Then this inscription on the Supreme Court means nothing - "just words".
Posted on 12/13/2008 11:40:57 AM PST by Red Steel
You’re quoting a source for original intent, not codified law. That is the point I thought I’d made. Regardless, codified law on the matter does not address the Constitutional requirement, and so the source you cite will have a bearing upon any resolution as to the meaning of the term.
Judges here are almost exclusively dem controlled.
They may not deny for lack of standing but will likely dismiss for lack of evidence or interpretation.
Could go to the SCOTUS after that where it will likely uphold the ruling of the State court.
But I am cynical and skeptical. There is the rare chance that the Washington Supremes will hear arguments and deny based on lack of definition of ‘natural born’. In that case it could make it to SCOTUS for a full hearing and decision on ‘natural born’. Somehow I think SCOTUS will deny all these cases because one of the four conservative justices will refuse to hear, but why I don’t know.
Let’s hope I am wrong.
Then this inscription on the Supreme Court means nothing - "just words".
Yeah, the evidentiary aspect may prove problematic. It SHOULDN’T, because the burden should clearly be on Obama to establish eligibility for the highest office in the land, but we all know that liberal judges don’t mind playing fast and loose with both spirit and intent.
I’d love to see the full filing on this one, to see what they’ve included in the way of evidence. Hopefully they haven’t simply repeated everything that’s circulating, because while those things are 99.9% likely to be true, without any actual evidence, they IMHO—I’m not a lawyer, although I work in the legal system daily—are leaving judges an out if they’re presenting nothing but hearsay.
Thx for the response!
MM
Show me another definition. Isn't it just a tad Orwellian to disdain the dictionary definition of a word because it doesn't suit your desired meaning?
"Obama is not innately a citizen of the United States at birth, because he was also a subject of Great Britain."
His status as a citizen or subject of any other country is not relevant, barring diplomatic status. The US doesn't care. By your logic, no person born in the US between the adoption of the Constitution and the end of the War of 1812 could be President because Britain considered them to be her citizens. They weren't "innately" US citizens. Yet 7 such Presidents have served, including Lincoln. [Tyler, Polk, Fillmore, Pierce, Buchanan, Lincoln, Johnson] The citizenship laws of other countries do not apply, only the citizenship laws of the US.
Yes, proof will rest squarely on Obama's shoulders:
- snip-
"The legislative history of the phrase “and subject to the jurisdiction thereof” meant, according to the authors of the Fourteenth Amendment, exclusive jurisdiction. A subject of the British Crown, for instance, could claim that jurisdiction was proper only under the Crown.
Barack Obama readily admits the following facts:
To establish American citizenship, Sen. Obama must prove one of two things:
At the time of his birth, he was automatically a British citizen, pursuant to the The British Nationality Act of 1948 (Part II, Section 5). Consequently, the United States did not have exclusive jurisdiction, and he is disqualified from automatic citizenship under the Fourteenth Amendment.
He has failed to demonstrate that he was actually born in Hawaii.
Barack Obama has submitted the following to establish his birth in Hawaii:
While these may be legally sufficient to register a birth in Hawaii, neither is sufficient to establish that he was born on American soil.
Hawaii, under HRS 338-17.8 allows for the registration of births to parents who gave birth while living without the Territory or State of Hawaii [emphasis added] and who declare the Territory or State of Hawaii as their legal residence for at least one year immediately preceding the birth or adoption of such child.
Because HRS 338-17.8 exists, a Certification of Live Birth in the form provided by Barack Obama is insufficient to establish native birth. Instead, he must produce a Certificate of Live Birth, which sets forth his name, his mother’s name, his father’s name, the hospital where he was born, the attending physician, and which includes his mother’s signature, the attending physician’s signature, and the signature of another witness."
-end snip-
As far as territorial disputes between Great Britain and what the British regarded as rebellious colonies up to and until the War of 1812, those claims involved the entirety of the citizenry of the United States at the time. Far from being an exception that proves your contention, that is exactly why the founders raised the bar for the highest elective office in the land. And, only that office.
According to the birthing record documents which the next President of the United States has had published on the internet, his legal given name at birth was Barack Hussein Obama II.
It has been reported in the press this week that the next President of the United States intends to be sworn in as Barack Hussein Obama, which is clearly not his legal birth name.
I am sure that Chief Justice Roberts, before he swears in Obama as President of the United States, will personally review an actual vaulted copy of the original long form of Obama's birthing records which the State of Hawaii, Director of Health, Chiyome Fukino, MD has publicly announced that she has on file.
It would be shame for the Chief Justice Roberts of the United States to go down in history as the first Chief Justice to incorrectly swear in a new President of the United States by not using his full and correct name even if he was not born in this country. 
What is your point? I specified a time frame for persons who were not born at the time of the adoption, yet were born before the time Great Britain relinquished her claims, in other words, persons who were not "innately" citizens per your definition. Throwing up the "adoption" clause is a red herring as I explicitly excluded anyone to whom that would apply.
"As far as territorial disputes between Great Britain and what the British regarded as rebellious colonies up to and until the War of 1812, those claims involved the entirety of the citizenry of the United States at the time. Far from being an exception that proves your contention, that is exactly why the founders raised the bar for the highest elective office in the land. And, only that office."
