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

Skip to comments.

La. Gov. Bobby Jindal releases birth certificate
San Diego Union-Tribune (AP) ^ | May 7, 2011

Posted on 05/08/2011 11:29:17 PM PDT by South40

BATON ROUGE, La. — Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal, who was born in Baton Rouge to immigrant parents from India, has released his birth certificate.

The Republican made the move Friday, nine days after President Barack Obama released his own long-form birth certificate to further prove that he was born in the United States.

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


TOPICS: Government; Miscellaneous; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: 2012election; birth; birthcertificate; birthers; bobbyjindal; certificate; certifigate; democratbirthers; doublestandard; jindal; jindal2012; naturalborncitizen; pravdamedia; thebiglie

1 posted on 05/08/2011 11:29:22 PM PDT by South40
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: South40

That is not the Long Form Birth Certificate(though it may be a COLB).

It is another walk up document. The original COLB was the type you can purchase and receive the same day.

For 3+ years we have heard from everybody, including a protective media, that there is no other document.

That is the only one Hawaii provides.

Well now they have proven that just isn’t so and validated part of Hawaii Statute 318 in the process.

The document Mubarak proffered this week is one you can request and it normally takes 10 days to receive it.

They are “Data Points” and the document “IS NOT” a copy of the original Long Form Birth Certificate.

I want to see the Birth Certificate he found among his mother’s belongings, the one his mother submitted for his entrance into the school system and the one he used to obtain his passport.

He has all three available to him and in his possession.

The fact of the matter is the document Barak released is another Abstract

I CERTIFY THIS IS A TRUE COPY OR

ABSTRACT OF THE "TXE" RECORD ON FILE IN

THE HAWAII STATE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH

 

 

Now compare that with what a real Birth Certificate looks like and the wording

at the bottom that declares the provenance of the Birth Certificate:

 

THIS CERTIFIES THAT THE ABOVE IS A TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF THE

ORIGINAL RECORD ON FILE IN THE BUREAU OF HEALTH STATISTICS

TERRITORY OF HAWAII DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH

 


2 posted on 05/08/2011 11:41:12 PM PDT by Vendome ("Don't take life so seriously... You'll never live through it anyway")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Vendome

Still fighting the lost battle soldier? O’s birth certificate came with a letter from HI’s top health person to his attorney. No one serious is challenging that. The seal is when a lowly clerk does it for BC by mail requests.

Either way, nothing will convince you.


3 posted on 05/08/2011 11:56:47 PM PDT by mewykwistmas (Lost your job as a birther under Obama? Become a 'deather'! Where's Bin Laden's death certificate?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: South40

Had his immigrant parents become citizens by the time of his birth?


4 posted on 05/09/2011 12:01:31 AM PDT by Bellflower (Isa 32:5 The vile person shall be no more called liberal, nor the churl said [to be] bountiful.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: South40

5 posted on 05/09/2011 12:26:16 AM PDT by hamboy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: South40

The article does not say he had to send his lawyers to find his birth certificate. So he is at least one up on having ready access to his personal records than the ‘one’.


6 posted on 05/09/2011 12:32:59 AM PDT by Just mythoughts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mewykwistmas; Vendome

Hi newbie.


7 posted on 05/09/2011 12:34:42 AM PDT by presently no screen name
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: mewykwistmas

Whatever chump nOOb.

It is not a birth certificate and says as much at the bottom.

It’s an abstract, again.

There is no reason for Barak to go through these minstruations.

He already has 3 in his possession and he could simply produce one of them.

In fact, he could produce the one he found among his mother’s belongings when she passed away in 1995. He did not lose something so important.

You think this whole thing is about where he was born? LOL You are real late and slow on what the real strategy is.

We don’t care about where he was born.

We want to see this figments life records the same way we have seen other presidents records.

He traveled to Pakistan and Indonesia as a young man? Well, lets see the birth certificate you used to obtain your passport. Presuming he traveled as an American.

