British subject at the moment of his birth.

So by extention to the US, anyone born a citizen is a natural born citizen.

So much for the birther fantasy that native citizen isn't synonymous with natural born citizen.

Now let's apply it to Obama. If born in Hawaii, Obama was born a citizen per the 14th Amendment. Therefore, if born in Hawaii, he is an natural born citizen. QED.

There is nothing in any of the texts you cite that can refute this simple observation.

370 posted on 03/16/2010 9:42:37 AM PDT by curiosity
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 362 | View Replies]

To: Lmo56
On the other hand, it IS criminal to file for candidacy in each state, since you have to swear that you are eligible to the office.

You don't have to be born in a hospital to be eligible.

If the AZ legislature passes the eligibility act that is now before them, then Obama might be in a world of sh*t ...

If passed, he would have to prove his eligibility - including NBC in order to be on the ballot in AZ. The AZ SOS might deny him, under the NBC part. Since he cannot prove it by documentation [the term NBC has not been defined], he then has three options:

He will provide the same COLB he posted online as documentation, and it will be accepted, since it says at the very bottom of the document that it is prima facie evidence of the fact of birth.

371 posted on 03/16/2010 9:46:43 AM PDT by curiosity
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 356 | View Replies]

To: curiosity
I’ll make it easy for you. Below is the link to the Wong Kim Ark decision. Please post the words from that decision that “clearly conclude” that Wong Kim Ark was a “natural born citizen”.

Gladly:

"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, 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."

Show us the words that state "Wong Kim Arks is a natrual born citizen" of the United States.

Show us a quote from a reputable constitutional scholar that states NBC was settled under Ark by stare decisis.

YOU CAN'T !!!

BTW: Why don't you respond to my post to you showing that allegiance = obedience and that permanent [as opposed to temporary] allegiance is required of the parents in order for a child to be a natural born subject, per Calvin's Case [1608] ???

372 posted on 03/16/2010 9:49:19 AM PDT by Lmo56
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 368 | View Replies]

To: curiosity

I’m sorry but I don’t see the phrase “natural born citizen” in that which you posted. I’ll give you another chance. Try again.


373 posted on 03/16/2010 10:00:42 AM PDT by Uncle Chip (TRUTH : Ignore it. Deride it. Allegorize it. Interpret it. But you can't ESCAPE it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 368 | View Replies]

To: edge919
We haven't seen any state's vital record yet.

State officials have verified that his vital record shows a birth in Hawaii.

Instead of assuming what the long form says, let's make it public for everyone to see.

No assumptions are required to know that the long form shows birth in Hawaii. We know this for two reasons: 1) state officials say his records show brith in Hawaii and 2) his birth was announced in the Hawaii papers in 1961. Hawaii did not register foreign births at the time, and the papers got the birth data for their announcements straight from the Health Bureau upon the registration of said births.

The only thing we don't know for sure without seeing the long form is the hosptial, doctor, or whether his birth was registered as a home birth.

Sorry, but the Kenyan birth certificate with the footprint is at least as credible as Obama's redacted (and alleged) COLB.

First of all, Obama made unredacted photos of the COLB available.

Second of all, there's corroborating evidence supporting the Hawaiian COLB: state officals confirm the state's record shows he was born in Hawaii, and there are birth announcements in the papers, and we know birth announcements were received directly from the department of health. Contrary to birther mythology, they were not phoned in.

There is no comparable corroborating evidence supporting the Kenyan BC.

Furthermore, birth records in Kenya are open to the public, so if Bamabi was born there, birthers would be able to prove it. The fact that they haven't is very telling.

If he wasn't born at the hospital, he may not have been born in Hawaii. That's the point.

No, it's not the point.

What you fail to grasp is that once a state registers a person's birth, even if it is a home birth, the law presumes the registration to be accurate and such registration is sufficient proof of birth in any court of law. The burden of proof the shifts to those who would dispute the birth's location written in the state's records.

Therefore, if his long form showed a home birth in Hawaii, and you wanted to dispute the location, you would have to prove someone committed fraud to register his birth in Hawaii.

Of course, you would never be able to do that. And then there's also the sticky point that there was no motive for anyone to have committed such a crime, even if he were really born in Kenaya.

