Posted on 06/22/2012 9:27:36 AM PDT by Perseverando
We honestly have no idea who his parents were, where he was born, or when. The record in Hawaii is worthless so we have to start at square one. He must have a legally-valid record from somewhere, but because it’s not a US record nobody in the US can get access to it.
We literally know nothing about who this guy is. Nothing. Without records all we can do is guess at his parentage based on appearance, what info we can find about who was where at what time, etc. Some people have done a LOT of research on that but without documentation it can only reach the level of speculation. Which is exactly where Obama wants to keep it - which is why he has refused to present any documentation.
I’m not sure what the age of consent was for Hawaii at that time, but if either BHO, FMD, or Malcolm X was the daddy, it would be a case of adultery between a married man and a (probably) minor girl.
HONOLULU, 6:47 p.m. HST July 10, 2001 -- For the first time since 1957, the Hawaii state legislature voted Tuesday to override a veto by a governor. State lawmakers held a special session Tuesday morning to vote to override Gov. Ben Cayetano's veto of a bill to raise Hawaii's age-of- consent for sex from 14 to 16.
I think there should be an effort made to find and identify those who changed or deleted sources on the web and prosecute and punish severely.
Nullifying his acts in office, such as could be set right, would be quicker than relying on even a GOP controlled Congress to overturn them. So sorting out his eligibility (or lack thereof) remains a goal.
There has been many a Masters and Doctoral thesis written on this. British common law dealt with subjects, property of a state and their relationship with that states monarch or king/queen. The US constitution deals with the relationship between free men without any King who we where throwing under a bus at gun point at that time. The only commonality of British common law and US law is both are written in English. The founding fathers pointedly did not use British common law in writing the Constitution.
I found this lurking around on the net— this says stanley ann dunham was married to a Jackie Chun Juanie and that two children?
http://www.geni.com/people/Jackie-Chun-Juanie/6000000004017885834
Senior Chief you are starting to sound like an Obama shill.
For that matter you are starting to sound like MR Rogers, another retired sub type 04.
Do not use the Internet to research “natural born citizen” All Internet sources have been abridged with malicious intent to subvert the Constitution and the law. Use a law library and printed books published prior to 2007.
YOU will find no ambiguity or misunderstanding. the meaning is very clear, natural born is born on US soil of two US citizen parents. Anything else is an attempt to discard the Constitution.
Those frantically changing sources on the web should be imprisoned.
By the way Rogers is consistently wrong when it comes to Obama’s eligibility.
Respectfully
CPO USN retired
Minor defined natural born as born on US soil of parents who where citizens at the child’s birth.
The Minor case was “held precedent” in a number of supreme court definitions. Were there any doubt about the significance of this Soro’s Center For American Progress confirmed it by editing some twenty five Supreme Court decisions containing citations to Minor v. Happersett over the Summer of 2008. Cornell Law School did the same, again with oversight of Soro’s Center for Am. Progress’s CIO, Carl Malamud, edited out a whole paragraph of Re: Lockwood, because it cites to Minor has “held” law - precedent. (Obama almost appointed Carl Director of the US Govt Printing Office; there is no telling what might have become of our national archives had that happened).
No court has contested Minor v. Happersett. The weaseling of judges is something to behold. Federal judges are a disgrace. Oaths clearly mean nothing. Even the military is infected, as they showed with the Colonel Lakin hearing, not allowing a decorated officer to present evidence, and sending him to Leavenworth because Obama’s citizenship papers could “be embarrassing.” They even blithely reordered the chain of military command, eliminating the Commander in Chief from responsibility for orders.
Until there is acknowledgment that the Constitution is no longer our foundation Obama’s ineligibility will not be forgotten. Supreme Court cases and the documents of founders and framers are being scrubbed and edited, but there is still paper in some libraries. We can all guess at why - McCain’s entitlement as a former prisoner of war, the need for Rubio so that the crony capitalism which is so essential to the wealth of congressmen (read Schweitzer’s “Throw Them All Out”), since Rubio’s ineligibility will insure that he is owned by those behind the curtain, .... the suppression of Article II Section 1 was deemed necessary. We know that at least twenty five attempts to amend it failed, right up to 2006, three by John Conyers between 2002 and 2007 aimed at Obama, one by Hatch for Schwarzenegger, and four other attempts, not counting the Obama/McCaskill SB 2678, though it needed to be an amendment to have affect (and this writer might have supported SB 2678).
