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

Skip to comments.

Update on Barack Obama's Birth Certificate Issue
Right Side News ^ | November 30, 2008

Posted on 11/30/2008 6:09:20 PM PST by Red Steel

Citizenship Issue on MSNBC Hawaii Revised Statute 338-17.8 allows registration of birth in Hawaii for a child that was born outside of Hawaii to parents who, for a year preceding the childs birth, claimed Hawaii as their place of residence. The parents would be issued a Certification of Live Birth.

This is not proof of where the child was born. It only proves that the parents claimed Hawaii as their main place of residence for the prior year.

British Nationality Act of 1948 (Part II, Section 5): Subject to the provisions of this section, a person born after the commencement of this Act shall be a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies by descent if his father is a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies at the time of the birth.

A natural born citizen, would not be a citizen of any other nation than the United States. That is what "natural born" means. By nature, the child, would be only a US citizen, because both of his parents were US citizens, and NO OTHER NATION, can by law claim him to be under their jurisdiction, at the moment of his birth. That was not the case with Obama. He was, by law, a Citizen of the United Kingdom, the moment he was born, and then, by law, he became a citizen of Kenya on Dec. 12, 1963.

For a more detailed explaination of natural born citizen, see my other related video here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bp2kKN...


TOPICS: Crime/Corruption; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: bho2008; birthcertificate; certifigate; obama; stbc; thekenyan
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 151-200201-250251-300301-317 next last
To: dcwusmc; pissant; LucyT; Calpernia; Fred Nerks; potlatch; devolve; ntnychik; MeekOneGOP; ...

Granny saw it in Kenya--nobody saw it on the big island.

201 posted on 11/30/2008 11:45:19 PM PST by PhilDragoo (Hussein: Islamo-Commie from Kenya)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 200 | View Replies]

To: HawaiianGecko

Seems you wish to ignore an entirely rational questioning process with truth being the goal. Apparently, you just take what life hands you, gulp it down and go on. Well, perhaps you should respect some folks here that continue to fight the good fight -for YOUR benefit. Cause if you are actually in business, you won’t be for long under Mr. Obama. If you believe he’s on the up-and-up on his background, he’s got a great piece of global warming he’s gonna sell ya.
If you believe “he’s starting a new job and doesn’t have time for this crap”, you’re essentially saying that abiding by the Constitution is crap - lets get on to more important things.
Obama is so internationally ignorant its painful. He’s such a rookie outside our borders perhaps it would behoove him to abide by our laws and not just make his own. Remember - this guy is supposed to know constitutional law. Why do you think he goes to such lengths to subvert it? He knows full well that he’s “dirty” and he’s just hoping and praying (to his higher power) that he can just get past Jan 20. Then he can make almost any law he wants and then......
Your estate(as you put it) is history buddy.


202 posted on 12/01/2008 12:29:42 AM PST by bossmechanic (If all else fails, hit it with a hammer)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 178 | View Replies]

To: Red Steel
Thanks very much for the link. It proves my point.

In the words of the US Supreme Court:

The fourteenth amendment of the constitution, in the declaration that 'all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside,' contemplates two sources of citizenship, and two only,-birth and naturalization. Citizenship by naturalization can only be acquired by naturalization under the authority and in the forms of law. But citizenship by birth is established by the mere fact of birth under the circumstances defined in the constitution. Every person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, becomes at once a citizen of the United States, and needs no naturalization. A person born out of the jurisdiction of the United States can only become a citizen by being naturalized, either by treaty, as in the case [169 U.S. 649, 703] of the annexation of foreign territory, or by authority of congress, exercised either by declaring certain classes of persons to be citizens, as in the enactments conferring citizenship upon foreign-born children of citizens, or by enabling foreigners individually to become citizens by proceedings in the judicial tribunals, as in the ordinary provisions of the naturalization acts.

According to this decision, there could be some question whether a child born overseas, with one or both parents being American citizens, is a natural-born citizen in the meaning of the Constitution. The wording of this decision, in fact, implies that such a child would not be.

However, this decision is from 1898, and later laws and decisions prior to Obama's birth would be relevant.