374 posted on 03/16/2010 10:02:10 AM PDT by curiosity
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 355 | View Replies]

To: Lmo56
Show us the words that state "Wong Kim Arks is a natrual born citizen" of the United States.

Court opinions don't generally lend themselves to sound bites, but it is very clear from the paragraphs I posted that the court considered Ark to be a NBC.

375 posted on 03/16/2010 10:03:17 AM PDT by curiosity
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 372 | View Replies]

To: Uncle Chip
I’m sorry but I don’t see the phrase “natural born citizen” in that which you posted. I’ll give you another chance. Try again

The paragraphs I posted make it very clear that anyone born in the US to alien parents (with the exception of a child born to diplomates, invaders, and the like) is a natural born citizen.

If you cannot see that from reading those paragraphs, then your reading comprehension skills are so poor that I can't help you. You should seriously consider retaking 5th grade reading.

376 posted on 03/16/2010 10:06:42 AM PDT by curiosity
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 373 | View Replies]

To: etraveler13
On the basis of the 14th Amendment, however, the majority opinion coined a new definition for “native citizen”

And notice how, in order to reach that novel definition, Gray had to rely so heavily on the Lords of British Law, while at the same time minimizing the words of the Founders of the 14th Amendment. It was a true stretch of the imagination --

377 posted on 03/16/2010 10:09:35 AM PDT by Uncle Chip (TRUTH : Ignore it. Deride it. Allegorize it. Interpret it. But you can't ESCAPE it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 367 | View Replies]

To: curiosity
The paragraphs I posted make it very clear that anyone born in the US to alien parents (with the exception of a child born to diplomates, invaders, and the like) is a natural born citizen.

Well, curiosity, if the paragraphs made it very clear, then how come the paragraphs don't say it.

Do you have some kind of magic glasses that enable you to see what is not there???

378 posted on 03/16/2010 10:11:59 AM PDT by Uncle Chip (TRUTH : Ignore it. Deride it. Allegorize it. Interpret it. But you can't ESCAPE it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 376 | View Replies]

To: curiosity
On the other hand, it IS criminal to file for candidacy in each state, since you have to swear that you are eligible to the office.

You don't have to be born in a hospital to be eligible.

Not the point, you dumb sh*t ...

I never argued he wasn't born on US soil - only that he is not NBC. He can have all of the documentation proving he was born on US soil - he has the additional NBC requirement.

He can go to court and argue that he is NBC - the government can argue he is not. But, SCOTUS will have to affirm [or deny] once and for all with the words: "Obama is [or is not] a natural born citizen".

THE POINT IS THAT THE ISSUE HAS NEVER BEEN DECIDED - NO MATTER HOW MUCH YOU WISH IT TO BE TRUE UNDER ARK !!!

If the AZ legislature passes the eligibility act that is now before them, then Obama might be in a world of sh*t ...

If passed, he would have to prove his eligibility - including NBC in order to be on the ballot in AZ. The AZ SOS might deny him, under the NBC part. Since he cannot prove it by documentation [the term NBC has not been defined], he then has three options:

He will provide the same COLB he posted online as documentation, and it will be accepted, since it says at the very bottom of the document that it is prima facie evidence of the fact of birth.

It may be prima facie evidence that he was born on US soil - but it does not settle the NBC question, since his father was a natural born British subject and the laws of England claim him as a British subject also. A person born with two allegiances cannot be a natural born subject [citizen] - which was the understanding of the Founding Fathers at the time the Constitution was written.

As for prosecution - let us suppose, just suppose, he was declared NOT to be NBC.

I said he would possibly have to answer to charges. I did not say he would be convicted. I suspect that his defense would be that when he signed the documents, he was under the understanding that he WAS NBC and that it was an honest mistake. Thats reasonable - but it would cost him a fortune in attorney fees.

379 posted on 03/16/2010 10:14:27 AM PDT by Lmo56
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 371 | View Replies]

To: Uncle Chip
Well, curiosity, if the paragraphs made it very clear, then how come the paragraphs don't say it.

They do.

Do you have some kind of magic glasses that enable you to see what is not there???

No magic glasses are required, just reading comprehension skills above the 5th grade level.

380 posted on 03/16/2010 10:18:47 AM PDT by curiosity
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 378 | View Replies]

To: Lmo56
It may be prima facie evidence that he was born on US soil - but it does not settle the NBC question, since his father was a natural born British subject and the laws of England claim him as a British subject also.

