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

Skip to comments.

The TRUE definition of a "Natural Born Citizen."
12-16-2008 | unknown

Posted on 12/16/2008 4:19:57 PM PST by briarbey b

Emmerich de Vattel was a Swiss jurist who attained world preeminence in international law. This was primarily the result of his great foundational work, which he published in 1758. His monumental work - The Law of Nations - applied a theory of natural law to international relations. His scholarly, foundational, and systematic explanation of the Law of Nations was especially influential in the United States.

The Law of Nations was so influnntial in the United States because his principles of liberty and equality coincided with the ideals expressed in the US Declaration of Independence. In particular, his definitions in terms of Law governing nations regarding citizenship, defense of neutrality, and his rules for commerce between neutral and belligerent states were considered authoritative in the United States.

Many have said that de Vattel's Law of Nations was THE primary reference and defining book used by the framers of the US Constitution. It is really not possible to overstate the influence of de Vattel's Law of Nations as the primary reference book in the drafting of the US Constitution. Emmerich de Vattel's Law of Nations is almost beyond comparison in its value as a defining document regarding US Constitution intent and interpretation. The Law of Nations, or the Principles of Natural Law, published in 1758, is the first, and ONLY, definitive work the Framers of the US Constitution used for the 'Natural Born Citizen' phrase they placed within the Constitution. It nails what the Constitution means by the "natural born citizen" phrase of Section 1, Article 2, of the US Constitution.

It is amazing how perfectly, precisely, and explicitly what Emmerich de Vattel, wrote in paragraph 212, of book 1, chapter 19, of The Law of Nations entitled CITIZENS AND NATIONS, applies to the Obama FRAUD. Quite clearly and explicitly it defines why Barry Soetoro, AKA Barack Heussein Obama Junior, can NOT possibly be qualified to be the President of the United States. Obama MUST be disqualified from the office of President of the United States according to the US Constitution Section 1 Article 2.

That is simply the only thing the Rule of Law could conclude. All US military personal and every other American under oath to protect and defend the US Constitution will be duty bound to remove the fraudulent usurper. This situation is REGARDLESS of votes, electors, media blackouts, high profile embarrassments, state court decisions, supreme court actions or inaction, birth certificates real or forged, or any other documents - Obama can NOT LEGALLY BE The US President. Fraud and illegality has become customary under the Bush-Clinton-Bush syndicate of sudden destruction.

Emmerich de Vattel's explanation of "Natural Born Citizen" given in his 1759 benchmark work, used, and so often quoted, by the framers of the US constitution, makes the understanding simple, explicit, clear, definite, exact, precise, and strict. In the CITIZENS AND NATIONS, paragraph #212, de Vattel says: "The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. 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. The society is supposed to desire this, in consequence of what it owes to its own preservation; and it is presumed, as a matter of course, that each citizen, on entering into society, reserves to his children the right of becoming members of it. THE COUNTRY OF THE FATHERS IS THEREFORE THAT OF THE CHILDREN."

No documentation is required. Everyone should understand and KNOW the answer to the question of what country is the country of which Obama was a natural born citizen. It is IMPOSSIBLE for Barry Obama, Barry Soetoro, or Barack Hussein Obama Junior, to be a natural born United States citizen. He can NOT POSSIBLY be a "natural born citizen" of the US because his father, Barack Hussein Obama Senior, was a Citizen of UK and/or Kenya. Barcak Hussein Obama Junior could be a natural born British Citizen or a natural born Kenyan Citizen. There is NO possible way Barack Hussein Obama Junior could be a natural born US Citizen; because, at the time of Barack Hussein Obama Junior was born, his father, Barack Hussein Obama Senior was a British and/or Kenyan Citizen. Whether Barack Hussein Obama Junior was born in Hawaii, Kenya, or the moon, is irrelevant. Birth documents, real or forged, are irrelevant. Yes, even VOTES ARE IRRELEVANT. Even Supreme Court action, or inaction, is irrelevant. It is simply FRAUD and illegal for Barack Hussein Obama Junior to be put in the office of US President by any means or reason.

This explains Obama's strange behavior in all of his documents and records being SEALED and why he has already spent over $800,000.00 saying NO DOCUMENTS WILL BE ALLOWED UNSEALED or made public.

Barack Hussein Obama Junior is at the epicenter of the greatest national disaster in the history of the United States. NOTHING which Obama would ever do in the office of US President could ever be anything other than FRAUD and ILLEGAL.

