Posted on 12/16/2008 4:19:57 PM PST by briarbey b
He has not provided any evidence that he was born in Hawaii. I don't know where he was born, all he has to do is provide a Certificate of Live Birth from Hawaii and this ends. Why won't he do it?
You are aware that your quote is from Justice Fuller's dissenting opinion? The majority of the court found, "The foregoing considerations and authorities irresistibly lead us to these conclusions: The fourteenth amendment affirms the ancient and fundamental rule of citizenship by birth within the territory, in the allegiance and under the protection of the country, including all children here born of resident aliens, with the exceptions or qualifications (as old as the rule itself) of children of foreign sovereigns or their ministers, or born on foreign public ships, or of enemies within and during a hostile occupation of part of our territory, and with the single additional exception of children of members of the Indian tribes owing direct allegiance to their several tribes. The amendment, in clear words and in manifest intent, includes the children born within the territory of the United States of all other persons, of whatever race or color, domiciled within the United States. Every citizen or subject of another country, while domiciled here, is within the allegiance and the protection, and consequently subject to the jurisdiction, of the United States."
Neither is Vattel.
I'd probably be doing the same in his situation. He won the election and will be sworn in come January. SCOTUS has declined to take up any challenges to his eligility. This controversy is, frankly, confined to a thin slice of the margin of the conservative movement.
With all that in mind, unless and until some court or agency with the appropriate power to order him to release his documents does so, don't expect him to share any records. Why would he? To appease people like us who will never support him anyway?
So it has been claimed, most notably in Phil Berg's suit. But the problem with that is that in the affidavit Berg filed supporting the claim she said Obama was born in Kenya, the person filing the affidavit says the interview was conducted in Swahili, which she doesn't speak. And he says it was done in what he claimes is her home village, which she has never lived in. The 'evidence' is riddled with obvious falsehoods, so either the evidence was made up or the person being interviewed really wasn't his grandmother.
He has not provided any evidence that he was born in Hawaii. I don't know where he was born, all he has to do is provide a Certificate of Live Birth from Hawaii and this ends. Why won't he do it?
Because he doesn't have to.
Federal and State privacy laws forbid any health care provider from giving out information about a patient, even information confirming that someone was a patient.
So, it's not surprising that no hospital has confirmed that Obama was born in Hawaii because doing so, without his permission, could put them in legal hot water.
At this point he doesn't have to but don't you think it would the wise thing to do? What is the point of not doing it? There was much less question regarding McCain's status and he produced his immediately.
It seems to me that the only reason to believe there is a significant difference between "natural born citizen" and "citizen at birth" is because Emmerich de Vattel says so. Why should we accept the opinion of an 18th century Swiss man when we have the US Code to clarify the law. After all, that's what it's for. It's not as if the code violates the Constitution. It clarifies it. Certainly the term "natural born citizen" isn't used exactly in Title 8, Chapter 12 Subchapter III Part 1 Paragraph 1401, but the concept is there. After all, if someone who is born in this country is considered a citizen, are we to believe that some people were born "unnaturally", and therefore aren't "natural born citizens"? It becomes rediculous, this distinction without a difference. But let's examine de Vattel''s explanation of "Natural Born Citizen" a bit more closely, and see if it can describe anyone as a "natural born citizen" in a country of immigrants (and we're all immigrants here, even the "native Americans").
"The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens."
Given this definition, are you a natural born citizen? Is anyone in this country? After all, I'm sure if we went back far enough into your family tree, we'd find some relative of yours somewhere who came from overseas, and was not a citizen. That means by de Vattel's definition, the progeny in that situation were not "natural born citizens". Now I suppose one could then say, "Yes, but they were citizens, so the next generation then were natural born citizens", but why make this distinction?
Has anyone ever said such a distinction needed to be made before the controversy with Obama? No, so why start now? It seems like bootstrapping to me.
Reading more of what de Vattel wrote, "As the society can not exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights."
Succeed to all who's rights? The "rights" of these so called "citizens, but not natural born citizens"? You see, what is being attempted here is to say that somehow the "simple (or inferior, as it's implied) citizen couple" can generate a "natural born citizen", but yet the reason they can is because of de Vattel's reasoning? How so? How do these "inferior citizens" pass on all the "rights" necessary to a child for that child to become a "naturally born citizen"?
