Posted on 03/14/2010 12:04:10 PM PDT by etraveler13
Obama should have to show his birth certificate to run again.
Of course, and there's a good reason for it. Your own words provide it:
The ONLY vital record under her authority that authenticates birth claims is a birth certificate.
It therefore is quite obvious what was underlying the vital record she was citing. Duh.
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).
Please show me which provision in Hawaiian law in effect in 1961 provided for the registration of foreign births.
Let me save you the trouble: there is none. I looked it up and checked. There is not a single, solitary place in the registration laws as of 1961 that allowed for it.
"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.
Uh, no. I don't see anything in the statement you quoted about phoning in anything.
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??
Present it to whom, exactly? And in what context?
Furthermore, given that the birther movement helps Obama by keeping his opposition distracted, and making them look like idiots, why would he want to do anything to discourage it?
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.’
I’m afraid that posting an entire legal brief on FreeRepublic would be a bit too much use of bandwidth but you can read the Court’s decision in “Ankeny v Daniels” and see how many times the Justices make reference to information in the brief filed by the Attorney General of Indiana (a conservative Republican, by the way) in defense of Barack Obama.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/22488868/ANKENY-v-GOVERNOR-OF-THE-STATE-OF-INDIANA-APPEALS-COURT-OPINION-11120903
And here is the Court’s order denying “Donofrio v Wells” in which the trial judges make reference to the due diligence in confirming Barack Obama’s (and John McCain’s) status as a Natural Born Citizen. The Court makes reference to the brief of the Attorney General of New Jersey and to other cases before the US Supreme Court which verified Obama’s birthplace as Hawaii.
http://www.scribd.com/full/22677941?access_key=key-1xz5n7vg96tywp2ukwsc
If neither of those lawsuits is good enough for you, I’ll be happy to post judgements and references to defense briefs from any of the other 64 Obama eligibility cases for your perusal.
You might also find the following to be of interest:
At least five of the nine justices currently on the U.S. Supreme Court cited Wong Kim Ark approvingly in Miller v. Albright 523 U.S. 420 (1997). A case about whether the illegitimate child of a Filipino mother and an American soldier (born abroad) should have to jump through more hoops to affirm her American citizenship than if she were born to an American mother and Filipino father.
Justice Stevens, the majority opinion, “There are ‘two sources of citizenship, and two only: birth and naturalization.’ United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, 702 (1898).”
Justices Scalia and Thomas in concurrence: “The Constitution ‘contemplates two sources of citizenship, and two only: birth and naturalization.’ United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, 702 (1898). Under the Fourteenth Amendment, ‘[e]very person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, becomes at once a citizen of the United States, and needs no naturalization.’ Ibid.”
Justices Breyer and Ginsburg in Dissent: “I recognize that, ever since the Civil War, the transmission of American citizenship from parent to child, jus sanguinis, has played a role secondary to that of the transmission of citizenship by birthplace, jus soli. See Rogers v. Bellei, 401 U.S., at 828; see also Weedin v. Chin Bow, 274 U.S. 657, 669—671 (1927) (citing United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, 674 (1898), and id., at 714 (Fuller, C. J., dissenting)).”
Justice Sotomayor quoted Wong in a dissenting opinion from a 2nd Circuit opinion that suggested that because Bermudans were not “subjects” or “citizens” of the UK, they were not covered in the alienage jurisdiction of federal courts. Sotomayor wrote that this gave foreign jurisdictions the power to trump our laws in a way that was unacceptable.
Her view was upheld by a unanimous Supreme Court in 2002 in JPMorgan Chase v. Traffic Stream (in another case that cited Wong Kim Ark) which brings Justice Kennedy into the group of justices that have endorsed Wong.
Of the current sitting justices, only Justices Alito and Roberts haven’t cited Wong. Justice Alito, however, came from the Third Circuit where the circuit decided the same issue that Sotomayor faced and decided it the same way as Sotomayor and the Supreme Court – Southern Cross v. Wah Kwong.