I like the way brother Ted said it - The consequences of the Supreme Court declining to address the US Constitution's "natural born citizen" clause on the morning of Monday 12/15/08 — thereafter enabling the College of Electors to transform the crisis from "law" to "political and Congressional", leading to the `inauguration' of Mr. Obama, are nothing less than catastrophic. Lawsuits by members of the military challenging his `commander in chief' status are INEVITABLE. And a military takeover to oust the "usurper" may be inevitable as well. Where is the media? This is no "tin foil hat" joke.

AN-OBAMA-NATION CAN BE NOTHING BUT FRAUDULENT AND ILLEGAL.


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Culture/Society; Miscellaneous; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: bc; birthcertificate; certifigate; colb; constitutionfraud; naturalborncitizen; obama; obamatruthfile
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 101-150151-200201-250251-285 next last
To: STE=Q
Supreme court justices also 'disagree' with each other on points of law.

True. But only the majority opinions take effect.

If you would like to have a fruitful discussion, you might want to comment on what YOU believe the framers intent was in drafting the 'natural born' directive for those that wished to serve as president: as that was the substance of my post.

Well since you asked...

I think the framers recognized two types of citizenship - citizen at birth or natural born citizen, and naturalized citizen. Those are the only two forms that are mentioned or implied in the Constitution. I do not believe the founders ever contemplated a form of 'super citizen' among those born in this country. I believe that the Supreme Court was right and expressed the founders intent when they ruled in the Ark case that that children born here, regardless of their parents nationality, were citizens at birth. I believe this because the precedent for such a decision goes back before this country was founded, even before Blackstone wrote as much in his commentaries on English law. And as educated men, and since many were also lawyers, the founders would be well aware of that and if they meant otherwise then they would have expressed that intent somehwere. But they didn't. As a result I believe 'natural born' and 'citizen at birth' are, and were meant to be, synonymous. And that any person born in this country, regadless of the nationality of their parents and except for the exceptions mentioned in the Ark case, is eligible to be president.

201 posted on 12/17/2008 12:47:24 PM PST by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 199 | View Replies]

To: Citizen Blade
The Ark case did not address the issue of who is a natural born citizen. Ark only dealt with the issue of whether someone born on US soil to non-citizens qualifies as a citizen. The court was silent on the natural-born citizen issue, IIRC.

I agree with your recollection completely. This how "citizen by birth" crept into the legal system and the nation accepted responsibility for so called "anchor babies". There was no indication that citizens by virtue of birth equated to natural-born citizens in this ruling.

The opinion of the Secretary of State in these matters is not determinative. The court's decision in thr Ark case overrode Mr. Bayard's views.

Small point of contention: the position of the Secretary of State is subordinate to the decision of the Supreme Court, but was determinative up until the decision was rendered. The Hausing and Greisser cases represented the position of law -- and arguably the mindset of the nation -- up until the Supreme Court contradicted it with Ark, hence the dissenting opinions.
202 posted on 12/17/2008 12:50:20 PM PST by so_real
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 190 | View Replies]

To: Citizen Blade
The Ark case did not address the issue of who is a natural born citizen. Ark only dealt with the issue of whether someone born on US soil to non-citizens qualifies as a citizen. The court was silent on the natural-born citizen issue, IIRC.

In the Ark decision, Justice Gray did state that the U.S. recognized two classes of citizen - citizen at birth and naturalized citizen. Obviously the intent is that citizen at birth and natural born citizen are synonymous.

203 posted on 12/17/2008 12:53:36 PM PST by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 190 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur
“Obviously the intent is that citizen at birth and natural born citizen are synonymous.” Non-Sequitur

This has always been my understanding as well, and what I have maintained consistently. So far there has been much fussin and hollerin, but no actual rebuttal to this point.

There are two types of citizens in the USA, naturalized and natural born. Natural born citizen means that by the natural act of being born, you had citizenship conferred upon you, and are thus a “natural born citizen” rather than a “naturalized” citizen who had to go through a legal process to attain citizenship.

204 posted on 12/17/2008 2:06:58 PM PST by allmendream (Wealth is EARNED not distributed.... so how could it be Redistributed?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 203 | View Replies]

To: Hang'emAll; Publius
Unfortunately there is no real legally documented proof. Obama saw to that when he shut down college and state agencies who could produce the proof.

Yes. Indeed. I have often wondered why he would have shut off the access to the academic files...until it occurred to me that part of what may have gained special treatment for his admission in the first place...was the minority status and placement prioritization demonstrably given to those being of FOREIGN origin...

And those records may indeed have had, in his applications and so forth,...admissions' against interest by Obama, of foreign origin...contradicting the current version of his status.