He was a citizen of Kenya and admits as much. So why not tell us he used a Kenyan passport to mitigate any danger posed by traveling under an American Passport.

There is nothing in his life you can point to as a fact only conjecture and there is no job in corporate America that would allow him in their employ without seeing proof of who he says he is and his accomplishments.

He was never vetted and one ever saw any documentation about his life prior to his ascendency to 1600 Pennsylvania.

Nice day for a troll though.


8 posted on 05/09/2011 1:13:02 AM PDT by Vendome ("Don't take life so seriously... You'll never live through it anyway")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Bellflower

Unfortunately NO.


9 posted on 05/09/2011 1:21:54 AM PDT by Vendome ("Don't take life so seriously... You'll never live through it anyway")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: South40
Jindal was born to parents with green cards, and is not eligible to the presidency. There is only one definition for a natural born Citizen, from our common-law, and cited in a dozen supreme court cases. Since there has never been a case challenging the definition, the common-law definition, the source for most definitions in the Constitution, holds. Chief Justice Morrison Waite in Minro v. Happersett, cited in Wong Kim Ark and Perkins v. Elg, and by every senator in 2008 in Senate Res 511, said in 1874:

“The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens,as distinguished from aliens or foreigners.”

We must not allow legislators who have failed to honor their oaths “to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution,” to continue this subterfuge. It is yet another insult to our founders and framers, who knew what they were doing and why. For any still confused, it is obvious that Barack Obama too is ineligible for not having been born "of parents who were its citizens."

10 posted on 05/09/2011 1:43:39 AM PDT by Spaulding
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: South40

Yawn, what a wast of time, he was born Indiana, nothing can change that.


11 posted on 05/09/2011 5:17:55 AM PDT by org.whodat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: South40

Did Jindal have dual citizenship? I assume he did, but haven’t seen it addressed yet.


12 posted on 05/09/2011 7:19:00 AM PDT by Suz in AZ
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]



There Are No Lemons at Free Republic
Well, Almost None
End the FReepaton – Donate, Monthly If You Can


Sponsoring FReepers leapfrog0202 and another person will contribute $10
Each time a new monthly donor signs up!
Get more bang for your buck
Sign up today

Upgrade Lazamataz’s A.I. Program

13 posted on 05/09/2011 10:08:07 AM PDT by TheOldLady
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Spaulding
If Jindal announces his his candidacy for President, there will be dozens of posts like yours claiming this good conservative is ineligible because of who his parents were.

On the other had, there was nobody on this forum saying Obama was ineligible because of his father's citizenship when he announced his candidacy. Not one post.

So you turn the other cheek for a liberal like Obama, but strike out at a conservative preemptively? That crap belongs on DU, not here.

14 posted on 05/09/2011 11:49:24 AM PDT by Kleon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Kleon

The bottom line is that Jindal is ineligible just as Obama is. The BC thing was a worthless exercise because it never mattered if Obama had one or not and all it did was defect attention away from the real issue, which was natural born citizenship. I don’t care if Jindal is a conservative or not. If he is not qualified under the Constitution to hold the office of POTUS then he should not be allowed to run. The whole “it’s OK if my guy does it” crap is what got use where we are in the first place. Jindal’s parents were not US citizens and he is not eligible, period. I just sent a correspondence to his office reminding him of that.


15 posted on 05/09/2011 12:00:34 PM PDT by The Viceroy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: The Viceroy
I just sent a correspondence to his office reminding him of that.

It will be ignored, and if he chooses to run, he will do so without any serious question to his eligibility.

16 posted on 05/09/2011 1:54:17 PM PDT by Kleon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Bellflower
Had his immigrant parents become citizens by the time of his birth?

Nope and it won't matter one iota should Jindal decide to throw his hat into the ring.