Wait, wait, I know. The judge only awarded Obama that tiny sum in order to hide the true amount he's spending on birther lawsuits. He must be in on the conspiracy!/sarcasm
It doesn't say you can get a certified copy of a birth or death record ... instead it says "certified copy of any entry in any register," which may or may not be the same thing. The Department of Civil Registration in Kenya appears to be the office that distribute birth certificates, but they don't make it clear whether it's an open process to the public.
LOL. Given her obvious irrationality and stupidty, I wouldn't try to infer anything from Orly's actions.
I don't have to infer. She asked the court to do this for her.
Generally, the burden of proof is on those who are making a positive statement, not on those denying it.
A Kenyan birth certificate has been presented. This would be a quick way to prove it's false, no??
You're grasping at straws. The section of the law is titled, "registry of births and deaths."
A Kenyan birth certificate has been presented. This would be a quick way to prove it's false, no??
It's already been proven false by other means.
A measly $520 in fees? Whaaaaat? I thought Obama was spending millions!
Wait, wait, I know. The judge only awarded Obama that tiny sum in order to hide the true amount he’s spending on birther lawsuits. He must be in on the conspiracy!/sarcasm
Anyone with even the slightest knowledge of court costs knows that when no cases actually go to trial, the costs of simply filing a legal brief are next to nothing. Obama only presented a defense in about five “birther” suits and that simply meant filing of defense briefs.
A majority of the “Obama’s not eligible” lawsuits don’t even name Obama as a defendant.
For example: Donofrio v Wells, Ankeny v Mitch Daniels, Lighfoot v Bowen, Brockhousen v Andrade, Beverly v FEC, or Wrotnowski v. Bysiewicz.
If you’re not named as a defendant, you have no legal costs.
The Indiana Court of Appeals decision has no binding authority in the federal courts. This is a federal constitutional question. Federal court authority supercedes and it is not a settled question there yet.
The Court, in this case, relied on:
" ... The sole issue is whether the trial court erred when it dismissed Plaintiff's complaint. A motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim tests the legal sufficiency of the claim, not the facts supporting it General Cas. Ins. Co. v. Bright, 885 N.E.2d 56, 57 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008) (citing Charter One Mortg. Corp. v. Condra, 865 N.E.2d 602, 604 (Ind. 2007)). Thus, our review of a trial court's grant or denial of a motion based on Trial Rule 12(B)(6) is de novo. Id. at 58 ..."
The Court further stated:
" ... 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 ..."
So, the Indiana Court of Appeals admits that Ark DID NOT declare NBC. But, the Court then went on to conclude that Obama is NBC under Ark.
As previously stated [above] Ark DID NOT pronounce the plaintiff a “natural born Citizen”. It ALSO stated that the only 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.
So on one hand, the Court states that Ark DID NOT pronounce the plaintiff a "natural born citizen" AND that this issue was whether Ark was only a "citizen".
On the other hand, they then conclude BECAUSE of Ark - Obama IS NBC.
Contradictory opinions in the same decision.
What the Indiana Court of Appeals did here was to DISREGARD the specific language of the decision in Ark [stating that SCOTUS' lacking to pronounce Ark NBC was immaterial]. It then promoted its own interpretation of the background of Ark in order to arrive at its conclusion that Ark WAS NBC - AND it had the judicial hubris to cite the original Ark decision as the precedent.
That IS NOT stare decisis - it is an unjustified re-interpretation of a settled case in order to justify the conclusion that the court came to. AND, it is an inferior court trying to re-define a superior court's decision.
And, isn't it strange that the opinion DOES NOT contain a single reference to stare decisis ???
However, as stated in the beginning of this post, the decision was REALLY based on failure to state a claim - not Ark. The re-interpretation of Ark was a "political" statement by the Court and cannot be held as precedent anywhere
I said it may or may not be the same thing. How is that 'grasping at straws'?? They might be talking about an abbreviated record, such as index data and not a full birth certificate.
It's already been proven false by other means.
Not so much. An official note saying the record doesn't exist would actually carry some weight.