The decision is quite clear that there are only two types of citizens, those who acquired it at birth (natural-born or native-born, the terms are used interchangeably, with the implication being that natural-born is an older and somewhat archaic term by 1898) and those who acquired citizenship by naturalization.

I was intrigued by the fact that children born overseas to American parents are considered naturalized by act of Congress, and therefore not native-born or natural-born.

The upshot of all this is that if Obama was born in Honolulu, he's a natural-born citizen fully elgible to be president. If he was born outside the US, legitimate questions arise.

The decision makes it very plain that acts of any other sovereign power (Indonesia, Kenya, UK) are utterly irrelevant to a person's standing as a US citizen.

203 posted on 12/01/2008 4:03:06 AM PST by Sherman Logan (Everyone has a right to his own opinion, but not to his own facts.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 166 | View Replies]

To: Diggity

In US vs Wong Kim, the Supreme Court ruled that Wong Kim was a natural-born American citizen.

There were attempts to exclude Chinese born in America. They were rejected.


204 posted on 12/01/2008 4:09:00 AM PST by Sherman Logan (Everyone has a right to his own opinion, but not to his own facts.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 119 | View Replies]

To: Red Steel
A distinction made by the Supreme Court at the time that would only mean to be Wong Ark could not legally become President.

Wrongo. Read the whole decision. I did.

It uses the terms natural-born and native-born interchangeably. It is also very clear there are only two classes of American citizens.

205 posted on 12/01/2008 4:14:10 AM PST by Sherman Logan (Everyone has a right to his own opinion, but not to his own facts.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 143 | View Replies]

To: Citizen Blade
The 1790 law dealt with citizens born overseas. It imposed no requirement that someone born in the US needed to be born to two citizens to be considered natural-born.

Your interpretation in the second sentence notwithstanding, if Barry O had been born outside the U.S., he would not be a U.S. citizen because both his parents were not U.S. citizens and because his mother had not been one long enough after the age of 16.
206 posted on 12/01/2008 4:21:44 AM PST by aruanan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 109 | View Replies]

To: Red Steel
In Article two, section 1., of the U.S. Constitution it mentions two types of citizens. Verbatim, ..."a natural born citizen or a citizen of the United States"....

You exclude a highly relevant section.

No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President...

Please don't descend to quoting out of context.

The "Citizen of the United States" you refer to as a third category is part of the phrase "Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution."

None of them are around anymore, so this phrase has become inoperable due to the passage of time, leaving us with the two classes of citizen.

207 posted on 12/01/2008 4:22:39 AM PST by Sherman Logan (Everyone has a right to his own opinion, but not to his own facts.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 177 | View Replies]

To: HawaiianGecko
Ten bucks says Abraham Lincoln didn't have anyone other than his mother as a witness when he took office.

Abe's mother died in 1818 and his father in 1851.

It is quite likely there were no eyewitnesses to his actual birth living when he became President.

Not that anybody would claim he was smuggled into the backwoods of Kentucky to fool the "natural-born" police. :)

208 posted on 12/01/2008 4:27:37 AM PST by Sherman Logan (Everyone has a right to his own opinion, but not to his own facts.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 186 | View Replies]

To: autumnraine

saved


209 posted on 12/01/2008 4:38:23 AM PST by gunnyg
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: HawaiianGecko
I think Obama should be held to the same standard as other presidents. If other presidents had dozens upon dozens of witnesses to their birth as natural born citizens, then Obama should provide witnesses too.

So?,...If he can't produce witnesses then how about a 10$ birth certificate?

210 posted on 12/01/2008 4:40:43 AM PST by wintertime
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 186 | View Replies]

To: wintertime
Where are the witnesses who can name his obstetrician?...

The total, utter, and complete lack of witnesses on August 4, 1961 is the most compelling reason to suspect that the Hawaiian birth scenario is a fabrication. Not ONE medical person has come forward. Isn't it extremely odd that nobody wants to bask in the glory of having been present at the birth of supposedly the most "historic" presidential candidate of all time (not to mention the opportunity for lucrative book deals, interviews, etc.)? Zero medical records have been produced. The hospital itself has not been identified. You would think that if Obama knew himself to have really been born in Honolulu, he would be falling all over himself to squash all these horrible rumours about his ineligibility. Instead, he exacerbates the doubt by hiding the one document that could prove his case conclusively.

