Posted on 10/27/2011 8:22:46 AM PDT by GregNH
Problem with that logic is that there really aren't any gaps left in the "natural born citizen" clause that Title 8 fills in. Title 8 may define classes of persons who are citizens at birth, but citizens at birth are merely a subclass of "natural born citizens," as that latter term was defined by Vattel and understood by the framers of the Constitution.
Since the Constitution was written and ratified, there is no case law which has changed the definition of "Natural Born Citizen" as it appears in Article II.
I'm sure we agree on what an NBC is, as the framers understood it when they wrote the Constitution. However, Minor v. Happersett is not a great case with which to make our point, since the SCOTUS merely discussed NBCs as an aside. Minor v. Happersett was not a case concerning presidential eligibility.
Thanks justiceseeker93.
Pardon my foggy brain, but don't you mean that "natural born citizens" are a subset (a special case) of all people who are "citizens at birth"?
Yes, I apologize for screwing that one up.
Yes, it was changed specifically for the 2008 election, and it was changed because the Hawaii Democratic Party took out from their standard Certification of Nomination the language certifying Constitutional eligibility. That meant that the DNC had to include the Constitutionally-eligible language.
The HDP’s deletion was obviously something done on an emergency basis because one whole line of print was deleted from the document INCLUDING THE ONLY STATEMENT FROM THE HDP THAT WAS ACTUALLY REQUIRED BY HAWAII LAW. As it stands, the HDP certification failed to state that Obama/Biden were the candidates specifically of the Hawaii Democratic Party, as required by Hawaii law. In their urgency to get rid of the Constitutionally-eligible language, the HDP accidentally took out the only thing their certification had to say, leaving it to say as good as nothing, as far as the legal requirements go.
There was DEFINITELY something weird going on with the HDP, that they took that language out. The usual attorney for the HDP (in their court cases referenced on the web) was William H. Gilardy, who just so happened to be the divorce lawyer for Obama’s mother when she divorced Lolo Soetoro. Chances are good that Gilardy saw Obama’s REAL birth certificate - the one that he had used his whole life (and remember that as of early 2011 Neil Abercrombie was telling his friend, Mike Evans, that there was no birth certificate for Obama in Hawaii - and a Star-Advertiser columnist also published a column including Abercrombie’s statement implying that what they have in Hawaii would not convince skeptics that Obama was born in HI). So why do you think the HDP was so desperate to get rid of the Constitutionally-eligible language.....?
The whole thing is full of contradictions, law-breaking, and stench. When I spoke to a worker from the HDP he refused to say who had authorized the change, when the change was made, or why. Just called me crazy. They refused to answer similar questions from World Net Daily also.
And the HDOH has indirectly admitted as much by claiming to Orly Taitz that Obama has not waived his privacy rights by publishing his authentic BC.
Obama’s long-form also doesn’t fulfill the requirements of “Public Health Regulations”, Chapter 8b in order to be LEGALLY certified. If the vestiges of a seal are really from a seal, they are from a seal other than the official DOH seal - probably from the STATE REGISTRAR’s seal, which is smaller than the official DOH seal and has circles rather than stars between the words on it. But Chapter 8b requires that the paper display either the official DOH seal or the State of Hawaii seal. Obama’s doesn’t.
It is an obvious forgery as you say, but even if the signs of forgery were not so obvious, it would still not be LEGALLY certified, according to the requirements of “Public Health Regulations”, Chapter 8b.
Seems to me that the Third Article gives the judiciary the job of resolving controversies arising from the Constitution. If somebody had reason to question the natural born citizenship of a Presidential candidate or President-elect, the courts should take up the issue, and at that point it would come down to the judiciary’s established rules of evidence.
That’s what should have happened in Obama’s case as well. It didn’t turn out that way because the courts have all said it’s nobody’s business whether or not Obama is eligible. It is just our country, after all, to which we pledge allegiance constantly, to which we pay taxes, and on which we depend to get the protection of the laws. Clearly we have no skin in the game...
That is the unkindest cut of all, and I will never forgive the judiciary for that stab in the gut. None of my business. As if the loss of my country was too insignificant for me to even care. (spit)
Only somebody who didn’t care if they had the respect or cooperation of anybody in state or federal government would do such a thing. The whole system has shown that it is going to shun anybody who takes this issue seriously - most probably because the whole darn system is guilty as Hell itself on this issue and they know it full well. So they have to pressure everybody within the government-mafia-establishment so they won’t dare rat them out.
This is why I say that we have to change the system so that the people don’t have to depend on the integrity of people who NEED the cooperation of the very people they are supposed to prosecute on our behalf. It’s an incestuous system.
I know Nebraska’s AG Jon Bruning wouldn’t dare to do anything to challenge Obama’s eligibility because he has political aspirations. Even the state legislatures in various states wouldn’t address the issue generically, presumably because federal monies were at stake if they angered the people who control the federal stimulus slush fund. The whole thing is an incestuous racket. Even people who don’t care about Obama’s eligibility should be able to see the danger in this system.
You said, “Nothing says an NBC can’t be born a dual citizen, despite birthers’ fever dreams.”
Actually Vattel does say that, and Minor v Happersett said uses Vattel to say that birth on US soil to 2 US citizens is the only sure instance of natural born citizenship.
That’s 2 very significant legal sources - one a binding legal decision by SCOTUS based on the legal definitions of the other, which was a source heavily relied-upon by the Founders when they framed the US Constitution and thus reflective of what they believed the terms meant when they used that term in the Constitution.
Those are serious sources. No serious scholar can just write those off as if they were nothing.
And apparently the folks at Justia didn’t write them off as nothing either, because they chose to alter the actual text of Supreme Court decisions in order to hide the references to those sources.
Nowhere does the Constitution talk about somebody being “born a citizen”. The term is “natural born citizen”. The Founders relied heavily upon Vattel - so much so that George Washington’s copy of Vattel that he had checked out from the library and never returned was recently discovered. Vattel says “natural born citizen” is someone born in the country to citizen parents - which is NOT the same thing as “born a citizen”, since somebody could be born a citizen with only one parent a US citizen.
Since Vattel - the source relied upon by the Founders at the time that they wrote the Constitution - distinguishes between those who were a “citizen at birth” and those who were “natural born citizens”, what legal source do you cite to claim that the Framers actually meant “citizen at birth” instead?
By doing what?....Writing letters that his staff immediately throws in the trash?
Yes, likely we will be, ...but... we are right.
It helps to be a Christian. You and those who have worked to prevent Obama’s crimes will eventually stand before God to be judged.
Yep! And,...Many of these obfuscators, ( some paid) troll Free Republic.
The layering and kerning of a BC released three years after the fact, and only after pressure from Trump, doesn’t bother you? He waved that piece of crap in the air just like he did his jobs bill. Again, it was released on the internet. No one allowed to examine the hard copy. He lies on TV every day about everything. Why would you believe him? What about his fake SSN numbers? And his scamming illegal relatives? And the active role he took in the elections back “home”. Its not rocket science.
I have exchanged several emails with the Assistant SoS and am in contact with my representative, and tomorrow will be at this hearing.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2808647/posts?page=65#65
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.