The only uncertainty about Obama’s ineligibility is that there is no law that forces the Supreme Court to abide by precedent. They could make new precedent. But until they do, Obama is not a constitutional president, even if the press and public use that title. As Justice Thomas pointed out, the Court is evading the issue. We are presumably a nation of laws, and not men, though John Adams might judge that we have failed to protect, and thus lost, our constitutional protections.
What can be found on line is no longer valid.
Yeah... and a chance to hold accountable the people who signed off on his eligibility, a veritable who's who of high ranking state and Federal Dems.
“All Internet sources have been abridged with malicious intent to subvert the Constitution and the law. Use a law library and printed books published prior to 2007. YOU will find no ambiguity or misunderstanding. the meaning is very clear, natural born is born on US soil of two US citizen parents.”
False. The US Supreme Court citations on the Internet are NOT different than what someone would find if they went and saw a paper copy. When you have to claim a giant conspiracy has obliterated all record of what people actually wrote for the last 200 years, you are deep in weirdo-nutjob land!
BTW - I’m a retired Lt Col.
Question: Did the NY Supreme Court declare Lynch a natural born citizen in 1844? And did the US Supreme Court discuss NBC & NBS in detail in 1898?
Do you really think that “natural born” wasn’t a part of English law for hundreds of years prior to the US Constitution?
yep a Shill for Obama. You are still wrong!
No, the Founders explicitly used notions from common law as givens in writing the Constitution: habeas corpus, the right to trial by jury, the presumption of innocence,... The whole notion of stare decisis was inherited from British law, and none of the Founders raised objection to it when American courts applied it in their days.
In the absence of American precedents, American courts often used British precedents, especially in the early days, though there were, even then, some who took exception. Indeed, many of the several states explicitly implemented a retention of British law, common law included, by “reception statutes”, excluding only provisions repugnant to laws enacted by their legislatures.
The American Founding was in many ways undertaken to vindicate the traditional rights of Englishmen on behalf of those on this side of the Atlantic, coming eventually to the conclusion that those rights would be more secure in the context of a republic than a monarchy and giving us the Constitution.
Even if ‘natural born citizen’ is read as analogous to the British ‘natural subject’, rather than Vattel’s ‘natives’, it provides a higher standard for the Presidency than for Congress.
Naturalized citizens can serve in Congress, but are not ‘natural born citizens’ under either definition, and thus ineligible for the Presidency.
I’m convinced his Grandmother did the paperwork in Hawaii.
There is a reason she dropped out of the Hawaiian college and started school in Washington. To hide. Very simple.
Why go to Washington to hide after walking around nine months pregnant in Hawaii? It would be too late to hide the fact.
The POS will have had four years to destroy this country. Funny thing is that there are people on this forum that think that the “lighter shade of fail” (aka Romney) will change any of that. We assume that Odumbo is anti-gun and anti-freedom. Romney has a proven track record of being both anti-gun and anti-freedom. So, now, tell me again how electing this other POS is going to change anything? Wake up and be men for a change...
No. Lynch was decided by the first circuit court of New York.
And did the US Supreme Court discuss NBC & NBS in detail in 1898?
Yes, it made several distinctions between these two terms, the former was defined in Minor v. Happersett exclusively as all children born in the country to citizen parents. The discussion of NBS was used to justify a separate class of birth citizenship defined only by the 14th amendment applicable to resident aliens who had to have permanent residence and domicil. Obama fails to meet all of these citizenship definitions.
obumpa
A naturalized citizen may run for congress but only a born in the USA can run for president.
Also you posted earlier that Obamma claimed he was born in Kenya. We all know he is a liar so that is not proof. If his Hawaiian birth certificate can stand up to legal scruitiny then he is certainly eligible to be president. If, however, his BC proves to be a forgery (which I believe it is) then he will be removed from office - if not by congress then I would hope by our military who are also sworn to uphold the constitution.
I talk to republicans about obama’s early history and what we do know about it, and how all his documentary discrepancies point to someone who has serious citizenship problems. They tune out. They assume that I have the problem.
The average American doesn’t believe someone wold even ATTEMPT to run for president if in eligible. They don’t realize how easy it apparently is, with the press up your butt, to wholly get away with 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.