205 posted on 12/17/2008 2:17:46 PM PST by Paul Ross (Ronald Reagan-1987:"We are always willing to be trade partners but never trade patsies.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur
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. >/i>

By that same logic, then, he should not have to mount any legal defense to prevent its release.

206 posted on 12/17/2008 2:30:12 PM PST by Polarik (quote)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 165 | View Replies]

To: Polarik
By that same logic, then, he should not have to mount any legal defense to prevent its release.

Well that doesn't make any sense.

207 posted on 12/17/2008 2:56:37 PM PST by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 206 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur

“And that any person born in this country, regardless of the nationality of their parents and except for the exceptions mentioned in the Ark case, is eligible to be president.”

Fair enough.

The problem is obama’s performance seems to contradict your assessment of his status as a ‘natural born’ citizen.

If he were born in Hawaii why doesn’t he just release his vault ‘BC’ and be done with it?

I had to send copies of my vital regards in order to get my California Real Estate license and undergo a full FBI background check too!

Even a minimum wage security guard has to show a valid BC as a prerequisite to his/her employment.

Certainly you would agree that it is not unreasonable for us to expect the same from one who wishes to serve as our president?

If the above remedy for this mishap — release of Obama’s vital records — is not within the purview of the law, then what compelling recourse do we have but to apply social and ‘other’ means of pressure?

Let us say, for the sake of argument, that these lawsuits are without LEGAL merit.

The reality is that these lawsuits are slowly leaking out to the general public (no thanks to the MSM) where they (the public) can form their own opinions as to the uprightness and transparency of the Obama Juggernaut.

You do agree that a well informed public is preferable to an ill informed public — as a buffer against government tyranny?

In view of the above I would be hard pressed to imagine why any American — well seated in our traditions — would not champion such efforts to bring this issue to the public square.

A case could be made that by not clearing these ever mounting doubts, Obama is militating against the good faith of those citizens that have voted for him — and even those that have not supported him.

As a duly elected president he would — as per the constitution (and his own words) — be a servant of ALL the people.

Again, his actions would seem counter productive for a man who had nothing to hide.

Therefore, many of us, not unreasonably, harbor grave doubts as to the probity if not the eligibility of our future President.

The nagging question remains:

Why doesn’t Obama for the sake of unity and national cohesion — even the furtherance of HIS own support — release his vital records?

Thank you for your reply.

STE=Q


208 posted on 12/17/2008 4:16:44 PM PST by STE=Q ("These are the times that try men's souls." -- Thomas Paine)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 201 | View Replies]

To: Polarik

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.
By that same logic, then, he should not have to mount any legal defense to prevent its release.
***Bump for using later (well, it’s actually stealing, but you’ll forgive me)


209 posted on 12/17/2008 4:24:21 PM PST by Kevmo ( It's all over for this Country as a Constitutional Republic. ~Leo Donofrio, 12/14/08)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 206 | View Replies]

To: STE=Q

Even a minimum wage security guard has to show a valid BC as a prerequisite to his/her employment.

Certainly you would agree that it is not unreasonable for us to expect the same from one who wishes to serve as our president?
***I can’t understand why the CertifiGate trolls keep handwaving over that issue as if it didn’t exist. They never answer the question, and yet they’re undeterred in their attempts to pull other FReepers into their pit of hell.


210 posted on 12/17/2008 4:27:42 PM PST by Kevmo ( It's all over for this Country as a Constitutional Republic. ~Leo Donofrio, 12/14/08)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 208 | View Replies]

To: Citizen Blade
Again, could you please explain what legal responsibilities does a hospital have if it was not the hospital where Obama's mother was a NOT a patient, especially now that she is dead?

Can't the numerous Hawaii hospitals where Stanley Obama/Dunham was NOT a patient on Aug. 4, 1961 simply legally say that she was NOT a patient at the hospital?

1. For instance, let's say a reporter is doing a story on me,John Mirse,(just my screenname) who recently died .

2. The reporter walks into a Hawaii hospital and explains to the hospital administrator that he is doing a story on me, who recently died.

The reporter explains that John Mirse was a local hero back in Kansas (not where I really live), and it seems that he spent some time in a Hawaii hospital when he was in the military during the Vietnam War.

The reporter explains that he came to Hawaii to try to find out if any Hawaii hospital had a record of a John Mirse being in a Hawaii hospital during the Vietnam war.

3. Do you really think that hospital personnel will say nothing, or do you think that the hospital personnel will cooperate with the reporter and at least check hospital records to see if a John Mirse was ever a patient at that Hawaii hospital?