You don't need the long form to know that, so I'm not quite sure why you make such a big deal about it.

He can go to court and argue that he is NBC - the government can argue he is not. But, SCOTUS will have to affirm [or deny] once and for all with the words: "Obama is [or is not] a natural born citizen".

The justices on SCOTUS are already aware that his father wasn't a US citizen, and yet they refused to hear the case. I think that's pretty indicative of the fact 1that they believe the issue was already settled, long ago, in Obama's favor.

A person born with two allegiances cannot be a natural born subject [citizen] - which was the understanding of the Founding Fathers at the time the Constitution was written.

Unfortunately, the Wong precedent says you are wrong, and it doesn't appear likely that the current court would overturn it.

381 posted on 03/16/2010 10:22:53 AM PDT by curiosity
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 379 | View Replies]

To: curiosity
No magic glasses are required, just reading comprehension skills above the 5th grade level.

Let us all know when you get there --

382 posted on 03/16/2010 10:25:03 AM PDT by Uncle Chip (TRUTH : Ignore it. Deride it. Allegorize it. Interpret it. But you can't ESCAPE it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 380 | View Replies]

To: curiosity
It may be prima facie evidence that he was born on US soil - but it does not settle the NBC question, since his father was a natural born British subject and the laws of England claim him as a British subject also.

You don't need the long form to know that, so I'm not quite sure why you make such a big deal about it.

You idiot - I have NEVER once asked to see the long form BC, it is NOT relevant. What IS relevant is whether he is NBC.

He can go to court and argue that he is NBC - the government can argue he is not. But, SCOTUS will have to affirm [or deny] once and for all with the words: "Obama is [or is not] a natural born citizen".

The justices on SCOTUS are already aware that his father wasn't a US citizen, and yet they refused to hear the case. I think that's pretty indicative of the fact 1that they believe the issue was already settled, long ago, in Obama's favor.

Wrong, Buffalo Breath ...

SCOTUS has refused to hear these cases without comment - and letting the lower courts' rulings of "lack of standing" stand. NO COURT HAS CITED ARK AS STARE DECISIS IN DISMISSING THESE CASES.

However, there is still one case that I know of outstanding - a petition for a writ quo warranto in the District of Columbia. If granted, Obama would have to show that he is eligible to the office - and that means proving he is NBC. He can argue Ark, as I have said before, but it will be up to the courts to decide.

A person born with two allegiances cannot be a natural born subject [citizen] - which was the understanding of the Founding Fathers at the time the Constitution was written.

Unfortunately, the Wong precedent says you are wrong, and it doesn't appear likely that the current court would overturn it.

You know, you don't have ANYTHING but Ark [which DID NOT declare Ark NBC] - so, you have to keep coming back to it, PLEADING for someone to see it your way.

Grow a pair of brass ones and find some documentation to support your proposition !!!

BTW: That must be MIGHTY FINE Kool-Aid yer drinkin' !!!

383 posted on 03/16/2010 10:57:42 AM PDT by Lmo56
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 381 | View Replies]

To: Lmo56
However, there is still one case that I know of outstanding - a petition for a writ quo warranto in the District of Columbia. If granted, Obama would have to show that he is eligible to the office - and that means proving he is NBC. He can argue Ark, as I have said before, but it will be up to the courts to decide.

Good luck with that. However, let me save you a lot of time and tell you what will happen: SCOTUS, if it even gets that far, will simply refuse to hear it, as this has already been decided by Ark.

SCOTUS has refused to hear these cases without comment - and letting the lower courts' rulings of "lack of standing" stand. NO COURT HAS CITED ARK AS STARE DECISIS IN DISMISSING THESE CASES.

The Indiana court of appeals did. See Ankeny and Kruse v. Indiana:

http://www.in.gov/judiciary/opinions/pdf/11120903.ebb.pdf

Their discussion of Ark starts on page 13.

You know, you don't have ANYTHING but Ark

There are also the books and cases cited by Ark, which you were kind enough to reproduce on this thread. All of them support my position, not yours. Unfortuantely, your reading skills are so poor, you can't figure that out for yourself.

Instead you project and call me stupid. I feel sorry for you.