No, what de Vattel is saying here is that the two parents must THEMSELVES be "natural born citizens" to produce a "natural born citizen" offspring. That follows from logic too; after all, how can something inferior create or generate something superior to itself? That would be like saying two quarters can make a dollar.
So since we now know the true intent of de Vattel's writing, we can then surmise that if we take his logic to its fullest extent, as we reasonably should if we're intellectually honest, no one in this country can be a "natural born citizen" since no one here was decended from two parents who were "naturally born citizens", by the definition of de Vattel. You see, de Vattel was writing in a time when (and still true today somewhat, at least in Europe, the middle east, and the far eas) most people were descended from a family line that could litterally go back hundreds if not thousands of years, a family line that stretched into oblivion, but in all best indications were nationals of the same country during its entire existence.
This is not the American experience. Most of us are only 3 or 4 generations removed from immigrants ourselves. So the writings of de Vattel cannot be applied to the American experience. Or else none of us are "natural born citizens".
It would give him a bit more legitimacy and it’s also the right thing to do. These are valid questions that he refuses to answer.
That is the opinion of some of us on the right. But, Obama couldn't care less what we think because there is nothing he could do to get our support. Despite his false claims of bi-partisanship, Obama has no history of caring about the opinions of people who disagree with him.
He's got the media on its knees, giving him a never-ending Lewinsky. He's hoodwinked the American people into believing he can fix the world and give everyone a pony. He's got a Democratic Congress. At this point, he couldn't care less about proving his legitimacy to us, doing the right thing or responding to questions he considers to have already been answered.
I read the affidavit from Berg's lawsuit. The ones filed by Mcrae and Shuhubia. Link
Obama's grandmother speaks Luo and a few words of English. She does not speak Swahili. She also lives in her ancestral village of Nyang’oma Kogelo, not the village of Alego-Kogello.
At this point he doesn't have to but don't you think it would the wise thing to do? What is the point of not doing it?
No, from his standpoint he's pursuing the wise course. Stop and think about it. Obama provided the certificate of live birth. The state of Hawaii has claimed they have his original birth certificate on file. From his standpoint he's proven his citizenship and all these lawsuits are frivilous. If he responds to all these calls for additional information then he's admitting that suspicions about what he's provided so far are valid and that casts a doubt on his honesty. For political reasons alone it's to his advantage to dispute all these suits, especially when he's been successful to date. Obama will never provide his birth certificate without a court order. And no court will order it unless and until some solid evidence disputing Obama's claims is introduced. To date that hasn't happened.
Democrats speak out of both sides of their mouth, as in being deceitful. Maybe, as an Axelrod hiree, you could explain for us at FR how hiding the documents related to your History, and especially the single most important document to prove Constitutional eligibility is being 'open and transparent' to bring the nation together.
Bwahahahaaha, you obamanoids n00bs are so transparent!
You've derailed.
"However, most Kenyans speak at least three languages: their tribal language, Swahili (which has become a ‘lingua franca’ among a large part of East Africa) and English. Swahili (or Kiswahili) and English are the official languages of Kenya."
For what it's worth.
Where did you get the info that she speaks no swahili and about her village?
Obama provided a Certification of Live Birth which may have been forged, not the Certificate of Live Birth. Hawaii says they have a copy of a "birth certificate" but did not say that he was born in Hawaii. Could it be a copy of the certification that has already been posted? The Certification of Live Birth is not the same as a Certificate of Live Birth and it can be filed up to a year after the child's birth no matter where the child was born.
He has done all in his power to foster these suspicions, not to allay them. Why?
"Why would he (prove his Constitutional eligibility)? To appease people like us who will never support him anyway?" Aside from the specious 'us', you have neatly excluded the We The People portion of the Constitutional contract that is the hallmark of our Constitutional Republic.
Ask yourself, dear readers, if We The People have no right to demand that a president meet the minimal three eligibility requirements written in the Constitution, is there anything else in that contract that we can rightfully expect to be sacrosanct? Once a contract has been voided by one party in the contraqct, none of the contract stipulations remain valid in expectation from the other side in the contract.