4. I say that the Hawaii hospital would have no legal restraints to at least tell the reporter whether or not a John Mirse was ever a patient at the hospital, the main reason being that I was dead.

5. My point is this: On the one hand, it is one thing for a Hawaii hospital to say that it cannot reveal details of why a person was in that particular hospital, but, on the other hand, it is another thing to simply say whether or not a person was ever a patient in that hospital, especially if the patient is now dead, or, if the person was never a patient in that particular hospital to begin with.

211 posted on 12/17/2008 4:35:03 PM PST by john mirse
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 183 | View Replies]

To: STE=Q
If he were born in Hawaii why doesn’t he just release his vault ‘BC’ and be done with it?

Because as far as he's concerned he's done all that's required. He's released his certificate of birth and the state of Hawaii has said it has his original birth certificate on file. That's already more than prior presidents have done. So from Obama's point of view he's done with the matter, and all the lawsuits for him to produce this or produce that is seen by him as frivolous. For him to agree now to voluntarily produce more would be an admission that he didn't do enough or, worse, an admission that doubts about what he has produced are valid. So he isn't going to produce anything without a court order to do so first. And he's going to fight the law suits in court. And why shouldn't he? He hasn't lost a single one to date.

I had to send copies of my vital regards in order to get my California Real Estate license and undergo a full FBI background check too!

Obama isn't applying for a California Real Estate license so whatever hoops Sacramento has you jump through is irrelevant. What would be relevant would be if you can point to a law requiring presidential candidates to produce their birth certificates and what agency is tasked with checking them.

Certainly you would agree that it is not unreasonable for us to expect the same from one who wishes to serve as our president?

I expect them to follow the law. Right now I can't point to where Obama is violating it.

If the above remedy for this mishap — release of Obama’s vital records — is not within the purview of the law, then what compelling recourse do we have but to apply social and ‘other’ means of pressure?

A compelling pressure that I could think of would be to provide concrete evidence that Obama is lying and that he was not born in Hawaii like he claims. That's about the only way I can think that a court will order Obama to produce anything.

You do agree that a well informed public is preferable to an ill informed public — as a buffer against government tyranny?

Generally. But there is a segment of the public that'll believe anything. Tens of thousands believe the government shot down TWA 800. Tens of thousands believe the government was responsible for bringing down the World Trade Center on 9/11/01. One could argue how big a buffer they are against government tyranny.

In view of the above I would be hard pressed to imagine why any American — well seated in our traditions — would not champion such efforts to bring this issue to the public square.

Perhaps one might need a reason to do so? Something other than internet rumor?

A case could be made that by not clearing these ever mounting doubts, Obama is militating against the good faith of those citizens that have voted for him — and even those that have not supported him.

I doubt Obama is as worried about that as much as you are. Though I'm sure he appreciates your concern.

Therefore, many of us, not unreasonably, harbor grave doubts as to the probity if not the eligibility of our future President.

Never have so many doubted so much with so little to back it up. With apologies to Sir Winston Churchill.

212 posted on 12/17/2008 4:52:41 PM PST by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 208 | View Replies]

To: Kevmo
I can’t understand why the CertifiGate trolls keep handwaving over that issue as if it didn’t exist.

Well I can't speak for anyone but myself but I do it because it's so much fun tweaking people like you.

213 posted on 12/17/2008 4:55:55 PM PST by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 210 | View Replies]

To: Kevmo
"It's all over for this Country as a Constitutional Republic. ~Leo Donofrio"

Well, let it be recorded in history that we didn't leave our country... our country left us!

STE=Q

214 posted on 12/17/2008 5:03:27 PM PST by STE=Q ("These are the times that try men's souls." -- Thomas Paine)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 210 | View Replies]

To: STE=Q

Well, let it be recorded in history that we didn’t leave our country... our country left us!

AGREED!!! ALL the wars..all the blood shed to protect something that will be destroyed without a single shot being fired. How tragic and what a waste of life that is.


215 posted on 12/17/2008 5:10:38 PM PST by briarbey b
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 214 | View Replies]

To: allmendream; Non-Sequitur

So ... as long as the foreign dictators’s wife conceives the baby on American soil, you are okay with the child returning to the U.S. some day so daddy can buy him an American election ... all due to the “citizenship” ruling in Wong Kim Ark? That is liberal loony left speak. That is the antithesis of the Framers’ intent as it relates to the natural-born requirement for the office of POTUS. Had the Framers penned that into the Constitution, we could have been usurped legally back under British rule as early as the election of 1812! You are reading an awful lot into the Wong Kim Ark decision that is not there. You can pitch it, but don’t expect conservatives to buy it.