Until he or his sycophants can explain this illogical behavior, this elephant stays in the room. Obviously, this won't stop his election, but it will taint his legitimacy, and this can effervesce for four years and become an indelible mark against him to be used in 2012.

211 posted on 12/01/2008 4:50:05 AM PST by omniscient
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 171 | View Replies]

To: hocndoc

The reason the they put the Natural Born citizen requirement in the Constitution was to PROTECT this nation from foreign influences. You were given your natural born citizenship through your FATHER who had already pledged his allegiance to the United States and the United States only. It may sound very un PC, but their attitude was it’s us or them. You can’t have both.


212 posted on 12/01/2008 4:51:35 AM PST by panthermom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 85 | View Replies]

To: wintertime

I heard on radio Al Frankin might ask democrat Senate to decide his election(I think it takes bothy houses) . He will claim vote suppression. BCC Democrats in house tried to get Senate to overturn 2004 election but they democrats wouldnt go near it(I think they got Barbara Boxer) .


213 posted on 12/01/2008 5:21:41 AM PST by sickoflibs (McCain asks: "Did you stupid conservatives really believe me? HA-HA-HA, wait til 09")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 176 | View Replies]

To: christie

I am an America natural born. I leave this country pregnant and have a child in Kenya or whereever. By my naturalization, my child is american born?


214 posted on 12/01/2008 5:22:46 AM PST by janee (janee)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: omniscient
Obama should be held to the same standard as every other president. Every other president has had **numerous** witnesses to their newborn status and birth in the U.S.

Since Obama has refused to provide witnesses then how about a $10 certificate? That he has teams of lawyers blocking access to this simple document is high suspicious.

As I posted previously, I am in my 60s and there are still several who could testify that they visited my mother and me in the hospital. Relatives and friends could still give the name of the doctor (the same doctor used by many in the family and neighborhood). Some attended my christening etc. This is the sort of history that past presidents have presented.

So?....If Obama can not meet the same standard as every other president then a birth certificate and a few other documents should be sufficient.

215 posted on 12/01/2008 5:30:19 AM PST by wintertime
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 211 | View Replies]

To: trumandogz

Hansel and Gretel also left a trail. Their trail was made of bread crumbs and the animals ate it. Maybe Zeroes handlers have destroyed his paper trail. ;0)


216 posted on 12/01/2008 5:32:43 AM PST by seemoAR
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: omniscient
Not ONE medical person has come forward.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

No friend, relative, or neighbor has come forward to say they witnessed the mom bringing home a cute little baby Obama home from the hospital.

Geeze! Hold Obama to the same standard as every other president, otherwise release a few documents.

217 posted on 12/01/2008 5:34:18 AM PST by wintertime
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 211 | View Replies]

To: HawaiianGecko

So forcing verifification of his constitutional eligibility is somehow NOT looking out for the country?


218 posted on 12/01/2008 5:48:03 AM PST by pissant (THE Conservative party: www.falconparty.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 178 | View Replies]

To: HawaiianGecko
What makes you think he didn't?

You think at least one person would have come forward by now and said he has. I haven't heard Howie Dean, or any state Attorney General, or the FEC, or ANYONE tell us that he has. The ONLY thing we have is a forged COLB. And that in itself is a felony that should put him behind bars, not in the Oval Office.

219 posted on 12/01/2008 5:51:26 AM PST by pissant (THE Conservative party: www.falconparty.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 183 | View Replies]

To: txflake

“We’re not asking anybody to overturn the election.”

Officially, he hasn’t been elected yet. That won’t happen until the Electoral College acts. When is that? Dec. 15, or some time in January?

Anyhow, that would give SCOTUS some wiggle room if they were to act ASAP.


220 posted on 12/01/2008 5:51:31 AM PST by MayflowerMadam
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: bvw

“Still the man was elected in a bloody landslide!”

Maybe. Maybe not. When the Chicago political machine is going full steam ahead, brings in ACORN, has voters register and/or vote multiple times, brings in more voters than there are adults in an area, etc., nobody will ever know if he actually won or, if he did, if it truly was a landslide.