384 posted on 03/16/2010 11:16:23 AM PDT by curiosity
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 383 | View Replies]

To: jamese777
Once again, there is no US Supreme Court decision that has ever been rendered that backs up your assertion.

I've quoted the parts of the decisions that do.

Wong Kim Ark’s parents returned to China and neither was ever an American citizen.

Which is why I said they were permanent immigrants and residents (which were the court's words). This would make the child a citizen at birth, but not a natural born citizen, which is why they didn't call the plaintiff a natural born citizen.

Barack Obama’s mother was born and died an American citizen and Barack Obama was born in Honolulu, Hawaii at 7:24 p.m. on Friday, August 4, 1961, according to the state of Hawaii.

We don't know if Obama's mama remained a U.S. citizen or if she might have expatriated in Indonesia. The state of Hawaii has not shown any documentation proving that Obama was born in Hawaii on that time and date. I'm not taking it on blind faith.

Thus far, 64 courts including the US Supreme Court on eight separate occasions have ruled against every plaintiff that has attempted to sue Obama or sue others for not properly vetting Obama’s citizenship.

None have heard a full case on merits, so we don't know where any court stands on vetting Obama's citizenship, except Ankeny, which had an unsupported conclusion.

McCain and Palin are STILL as of today the only persons who might conceivably have legal standing to sue Obama and neither of them as filed suit.

Obama did McCain a favor, so he's not going to take this to court. Palin is choosing a different path. As to whether they're the only one's who have legal standing, the jury is out.

385 posted on 03/16/2010 11:51:58 AM PDT by edge919
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 369 | View Replies]

To: curiosity
State officials have verified that his vital record shows a birth in Hawaii.

Not exactly. They said unknown vital records veryify his birth in Hawaii. The only official vital record that does this is a birth certificate, but the state official in question (there was only one), made it clear she was not citing obama's birth certificate as the source of this alleged verification.

No assumptions are required to know that the long form shows birth in Hawaii. We know this for two reasons: 1) state officials say his records show brith in Hawaii

Sorry, debunked.

and 2) his birth was announced in the Hawaii papers in 1961.

The birth anouncement didn't list a place of birth.

Hawaii did not register foreign births at the time, and the papers got the birth data for their announcements straight from the Health Bureau upon the registration of said births.

The state did register foreign births. It's why spokesbabe Okubo said that if the child was born in Bali, the COLB should say Bali as the place of birth (odd coincidence she picked a place in Indonesia).

First of all, Obama made unredacted photos of the COLB available.

No, what the amateur factcheckers photographed was not the same document that Obama originally presented as a jpg. Somehow the document paper grew in the photos. The pictures also fail to show that the signature block on the back clearly belongs to Obama's alleged COLB. Why won't they expose Obama's backside??

Second of all, there's corroborating evidence supporting the Hawaiian COLB: state officals confirm the state's record shows he was born in Hawaii, and there are birth announcements in the papers, and we know birth announcements were received directly from the department of health. Contrary to birther mythology, they were not phoned in.

State law allows ANYBODY to report a birth to the DOH. IOW, an unattended birth could have been 'phoned in' by anybody. Your other points were already debunked.

Furthermore, birth records in Kenya are open to the public, so if Bamabi was born there, birthers would be able to prove it. The fact that they haven't is very telling.

Feel free to prove this.

What you fail to grasp is that once a state registers a person's birth, even if it is a home birth, the law presumes the registration to be accurate and such registration is sufficient proof of birth in any court of law. The burden of proof the shifts to those who would dispute the birth's location written in the state's records.

No such proof has been presented in a court of law. You ever stop to wonder why??

Therefore, if his long form showed a home birth in Hawaii, and you wanted to dispute the location, you would have to prove someone committed fraud to register his birth in Hawaii.

Nice qualifier. Now you're saying IF Obama ws born in Hawaii ... we don't know, do we. We shouldn't have to guess what it says. Let's just see it.

Of course, you would never be able to do that. And then there's also the sticky point that there was no motive for anyone to have committed such a crime, even if he were really born in Kenaya.

Presenting a false birth certificate is a crime. The motive was to fool the American public into believing Obama was really born in Hawaii so he could be president. Funny how you call yourself 'curiosity,' yet show no curiosity.