You said they all specifically believed "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," so show one of these briefs. There's no mention in Ankeny of any of these alleged statements. Quit jacking around.
All your citations related to Wong are meaningless when they don't specifically address natural born citizenship, particularly in terms of Constitutional eligibility. We already know the 14th amendment created native born citizenship and did not redefine natural born citizenship.
All your citations related to Wong are meaningless when they don’t specifically address natural born citizenship, particularly in terms of Constitutional eligibility. We already know the 14th amendment created native born citizenship and did not redefine natural born citizenship.
As I already posted and as Justices Scalia and Thomas have said: “The Constitution ‘contemplates two sources of citizenship, and two only: birth and naturalization.’ United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, 702 (1898). Under the Fourteenth Amendment, ‘[e]very person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, becomes at once a citizen of the United States, and needs no naturalization.’”
What part of “...AND ONLY TWO...” don’t you understand?
As much as you hate it but can’t admit it because it destroys your argument, there are only two categories of citizenship for all American citizens: “citizenship at birth” and “naturalized” citizenship. “Citizens at birth” are “natural born citizens” and they can be elected president and vice president and “naturalized citizens” are created by statute law and they cannot be elected president or vice president.
Under the laws of the land, specifically Title 8, Chapter 12, Subchapter III, Part 1, Section 1401, point “a” of the US Code entitled “Nationals and US Citizens at birth”:
“The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth:
(a) a person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof;” Now if you can find a different section of the US Code that defines natural born citizen differently from the above, have at it!
THERE IS NO UNITED STATES STATUTE THAT DEFINES THE TERM “NATURAL BORN CITIZEN,” NOR HAS THERE EVER BEEN, FROM THE TIME OF THE RATIFICATION OF THE CONSTITUTION. THERE IS NO COURT DECISION OR LAW PASSED BY CONGRESS THAT SEPARATES “NATURAL BORN CITIZENS” from “CITIZENS AT BIRTH.”
If it isn’t codified in the “U.S. Code” or in the “U.S. Statutes At Large,” it is NOT the law of the land. PERIOD.
This is false. You're misconstruing your citations as saying something they don't.
THERE IS NO UNITED STATES STATUTE THAT DEFINES THE TERM “NATURAL BORN CITIZEN,” ....
Sorry, but you're contradicting yourself. You go from saying that it's been folded into the 14th amendment, to saying that it's not defined. You can't have it both ways. I've already explained that Minor (and WKA) have said the definition is extraconsitutional. It CAN'T be defined by statute, but instead only by a specific Constitutional amendment. Otherwise, we are still bound by the same common law definition found in six different Supreme Court cases. Obama is not a natural born citizen ... period.
Electoral votes are counted on a state by state basis. “Ankeny v The Governor of Indiana, Mitch Daniels” challenged the awarding of Indiana’s electoral votes. Therefore it had relevance to the legitimacy of the last election, but not much relevance since Vice President Cheney in his role as President of the Senate counted and certified Obama’s Electoral Votes and the Chief Justice swore Obama in as President.
The US Supeme Court has had eight opportunities to grant a Writ of Certiorari to an Obama eligibility case: Berg v. Obama, Beverly v. FEC, Craig v. US, Donofrio v Wells, Herbert v. Obama et. al., Lightfoot v. Bowen, Schneller v. Cortes, and Wrotnowski v. Bysiewicz. They have denied them without comment.
Its funny that people are more than willing to recite English law, and apply that to US law, although its not in the constitution. Yet Vattel, who is in the constitution as “Law of Nations” is noted, who clearly defines what Natural Born is, with no ambiguity, cannot be accepted.
Sorry, but you’re contradicting yourself. You go from saying that it’s been folded into the 14th amendment, to saying that it’s not defined. You can’t have it both ways. I’ve already explained that Minor (and WKA) have said the definition is extraconsitutional. It CAN’T be defined by statute, but instead only by a specific Constitutional amendment. Otherwise, we are still bound by the same common law definition found in six different Supreme Court cases. Obama is not a natural born citizen ... period.