216 posted on 12/17/2008 6:04:48 PM PST by so_real
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 204 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur; moder_ator
To ALL:

I havn't the time or inclination to address your non answers to my questions...

Except where you wrote, as follows:

"He's released his certificate of birth and the state of Hawaii has said it has his original birth certificate on file."

You know as well as we all know that a 'certificate of(live) birth' does not prove that he was born in Hawaii!

In Hawaii, a Certificate of Live Birth is different from a Certificate of Hawaiian Birth.

Such a Certificate could be obtained up to one year from the date of the child’s birth.

Also, the vault (long Version) birth certificate allows the birth in another State or another country to be registered in Hawaii.

Therefore, the state of Hawaii saying that his 'original birth certificate is on file' does not prove that his birth was in Hawaii.

This was explained to you many many times!

Why are you -- deliberately -- spreading misinformation?

I have never -- EVER!-- accused ANYONE of being a troll!

For you I will make an exception!

STE=Q

217 posted on 12/17/2008 6:12:18 PM PST by STE=Q ("These are the times that try men's souls." -- Thomas Paine)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 212 | View Replies]

To: so_real
You brought up “Wong Kim Ark” not me. I'm not reading anything into it other than Title 8 ...

Currently, Title 8 of the U.S. Code passed by Congress under authority of Article I section 8 of the Constitution has determined that “citizens of the United States at birth:” include

Anyone born inside the United States
Any Indian or Eskimo born in the United States, provided being a citizen of the U.S. does not impair the person's status as a citizen of the tribe
Any one born outside the United States, both of whose parents are citizens of the U.S., as long as one parent has lived in the U.S.
Any one born outside the United States, if one parent is a citizen and lived in the U.S. for at least one year and the other parent is a U.S. national
Any one born in a U.S. possession, if one parent is a citizen and lived in the U.S. for at least one year
Any one found in the U.S. under the age of five, whose parentage cannot be determined, as long as proof of non-citizenship is not provided by age 21
Any one born outside the United States, if one parent is an alien and as long as the other parent is a citizen of the U.S. who lived in the U.S. for at least five years (with military and diplomatic service included in this time)
A final, historical condition: a person born before 5/24/1934 of an alien father and a U.S. citizen mother who has lived in the U.S.

218 posted on 12/17/2008 6:25:56 PM PST by allmendream (Wealth is EARNED not distributed.... so how could it be Redistributed?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 216 | View Replies]

To: Kevmo; Non-Sequitur
Kevmo:

I can’t understand why the CertifiGate trolls keep handwaving over that issue as if it didn’t exist.

Non-Sequitur:

"Well I can't speak for anyone but myself but I do it because it's so much fun tweaking people like you."

Did Non-Sequitur just admit to being a troll?

STE=Q

219 posted on 12/17/2008 6:57:11 PM PST by STE=Q ("These are the times that try men's souls." -- Thomas Paine)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 213 | View Replies]

To: Eagles6

Unbiases sources! HaHaHaHaHa!!! Obama’s sycophants are crawling all over the internet erasing and fixing and adding and subtracting! They probably have a couple just re-writing stuff on Wikipedia daily!


220 posted on 12/17/2008 8:43:30 PM PST by little jeremiah (Leave illusion, come to the truth. Leave the darkness, come to the light.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 182 | View Replies]

To: STE=Q; little jeremiah

Did Non-Sequitur just admit to being a troll?
***Yes. I wonder if there should be a star next to his name on the CertifiGate Troll List.


221 posted on 12/17/2008 9:04:51 PM PST by Kevmo ( It's all over for this Country as a Constitutional Republic. ~Leo Donofrio, 12/14/08)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 219 | View Replies]

To: Kevmo; little jeremiah

“I wonder if there should be a star next to his name on the CertifiGate Troll List.”

LOL!!!


222 posted on 12/17/2008 9:09:18 PM PST by STE=Q ("These are the times that try men's souls." -- Thomas Paine)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 221 | View Replies]

To: MHGinTN

Thanks for the ping!


223 posted on 12/17/2008 9:12:37 PM PST by Alamo-Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 175 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur

I was speaking of Congress’s role not the meeting of the Electoral Colleg. Congress must receive and count valid votes. Invalid ones can be ruled as such.


224 posted on 12/17/2008 10:47:17 PM PST by arrogantsob (Hero vs Zero)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 158 | View Replies]

To: Citizen Blade

McCain produced proof as soon as challenged. Obama will never win our allegiance but there is more to this than that. Why would he not make us look like idiots by producing the proof? Why doesn’t the Treason media ridicule us for thinking these cases have some merit? They love to try and make us look foolish and have convinced a huge proportion of the nation that we are.