221 posted on 12/01/2008 5:58:06 AM PST by MayflowerMadam
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 67 | View Replies]

To: panthermom

Please see post 203 and the Supreme Court decision it references.

The (long) decision makes it very clear that citizenship under the common law and under US law has only been derived primarily derived from place of birth. Only in rare exceptions was the parentage of the child relevant. And, yes, at the time it was the father who was relevant. Given changes during the last century to make the laws sex-neutral, I suspect this has been changed and the mother’s status is now equally relevant.


222 posted on 12/01/2008 6:03:08 AM PST by Sherman Logan (Everyone has a right to his own opinion, but not to his own facts.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 212 | View Replies]

To: janee
“I am an America natural born. I leave this country pregnant and have a child in Kenya or where ever. By my naturalization, my child is American born?”

If you and the baby's father are both natural born citizens and your baby is born in Kenya or wherever, your baby is a US citizen but not a natural born citizen. My understanding of “natural born” means born of two US citizens and born on US soil. This distinction refers only to the President and Vice President per the constitution.

Leo Donofrio’s case assumes that Obama was born in Hawaii. However, Obama’s father was not a US citizen and that made Obama a British subject at birth. Therefore he is not a natural born citizen.

We will just have to wait and see what the SC Justices decide on Friday to see if they will fully hear Donofrio’s case. Also waiting to hear what Obama’s response to Justice Souter is today.

223 posted on 12/01/2008 6:03:29 AM PST by seekthetruth
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 214 | View Replies]

To: Sherman Logan
re: previous post.

The (long) decision makes it very clear that citizenship under the common law and under US law has always been derived primarily derived from place of birth.

Sorry for the typo.

224 posted on 12/01/2008 6:05:47 AM PST by Sherman Logan (Everyone has a right to his own opinion, but not to his own facts.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 222 | View Replies]

To: janee

According to the US Supreme Court in 1898, children born overseas to American parents were considered naturalized by act of Congress, and therefore not native-born or natural-born. Presumably not eligible to be President, although this question was not addressed specifically in the ruling.

Other laws and decisions since may have altered this. Certainly McCain was not born “in the US” in the terms of the 1898 decision.


225 posted on 12/01/2008 6:09:08 AM PST by Sherman Logan (Everyone has a right to his own opinion, but not to his own facts.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 214 | View Replies]

To: seekthetruth; janee
If you and the baby's father are both natural born citizens and your baby is born in Kenya or wherever, your baby is a US citizen but not a natural born citizen. My understanding of “natural born” means born of two US citizens and born on US soil. This distinction refers only to the President and Vice President per the constitution.

Title 8 > Chapter 12 > Subchapter III > Part I > § 1401:
The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth:
(c) a person born outside of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents both of whom are citizens of the United States and one of whom has had a residence in the United States or one of its outlying possessions, prior to the birth of such person;

In the scenario given by Janee the child is a natural born U.S. citizen.

Leo Donofrio’s case assumes that Obama was born in Hawaii. However, Obama’s father was not a US citizen and that made Obama a British subject at birth. Therefore he is not a natural born citizen.

If he was born in Hawaii then the citizenship of his father in this case is irrelevant; Obama is a natural born U.S. citizen. Donofiro's claim is contradicted by federal law. the 14th Amendment, and earlier Supreme Court decisions.

We will just have to wait and see what the SC Justices decide on Friday to see if they will fully hear Donofrio’s case. Also waiting to hear what Obama’s response to Justice Souter is today.

I imagine Obama's response to Justice Souter will mirror his original response to the lower court. That resulted is a dismissal so why change?

226 posted on 12/01/2008 6:12:51 AM PST by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 223 | View Replies]

To: seekthetruth
My understanding of “natural born” means born of two US citizens and born on US soil.

Your understanding is not that of the Supreme Court. I suggest you read the decision in US vs. Wong Kim, 1898. It explains the types of citizenship in great detail.

There are only two classes of American citizens, natural-born (citizens at birth) and naturalized (acquired citizenship after birth.)