386 posted on 03/16/2010 12:23:22 PM PDT by edge919
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 374 | View Replies]

To: edge919

I am sure you agree...there are none so blind, as those who will not see....


387 posted on 03/16/2010 12:37:32 PM PDT by etraveler13
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 386 | View Replies]

To: edge919

“I’ve quoted the parts of the decisions that do.”


And yet Wong Kim Ark is the landmark decision upholding the exact wording of the 14th Amendment, Section 1. Go figure!
Wong Kim Ark has been quoted in over 1000 cases, according to Westlaw, the online legal research search engine.

“Which is why I said they were permanent immigrants and residents (which were the court’s words). This would make the child a citizen at birth, but not a natural born citizen, which is why they didn’t call the plaintiff a natural born citizen.”


There is no distinction in the law between a citizen at birth and a natural born citizen. They are synomous terms.

I quote the following from the Wong Kim Ark decision:
“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.”

“We don’t know if Obama’s mama remained a U.S. citizen or if she might have expatriated in Indonesia. The state of Hawaii has not shown any documentation proving that Obama was born in Hawaii on that time and date. I’m not taking it on blind faith.”

We also don’t know whether there are people living on Mars. But there is no proof of Martians and there is no proof of Stanley Dunham’s expatriation (which would be legally irrelevant anyway concerning her son).
I could care less what you take or don’t take on blind faith. You are irrelevant. The courts that have read legal briefs on this issue have all accepted the statements of the Governor of Hawaii, the Attorney General of Hawaii, the Registrar of Vital Records in Hawaii and the Director of the Hawaii Department of Health that Barack Obama was born in that state on that date and at that time. As long as judges and lawmakers accept those public statements issued on the record, that’s all that matters.


“None have heard a full case on merits, so we don’t know where any court stands on vetting Obama’s citizenship, except Ankeny, which had an unsupported conclusion.”

When lawsuits have no merit, they don’t get heard. Ankeny can be appealed. If it reached an incorrect conclusion, it will be overturned but again, your opinion of the decision is irrelevant. Until it is appealed and overturned, it stands as the only court decision to rule specfically on the Natural Born Citizen status of Barack Hussein Obama II.


“Obama did McCain a favor, so he’s not going to take this to court. Palin is choosing a different path. As to whether they’re the only one’s who have legal standing, the jury is out.”

Here’s a definition of legal standing from Wikipedia: “In United States law, the Supreme Court of the United States has stated, “In essence the question of standing is whether the litigant is entitled to have the court decide the merits of the dispute or of particular issues”.

There are a number of requirements that a plaintiff must establish to have standing before a federal court. Some are based on the case or controversy requirement of the judicial power of Article Three of the United States Constitution, § 2, cl.1. As stated there, “The Judicial Power shall extend to all Cases . . .[and] to Controversies . . .” The requirement that a plaintiff have standing to sue is a limit on the role of the judiciary and the law of Article III standing is built on the idea of separation of powers. Federal courts may exercise power only “in the last resort, and as a necessity”.
Perhaps you could tell us who MIGHT have standing to sue Obama other than the only other persons to receive electoral college votes?
The “jury is still out” for you and some others on the fringe but its been “in with a verdict” for most people for over a year now.
Justice Scalia has presented an Obama eligibility suit from Orly Taitz to the other justices (Wrotnowski v. Bysiewicz). It was rejected.
Chief Justice Roberts has presented an Obama eligiblity suit also from Orly Taitz (Lightfoot v Bowen) to the other Justices. It was rejected.
Justice Clarence Thomas has presented an Obama eligibility suit from Leo Donofrio to the other Justices, it was rejected.
Justice Anthony Kennedy has presented an Obama eligibility suit from Philip Berg to the other Justices, it was rejected.


388 posted on 03/16/2010 12:50:51 PM PDT by jamese777
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 385 | View Replies]

To: Lmo56
Woops. I missed this earlier:

BTW: Why don't you respond to my post to you showing that allegiance = obedience and that permanent [as opposed to temporary] allegiance is required of the parents in order for a child to be a natural born subject, per Calvin's Case [1608] ???

Calvin's case does not say permanent allegiance is required of the parents. It only requires actual obedience.

Actual obedience isn't the same thing as permanent allegiance, and none of the posts you cite say it is.

In point of fact, your posts prove it can't be the same thing.