17 posted on 05/09/2011 2:04:19 PM PDT by Gena Bukin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: The Viceroy
The bottom line is that Jindal is ineligible just as Obama is. The BC thing was a worthless exercise because it never mattered if Obama had one or not and all it did was defect attention away from the real issue, which was natural born citizenship. I don’t care if Jindal is a conservative or not. If he is not qualified under the Constitution to hold the office of POTUS then he should not be allowed to run. The whole “it’s OK if my guy does it” crap is what got use where we are in the first place. Jindal’s parents were not US citizens and he is not eligible, period. I just sent a correspondence to his office reminding him of that. ***************************************************************************

You are correct Bobby Jindal a good Conservative; but, He is "not" eligible to be POTUS because at the "time" of his Birth his parents were not US Citizens.....They just had green Cards!! *************************************************************************** Obama stated his ..."Legal"... father Obama Sr. was a Kenyan with Brithish Citizenship............Obama "not" eligible to be POTUS!! ****************************************************************************** Same with Romney... His father was born in Mexico lived there for 20+ years & was married there.....The Grandfather left the US in the late 1800's to move to Mexico because the US no longer recognized polygamy. Then the family just moves back to the US in the 1930's..... When did Romney's father become a US Citizen??..... Sounds like Grandfather renounced America..... Where is Rhomney's father's BC & when did he become a US Citizen?? ********************************************************************* How do you bring adult married kids to US from Mexico without being born in US & pronunce them as US Citizens??

18 posted on 05/09/2011 5:09:55 PM PDT by ebysan (ebysan)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Kleon
If Jindal announces his his candidacy for President, there will be dozens of posts like yours claiming this good conservative is ineligible because of who his parents were.

What kind of “good conservative” would ignore the Constitution because someone else got away with it? Most on Free Republic, like all but a few constitutional historians, didn't know the difference between Obama’s “native-born citizen of the US,” and the Vattel, or Pufendorf, or Marshall or Waite or Hughes, or Bingham, or ... every US Senator in 2008 who kept his or her mouth shut because both candidates were ineligible. With the help a few honest attorneys, Donofrio, Apuzzo, Viera,... we began to learn our history. Now we know. Now is the time to set the matter straight, not to continue to flaunt the intent of the founders and framers.

Any candidate who flaunts the Constitution will have lost the Consititutional originalists. While Mark Levin discusses the dangers of "a living Constitution" in Liberty and Tyranny, he promotes the candidacies of Jindal and Rubio. We don't need to know the reasons for hypocrisy to reject it. We can guess at Levin's reasons but he won't talk about them. He won't provide any justification for contradicting Chief Justices Jay, Marshall, or Hughes. The failure to address a clear legal principle is admission that there is no counter argument. Yours is that Jindal "is a good conservative." Jindal has proved that he is not a good conservative, presuming that a good conservative is one who will "preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution" as required by Article II Section 1 clause 8.

Jindal's candidacy begins with his complicity with Rinos who brought Obama to power, because if Jindal is eligible, so is Obama. That, I believe, is exactly your intention. Admitting the candidacy of someone born to non-citizen parents provides just the excuse McCain provided for the ruling class of both parties to ignore the Constitution and skip the vetting of Obama. With the guaranteed complicity of the media and people like yourself it is easy to see who would prevail reading teleprompters in the Hollywood-built Roman Coliseum backdrop, with the chanting children of illegal aliens, the change we can believe in. Jindal is killing his chances for a future in conservative politics by serving the tactical interests of the left.

19 posted on 05/09/2011 6:12:18 PM PDT by Spaulding
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: The Viceroy
The bottom line is that Jindal is ineligible just as Obama is.

True.

20 posted on 05/10/2011 11:24:11 AM PDT by UCANSEE2 (Lame and ill-informed post)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: mewykwistmas
We will NEVER rest until this FRAUD is exposed. The name Demjanjuk comes to mind.
21 posted on 05/19/2011 6:28:36 AM PDT by faucetman (Just the facts ma'am, just the facts)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Spaulding
According to the oft quoted Vattel - McCain would be eligible for the Presidency - as those born to soldiers overseas serving their nation are defacto born in country according to Vattel’s idea of Natural Law.

