Posted on 04/20/2010 12:47:47 AM PDT by hope
Let's ask Obama. He should know.
Sure it does, in so far as the person reporting the birth would have to have committed fraud in order to get a foriegn birth registered. There was no provision under Hawaiian law at the time for the registration of births outside the state.
Sorry but the 1961 natality reports said there 366 births out-of-state to Hawaiians and part-Hawaiians. These statistics were reported by the people who give birth certificates.
Do you have any proof that Obama's birth was fraudulantly registered?
You mean like listing an address where the parents didn't reside??
Perhaps it could be. My point is that such an act would involve felony fraud and possibly pergury.
Which makes it all the more imperative that we have full disclosure.
It is you who are spouting nonsense. While it is true SAD was too young to automatically pass her citizenship on to her son, as the child of a US citizen, he was eligible for naturalized citizenship. If he was born, all she would have to do get him naturalized would be to fill out an application at the nearest consulate and provide proof of her own citizenship and maternity.
Perhaps if she was aware of the procedures and was near a consulate. It would have been a lot easier to contact Granny and let her file paperwork with the Hawaii registrar.
Why commmit a felony to secure his citizenship, when it could all be done perfectly legally?
I can think of several reasons: Easier to register birth in Hawaii, desire to avoid telling people her child was born in Kenya, unaware of naturalization laws, don't think they'll be caught.
Never mind the fact that there isn't a shred of evidence that such a fraud took place, or the she ever set foot in Kenya, let alone gave birth there.
Better tell that to Michelle "Kenya is my husband's home country" Obama. Right now we have plenty of evidence of fraud: false certificate number, mismatching COLBs, unconfirmed COLB, the DOH violating its own laws to avoid disclosing legal information, etc.
Of course. This article doesn't specify a power to define natural born citizenship, thus such a power would fall to the states through the 10th amendment. Are you through falling on the sword??
If you took a moment to think that through...
Fukino affirmed she saw a computer print out with the name Obama on it.
Read the damned statement.
But, it doesn’t matter. Obama could have been born in the Rotunda of the Capital, and he still would have been a dual-citizen, and ineligible to serve as CiC.
You seem fixted on the court. To try and stay ahead of the so-called birthers he must identify their challenges even before the court gets involved. If I had his problem I would.
Ah, its right before your eyes. Who has been orchestrating and paying for all these bogus documents that have been fleetingly whisked by people’s eyes? Who paid some Hawaii official to say he had seen an Onada Hawaiian birth certificate—which he never produced. Who is making sure the media stick to the birth certificate talking points? I could keep going here. But to wish to believe this kind of monumental deception does have a monumental cost associated with it is naieve at best and disingenuinous at worst.
Of course, I could be made to look the fool if you—or anyone—produced a credible birth certificate. But you can’t, can you?
“I’ve already debunked the rational that Ankeny put forth. They undermined their decision by acknolwedging Wong Kim Ark declared no specific person to be a natural born citizen. Second, their decision (and the Indiana Supreme Court’s) to affirm the motion to dismiss was based on the plaintiff’s alleged failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted,not their infirm interpretation of natural born citizen or any claim of eligibility. That was tacked on nonsense.”
When any court in the nation backs up your specious points of view, I’ll take notice. Until then, you and your “debunkings” are irrelevant.
“This is one of several such suits filed by Ms. Taitz in her quixotic attempt to prove that President Obama is not a natural born citizen as required by Constitution. See U.S. CONST. art. II, § 1. This Court is not willing to go tilting at windmills with her.”—US Chief Judge Royce Lamberth in dismissing “Taitz v Obama” petition for quo warranto and other claims. April 14, 2010. US District Court for the District of Columbia
Different name, same challenge over and over again; ain't no point in reinventing the wheel.
Fukino affirmed she saw a computer print out with the name Obama on it.
Read the damned statement.
But, it doesn’t matter. Obama could have been born in the Rotunda of the Capital, and he still would have been a dual-citizen, and ineligible to serve as CiC.
There is NO Constitutional requirement that a person’s parents must be US citizens in order for their offspring to be a natural born citizen and eligible for the presidency. The Constitution is mute on that issue and no court decision has EVER adjudicated that issue. There is no law ever passed by Congress to that effect.
There are Court decisions which uphold the 14th Amendment’s position that there are only two classifications of citizens: born citizens and naturalized citizens. Any born citizen is eligible to be president and no naturalized citizen is eligible to be president.
The fact that Barack Hussein Obama II IS the 44th President of the United States and he was certified as such by Vice President Dick Cheney at a joint session of Congress and that fact that he was sworn in as such by Chief Justice John Roberts and more than 70 court adjudications including 7 rejections of appeals at the U.S. Supreme Court have failed to produce one single legal opinion to the contrary is proof of my position.
You’re sending me a decision from a state court.
Ha, ha, ha! What an idiot.
You’re sending me a decision from a state court.
Ha, ha, ha! What an idiot.