They have not confirmed his birth in that state? Fukino made a statement which was not her place to make, and was called on the carpet about it. The whole point of wanting to see the BC from Hawaii is to clear that issue up. They make ambiguous statements about the BC or document that they have on file, but do not state that the COLB produced by FactCheck is like what they have, or that the facts on it are the same. Now we know that the published COLB is fake. Just like Obama IMO...
More news from the mailbag...
Just one more thing to add to the “Great List of Deceit.....
Big Surprise
Consider this:
1. President Barack Obama, former editor of the Harvard Law Review, is no longer a “lawyer”. He surrendered his license back in 2008 in order to escape charges he lied on his bar application. NOTE: Click on “lawyer” to see the actual documents.
2. Michelle Obama “voluntarily surrendered” her law license in 1993.
3. So, we have the first black President and First Lady — who don’t actually have licenses to practice law. Facts.
4. A senior lecturer is one thing... A fully ranked law professor is another. Barack Obama was NOT a Constitutional Law professor at the University of Chicago .
5. The University of Chicago released a statement in March, 2008 saying Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) “served as a professor” in the law school—but that is a title Obama, who taught courses there part-time, never held, a spokesman for the school confirmed in 2008.
6. “He did not hold the title of professor of law,” said Marsha Ferziger Nagorsky, an Assistant Dean for Communications and Lecturer in Law at the University of Chicago School of Law .
Source: http://blogs.suntimes.com/sweet/2008/03/sweet_obama_did_hold_the_title.html
7. The former Constitutional senior lecturer cited the US Constitution the other night during his State of the Union Address. Unfortunately, the quote he cited was from the Declaration of Independence … not the Constitution.
8. The B-Cast posted the video: http://www.breitbart.tv/did-obama-confuse-the-constitution-with-the-declaration-of-independence/
9. Free Republic: In the State of the Union Address, President Obama said: “We find unity in our incredible diversity, drawing on the promise enshrined in our Constitution: the notion that we are all created equal….
10. Um, wrong citing, wrong founding document there Champ, I mean Mr. President. By the way, the promises are not a notion, our founders named them unalienable rights. The document is our Declaration of Independence and it reads:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
11. And this is the same guy who lectured the Supreme Court moments later in the same speech???
When you are a phony it’s hard to keep facts straight.
Pres. Barack Obama – Editor of the Harvard Law Review– Has No Law License???
May 15, 2009 by Johnny Alamo
I saw a note slide across the #TCOT feed on Twitter last night that mentioned Michelle Obama had no law license. This struck me as odd, since (a) she went to school to be a lawyer, and (b) she just recently held a position with the University of Chicago Hospitals as legal counsel — and that’s a pretty hard job to qualify for without a law license.
But being a licensed professional myself, I knew that every state not only requires licensure, they make it possible to check online the status of any licensed professional. So I did, and here’s the results from the ARDC Website:
She “voluntarily surrendered” her license in 1993. Let me explain what that means. A “Voluntary Surrender” is not something where you decide “Gee, a license is not really something I need anymore, is it?” and forget to renew your license. No, a “Voluntary Surrender” is something you do when you’ve been accused of something, and you ‘voluntarily surrender” you license five seconds before the state suspends you.
Here’s an illustration: I’m a nurse. At various times in my 28 years of nursing I’ve done other things when I got burned out; most notably a few years as a limousine driver; even an Amway salesman at one point. I always, always renewed my nursing license — simply because it’s easier to send the state $49.00 a month than to pay the $200, take a test, wait six weeks, etc., etc. . . I’ve worked (recently) in a Nursing Home where there was an 88 year old lawyer and a 95 year old physician. Both of them still had current licensures as well. They would never DREAM of letting their licenses lapse.
I happen to know there is currently in the Indiana State Prison in Michigan City Indiana an inmate who is a licensed physician, convicted of murder when he chased the two burglars who entered his home and terrorized his family into the street and killed them. (And I can’t say I blame him for that, either.) This physician still has an active medical license and still sees patients, writes prescriptions, etc all from inside the prison. And he renews his medical license every two years, too. I tried looking up why she would “Voluntarily surrender” her license, but Illinois does not have it’s 1993 records online.