Per your Dicey quotations, only British subjects had permanent allegiance to the King of England. So if permanent allegience were required of the parents, then children born of aliens could not be natural born British subjects. But that would contradict the finding in Calvin, in which the child of an alien was ruled a natural born subject.

Actual obedience just means that the person in question is under the protection and jurisdiction of the King in the time an place in question. That applies to all aliens, unless they are invaders, envoys, diplomats, etc.

In the US context, it also applies to Obama's father, who as a resident of Hawaii, was under actual obedience to Hawaii's and US Federal laws at the time of Bambi's birth.

I'm sorry, my friend, but your argument holds no water, and your "research" does not support it.

389 posted on 03/16/2010 12:59:28 PM PDT by curiosity
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 372 | View Replies]

To: edge919
They said unknown vital records veryify his birth in Hawaii.

Here is what the director of public health says:

"I, Dr. Chiyome Fukino, director of the Hawaii State Department of Health, have seen the original vital records maintained on file by the Hawaii State Department of Health verifying Barack Hussein Obama was born in Hawaii."

You cannot get more clear or more explicit than that.

The only official vital record that does this is a birth certificate, but the state official in question (there was only one), made it clear she was not citing obama's birth certificate as the source of this alleged verification.

Where exactly did she "make clear" she was not citing his birth certificate? I don't see it in her statement. Do point it out.

Sorry, debunked.

Nope.

The birth anouncement didn't list a place of birth.

Doesn't matter, since the state did not register foreign births at the time.

The state did register foreign births. It's why spokesbabe Okubo said that if the child was born in Bali, the COLB should say Bali as the place of birth (odd coincidence she picked a place in Indonesia).

The law allowing the registration of foreign births was not passed until 1982. There was no such provision under the laws in effect in 1961.

No, what the amateur factcheckers photographed was not the same document that Obama originally presented as a jpg.

How do you know?

Somehow the document paper grew in the photos.

That's because the first image was a scan, not a photo.

The pictures also fail to show that the signature block on the back clearly belongs to Obama's alleged COLB.

They show photos of the front and the back. What else would you have them do?

Why won't they expose Obama's backside??

They do show a photo of the back of the document.

State law allows ANYBODY to report a birth to the DOH. IOW, an unattended birth could have been 'phoned in' by anybody. Your other points were already debunked.

The above statement is simply untrue.

Feel free to prove this [birth records in Kenya being open the public).

Sure. Here you go:

No such proof has been presented in a court of law. You ever stop to wonder why??

Yes. It's because no court has asked for it.

Nice qualifier. Now you're saying IF Obama ws born in Hawaii ... we don't know, do we.

We know the state vital records say he was born in Hawaii. That is enough under the law to prove he was born there. The presumption is now on you to disprove it.

Presenting a false birth certificate is a crime.

True. However, there has yet to be uncovered as shred of evidence that the COLB he did present is false.

390 posted on 03/16/2010 1:05:25 PM PDT by curiosity
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 386 | View Replies]

To: edge919
Me: Furthermore, birth records in Kenya are open to the public, so if Bambi was born there, birthers would be able to prove it. The fact that they haven't is very telling.

Edge919: Feel free to prove this.

Me: Gladly. See Cap 149, Section 26 of Kenyan Law. I quote the relevant passage below:

Cap 149: Births and Deaths Registration
Section 26: Inspection of Registers and Provisions of Copies and Certificates

(1) Any register, return or index in the custody of the Principal Registrar subject to the rules, shall be open to inspection on payment of the prescribed fee.

(2) The Principal Registrar shall, on payment of the prescribed fee, furnish a certified copy of any entry in any register or in any return in his custody.

(3) The Principal Registrar shall, on payment of the prescribed fee, furnish a certificate in the prescribed form of the birth of any person compiled in the prescribed manner from the records and registers in his custody.

(4) A certified copy of any entry in any register or return sealed or stamped with the seal of the Principal Registrar shall be received as evidence of the dates and facts therein contained without any or other proof of such entry.

If you don't believe I have faithfully cut and paste the appropriate text, you can look it up for yourself here:

http://www.kenyalaw.org/kenyalaw/klr_home/

Click on the "Cap Title" tab, and type in 149. Then scroll down to section 26.

Therefore, if Obama happens to have a birth certificate on file in Kenya, anyone will to pay a nominal fee has access to it.