Why isn’t the uniqueness of this story worthy of exploration and presentation to the public? Why is there a eerie silence in the Treason media about this?

Oh, in an AOL poll almost half those polling last night believed this was not a waste of time or foolish.


225 posted on 12/17/2008 10:53:32 PM PST by arrogantsob (Hero vs Zero)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 164 | View Replies]

To: FourtySeven

Excellent analysis and exposition of the fallacious logic of strictly applying Vattel to today. He was certainly a great influence on our thinkers and it is good discuss his ideas as they have been understood and adapted by our legal thought.

All of our former presidents had well established antecedents so this element of the Constitution has had no consideration and was just a curiosity.


226 posted on 12/17/2008 10:59:53 PM PST by arrogantsob (Hero vs Zero)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 168 | View Replies]

To: so_real

Why doesn’t this Ahole just produce the document or ask the Governor of Hawaii to release it to the media. Then we can move on and hash out all the rest of the problems in the world.


227 posted on 12/17/2008 11:10:55 PM PST by arrogantsob (Hero vs Zero)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 195 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur

The uniqueness of Obama’s past and the constant covering it up should end. He has not released proof of his eligibility and refusing to do so it he can will not help him.

Now that the entire nation is getting a good idea of the corrupt political environment he comes from he is being weakened already and doesn’t need unnecessary opposition.

Most of us here will accept the Governor of Hawaii’s word if he would ask her to speak it.


228 posted on 12/17/2008 11:20:16 PM PST by arrogantsob (Hero vs Zero)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 212 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur

He has NOT released his “certificate of live birth”. What he has released is a “CERTIFICATION of live birth” which is a different thing entirely, could be produced for someone born outside the State of Hawaii (his sister has one and she was born in Indonesia), and even the State of Hawaii does not accept the thing as birth evidence in all cases.....besides, the one posted on various web sites may have been altered.......there’s enough there to raise a great deal of doubt.


229 posted on 12/18/2008 1:09:08 AM PST by Southbound ("A liar in public is worse than a full-paid-up Communist and I don't care who he is" - HST)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 212 | View Replies]

To: so_real
So ... as long as the foreign dictators’s wife conceives the baby on American soil, you are okay with the child returning to the U.S. some day so daddy can buy him an American election ... all due to the “citizenship” ruling in Wong Kim Ark?

It would help if you would actually break down and read the court decision that you're disputing. Justice Gray clearly stated the natural born citizen rule, and that exception included the children of foreign dignitaries and heads of state.

That is the antithesis of the Framers’ intent as it relates to the natural-born requirement for the office of POTUS.

And you base that on what?

You are reading an awful lot into the Wong Kim Ark decision that is not there.

And how would you know?

230 posted on 12/18/2008 4:01:02 AM PST by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 216 | View Replies]

To: STE=Q
I havn't the time or inclination to address your non answers to my questions...

Just because you don't like the answers doesn't mean I didn't address them.

You know as well as we all know that a 'certificate of(live) birth' does not prove that he was born in Hawaii!

Then prove he wasn't. That's the key to all this, isn't it? Obama isn't going to indulge your demands and no court is going to order him to...unless you can present solid evidence that Obama is lying. If you want to see an end to this then I suggest you stop boo-hooing and start digging. Prove him wrong. Show him up. End the speculation once and for all by going out there and coming up with something, anything that shows Obama was born in Kenya. Let me know how you do.

231 posted on 12/18/2008 4:10:23 AM PST by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 217 | View Replies]

To: STE=Q
Did Non-Sequitur just admit to being a troll?

Nope. Unless tweaking wackjobs qualifies one as a troll.

232 posted on 12/18/2008 4:11:21 AM PST by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 219 | View Replies]

To: arrogantsob
I was speaking of Congress’s role not the meeting of the Electoral Colleg. Congress must receive and count valid votes. Invalid ones can be ruled as such.

The Senate must receive and count the votes received from the states. Period. Nothing in the Constitution, either in Article I or the 12th Amendment, say that the Senate decides which are valid and which are not. Objections can be filed, but it takes at least one senator and one congressman to file it and both Houses must approve the objection. That's the only way the proceedings can be halted, and the chance of that happening in a Democrat-controlled Congress hovers between zilch and none.