By what legal criteria do you say McCain is ineligible? U.S. law or Natural law or “I just want it to be true” law?

22 posted on 05/19/2011 6:36:37 AM PDT by allmendream (Tea Party did not send the GOP to D.C. to negotiate the terms of our surrender to socialism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: allmendream
By what legal criteria do you say McCain is ineligible? U.S. law or Natural law or “I just want it to be true” law?

Vattel did address foreign born children of citizens serving the republic, but our framers and founders (Vattel was almost always the reference chosen by Hamilton and Washington, from letters exchanged when Hamilton was Treasury Secretary) did not cite that paragraph from Vattel, and did not employ every idea from Law of Nations. John Marshall was a founder, framer, and our greatest Chief Justice. He quoted “born on the soil of citizen parents” and cited Vattel. A half dozen other justices, five Chief Justices, and they cited Vattel. While rigorous interpretation of the Constitution is being destroyed, let's assume, as Marshall said, that every word in the Constitution has meaning.

The legal basis for McCain's ineligibility is the ‘jus soli’ requirement, birth on our sovereign soil. The most thorough explaination can be found at U or Arizona's Rogers Law School, Professor Gabriel Chin wrote a thorough analysis with the title “Why Senator John McCain Cannot be President: Eleven Months and One Hundred Yards Short of Citizenship.” I won't repeat his arguments in detail. Suffice it to say McCain, even if born on Coco Bolo Naval Base (his birth certificate says Colon Hospital, there being no hospital on base in 1936), Panama was one of a few countries for which sovereignty had not been negotiated until 1937.

Every senator knew. That is why Obama and McCaskill tried to pass a law “To Make Foreign Born Children of Military Citizens Eligible to Become President.” It could have had no effect, since laws cannot amend, modify, or interpret the Constitution. So McCaskill and Leahy passed Senate Resolution 511, claiming that they thought it would be nice (a resolution is not actionable) if we considered McCain eligible because he, unlike Obama, was born to citizen parents.

An amendment or interpretation by the court sounds reasonable, but because we think it sounds reasonable is not consistent with a constitutional republic. Natural born citizenship is not a guarantee of allegiance to our republic. But it is a requirement our framers imposed on presidential eligibility, and on no other federal office. It is a sensible requirement. Some believe jus sanguinis was sufficient, but that isn't what our justices have said.

McCain was chosen by Obama’s supporters because of McCain's long and public struggle to find a legal solution to his eligibility problem. The law firm defending McCain in two of the three law suits challenging his eligibility, Kirkland and Ellis, was politically involved with, and sat on Obama’s campaign committee. A Kirkland junior partner Sarah Herlihy, working for McCain's defense attorney,wrote a very flawed Chicago Kent Law Review article on why we should change the natural born citizen requirement. The article was written in 2006. We can't know if Obama was being groomed and his eligibility defense prepared, but the thorough removal of most all of his legal papers, including applicatons for Fulbright Grants for foreign students, was very professional.

If you are really interested in legal foundations you can find some excellent research here on FR. Find rxsid’s thread on natural born citizenship. The amateurs on FR have provided some amazing documents tracing our founder's use of Vattel’s Law of Nations. There were certainly other sources of natural law applied to nations, but Vattel was by far the most cited, four times more often than its closest competitor, and more than any other legal reference in US jurisprudence. It was our nation's first law book, defined by Jefferson as the core curriculum at William and Mary in 1779.

If some congressman undertakes an amendment (Orrin Hatch tried in 2003, and his amendment would have made both McCain and Obama eligible. Hatch’s bill was known as “The Schwarzenegger Amendment” since it would have addressed both jus soli and jus sanguinis; Schwarzenegger's parents weren't citizens and he was born in Austria.