But when I searched for “Obama”, I found this:
“Voluntarily retired” — what does that mean? Bill Clinton hung onto his law license until he was convicted of making a false statement in the Lewinsky case and had to “Voluntarily Surrender” his license too.
This is the former editor of the Harvard Law Review who doesn’t seem to give a crap about his law license.
Something else odd; while the Search feature brings up the names, any searches for the Disciplinary actions ends quickly.
As in, Too Quickly. Less than a half-second quickly on a Search Engine that can take five seconds to Search for anything.
As in, “there’s a block on that information” kind of thing.
So we have the first Lawyer President and First Lady —who don’t actually have licenses to practice law. There’s more to this story, I’m sure. I’ll let you know when I find it.
Dr. Fukino’s statement confirming Obama’s Hawaii birth is still available at the web site of the State of Hawaii Department of Health for anyone to read and it was confirmed to several “birther” web sites including WorldNetDaily that Dr. Fukino’s statement was reviewed and approved by the state Attorney General’s office.
You can read her statement on the website here:
http://www.hi5deposit.com/health/vital-records/obama.html
Scroll down to #3 “All past statements by the Health Director...”
The rest of your post has nothing to do with Obama’s eligibility under Article 2 Section 1 of the Constitution.
Dr. Fukino’s statement is unambiguous and legally definitive. It is on the official state letterhead with Governor Lingle’s name prominently featured.
When attorneys leave the practice of law to enter other professions, they often surrender their law licenses so that they do not have to attend Continuing Legal Education workshops in order to keep their license active. Its as simple and as uncomplicated as that.
I read both your links. Interesting that the COLB that Obama has remarked on, that was posted by Fact Check is fake, and Fukino says he is a Natural Born Citizen, yet the Insightful director of the Health department of Hawaii Ms. Chioumi Fukino has only provided a cryptic statement, that there is a document on file, according to Hawaiian rules and regulations, however she consistently refused to provide a clear answer, as to what document is there, is it a 338-5 document supplied by a parent only without any corroborating evidence, is it a 338-17 document given to a foreign born child of a Hawaiian resident, is it an amended birth certificate, given upon Mr. Obama’s adoption by his Indonesian step father and showing him as a citizen of Indonesia?
Now, watch the language Fukino uses in her latest declaration — “I…have seen the original vital records maintained on file…”
Those are two completely different statements. In the first, she is describing a document — a piece of paper. In the second she is describing an electronic data set — data stored on a disc. Fukino is carefully parsing her words and clearly dissimulating, but why?
Now let’s examine what USA Today is reporting: “Hawaii’s health director reiterated this afternoon that she has personally seen Obama’s birth certificate in the Health Department’s archives.”
That statement is false. It is not what Fukino said. Fukino did not say, “she has personally seen Obama’s birth certificate in the Health Department’s archives” — and USA Today even put their made-up statement within quotes.
Please provide me all electronic and written documents that will satisfy the following: the policies & procedures, Names of Individuals and Titles of Position within or without the Department, all Communications Records possessed by the Department between individuals within or without the Department; and that pertain to the RELEASE OF THE PUBLICLY RELEASED STATEMENT and the decision to release the statement, made by Dr. Chiyome Fukino on July 27, 2008, on behalf of‘the Hawaii State Department of Health:
Please provide me all electronic and written documents that will satisfy the following: the policies & procedures, Names of Individuals and Titles of Position within or without the Department, all Communications Records possessed by the Department between individuals within or without the Department; and that pertain to the RELEASE OF THE PUBLICLY RELEASED STATEMENT and the decision to release the statement, made by Dr. Chiyome Fukino on October 31, 2008, on‘behalf of the Hawaii State Department of Health:
STATEMENT BY DR. CHIYOME FUKINO
“There have been numerous requests for Sen. Barack Hussein Obama’s official birth certificate. State law ( Hawaii Revised Statutes §338-18) prohibits the release of a certified birth certificate to persons who do not have a tangible interest in the vital record.