233 posted on 12/18/2008 4:14:21 AM PST by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 224 | View Replies]

To: arrogantsob
Why doesn’t this Ahole just produce the document or ask the Governor of Hawaii to release it to the media. Then we can move on and hash out all the rest of the problems in the world.

"Never do what the enemy wishes you to do, for this reason alone, that he desires it" - Napoleon, Maxims of War.

234 posted on 12/18/2008 4:14:50 AM PST by Jim Noble (Long May Our Land Be Bright With Freedom's Holy Light)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 227 | View Replies]

To: arrogantsob
The uniqueness of Obama’s past and the constant covering it up should end. He has not released proof of his eligibility and refusing to do so it he can will not help him.

It's not hurting him among his supporters, and I suggest that the mighty hand of God could descend from the clouds with a copy of Obama's birth certificate and most of those now opposed to him would still say, "Yeah, but...".

235 posted on 12/18/2008 4:16:24 AM PST by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 228 | View Replies]

To: arrogantsob

I do agree with you 100% on that one, arrogantsob. All legal issues aside, purely from a “leadership” point of view, it is unconscionable that Obama would fight to hide from the public the proof of his job eligibility — all the more so as he ran on a platform of “transparency in government”. It’s a shame the first black president in U.S. history will likely also be the “most corrupt in history”. For the sake of the history books, I wish the DNC had picked a cleaner candidate.


236 posted on 12/18/2008 7:15:40 AM PST by so_real
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 227 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur
It would help if you would actually break down and read the court decision that you're disputing.

Don't put your fallacious words in my mouth. I don't dispute the ruling. I do happen to agree with the opinion of the dissent, which clearly showed legal precedent in Hausding and Greisser for *not* nationally adopting what we know today as "anchor babies" without some form of naturalization. That does not mean I dispute what the ruling states. Unlike you, however, I am not adding into the ruling a bridge from "alien" to POTUS that does not exist. As I've stated before, in 1898 going from "alien" to "citizen" was a tremendous leap, and not without justifiable dissent. Going from "alien" to POTUS was inconceivable, and certainly *was not* the question presented by record to the Court.
237 posted on 12/18/2008 7:34:02 AM PST by so_real
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 230 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur; STE=Q
Then prove he wasn't. That's the key to all this, isn't it? Obama isn't going to indulge your demands and no court is going to order him to

What? Again with the liberal loony left speak! Running for the Executive Office is applying for a job, and "We The People" are the boss. The boss doesn't have to prove to you that you are eligible for the job for which you are applying. That is completely DU backwards! You have to prove to the boss that you are eligible for the job for which you are applying. Otherwise ... guess what ... you don't get the job. "Then prove he wasn't." huh !?!
238 posted on 12/18/2008 7:58:35 AM PST by so_real
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 231 | View Replies]

To: john mirse
Again, could you please explain what legal responsibilities does a hospital have if it was not the hospital where Obama's mother was a NOT a patient, especially now that she is dead?

They probably have no legal obligation to her. But, as I mentioned above, properly trained health care professionals will simply refuse to comment on issues like this. Otherwise, you could do an end-run around the privacy rules through a process of elimination (if ten hospitals tell you someone was not a patient but the 11th refuses to comment, you can deduce that the person might have been a patient).

Do you really think that hospital personnel will say nothing, or do you think that the hospital personnel will cooperate with the reporter and at least check hospital records to see if a John Mirse was ever a patient at that Hawaii hospital?

If they have received proper training by legal counsel, they will tell you that the hospital does not reveal anything about their patient list, period.

I say that the Hawaii hospital would have no legal restraints to at least tell the reporter whether or not a John Mirse was ever a patient at the hospital, the main reason being that I was dead.

Your legal privacy rights do not go away when you die. They simply come under the control of your estate

With the passage of HIPAA, hospitals have gotten very careful about what they reveal. For example, when a co-worker of mine called the hospital where my wife gave birth to our son to confirm they were still there so he could send flowers, the hospital would not even confirm that fact.

239 posted on 12/18/2008 9:47:14 AM PST by Citizen Blade (What would Ronald Reagan do?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 211 | View Replies]

To: so_real
Unlike you, however, I am not adding into the ruling a bridge from "alien" to POTUS that does not exist.

No, you're adding a third class of citizen which doesn't exist. As Justice Gray pointed out in his decision the law recognizes two classes of citizenship - citizen at birt or naturalized citizen. If Obama was born in Hawaii then he's a citizen at birth, AKA natural born citizen, and then is eligible to be president. It's all there in the decision itself.

As I've stated before, in 1898 going from "alien" to "citizen" was a tremendous leap, and not without justifiable dissent.