Neither law or common law make someone born on foreign soil, military or not, natural born. They are 14th Amendment citizens. Citizens are natural, or naturalized. A 14th Amendment or Title 8 citizen is naturalized. McCain was naturalized.

23 posted on 05/19/2011 7:48:46 AM PDT by Spaulding
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Spaulding
So Vattel is the 100% true and real source - unless he says something you don't like - like that McCain would be eligible.

According to Vattel the “jus soli” requirement is met by any child born to a soldier stationed overseas.

Our law is designed to be a reflection and acknowledgment of Natural Law. There is no “natural law” that stands apart from American law and supersedes it.

American law is sovereign.

American law, as a reflection of Natural Law, acknowledges that children born to our citizens while serving in our Military overseas are born citizens.

McCain is eligible according to U.S. law AND Vattel - and thus according to Natural Law.

24 posted on 05/19/2011 8:07:48 AM PDT by allmendream (Tea Party did not send the GOP to D.C. to negotiate the terms of our surrender to socialism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Spaulding

The whole point of that was to later pull the plug if need be. McCain said we didn’t have to be afraid of Obama. IOW, he was pimping for him.


25 posted on 05/19/2011 9:48:41 AM PDT by bgill (Kenyan Parliament - how could a man born in Kenya who is not even a native American become the POTUS)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Spaulding

The whole point of that was to later pull the plug if need be. McCain said we didn’t have to be afraid of Obama. IOW, he was pimping for him.


26 posted on 05/19/2011 9:48:42 AM PDT by bgill (Kenyan Parliament - how could a man born in Kenya who is not even a native American become the POTUS)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: allmendream
McCain is eligible according to U.S. law AND Vattel - and thus according to Natural Law.

Please cite the US law granting McCain, or the foreign born children of citizens natural born citizenship. You may or may not be a troll, but it doesn't matter if you can cite the Constitution. Remember, no law can modify the Constitution.

27 posted on 05/19/2011 3:45:50 PM PDT by Spaulding
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Spaulding
McCain is, according to natural law and U.S. law (which should reflect natural law) a citizen at birth via the natural act of being born.

So far there hasn't been any U.S. law statute or finding that any person granted citizenship through the natural act of being born is anything other than a natural born citizen.

According to current reading of the Constitution (you may or may not agree with it, but it is hard to argue that this is not how it is currently interpreted) the only U.S. citizens who are not “natural born” are “naturalized”.

McCain was never naturalized, he was born a citizen.

Now I myself would LOVE an actual RULING by the SCOTUS to define unambiguously who is and who is not “natural born”. But somehow that wasn't the main focus of the insanely stupid birther movement - no the focus was “Where is the Birth Certificate?”.

This was pure idiocy and never had chance ONE of doing anything constructive for anybody but 0bama and the WND snake oil salesmen.

28 posted on 05/19/2011 4:01:57 PM PDT by allmendream (Tea Party did not send the GOP to D.C. to negotiate the terms of our surrender to socialism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Gena Bukin
Had his immigrant parents become citizens by the time of his birth?

"Nope and it won't matter one iota should Jindal decide to throw his hat into the ring."

It will matter to those who believe in the rule of law.

Jindal will never get my vote.

29 posted on 05/19/2011 4:15:07 PM PDT by Godebert
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: allmendream
So far there hasn't been any U.S. law statute or finding that any person granted citizenship through the natural act of being born is anything other than a natural born citizen.

McCain was never naturalized, he was born a citizen.

Ahh, sophistry in action. Because there is no law saying it isn't so, then it is?

The Constitution didn't admit such reasoning. It made a positive requirement - 'shall be eligible' and 'No person except a natural born Citizen.' Founder, framer, Chief Justice Marshall, along with C.J. Waite, C.J. Hughes, C.J. Jay, justice Gray, 14th Amendment Author bingham, all told us what they understood natural born Citizen meant, citing Vattel.

