Posted on 07/21/2009 6:32:52 PM PDT by pissant
The increasingly popular term for them is "Birthers" -- the indignant, frantic, seething fringe Republicans who are persuaded that there is strong doubt about where President Barack Obama was born and, therefore, strong doubt about the legitimacy of his presidency.
(snip)
Even assuming Obama was born in Kenya despite the considerable evidence that he was born in Hawaii, that five-year provision in the law was intended, pretty clearly, to prevent a person from claiming U.S. citizenship when he was born in another country to parents who were long-time residents of that country, simply on the grounds that one of his parents was still, technically a U.S. citizen.
Say "Jim" is born in the U.S., lives here until he's 11, moves with his parents to Germany, comes of age there, marries a German woman and, when he's 25, has a child. As a matter of national policy and common sense, we don't want Jim's child to be able to claim automatic U.S. citizenship -- he is born in Germany to long-time residents of Germany. Declaring him a U.S. citizen is fundamentally absurd.
The thinking behind the law seems to be that if Jim spent at least five of his 10 years after age 14 in the U.S. before moving to Germany, he has been sufficiently "Americanized" that his children shall be considered U.S. citizens.
It's fairly clear to me and, should push come to shove, will be fairly clear to the courts and to Congress, that the law was not intended to be a "gotcha!" moment used to deny citizenship to the children of life-long U.S. citizens in their late teens who happen to be out of the country when they give birth.
(Excerpt) Read more at blogs.chicagotribune.com ...
That's the one they can't wiggle out of.
> Who knows how awful Biden would be for a short stint. But he cannot be worse than the boy marxist quisling.
Why would you not seek to have the entire election invalidated and key members of the Democrat Party indicted for election fraud?
Biden went part-and-parcel with Obama. If Obama is invalid, then surely so is Biden?
I've had the same thought for quite awhile. What is the point of "natural born citizen" circa 1800? I would think it wasn't meant to be a formality, but rather born and raised in the United States of America.
Anyway, I see Obama's election as one step on the way to "world citizenship" and elimination of nation states.
"and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States."
My 40-year-old sister was born in the US of US-born citizens, but lived overseas for nine years, returning in 2006. If she wanted to run for president, I would have to say from my read of COTUS that she cannot until 2020.
I think my three years overseas with the Army might pass the test-- I was technically on US soil WRT to my "residence" (barracks) and workplace, and only "went to Germany" on weekends-- but would not have to argue that on my own behalf because I've been back since 1995-- 14 years.
All this to say that neither "Jim", the notional US citizen in the example, nor his child (whom I would accept as a full natural-born citizen) would not be eligible until they had returned to and lived in the US for 14 years.
I have since looked it up.
The law is:
(c) Notwithstanding the provision of subsection (a) of this section, a person born, after December 23, 1952, outside the United States and out of wedlock shall be held to have acquired at birth the nationality status of his mother, if the mother had the nationality of the United States at the time of such person’s birth, and if the mother had previously been physically present in the United States or one of its outlying possessions for a continuous period of one year
Then you go to the argument of definitions of natural born citizens and whatnot as to whether is eligible.
SO was she married or NOT. OBamanazi’s best claim is that she was NOT married.
So called birthers need to find the documentation that she WAS married.
IF Obama SR was married..the whole thing is MOOT because she couldn’t have been legally married and the child was born out of wedlock.
BUT..what if she was legally married in the country he was born in ..in a marriage that was legal there..but it was not legal in the US?
These are tangled issues with no clear cut answer. There surely is some case law out there somewhere talking about this very issue.
Bingo -- the Obambi administration definitely has a legal and moral duty to answer this inquiry in a court of law where the charge of perjury awaits his lawyers if they try to present a forged document.
As well as the Congress AND the USSC.
I would be happy to see military tribunals for treason and/or dereliction of duty applied to All of The Above.
Is that the law that was in effect at the time. Because the one I’ve seen doesn’t say that. It has provisions about 5 years after the age of 14, and etc.