“Ankeny v The Governor of Indiana” challenged the awarding of Indiana’s electoral votes to Obama. If it had succeeded it is likely that other states would have invalidated Obama’s electoral votes as well.
You’re so ignorant that you don’t even realize that the thread you are posting on is about a STATE legislature’s attempt to impose a birth certificate requirement on presidential candidates IN THAT ONE STATE!
However, if a legal decision from a FEDERAL court turns you on, here are the words once again of Ronald Wilson Reagan appointed Chief US District Judge Royce Lamberth in laughing birther attorney Orly Taitz’s quo warranto case out of his court:
“This is one of several such suits filed by Ms. Taitz in her quixotic attempt to prove that President Obama is not a natural born citizen as required by Constitution. See U.S. CONST. art. II, § 1. This Court is not willing to go tilting at windmills with her.”
If you’d like me to post twenty FEDERAL court decisions concerning Obama’s eligibility, just ask, fool.
I’ll get you started with five:
(1) Barnett, Keyes et al v Obama et al, Federal Court, Central District of California: DISMISSED
(2) Berg v Obama, et.al, Federal Court Eastern District of Pennsylvania and US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, and the US Supreme Court, dismissed and SCOTUS application DENIED.
(3) Cohen v Obama, US District Court for Washington DC, DISMISSED.
(4) Cook v Good, et. al, US Federal Court for the Middle District of Georgia, DISMISSED; Appeal US Court of Appeals for the 11th District, DISMISSED.
(5) Craig v US, US Federal Court for the Western District of Oklahoma, DISMISSED, Appeal, 10th Circuit Court of Appeals, DISMISSAL AFFIRMED.
You happy now?
I'll be happy when you and the rest of the scumbag Obots that infest this place crawl back under whatever rock you came from.
You are full of false assumptions. We’ve had this same conversation before where I spanked you illogical behind.
Plain old lying on the Internet is not crime. Anyone can point to a image online and say anything about it as they like without breaking the law. Now, if Obama used that image everyone calls a Certification of Live Birth in an official capacity as to falsify government documents using it as proof, then he could be prosecuted for wrong doing if it is not genuine. Alas, Obama and his sycophants can lie to their heart’s content without retribution. Obama has never publicly associated himself with that silly image that you think as real. He keeps his distance for a ‘plausible deniability’ excuse and lets his koolaid drinkers promote it as real.
You can take it to the bank Obot that Obama will never show that forgery in a court of law.
Once again, neither you nor I have any idea what evidence has been submitted in defendants’ legal briefs to the Courts that have looked at the eligibility issue.
Just because you call something a forgery doesn’t make it so.
Back in August of 2008, WorldNetDaily, not exactly a pro-Obot website had its own independent forgery experts examine the Obama online COLB and they concluded that it was “most likely” authentic.
From WorldNetDaily:
“A separate WND investigation into Obama’s certification of live birth utilizing forgery experts also found the document to be authentic. The investigation also revealed methods used by some of the bloggers to determine the document was fake involved forgeries, in that a few bloggers added text and images to the certificate scan that weren’t originally there.
(Editor’s Note: WND’s investigation into the certification of live birth did not include inspecting the actual document, but only asking experts to evaluate the online image. Those experts, therefore, could not “prove” the document’s authenticity. The experts told WND merely that many of the forgery claims made against the image were inconclusive or falsified, leaving them no evidence that would cast doubt on the image’s authenticity.)
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=73214
I’ll be happy when you and the rest of the scumbag Obots that infest this place crawl back under whatever rock you came from.
1) We know the birth was registered within days of it taking place because the Health Department placed birth announcements in the papers.
2) We know it must have been registered as taking place in Hawaii because Fukino verified that the vital records show birth in Hawaii.
Therefore, the only possible way Obama could have been born outside of Hawaii is if someone committed fraud and registered his birth to be within state.
Now here is where you, like all birthers, run into a problem. Under the law, a timely birth registration such as Obama's enjoys the presumption of accuracy. So now the burden is on you to prove that fraud took place in 1961 when the brith was registered. The burden is not on Obama to prove the birth record is correct.
Now you argue that there should be an investigation into a possible fraud, since it cannot be ruled out with complete certainty. Therefore, you argue that all of Obama's documents protected by privacy laws should be disclosed.
Here you run into another problem. You cannot just demand disclosure of something simply because you suspect fraud was committed. Before any judge will grant you disclosure, you must have some evidence lending credence to your suspcion. Otherwise you are just going on a fishing expedeition, something judges generally don't view favorablely.
Unfortuantely for you, you have no evidence even remotely suggesting a fraud took place in 1961. Even worse, you have no motive.
Now I realize you claim otherwise, so I'll take your claims appart one by one.
Your claim for motive:
Perhaps if she was aware of the procedures and was near a consulate. It would have been a lot easier to contact Granny and let her file paperwork with the Hawaii registrar.