If Obama was born in Hawaii, he is natural-born. If he was born outside the US, he might still qualify as natural-born through his mother's citizenship, but the question gets a great deal messier.

227 posted on 12/01/2008 6:13:15 AM PST by Sherman Logan (Everyone has a right to his own opinion, but not to his own facts.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 223 | View Replies]

To: Sherman Logan; Las Vegas Ron; al baby; sickoflibs; tips up; KJC1; txflake; clyde260; ...
Hopefully the Donofrio case will force the Supreme Court to sort out the definition of "Natural Born".

Meanwhile, the only thing the American Voters have seen is a FORGED Certification of Birth (short form) and nothing else.

Even to the most ardent Obama fans, this is FISHY!!!

VITAL INFORMATION: (please bookmark to show to Obama fans)

Dr. Polarik’s Extensive Research with scientific evidence that the Obama’s birth certification as shown on Factcheck is a Forgery

Dr. Polarik’s video summarizing that Obama’s Birth Certification is a FORGERY

If you have not already done so, PLEASE sign these two online-petitions:

Petition on World Net Daily

AND:

Petition from Concerned American Voter

PLEASE pass them on!!

228 posted on 12/01/2008 6:27:25 AM PST by CaraM (Faithless is he who quits when the road darkens.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 227 | View Replies]

To: panthermom; dcwusmc; Citizen Blade; Diggity; utahagen

A baby becomes a natural born citizen if a citizen at birth. Either because of being born on US soil, or through being born to a parent who is a citizen.

This idea about parental citizenship - other than being one way to become a natural born US citizen - is very, very unique.

Every anchor baby can grow up to be President, which I personally think is a good thing in the case of Bobby Jindel and my godson.


229 posted on 12/01/2008 6:29:05 AM PST by hocndoc (http://www.LifeEthics.org (I've got a mustard seed and I'm not afraid to use it.))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 212 | View Replies]

To: CaraM

Where is talk radio on this issue? I’ve heard nada from Rush, Hannity, Ingram, et al.


230 posted on 12/01/2008 6:41:34 AM PST by tips up
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 228 | View Replies]

To: HawaiianGecko
You're not making a serious legal argument are you? Ten bucks says Abraham Lincoln didn't have anyone other than his mother as a witness when he took office.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Other presidents have had more than enough family, friends, neighbors, first and second cousins ( etc.) to testify of their natural born origins that a legal argument was never necessary. No rational person would never have taken it to court due to the preponderance of witnesses.

So?....I say hold Obama to the same standard as other presidents. Where are his cousins, aunts, uncles, neighbors, parish priest, doctor, nurses, photos of his mom holding him on the porch swing, etc.?

Since Obama can not produce the same evidence that other presidents have, I am willing to settle for a valid 10$ birth certificate.

Okay...so it is WIERD that Obama has no history of relatives, friends, and neighbors who are witnesses to his newborn days, but being weird is not enough to keep him from the presidency. If he can provide some form of proof such as a birth certificate or witnesses, give the man the job! .

231 posted on 12/01/2008 6:46:01 AM PST by wintertime
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 186 | View Replies]

To: tips up
I am shaking my head in bewilderment as well. Were are Rush, Hannity, Ingram,...etc.? Asleep?
232 posted on 12/01/2008 6:47:23 AM PST by wintertime
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 230 | View Replies]

To: SatinDoll
The requirement to be President is that you be a “natural born” citizen. There are two criteria:

1. Your parents must be U.S. citizens;

2. You must be born within the United States or on U.S. territory

Again, you are making up requirements out of whole cloth. Article II does not mention either of these conditions.

On July 25th, 1787, John Jay wrote to George Washington, then Presiding Officer of the Constitutional Convention:

John Jay came up with the natural-born citizen requirement, but his letter makes no mention of either of the two requirements you have listed above.

The reason for excluding the U.S. born children of foreign nationals is because of split allegiences and that nations, such as Great Britain, claim the children of its citizens as being born British.

Again, until you can show some support, in the Constitution or in Federal statutes, that natural-born means "born in the US to 2 citizens," the conditions you listed above are purely of your own making.

