Skip to comments.Obama, Rubio Birthers Should Read the Law
Posted on 05/30/2012 6:10:45 AM PDT by circumbendibus
Birtherism -- the belief that Barack Obama was born in Kenya, not in the United States -- pretty much died last year when the White House released a copy of the president's long-form birth certificate showing he was born in Honolulu on Aug. 4, 1961. After that, the number of Americans who doubted Obama's place of birth dropped dramatically.
But not to zero. In recent days, there has been a mini-resurgence of birther talk, from Arizona, where the secretary of state questioned Obama's eligibility to be on the ballot, to Iowa, where some Republicans want to require presidential candidates to prove their eligibility for office.
The talk has gone beyond Obama, with some buzz on the Internet suggesting Florida Sen. Marco Rubio, a leading Republican vice presidential contender, is not a natural-born American citizen.
(Excerpt) Read more at campaign2012.washingtonexaminer.com ...
The term “Natural Born American” has been changed, because our Founding Fathers made the error in assuming that this term was so obvious, that no definition is required.
Back in 8th Grade Civic’s class, we were told that the term “Natural Born American” meant that we were born to American citizens, on American soil. Pretty straightforward.
50years ago, it meant simply that 1 parent was a US citizen, and you were born on American soil.
Today, an illegal alien who drops a baby on this side of the border - the child is considered a “natural born american” - the distinction between US citizen and “natural born american” has been corrupted completely.
It's not the crime, it's the cover-up. All the big shots on both sides of the aisle have been covering for Obama for years, and mocking people who try to find out the truth.
I think the Bastille may be stormed before this is over.
The Supreme Court already rejected the case and the NJ Court of Appeals warned Mario Apuzzo to stop filing frivilous lawsuits. Every decision to date on every birther lawsuit has concluded that Obama IS a natural born citizen.
The only two shots we have is to prove he was born in Kenya (which was part of the NJ suit that failed) and voting the bastard out.
This deeply thought-out analysis by the renowned Constitutional expert Byron York has been previously posted - and all the apologists for linguistic drift have come out of the woodwork to defend the indefensible.
Do we really need to go through tis all again?
If I wanted to, I could prove that I was born in Kenya by using the same technology.
That birth certificate made “layering a document” an mega active verb. For those libs in the audince to whom the concept of a light bulb is quantum physics...there are multiple layers on the supposedly scanned document. Type fonts in those layers don’t match. Transitions are not consistent between layers. Type fonts in some of the layers can only be generated by computer - not typewriters (sound familiar)?
Summary. The document is a fake. Now, the Cretin-in-Chief just may have been born in Hawaii, which would explain why Hawaii just won’t admit it officially. Who would?
Both of his “documents” are fake.
Anyone thinking otherwise should obviously return to a profession where intellect is not required...such as politics or journalism.
This topic has been brought up in Congress at least ten times in the 21st century. Orin Hatch was one who was trying to do so to get Arnold on the Ballot one day.
There is a youTube video on this that you can search. I’ll try to find it for you, Hodar.
Even if Barry Soetoro aka Barack Hussein Obama had been birthed in the Lincoln Bedroom of the White House Obama is NOT a NATURAL BORN CITIZEN.
That’s not the way it is.
All in the beltway too long get this disease of certainty of their convictions. They invent and massage the language needed to make their case then determine, “that’s the way it is”.
As NBC is a constitutional term, it is within the powers of SCOTUS to determine the intended meaning and how it should be applied. Declaring that is not defined in the Constitution does not remove the NBC requirement, nor open it to individual interpretation.
SCOTUS should do its job
I know this is confusing, but you have not been following this subject every day, every hour as I have.
I know about the case you talked about that made it to the Supreme Court led by Kerchner/Apuzzo.
I assure you there is another one, updated here from Mario Apuzzo’s own blog:
Update: I just filed Appellants Reply Letter Brief. It can be viewed here:
Hence, oral arguments on the Purpura and Moran v. Obama appeal to the New Jersey Appellate Division with take place in the open court room as follows:
Place: Superior Court of New Jersey
Hughes Justice Complex
25 W. Market Street
Trenton, New Jersey 08625-0006
Date: Wednesday, May 30, 2012
Time: 1:00 p.m. (Eastern)
Judges: Hon. Clarkson S. Fisher, Jr., P.J.A.D.; Hon. Linda G. Baxter, J.A.D.; Hon. Philip A. Carchman, J.A.D.