There are presently more than a dozen obamanoid agitprops working FreeRepublic, ridiculing those who would presume to demand that a president be answerable to We The People.
As a supposed Constitutional scholar, would Barack Obama, aka Barry Soetoro, aka Barry Obama know that We The People are the ones with whom the government's contract rests in a Constitutional Republic. Yes he would. And if this supposed scholar sought to defraud the nation because he is not eligible by the most basic tenets cited in the Constitution, how would he go about avoiding We The People?
This man has proven he will lie in sworn documents--he swore that he had used no other name when he applied for an Illinois Bar license. He used assumed for his pernicious and wicked purposes the cancellation of Constitutional human rights of newly born alive struggling infants in order to arduously defend the killing method in Southside Chicago abortion clinics known euphemistically as 'induced labor abortions'.
Barry Soetoro is a lying, deceitful, wicked man. He is a fraud and has used the most eggregious means to deceive We The People ... he has gamed the systems of the law and contracts all of his adult life. And now his agents hide the documents from the History of his adult life, to deceive We The People, as if we have no right to demand that he prove conclusively his Constitutional eligibility for the office of President. This is the ultimate affirmative action coup, a democrat party scam!
Barry Obama is an affirmative action candidate seeking to be the most powerful man in the world, in a job he has not proven he is eligible to hold. And that truth is what these agitpoops sent from David Axelrod's astroturf lair seek to obfuscate at FreeRepublic because we have so many readers who seek and expect truth when they come to this website.
Frankly, there are a stubborn few of us 'oldtimers' who will resist this usurpation and deceit from the obamanoid agents until Jim decides to disqualify us from posting at this site. It is, after all is said and done, his site to control. We may help to pay the bills, but we do so because we trust his conservative judgment implicitly, to carry the conservative banner forward.
We have many n00b trolls, and too many longer tenured freepers, who care not a whit if Freerepublic survives the advent of the affirmative action fraud known currently as Barack Hussein Obama. Their task is to obfuscate the issues connected to their messiah, the Barack. They do not care what the truth is for they have a mission, to muddy any waters where their beloved affirmative action usurper is at risk of exposure.
The Constituion better be more precious than Barry Soetoro, for when it no longer is more important than a chosen one of the leftist's the Constitutional Republic will be no more.
Wikipedia It was also mentioned in a USAToday article and a couple of articles from the British press.
There are presently more than a dozen obamanoid agitprops working FreeRepublic, ridiculing those who would presume to demand that a president be answerable to We The People.
***Looks like you have got some work to do to compile this list, lj. I’ll need to read the rest of this excellent post later.
You're wallowing in paranoia. You seem to see conspiracy where there is nothing more than genuine disagreement on facts and law.
1. As I understand it, hospital patient confidentiality rules DON'T apply to a patient who has died.
2. For instance, Obama's mother is dead.
3. So, a Hawaii hospital has no legal reason to withhold information that Obama's mother was a patient in Hawaii on Aug. 4, 1961, when she supposedly gave birth to Obama.
4. That is, Obama himself has no right to tell a Hawaii hospital what to say about his mother, because she is dead, and Obama has no legal right to protect his mother's hospital records, if there are any.
5. For instance, suppose you walked into a Hawaii hospital and asked this question: Was president Bush born there?
6. The hospital personnel would probably laugh out loud and tell you this: Of course not. Are you crazy?
7. Now suppose you walked into the same hospital and asked if Obama was born there.
8. If Obama was NOT born in that hospital like President Bush was not born there, then I say that the hospital had every legal right to say that Obama was not born there.
9. And if Stanley Obama, Obama's mother, is now dead, I say that a Hawaii hospital is no longer bound by confidentiality rules, and it should be free to tell us if Mrs. Obama was ever a patient there in Aug. 1951.
10. So, as I see it, the correct question to ask a Hawaii hospital is NOT if Obama was born there; rather,the key question is to ask if Stanley Dunham/Obama, Obama's mother, was a patient at that hospital in Aug. 1961, because the confidentiality laws don't apply to Obama's mother any longer since she is dead.
there was no story backing it up. i tried a quick web search after reading it, but didn’t dig anything up..it will take a longer more detailed research of past senators
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.