“Therefore, I as Director of Health for the State of Hawaii, along with the Registrar of Vital Statistics who has statutory authority to oversee and maintain these type of vital records, have personally seen and verified that the Hawaii State Department of Health has Sen. Obama’s original birth certificate on record in accordance with state policies and procedures.
“No state official, including Governor Linda Lingle, has ever instructed that this vital record be handled in a manner different from any other vital record in the possession of the State of Hawaii.”
Please consider this request as a Hawaii UIPA (Uniform Information Practices Act) request under section 92F-12.
I would also appreciate confirmation of receipt of this request in a timely manner per guidelines.
I also just read this today...
Despite citing Hawaii’s privacy laws on birth records as the reason she cannot release information about them, Fukino has never demonstrated that Obama gave her permission to inspect his file by a “direct and tangible interest in the record,” as required by Hawaii law. Dr. Fukino also has never provided supporting, or “index data,” to back up her claim that Obama is a “natural-born American citizen.” Obama himself also refuses to back up this statement.
No James, I for one do not understand.
Here’s the problem: If BHO II were born in the USSR in 1961 to a Soviet father serving in the govt of the USSR and an American Citizen mother AND BHO II resided in the USSR for all but 14 years of his life, he would still be a US “Citizen at Birth” simply because his mother was a US citizen.
Obama, in this situation, would NOT be a “naturalized citizen.” He would not require “naturalization” b/c he was born to an American citizen mother and thus is/was automatically a US Citizen at Birth.
Therefore, IF there are only 2 citizenship classifications — citizen at birth and naturalized citizen — then there must be classifications within “citizen at birth”, ie., NBC and some other type(s) of “citizen at birth” which is defined. . .and in fact, “citizen at birth” is defined as several different citizenships some including birth on foreign soil.
Per the authors of the 14th Amendment, Article II was not touched nor changed, in any way, by the 14th Amendment.
Obviously, the kid born to a Soviet Father & an American mother, even if he were trained as a communist/soviet most of his life, would STILL be a “Citizen of the US at Birth.”
Clearly, it would be a serious “national security” risk for the US to have a President (even if a US Citizen at birth) who was trained as a communist by a Soviet communist system whose father worked in the govt of the USSR regardless. The fact that one of his parents, ie., mother was a US citizen (born or naturalized) when the child was born, i.e., Obama, is irrelevant. He had ONE parent who was not a US Citizen. That’s a very significant fact that has been lost in this discussion.
Obama’s father did, in fact, work or the Kenyan Govt and was exclusively loyal only to Kenya.
Therefore, based on your reasoning, wouldn’t Obama technically be a NBC of BOTH the US & GB? People seem to ignore Obama’s other citizenship statuses. I’m wondering WHY that is?
Here’s what the American people do NOT know about Obama even now: We do NOT KNOW Obama’s CURRENT citizenship status.
IS Obama CURRENTLY still a British Citizen/Subject? Did he EVER lose his British citizenship? Yours and others reasoning is that Obama never lost his US Citizenship even if adopted in Indonesia. Okay, fine. How about his BRITISH citizenship. Did he ever lose his British citizenship?
We know he lost his Kenyan citizenship in the 1980s b/c he admitted it. But he NEVER said a word about his BRITISH citizenship.
IS Obama STILL a British Subject/citizen, NOW as POTUS? The American people do not KNOW the answer to that question. Why not?
Also, IS Obama CURRENTLY (or was he ever) a Citizen of Indonesia? The answer to that basic question about candidate Obama and President Obama was (and is still) DENIED to the American people. I’m wondering WHY? And I find that FACT very disturbing. What’s going on in our country. WHY — and who has the power to deny us this very basic information about ANY candidate for the single most powerful position in the US Govt.
If the American people can be denied such basic SIMPLE information, what ELSE is being hidden from us?