Now why is it that no one has come up with one?

391 posted on 03/16/2010 1:14:30 PM PDT by curiosity
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 386 | View Replies]

To: edge919

If his lack of transparency is because of criminal fraud, we shouldn’t have to wait till 2012 to get his criminal butt out office.


If Obama is accused of committing criminal fraud, then any prosecuting attorney in the United States can charge him with that crime and under Hawaii law, they can then subpoena his birth records before a Grand Jury.


392 posted on 03/16/2010 1:21:18 PM PDT by jamese777
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 341 | View Replies]

To: jamese777
And yet Wong Kim Ark is the landmark decision upholding the exact wording of the 14th Amendment, Section 1. Go figure! Wong Kim Ark has been quoted in over 1000 cases, according to Westlaw, the online legal research search engine.

The 14th amendment doesn't change or impact the definition of natural born citizen. It didn't declare anyone to be a natural born citizen by virtue of the 14th amendment.

There is no distinction in the law between a citizen at birth and a natural born citizen. They are synomous terms.

Wrong. You can easily be a citizen at birth and NOT be a natural born citizen. I'm pretty sure we've already documented this.

I quote the following from the Wong Kim Ark decision:

What you quoted makes Obama a natural born subject, not a natural born citizen. You're not helping your own case.

I could care less what you take or don’t take on blind faith. You are irrelevant.

If this were true, you wouldn't post such lengthy replies trying vainly to disprove what I've posted.

The courts that have read legal briefs on this issue have all accepted the statements of the Governor of Hawaii, the Attorney General of Hawaii, the Registrar of Vital Records in Hawaii and the Director of the Hawaii Department of Health that Barack Obama was born in that state on that date and at that time.

Please post one of these alleged briefs. I have a feeling your making up things now or you're perhaps conflating 'legal briefs' with 'faither blogs.'

Here’s a definition of legal standing from Wikipedia:

Funny, but when I looked at the definition of legal standing at Wikipedia, it also says, "the term for the ability of a party to demonstrate to the court sufficient connection to and harm from the law or action challenged to support that party's participation in the case" and is followed by "the court ... will dismiss the case without considering the merits of the claim ..."

Perhaps you could tell us who MIGHT have standing to sue Obama other than the only other persons to receive electoral college votes?

The people who COULD have received electoral college votes, such as other candidates, not just McCain and his running mate.

393 posted on 03/16/2010 1:54:02 PM PDT by edge919
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 388 | View Replies]

To: edge919

The people who COULD have received electoral college votes, such as other candidates, not just McCain and his running mate.


The only one of them to sue was Alan Keyes (Keyes v Bowen). Keyes had standing in this suit but the court ruled against him ON THE MERITS and not only did Alan Keyes lose, the court awarded Barack Obama $520 in legal fees!

From the Court’s judgement:
“IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED:
1. That the First Amended Petition for Writ of Mandate is dismissed;
2. That respondent Secretary of State Debra Bowen shall recover costs in the amount of $350.00 pursuant to Government Code section 6103.5;
3. That respondent President Barack Obama shall recover costs in the amount of $520.00;
4. That respondent Vice-President Joe Biden shall recover costs in the amount of $520.00;”


394 posted on 03/16/2010 2:20:11 PM PDT by jamese777
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 393 | View Replies]

To: edge919

“Funny, but when I looked at the definition of legal standing at Wikipedia, it also says, “the term for the ability of a party to demonstrate to the court sufficient connection to and harm from the law or action challenged to support that party’s participation in the case” and is followed by “the court ... will dismiss the case without considering the merits of the claim ...”


Yes, that’s exactly why so many Obama eligibility suits have been summarily dismissed. In short, the court is telling the plaintiff, “you’ve got the wrong person suing.”
Implied in that judgement is “if you get the right plaintiff, one who can demonstrate “connection to and harm from...”, we might be willing to hear your case on the merits.”


395 posted on 03/16/2010 2:23:58 PM PDT by jamese777
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 393 | View Replies]

To: curiosity
You cannot get more clear or more explicit than that.

Nonsense. She didn't name specific documents. You can't be much more vague, but she certainly was not clear nor specific.

Where exactly did she "make clear" she was not citing his birth certificate? I don't see it in her statement. Do point it out.