You have got to be kidding. This is all you have for motive? I don't really feel a need to respond to that. If you think any judge, or for that matter, any reasonable person would take that seriously as a motive, then you aren't living in the real world.
As to the evidence, I say with confidence that any reasonable person would find it laughable. Let's look at your claims one by one.
Better tell that to Michelle "Kenya is my husband's home country" Obama.
Unfortunately, it is not uncommon for US-born Children of immigrants to think of their parents' country of origin as their "home country." If you think this is evidence of anything, you really need to get a grip on reality.
false certificate number,
Oh please, not this silly one. Let me guess, you think it's false because Obama's number comes after the Nordyke twins number, and yet he was born before them. Do I have that right?
Here's a question I'd like to see a birther answer. What makes you so sure birth certificate numbers always came in the same order as the births?
mismatching COLBs,
No, you have a document's scanned image whose proportions don't exactly match that of the same document's photographs. Again, this is silly, because it is well known that scanners can distort images. If you tried to bring this before a judge, you'd get laughed right out of the court room.
unconfirmed COLB,
The DOH can't confirm the authenticity of an internet image. Why you should consider this as evidence of anything is baffling.
the DOH violating its own laws to avoid disclosing legal information
As far as I can tell, it has violated no law. If you think otherwise, please specify the exact law that was violated.
Evidently you care a lot since you wrote such a lengthy, but pointless reply.
When any court in the nation backs up your specious points of view, I’ll take notice. Until then, you and your “debunkings” are irrelevant.
Sorry, but this is a sand head response. You're ignoring that the cases have not been heard on merits over Obama's eligibility but denied for procedural reasons ... including Ankeny.
I would suggest you take your own advice.
Gee. Let's see. To paraphrase, the passage I quoted says that the English common law rule on determining who is a natural born subject continued to be used by the United States after independence. Given that "subjects" were called "citizens" after independence, what else could that passage be refering to other than natural born citizenship?
As to the passage you cited, yes, it actually used the words "natural born citizen." Unfortunately for you, it doesn't say anything to support your contention that a child must have two citizen parents to be natural born.
Where do you get your confidence that you are right??
From my ability to read and comprehend a SCOUTS opinion, a skill you evidently lack.
You need to demand a refund.
Nope. That would be you.
Feel free to cite whatever you think those were. I'll shoot it down.
Let me just cut and past the portion of Justice Gray's opinion that cites common law. Knock yourself out.
"II. The fundamental principle of the common law with regard to English nationality was birth within the allegiance, also called "ligealty," "obedience," "faith," or "power" of the King. The principle embraced all persons born within the King's allegiance and subject to his protection. Such allegiance and protection were mutual -- as expressed in the maxim protectio trahit subjectionem, et subjectio protectionem -- and were not restricted to natural-born subjects and naturalized subjects, or to those who had taken an oath of allegiance, but were predicable of aliens in amity so long as they were within the kingdom. Children, born in England, of such aliens were therefore natural-born subjects. But the children, born within the realm, of foreign ambassadors, or the children of alien enemies, born during and within their hostile occupation of part of the King's dominions, were not natural-born subjects because not born within the allegiance, the obedience, or the power, or, as would be said at this day, within the jurisdiction, of the King.
"This fundamental principle, with these qualifications or explanations of it, was clearly, though quaintly, stated in the leading case, known as Calvin's Case, or the Case of the Postnati, decided in 1608, after a hearing in the Exchequer Chamber before the Lord Chancellor and all the Judges of England, and reported by Lord Coke and by Lord Ellesmere. Calvin's Case, 7 Rep. 1, 4b-6a, 18a, 18b; Ellesmere on Postnati, 62-64; S.C., 2 Howell's State Trials, 559, 607, 613-617, 639, 640, 659, 679.
"The English authorities ever since are to the like effect. Co.Lit. 8a, 128b, Lord Hale, in Hargrave's Law Tracts, 210, an in 1 Hale P.C. 61, 62; 1 Bl.Com. 366, 369, 370, 374; 4 Bl.Com. 74, 92; Lord Kenyon, in Doe v. Jones, 4 T.R. 300, 308; Cockburn on Nationality, 7; Dicey Conflict of Laws, p. 173-177, 741."
I already quoted it from Wong Kim Ark.
There is nothing in that case that excludes the possiblity that a person might be a natural born citizen of two countries.
But there are others too. Shanks v. Dupont says: "All those, whether natives or otherwise, who then adhered to the American states were virtually absolved from all allegiance to the British Crown; all those who then adhered to the British Crown were deemed and held subjects of that Crown."
Here's another problem with you birthers: you fail to grasp the concept of context. If you had, you would know that this passage was referring to the citizenship status of people who were living in the USA during the war of independence.
Loyalists were denied US citizenship and retained their status as British subjects. Patriots lost their British subjecthood.
Hence it is obvious to anyone, except a birther, that it has absolutely nothing to do with the status of a child born in the US to a British subject in 1961.
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.