Every citizen not natural is made a citizen by law, not nature. They are naturalized citizens. In the language of the 14th Amendment, they are "born citizens." Born citizens are not necessarily naturally born Citizens.

The 14th Amendment was to make the children of residents, born on our soil, citizens, to force the recognition of former slaves as citizens. It is the legal foundation for Title 8, our naturalization code. Obama used that language (remember, he is a Constitutional Scholar) when describing his own status: "I am a native-born citizen of the US." That is the language of Title 8, and is true of Obama, whether or not he was born in the US (let's not get wrapped up in the age of his mother when he was born; it does not need to be decided to show Obama's ineligibility.)

McCain would be eligible if the 1790 Nationality Act had not been repealed in 1795, and had withstood certain challenge concerning separation of powers - Congress modified the Constitution.

McCain and Obama are citizens by law, not nature, and therefore naturalized.

30 posted on 05/19/2011 6:06:53 PM PDT by Spaulding
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: Spaulding

And how praytell are you going to convince the Republic that your view of the law is correct?

I think McCain and 0bama in 2008 together kind of showed that nobody was going to stand up and defend your view of the law.

So where do you go from here?


31 posted on 05/19/2011 6:11:16 PM PDT by allmendream (Tea Party did not send the GOP to D.C. to negotiate the terms of our surrender to socialism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: allmendream
And how praytell are you going to convince the Republic that your view of the law is correct?

We can start by explaining what our framers and founders intended - education. Politicians of both parties forgot what they signed in 2008, Senate Res 511, explaining that a natural born Citizen is born of citizen parents.

The uncertainty, the danger to a republic without a predictable legal foundation, since we aren't yet a monarchy, will continue to stifle the public welfare.

I agree that a conspiracy which made both parties complicit succeeded - so far. Besides educating the public, we need to ascertain the adherence to the Constitution of any prospective or sitting legislator. That is why it is called “The People's House.” If we give up respect for our Constitutional foundation, we are left with the political foundation described so aptly by Nancy Pelosi -"You need to vote for it so you can find out what's in it." Soon, voting will become entirely irrelevant.

32 posted on 05/19/2011 8:12:00 PM PDT by Spaulding
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: Spaulding
So the foundation of your argument that 0bama and McCain are not eligible is the language from the Senate Resolution saying McCain was eligible?

Wow.

And you wonder why people might not be that interested pursuing your legal theory?

33 posted on 05/19/2011 8:27:48 PM PDT by allmendream (Tea Party did not send the GOP to D.C. to negotiate the terms of our surrender to socialism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: allmendream
So the foundation of your argument that 0bama and McCain are not eligible is the language from the Senate Resolution saying McCain was eligible?

Not quite. Senate Res 511 argued that McCain's place of birth didn't count because they all agreed that McCain earned a pass, and his parents were US Citizens. In a constitutional republic legislators to get to ignore laws for political expedience. They confirmed that natural born Citizenship required citizen parents, which should have applied to Obama. It didn't fix McCain's problem, having no force of law, but pretended to, with the able assistance of state-run media and the conspiracy of silence by our legislators.

Many societies have given way to coups, setting aside what legal foundations they had. Honduras almost did, and Obama did his best to help. Now Venezuela, once a republic but now a dictatorship, has Iranian long range missiles being em-placed which could incite a response which will improve no body's life. It isn't clear that Chavez is as doctrinaire a Marxist as Obama, but Ahmadenejad may see it in his interest to see nonbelievers die for whatever reason. People may not be interested yet, but none of the destruction we may well see, beyond the damage to our economy, would have happened if we had respected our Constitution and elected an eligible president who inherited allegiance for our nation from his parents.