How so? You have avoided answering my questions, just as you did when you brought up "innate" before. How does a child born on US soil with British citizenship (per the view of the British government) in 1961 differ from the same in 1791? The ones that I listed, all born between the adoption of the Constitution and the end of the War of 1812, were British citizens at birth according to the British. How is that any different from Obama being regarded by the British as a citizen at birth? There were no challenges to the eligibility of any of those seven Presidents, as far as I am aware.
It’s the difference between a claim disputed by law under the legitimate government of the United States of America, and a claim disputed by rebellious colonies of Great Britain, calenel.
You can be born on Mars...
have parents with a Hawaiian address “claim” you were born at home without the aid of a midwife or any other witnesses...
have them file affidavits along with an application for a “Certficate of Delayed Birth”...
file it more than a year later...
be issued a “CertificATION of Life Birth”...
and show no more than Barack Obama has...
That’s how loose the Hawaiian “birth certificate” program is! Look up the laws in place now and see for yourself
And it was even more lax in the 60s
I'm pretty sure that from the perspective of the US government we were independent before the War of 1812, and our government was legitimate. So, in both cases, a foreign government had claims on the persons involved, who were US citizens by virtue of having been born on US soil. [Disclaimer: I still want to see Obama's BC as proof of his disputed place of birth.]
Other copies of this long form of a Certificate of Live Birth, which have a green background and show a date in 1963, have been published on different web sites. These images are based on a Certificate of Live Birth which would have been created at a hospital and but had not yet received and processed by State of Hawaii, Department of Health.
The following statement has been attributed to the current Director of Health for the State of Hawaii, Chiyome Fukino, MD and the current Registrar General per their joint press release on October 31, 2008: in part: “Therefore, I as Director of Health for the State of Hawaii, along with the Registrar of Vital Statistics who has statutory authority to oversee and maintain these type of vital records, have personally seen and verified that the Hawaii State Department of Health has Sen. Obama’s original birth certificate on record in accordance with state policies and procedures.”
Their complete public statement clearly made no references to the key data to be found in #6 boxes and well as the supporting data as in the #7 boxes in the first image. Box #16 shows the birth place of the mother. Box#15 shows the age of mother. Box#14 shows the race of mother. Box #11 shows the birth place of the father. Box #10 shows the age of father. Box #9 shows the race of father. (In the modern secular world this person would also be known as the sperm donor.)
Box #18a shows the signature of the Parent or Other Informant who states that “I certify that the above stated is true and correct to the best of my knowledge information”. This person is effectively signing for the right to name the new born. Box #18b shows the date of this signature.
You’re jumping past the significance of Great Britain claiming every citizen as British subjects, from the founding of this country until the conclusion of the War of 1812, calenel. From the point of view of our own government at the time, the claims were and are specious.
So, no one, to my knowledge, has been President who was acknowledged to have been indisputably born subject to the jurisdiction of another country, since the founders’ era. Unless, that is, you want to make that claim about Chester Arthur, and even his example is not helpful in supporting a liberal interpretation of the natural born citizen requirement. He wasn’t elected President, he was elected Vice President, and became President upon the death of Garfield. Even so, he went to great lengths to conceal any reference to his potential ineligibility, and was never required to address the matter in a court of law. He did have his papers destroyed upon his death, though.
The same cannot be said of Obama. Yes, he’s going to great lengths to conceal anything that might disclose nationality at various stages in his life, but he’s been quite open about admitting he was born a subject of Great Britain.
"dictionary definition" = "liberal interpretation"? Since when? I am not the one creating new definitions here. Show me the place where the alternative definition exists. Why would the FFs use a definition that was neither recorded nor debated over the common one? Others arguing from your position have attempted to cite Blackstone, St. George Tucker, Vettel, etc., but not one of them wrote anything along the lines of what you are claiming, and they (St. George, et al.) often contradict each other. Numerous SC cases have been cited and not one of them used 'born a citizen but not a natural born citizen' in its decision. Nowhere is there support for the 'on US soil with two citizen parents' definition in any of those decisions or in any law or in the Constitution. And every time I ask for an example the response is [crickets] or a regurgitation of the previous failed argument.
"From the point of view of our own government at the time, the claims were and are specious."
From the point of view of our own government the claims were irrelevant. We didn't go to war over British claims, but over British actions.
And British actions were motivated by claims of jurisdiction, calenel.
You are also ignoring the entirety of the body of law pertaining to jurisdiction. Jurisdiction applies to everybody except the specific classes of people that are exempted by treaty or other very limited and special circumstances. Diplomats are exempted by treaty. Before 1924 Indians (subject to tribal law), children of hostile occupying forces (by definition, occupied territory is not under the jurisdiction of the pre-occupation government) and persons transient through US airspace or waters (by far the weakest definition) are all exempted.
And I'm still waiting on that other definition.
... and Obama’s father might even be more Arab than African Negroe. We know where Obama was born in Kenya, but nobody knows where he was born in Hawaii.
http://www.rallycongress.com/constitutional-qualification/1244
He is a manipulative affirmative action product
He has a blank history which black children therefore cannot emulate
He claims to be born in HI thus the thrill of the Kenyans to have a Kenyan in the WH is a fraud
He is descended from slave traders and slave users
He is born from a white woman's womb
I'd say the guy is pretty much a fraud to any race he might try to claim.
I believe you, but his parents would have had no way to foresee the importance of his citizenship. They probably filed for the certification and openly admitted he was born in Kenya. If they had gone the other route back then and put together false documentation of his birth in Hawaii, we'd have zero chance of poking through that and I think he would've released it long ago.
MM (in TX)
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.