You are missing the distinction. The law you are reading is the MARRIED law.
You have to look at the born out of wedlock to a US citizen mother law which is different.
This whole thing hinges on whether they were legally married.
Cook’s case falls apart if they weren’t legally married and he was born in the US. At least I think it does.
It is based on how the UK would have viewed his birth with an out of wedlock birth. It might hinge on whether Sr was listed on the birth certificate and presumed father or whether they had to be legally married in the eyes of the UK law.
If Obama born in Kenya- then he would have UK citizenship.
If born in Kenya out of wedlock -then he would have US citizenship.
If born in Kenya to legally married Sr and Ann - not US citizen.
If born in US out of wedlock - not sure on UK citizenship.
Read these:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/2292609/posts
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2232359/posts
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/2136816/posts
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2228564/posts
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/2148166/posts
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/2141142/posts
bttt
So they are interested in "intent" but ignore it regularly when dealing with the Constitution.....
.....That, they say, is a "Living Document".
What evidence?
Zorn's argument boils down to his idea of what Congress had in mind when it passed the statute that is relevant to Obama's citizenship - or lack thereof - at birth. Legal arguments re congressional intent usually refer to the contemporaneous Congressional Record and quote the statements of representatives and/or senators in support of the bill that was eventually passed. Zorn does absolutely none of that, just asking everyone to believe that he somehow can divine the intent himself and that "Birthers" are reading the statute in a "hyper-literal" manner.
This is just typical of the leftists' shoddy quasi-legal "logic". If we don't like what the law says, we'll make our own judgment on what it means based on our superior sense of "compassion" (in this case, "compassion" for a "poor," probably unwed teenage mother who was impregnated by an alien and accidentally gave birth as a tourist in the biological father's homeland). And if that doesn't work, we'll amend the statute to have our own touchy, sensitive feeling about it put into law retroactively.
Furthermore, Zorn does nothing at all to rebut the alternative argument of the "Birthers" that Obama was a British subject at birth and therefore cannot be a NBC.
Thanks for the ping!
On the back of the document is “The date” and certification statement with a signature copy of “Onaka”. That's fine but, I am curious about the seal.
I looked at two other BC’s, last night and am looking at mine. There is certification statement and signature on the back but, the seal looks different than Barry's.
On mine the seal is pressed so you can clearly read and it's raised seal is prominent on the back. In other words, the certification statement and the raised seal are readable from the same side.
It look like Barry's is different. On his, there is a certificating statement and date printed. However, the seal is reversed so that it is readable from the front.
That does not seem logical to me. If you certify a document and seal it for authentication the seal should b readable with the certification.
Just like notarizing a document. i.e. “I swear this and whatever, blah, blah, blah, to be true...” it is then signed under the statement and a seal is pressed near it so that it is a visible and readable mark that this document and it’ content are true/genuine.
Am I missing something? That is not how a document is notarized. At least none I have ever seen.
According to Anna's friend, Susan Blake, Stanley Ann can be placed in Seattle in the third week of August, 1961.
She began classes at U. Washington in September that year. She returned to Hawaii for Spring 1963 semester at U. Hawaii.
The key is discovering where Anna was in July of 1961.
There is no evidence, whatsoever, that Obama Sr. and Anna ever lived under the same roof. The fact that Anna was in Washington, basically from the time Obama II was born, underscores the fact that they never lived together. Obama Sr. left Hawaii for Harvard on June 22, 1962.
Anna was on her own from the time Obama was born.
In “Dreams...” Obama wrote that his alleged father left when he was two years old. That is just another Obama lie. His father, if it was Obama Sr., never had anything to do with him or his mother.
The Obama File
Thanks for the assessment. But, if is really as simple as you outline...then why are we here?
I suspect that several states will have BC requirements in place for candidates before the next election. But, that does nothing for this one. 0bama will destroy the country before we get to the next election, I’m afraid.
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.