Method: In person argument on the record in open court room (not telephonically).
I hope to see members of the interested public at the oral arguments so that you can learn first hand what the issues and arguments are.
May 29, 2012 12:37 PM
Did you do the radio show yesterday? The archive is empty.
I hope you will do one after your oral argument tomorrow and I hope the court rules soon. Obviously they have some questions for you.
I am optimistic that they really want to hear the case, either way I guess it will move to the US Supreme Ct..
May 29, 2012 1:24 PM
I agree. Last time things got this hot for Obama, he had to "kill" Bin Laden. A full year ahead of schedule. Now he has nothing. The truth cannot be stopped. Obama and the MSM both know it and there is nothing they can do about it.
I thlnk Byron York probably attends the same beltway cocktail parties as George Will and Peggy Noonan.
His vision will never be distorted by what can actually be seen.
No passes for us like those given to democrats.
No, it has not. I searched before I posted.
However, there is a similar article in Human Events by Zak last week that argues the same drivel.
I would not be surprised in the least if the authors of these articles took money from the Obama campaign to try to make this issue go away. Let me tell you something, it is not going to go away this time around.
“Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me.”
Obama could have prevented the whole controversy for $10 in 2008--that he spent so much time and money fighting the issue suggests that he has something to hide. It might not be his place of birth but something else that the documents might reveal.
York, Will, and Noonan have been in Washinton too long.
It’s a shame Breitbart died. We need new courageous voices in the media, people in their twenties and thirties who will have to be the leaders in finding solutions to how our Constitutional Republic moves forward in the 21st Century.
Maybe we should demand Term Limits not only for our Congressmen, but also for our Media in Washington
The thread at the examiner has a lot of posters who will move mountains to prove Obama a NBC.
“Every decision to date on every birther lawsuit has concluded that Obama IS a natural born citizen.”
I have followed this closely and am not aware of ANY court decision determining Obama is a natural born citizen. Please give your citation. Thank you.
Is it that difficult to find a qualified candidate that was born on American soil to two American citizens?
I’d rather err on the side of caution. Heck, Rubio even admits a free Cuba would is his first loyalty. We don’t need a commander in chief with a personal agenda for another nation, even if it is in the guise of or in the name of freedom.
Should get interesting when official forgery charges are made.
And upon closer examination of the article, this statement stands out:
The law is really quite lenient, especially for those born outside the United States. If a child were born today in, say, Kenya, to a Kenyan father and an American citizen mother who had lived in the United States for at least five years, at least two of them over the age of 14 -- that child would be a "citizen of the United States by birth" and be eligible for the White House.
The founders intended the "natural born citizen" requirement to rule out eligibilty for that segment of the citizenry (as opposed to Natural Born citizenry) that had questionable loyalty to the United States -- the kind of questionable loyalty demonstrated by Obama. Obama has expressed loyalty to Indonesia and Kenya in ways that make his sworn oath to the US Constitution questionable at the very least. His dubious loyalty coincides with his expressions of affinity for Indonesia and Kenya, as told in both interviews and his biography "Dreams From My Father", especially considering his father's dreams were all anti-colonial in nature.
Not to mention his numerous acts of disrespect and contempt for the traditions, customs, and laws of the USA.
You are probably very sincere in your "belief" about court decisions. But you are 100% wrong.
While the lawsuits will not succeed we should not state false statements. I do not believe that even one let along all suits have concluded that Obama is a NBC. They have all just been thrown out as not having standing or other technical BS to keep zero in office.
Byron York is showing himself to be an idiot. By his standards the Constitution only means what legislators say it means and in this case they do not even have to know that they are changing the meaning of the Constitution when they do so by creating a law.
Legislation does not change the meaning of the Constitution Mr. York. You are proving yourself an idiot to make such an argument.
“SCOTUS should do its job”
It did. In 1898.
In the old days that would have been a red flag for the press - they would have looked into it... today it just means 'writing the pass' faster.
The article was posted before. It received over 300 comments before being pulled (or at least deleted).
“I have followed this closely and am not aware of ANY court decision determining Obama is a natural born citizen.”
The courts that have found Obama to be eligible for the ballot have thus also said he is a natural born citizen (Indiana & Georgia come to mind). Most courts have refused to waste their time on birther cases, since a private citizen does not have standing to file suit to overturn an election.