Dissent all you want but that doesn't change the decision of the court as expressed in the majority opinion.

Going from "alien" to POTUS was inconceivable, and certainly *was not* the question presented by record to the Court.

The question was what constitutes a natural born citizen, AKA citizen at birth. And the court answered that.

240 posted on 12/18/2008 9:51:47 AM PST by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 237 | View Replies]

To: so_real
Again with the liberal loony left speak!

The loony speak seems to be coming from your end.

The boss doesn't have to prove to you that you are eligible for the job for which you are applying.

Then surely you can point to the law which specifies what credentials Obama needs to present and what government entity he needs to present them to?

241 posted on 12/18/2008 9:54:14 AM PST by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 238 | View Replies]

To: arrogantsob
Why would he not make us look like idiots by producing the proof?

Because Obama's legal and public position is that he has met all legal requirements to show that he is Constitutionally qualified to be President. Until and unless a court orders him to provide more, I think he's not going to budge from that position. Objectively, I think that is the best position for him to take for his own political purposes. Otherwise, he would be giving credence to people who he probably considers to be fringe kooks.

Unless someone comes up with enough evidence to get a court to order Obama to provide more proof, this whole thing is at a dead end.

242 posted on 12/18/2008 9:56:59 AM PST by Citizen Blade (What would Ronald Reagan do?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 225 | View Replies]

To: little jeremiah

‘Zactly.


243 posted on 12/18/2008 11:45:04 AM PST by Eagles6 ( Typical White Guy: Christian, Constitutionalist, Heterosexual, Redneck)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 220 | View Replies]

To: Citizen Blade

His political purposes would be better served by making his enemies look like fools if he can.


244 posted on 12/18/2008 12:22:34 PM PST by arrogantsob (Hero vs Zero)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 242 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur

I was not forecasting any probabilities merely describing the facts. Congress has in the past declared slates of electors invalid so it is not impossible. By the end of a month the Blagoavitch scandel may have sunk more than we know.


245 posted on 12/18/2008 12:28:16 PM PST by arrogantsob (Hero vs Zero)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 233 | View Replies]

To: Jim Noble

That maxim clearly is not followed in American politics. I wish Bush had followed it.


246 posted on 12/18/2008 12:29:47 PM PST by arrogantsob (Hero vs Zero)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 234 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur

AOL’s poll indicates he is hurting himself with a far wider group than FReepers.

And it is false that the vast majority of us would not accept a valid birth certificate something he has NOT produced no matter your belief that he has.

Should he direct Linda Lingle to release it to the media and it is valid we will grin and bear it.


247 posted on 12/18/2008 12:33:12 PM PST by arrogantsob (Hero vs Zero)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 235 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur

You are glued the position that “citizen at birth” equates to “natural born citizen”. After all, they both have a derivative of the word “born” in them. Oh wait. “Naturalized citizen” and “natural born citizen” both contain a derivative of “natural”! They must be equal too! The usurpers of the world thank you for being a useful idiot.


248 posted on 12/18/2008 12:36:21 PM PST by so_real
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 240 | View Replies]

To: Citizen Blade; john mirse
For your information, it is exceedingly unlikely that any hospital records of any sort exist that were created in 1961.

Hawaii law requires hospitals to maintain records for 25 years (i.e., back to 1983).

I recently had occasion to try to uncover some information about events in the childhood of a 55-year old man. These events took place AT MY HOSPITAL, and he was MY PATIENT.

The fact is, records are not stored for 45 years by any hospitals, anywhere, and it's very, VERY unlikely that list information (admissions, discharges, deliveries) from 1961 would have been digitized before being destroyed in 1986, since scanning and database technology was just beginning.

I'm sure the reason these hospitals have no records of Stanley Ann Dunham in 1961 is because they have no records of any kind from that era - and haven't had any since they were destroyed in 1986, as allowed by law.

249 posted on 12/18/2008 12:58:42 PM PST by Jim Noble (Long May Our Land Be Bright With Freedom's Holy Light)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 239 | View Replies]

To: arrogantsob
And it is false that the vast majority of us would not accept a valid birth certificate something he has NOT produced no matter your belief that he has.

I've been watching these threads for quite some time. And if Obama did produce his birth certificate I would predict that the overwhelming majority of the people on these threads would immediately say, "Yes, but Hawaii issued birth certificates to anyone who asked. It doesn't prove anything." A sizable majority of your cohorts would not believe Obama was born in the U.S. if the substantiation came from a burning bush.

250 posted on 12/18/2008 1:12:40 PM PST by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 247 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 101-150151-200201-250251-285 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