By not citing the birth certificate by name. The ONLY vital record under her authority that authenticates birth claims is a birth certificate. There would be no other records to cite, especially if Obama's birth certificate indeed proves his place of birth. Instead, she says, she has nothing to add to her statement from October 2008 ... which was THE statement about the original birth certificate. If she wanted to prove his place of birth, all she had to do was cite that same document. She didn't and for obvious reasons.

The law allowing the registration of foreign births was not passed until 1982. There was no such provision under the laws in effect in 1961.

The law you're talking about didn't allow the registration of foreign births. The state already did that (hence Okubo's statement, the Hawaiian Certificate of Live Birth program and adoption laws). The 1982 law was about adding a Hawaiian residency requirement which did not exist prior.

They do show a photo of the back of the document.

It shows a photo of what looks like the back of a birth document, but there's nothing that visibly ties it directly to Obama's alleged COLB. They carefully avoided not photograhing the full back side of the document. It's time for Obama to expose his backside to the public.

That's because the first image was a scan, not a photo.

The first scan shows the edge of the document. The documents in the photos have a wider margin outside the imprinted area than the scans. Paper can't grow. Ouch.

The above statement is simply untrue.

It's true. HRS 388-6, "If neither parent of the newborn child whose birth is unattended as provided in section 338-5 is able to prepare a birth certificate, the local agent of the department of health shall secure the necessary information from any person having knowledge of the birth ..." Ouch ... again. Granny could have phoned it in ... by law.

Yes. It's because no court has asked for it.

Why wait for a court to ask for it and why let other people keep brining lawsuits when the presentation of a simple document could answer 90 percent of the questions??

True. However, there has yet to be uncovered as shred of evidence that the COLB he did present is false.

The state of Hawaii won't say it's authentic. The document comes in at least two different sizes. Some versions are stamped. Some aren't. The certificate number is out of sequence with known certificate numbers. The DOH has responded that the certificate was altered, yet the COLB fails to contain the required statement that it was altered. It contains a typo in one of the date fields that inconsistent with computer-generated forms. There's more than just a shred of evidence that it's false.

396 posted on 03/16/2010 2:43:50 PM PDT by edge919
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 390 | View Replies]

To: curiosity

Your citations keep saying that the inspection of registers is ‘subject to the rules.’ I believe Orly tried to get one of the courts to send an official letter to Kenya Principal Registrar to verify one of the Kenyan BCs. Seems like she would have done this herself if it was open to the public. Or on the converse, why hasn’t any Obot faither cited a note from the Principal Registrar to confirm that Obama does NOT have a certificate on file there?? It swings both ways, if they’re truly open to the public.


397 posted on 03/16/2010 2:48:23 PM PDT by edge919
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 391 | View Replies]

To: jamese777

Keyes v. Bowen wasn’t ruled on the merits of Obama’s citizenship but whether it was the job of the Secretary of State to check the eligibility of federal candidates. This says nothing about Obama being eligible.


398 posted on 03/16/2010 3:12:31 PM PDT by edge919
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 394 | View Replies]

To: jamese777
If Obama is accused of committing criminal fraud, then any prosecuting attorney in the United States can charge him with that crime and under Hawaii law, they can then subpoena his birth records before a Grand Jury.

To get a subpoena, you have to go through a court. You make it sound like somebody can do this on a whim. Hopefully you know better.

399 posted on 03/16/2010 3:16:46 PM PDT by edge919
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 392 | View Replies]

To: edge919
Your citations keep saying that the inspection of registers is ‘subject to the rules.’

There is no "subject tot he rules" clause in the section of the law that instructs the registrar to provide a certified copy of a birth or death record.

I believe Orly tried to get one of the courts to send an official letter to Kenya Principal Registrar to verify one of the Kenyan BCs. Seems like she would have done this herself if it was open to the public.

LOL. Given her obvious irrationality and stupidty, I wouldn't try to infer anything from Orly's actions.

Or on the converse, why hasn’t any Obot faither cited a note from the Principal Registrar to confirm that Obama does NOT have a certificate on file there??

Generally, the burden of proof is on those who are making a positive statement, not on those denying it.

400 posted on 03/16/2010 3:21:34 PM PDT by curiosity
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 397 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 251-300301-350351-400401-424 next 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