Senator Obama’s father was a British citizen, and Barack Hussein Obama II was registered as a British citizen at birth by his father!

So what? Dual citizenship is legal under US law and is not a bar to the Presidency.

233 posted on 12/01/2008 6:51:04 AM PST by Citizen Blade (What would Ronald Reagan do?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 173 | View Replies]

To: Red Steel
Then I ask you why did they 1898 Supreme Court state that Wong was a 'native born citizen' and not use the term 'natural born citizen' as it is written in the U.S. Constitution.

The question before the court in that case was whether Wong was a citizen of the US or not. The case had nothing to do with whether or not he qualified to serve as President.

You cannot rely on that case for any questions dealing with the definition of natural-born citizen, as that is not an issue dealt with by the court.

234 posted on 12/01/2008 7:02:43 AM PST by Citizen Blade (What would Ronald Reagan do?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 166 | View Replies]

To: omniscient
The total, utter, and complete lack of witnesses on August 4, 1961 is the most compelling reason to suspect that the Hawaiian birth scenario is a fabrication. Not ONE medical person has come forward.

First of all, you have to assume that (a) any of them are still alive; and (b) any of them remember one specific birth 47 years ago.

Isn't it extremely odd that nobody wants to bask in the glory of having been present at the birth of supposedly the most "historic" presidential candidate of all time (not to mention the opportunity for lucrative book deals, interviews, etc.)?

Any medical professional who came forth to discuss the birth would be in violation of medical ethics rules regarding privacy, as well as state and Federal medical privacy laws. Medical professionals cannoth reveal that they treated someone or had them as a patient without that person's consent to such revelation.

Just to give you an example, when my wife gave birth to our son a couple of months ago, the hospital would not even tell friends of ours that she was a patient there when they called in to confirm where to send the flowers.

235 posted on 12/01/2008 7:11:44 AM PST by Citizen Blade (What would Ronald Reagan do?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 211 | View Replies]

To: janee
I am an America natural born. I leave this country pregnant and have a child in Kenya or whereever. By my naturalization, my child is american born?

Except for a few exceptions dealing with very rare circumstances, your child would be a natural born US citizen, regardless of where he was born.

236 posted on 12/01/2008 7:13:13 AM PST by Citizen Blade (What would Ronald Reagan do?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 214 | View Replies]

To: Red Steel

“they have a name for babies born without a father, and it ain’t pretty” Jake Roedel, Ride with the Devil.


237 posted on 12/01/2008 7:18:13 AM PST by Mashood
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur

“Title 8 > Chapter 12 > Subchapter III > Part I > § 1401:
The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth:
(c) a person born outside of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents both of whom are citizens of the United States and one of whom has had a residence in the United States or one of its outlying possessions, prior to the birth of such person;”

“If he was born in Hawaii then the citizenship of his father in this case is irrelevant; Obama is a natural born U.S. citizen.”

I do not understand. Your first quote does state “of parents both of whom are citizens of the United States”. So how can the citizenship of Obama’s father be irrelevant?


238 posted on 12/01/2008 7:58:05 AM PST by seekthetruth
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 226 | View Replies]

To: AdmSmith; Berosus; Convert from ECUSA; dervish; Ernest_at_the_Beach; Fred Nerks; george76; ...

thanks LucyT.

OBAMA ANNOUNCING HIS CABINET FOR NATIONAL SECURITY LIVE
ANY RADIO STATION THAT IS NEWS TALK | DEC 1, 2008 | RACEBANNON
Posted on 12/01/2008 7:57:54 AM PST by RaceBannon
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2140820/posts


239 posted on 12/01/2008 8:21:10 AM PST by SunkenCiv (https://secure.freerepublic.com/donate/_______Profile finally updated Saturday, October 11, 2008 !!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 145 | View Replies]

To: seekthetruth
I do not understand. Your first quote does state “of parents both of whom are citizens of the United States”. So how can the citizenship of Obama’s father be irrelevant?

Scroll up to 223, the post I was replying to. That should make it clear.

As to your question, the citizenship of Obama's father is irrelevant if Obama was indeed born in Hawaii. His father could be a Martian and Obama would still be a natural born U.S. citizen because of the 14th Amendment, federal law, Supreme Court precedent, and so forth.