Why don’t we even KNOW the answers to these questions and WHY won’t ANYONE talk about it OR PERMIT it to be discussed on the PUBLIC airwaves?
This is one colossal COVER-UP. It makes Watergate look like nothing.
Something is VERY wrong when the American people don’t even know what the CURRENT and FULL citizenship status is of a sitting “president.”
What kind of ELECTIONS are being run in the US today? Seriously. Are the American people SO ignorant and apathetic that we don’t even REQUIRE that our POTUS candidates supply even BASIC information and records that can substantiate WHO they are?
And . . .Yah, I did put “president” in quotes b/c I am not sure IF Obama is legally The President of the United States b/c he’s hiding SO much and simply refuses to answer SIMPLE basic questions about himself. Although, he’s not totally at fault. He’s been PERMITTED to HIDE a great deal by a horrifyingly COMPLICIT media/press (both liberal and conservative). WHY?
What about the Marie Eig SCOTUS case? The court had no trouble identifying Eig as a NBC b/c both of her parents were US citizens at the time of her birth and she was born in the USA.
Wong Kim Ark also stated that the ONLY definition of NBC that ALL recognize as true is: Born on US soil to 2 US citizen parentS. ALL other possible definitions are speculative. The burden of proof is therefore on OBAMA to prove that HE is a NBC of the US. it’s really not on us to prove he is not a NBC. he must prove b/c HE is the one who SAID he was a NBC when there is NO CASE that definitively defines HIS citizenship (mult-citizenship AT BIRTH) as being that of a NBC.
EIG is an important case too and obviously so. Wong Kim Ark is a problem for those who would declare that Obama is a NBC of the US. SCOTUS only declared Ark to be a US Citizen and we can all agree on that identification. It’s pretty easy— Wong Kim was born on US soil. He’s a citizen. IS he a NBC? NO b/c the COURT REFUSED, specifically, to say IN THEIR DECISION ON THE ACTUAL MATTER that Wong Kim was a NBC. The court REFUSED to say so b/c THEY didn’t have the VOTES to say so.
Again, the 14th Amendment did not change, did not define, did not address in any way Article II. And, NO statute can overrule an Article of the US Constitution. It can only be changed by Amendment. . .and there has NEVER been such an amendment.
Its’ TIME for SCOTUS to define clearly the definition of NBC. Obama, however, knows the definition. It is ALREADY PRECEDENT. With the exception of CAArther, ALL prior POTUS’s born after ratification of the US Const. have ALL had 2 US Citizen parents & been born in the US.
Stare Decisis DOES exist in PRACTICE — in that all presidents prior to Obama did know exactly what NBC meant & means. Obama is the FIRST POTUS in US History (born post 1789) to have MULTIPLE citizenships — US and a FOREIGN nation. This SHOULD BE A NO-BRAINER that the POTUS cannot have multiple citizenships. So WHY THE SILENCE on this OVERTLY serious matter? Blows my mind.
This truly is a national security matter. Again, we cannot, obviously, have a POTUS & Commander-in-Chief of the most powerful fighting force this world has ever known . . . who holds currently, or ever held, DUAL or TRI-citizenship — having been or currently a citizen of the US and a FOREIGN country.
VERY serious is this matter re: WHETHER Obama is legally/constitutionally the President of the United States. SOMETHING serious is going on.
This is a serious cover-up. Question is WHY? . .and WHO is behind it? And HOW can every news agency be SILENCED on such a basic and SIMPLE question: Mr. Obama, are you NOW or have you EVER BEEN a Citizen of Indonesia? Mr. Obama, are you NOW still a citizen of Great Britain?
In addition, the American People CANNOT elect whomever we please. We TOO are constricted by the US Constitution. We TOO may only elect a person to be POTUS who is a NBC with 14 yrs residency and 35 yrs of age. PERIOD.
Therefore, it CANNOT BE an unknown re: whether Obama is a NBC. The American people MUST know that information b/c we are forbidden from electing anyone who is not a NBC of the US.
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.