34 posted on 05/19/2011 9:31:31 PM PDT by Spaulding
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: allmendream
So the foundation of your argument that 0bama and McCain are not eligible is the language from the Senate Resolution saying McCain was eligible?

Not quite. Senate Res 511 argued that McCain's place of birth didn't count because they all agreed that McCain earned a pass, and his parents were US Citizens. In a constitutional republic legislators to get to ignore laws for political expedience. They confirmed that natural born Citizenship required citizen parents, which should have applied to Obama. It didn't fix McCain's problem, having no force of law, but pretended to, with the able assistance of state-run media and the conspiracy of silence by our legislators.

Many societies have given way to coups, setting aside what legal foundations they had. Honduras almost did, and Obama did his best to help. Now Venezuela, once a republic but now a dictatorship, has Iranian long range missiles being em-placed which could incite a response which will improve no body's life. It isn't clear that Chavez is as doctrinaire a Marxist as Obama, but Ahmadenejad may see it in his interest to see nonbelievers die for whatever reason. People may not be interested yet, but none of the destruction we may well see, beyond the damage to our economy, would have happened if we had respected our Constitution and elected an eligible president who inherited allegiance for our nation from his parents.

35 posted on 05/19/2011 9:32:19 PM PDT by Spaulding
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: Spaulding
If you think McCain didn't inherit natural allegiance at birth to the USA you have a rather twisted idea of what Natural Law entails - far removed from Vattel and U.S. law.

Thus your source that isn't a source when it says the opposite of the point you wanted to make.

No wonder everyone is laughing at birthers! The contortions are rather preposterous.

36 posted on 05/19/2011 10:28:47 PM PDT by allmendream (Tea Party did not send the GOP to D.C. to negotiate the terms of our surrender to socialism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: Spaulding
If you think McCain didn't inherit natural allegiance at birth to the USA you have a rather twisted idea of what Natural Law entails - far removed from Vattel and U.S. law.

Thus your source that isn't a source when it says the opposite of the point you wanted to make.

No wonder everyone is laughing at birthers! The contortions are rather preposterous.

37 posted on 05/19/2011 10:28:50 PM PDT by allmendream (Tea Party did not send the GOP to D.C. to negotiate the terms of our surrender to socialism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: allmendream
If you think McCain didn't inherit natural allegiance at birth to the USA you have a rather twisted idea of what Natural Law entails - far removed from Vattel and U.S. law.

What I think has nothing to do with it. What does matter is the opinion of the supreme court and those of our framers. Chief Justice Morrison Waite, Minor v. Happersett, 1874:

“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,...”

McCain was not born in our country. Obama’s parents were not citizens. Find any source cited by our supreme court which modifies Justice Waite's clear recitation of Vattel’s definition. That, as Justice Waite points out, is our common-law understanding of the words of our Constitution's framers.

38 posted on 05/20/2011 6:57:27 AM PDT by Spaulding
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: Spaulding
Another CONTORTION.

How about the quote in full?

Natural allegiance at birth descends through soil or blood.

The “common law” is not our law. Jefferson spoke clearly about the tyranny of that assumption.

“it was never doubted” just shows that of those that have BOTH blood and soil - there is no doubt that they are natural born. It does not establish that because there might be “doubt” over the natural born status of someone with only one criteria - that they are NOT natural born.

I have doubts of your legal acumen - that doesn't ESTABLISH that you have none.

Our current understanding of the law is OBVIOUSLY different than your own.

So what are you going to do?

Sit and sulk and say nobody loves the Constitution and your obscure interpretation of it quite like you do?

What do you hope to accomplish with that?

39 posted on 05/20/2011 7:02:32 AM PDT by allmendream (Tea Party did not send the GOP to D.C. to negotiate the terms of our surrender to socialism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: Kleon
"...he will do so without any serious question to his eligibility. "

I don't know about that, he is, after all, a Republican.

40 posted on 05/20/2011 7:05:31 AM PDT by Hatteras
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

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