240 posted on 12/01/2008 8:23:23 AM PST by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 238 | View Replies]

To: Citizen Blade

See post 238 for the law on this. You are wrong, wrong as two left shoes.


241 posted on 12/01/2008 8:48:01 AM PST by dcwusmc (We need to make government so small that it can be drowned in a bathtub.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 236 | View Replies]

To: dcwusmc

Post 238 did not include all of the relevant Statute, such as:

The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth:

(d) a person born outside of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is a citizen of the United States who has been physically present in the United States or one of its outlying possessions for a continuous period of one year prior to the birth of such person, and the other of whom is a national, but not a citizen of the United States;

(g) a person born outside the geographical limits of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is an alien, and the other a citizen of the United States who, prior to the birth of such person, was physically present in the United States or its outlying possessions for a period or periods totaling not less than five years

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode08/usc_sec_08_00001401——000-.html

(g) would cover a situation where a child was born abroad to one citizen and one non-citizen.


242 posted on 12/01/2008 8:55:19 AM PST by Citizen Blade (What would Ronald Reagan do?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 241 | View Replies]

To: Sherman Logan
Again I disagree with you. The Fourteenth Amendment does not address the issue of natural born citizen. It does however provide for a general and broad definition of US citizenship and to provide equal protection under the law.

From your excerpt: The fourteenth amendment of the constitution, in the declaration that 'all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside,' contemplates two sources of citizenship, and two only,-birth and naturalization.

Incomplete. Using a single source to define US citizenship ensues confusion. Generally speaking, US citizenship can happen in 3 ways; place of birth, by blood, and naturalization. Any one of these can bestow US citizenship, but it may not make one a natural born citizen.

The Constitutional framers were obviously worried of loyalty to the country. Natural born in the strictest sense is being born within the United States to US citizens is what the framers had in mind. Being born to foreigners or overseas may produce a person who has split his loyalty among nations, and clearly the Framers wanted to avoid that person from becoming president. However, the question of natural born citizen has not been addressed by the Supreme Court.

243 posted on 12/01/2008 9:00:24 AM PST by Red Steel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 203 | View Replies]

To: Citizen Blade

His mother was not of Majority age at the time which is an additional problem for Obama.


244 posted on 12/01/2008 9:10:59 AM PST by Diggity
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 242 | View Replies]

To: Red Steel
Natural born in the strictest sense is being born within the United States to US citizens is what the framers had in mind.

Nope. What you are missing is that "natural-born citizen" had a specific meaning in common law. Most of the Founders were lawyers. They knew exactly what it meant. There was no need to define it in the Constitution, as it already had a specific meaning.

Don't take my word for it. Read the Wong Kim Supreme Court decision. The Court explains what these terms mean and their history in tens of pages of detail.

Don't argue with me. Argue with the Supreme Court.

245 posted on 12/01/2008 9:12:38 AM PST by Sherman Logan (Everyone has a right to his own opinion, but not to his own facts.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 243 | View Replies]

To: Sherman Logan

For easy reference, there’s a wiki article about that ruling with links:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Wong_Kim_Ark


246 posted on 12/01/2008 9:23:54 AM PST by Knitting A Conundrum (Election 2010 begins today!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 245 | View Replies]

To: Citizen Blade
The question before the court in that case was whether Wong was a citizen of the US or not. The case had nothing to do with whether or not he qualified to serve as President.

I agree with you LoL!

You cannot rely on that case for any questions dealing with the definition of natural-born citizen, as that is not an issue dealt with by the court.

Again, I agree with you.

247 posted on 12/01/2008 9:30:17 AM PST by Red Steel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 234 | View Replies]

To: BP2

Mid-day bump


248 posted on 12/01/2008 10:11:12 AM PST by bvw
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: Shady Ray

Mid-day bump


249 posted on 12/01/2008 10:12:16 AM PST by bvw
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 67 | View Replies]

To: CaraM
Thanks for the ping.
250 posted on 12/01/2008 10:15:14 AM PST by kitchen (Any day without a fair tax thread is a good day.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 228 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 151-200201-250251-300301-317 next last

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