Imagine how convincing Obama’s birth certificate would have been had it not been an amateurish fake. I’m embarrassed for the media people who keep reflecting back on that photoshopped joke to finally put away the citizenship issue. When it comes to ID, there are three things Obama can’t do. Produce a real birth certificate. Explain his Connecticut SS#, and explain his bogus draft card. Of course, there are those hidden transcripts and college records, passports, name changes and so on, all serving to make Obama’s life a document nightmare. Like all frauds, his real past is his greatest enemy.
SCOTUS should do its job-----------------------------------------------
It did. In 1898.
Wong Kim Ark was ruled a "citizen" of the U.S. only ...NOT a "natural born citizen."
Other than birthers, who supposed it was scanned? Is that what the Hawaii SoS said? Have you verified what scanning software was used? Did it have an OCR function to build searchable text documents? Was the BC generated from software that has the pertinent information and prints it on official background paper? If the Hawaii state government affirms the information on the paper is an accurate representation of the information they have on file, then they could write it on a napkin with a crayon.
Personally, I think there is something seriously wrong with the Obama history and he certainly lied about his origins at some point (probably for college admissions). I also think that the majority of birthers are completely off their hinge, regardless of where Obama was born.
How about this:
"Most importantly, Arizona courts are bound by United States Supreme Court precedent in construing the United States Constitution,Arizona v. Jay J. Garfield Bldg. Co., 39 Ariz. 45, 54, 3 P.2d 983, 986(1931), and this precedent fully supports that President Obama is a natural born citizen under the Constitution and thus qualified to hold the office of President.
See United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, 702-03(1898) (addressing U. S. Const. amend. XIV);
Ankeny v. Governor of the State of Indiana, 916 N.E.2d 678,684-88 (Ind. App. 2010) (addressing the precise issue). Contrary to Plaintiffs assertion,
Minor v. Happersett ,88 U.S. 162 (1874), does not hold otherwise.
You are probably very sincere in your “belief” about court decisions. But you are 100% wrong.
Sorry, I replied to someone else before I saw your comment. Please see my previous comment (#36). A court DID say it!
The decision argued at great length that WKA met the qualification for both NBC & 14th Amendment. In fact, the court said that the NBC clause and the 14th were using the exact same criteria for citizenship.
“The real object of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution, in qualifying the words, “All persons born in the United States” by the addition “and subject to the jurisdiction thereof,” would appear to have been to exclude, by the fewest and fittest words (besides children of members of the Indian tribes, standing in a peculiar relation to the National Government, unknown to the common law), the two classes of cases — children born of alien enemies in hostile occupation and children of diplomatic representatives of a foreign State — both of which, as has already been shown, by the law of England and by our own law from the time of the first settlement of the English colonies in America, had been recognized exceptions to the fundamental rule of citizenship by birth within the country. Calvin’s Case, 7 Rep. 1, 18b; Cockburn on Nationality, 7; Dicey Conflict of Laws, 177; Inglis v. Sailors’ Snug Harbor, 3 Pet. 99, 155; 2 Kent Com. 39, 42.
The principles upon which each of those exceptions rests were long ago distinctly stated by this court. [p683]”
If the set of people who are NBC is the exact same as the set of people who are 14th Amendment citizens, then the terms are equivalent.
Yet, we're supposed to just believe that it was merely a coincidence that both presidential candidates had "issues" surrounding their eligibility.
I know about the case you talked about that made it to the Supreme Court led by Kerchner/Apuzzo.
Right. That case was turned down by the Supremes. http://www.supremecourt.gov/Search.aspx?FileName=/docketfiles/10-446.htm
Mario admitted on his blog that he was chastized by the District Court.
Care to place a wager on this next one?
Don’t get me wrong I hope he does win but this bird will not fly.
The author neglected to inform the readers the WH released a FRAUDULENT FORGERY of the president's long-form birth certificate
Even naked eyeballing the big numbers on the page show evidence of FORGERY!
What a coinkydink??? Myths daddy was born in Mexico.
Just what are the odds BOTH elections are fielded by ineligible candidates from BOTH parties?
Occam just nicked himself.
You are way smarter than me but Show Me The CARFAX!
His parents where American citizens at the time of birth..
Maybe article two needs amending.
If Joseph S gained citizenship, had offspring, then took them back to Russia for training, they would still be eligible.
NBC status needs to go back at least two generations to further prevent this from occurring.
Hahahahaha, they wish.
If that fits the definition of "Natural Born Citizen" then it makes one wonder why they bothered, doesn't it?
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.