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

To: bogusname; Spaulding

It’s not clear where you are coming from.

Even if Obama shows or is forced to show his long form birth certificate, if it exists, let’s say it does, then he still has to face the fact that he is not a ‘natural-born’ citizen as it is defined by those that wrote the Constitution.

Spaulding and I are not arguing that he should not show his birth certificate, we are arguing past that. If he has a BC, he needs to show it qualifies him for the Presidency by showing two citizens on the BC were his biological parents.

As far as I know Obama could have been adopted and is not even a native-born citizen. But if chance he was native-born, then he seems not to be natural-born and that is the real issue.

And keep in mind that a lot of folks don’t even know the difference between native-born and natural-born. So Spaulding is doing a service by educating those reading that the real issue is natural-born, not native-born. And yes you have to get the long-form BC to determine natural-born status, so Spaulding is on the same page; he’s just saying don’t end the inquiry if a long-form is produced because the long-form is not the issue, it’s what’s on the long-form, namely the citizenship status of the mother and father.


50 posted on 02/26/2010 4:25:58 AM PST by Hostage
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies ]


To: Hostage

I gotchya and I apologize. I was at work and getting ready to leave when I read your post quickly and it in that hurried state I saw it as contrary and snapped back a reply. As I was drivering home it was reprocessed. My fault.

Peace


51 posted on 02/26/2010 4:35:51 AM PST by bogusname (Banish All Liberals)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies ]

To: Hostage

Well-put.


53 posted on 02/26/2010 6:21:02 AM PST by Uncle Chip (TRUTH : Ignore it. Deride it. Allegorize it. Interpret it. But you can't ESCAPE it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies ]

To: Hostage
Hostage and Bogusname, I think we agree that there is uncertainty around Obama’s elibility. Let's understand the reasoning which guides me, but which is not the only way to reach the same end, and I am suggesting that we take the direct path.

1) To be president requires jus soli - born in the country - and jus sanguinis - born of citizen parents.

2) Obama told us in two books and on his website that he was born to a British subject - not a citizen - and was thus himself a British subject by the British Nationality Act of 1948. That event makes him a natural born subject of the Crown.

QED (That is what was to be demonstrated) A natural born citizen is “born in the country to citizen parents.” Every senator assented to that definition in 2008. Judge Michael Chertoff made the "two citizen parents" statement when he signed a supporting statement to Senate Res 511. Legislators will cover their behinds, but are protected from lies - unfortunately. Obama and Bob Bauer (Anita Dunn's husband) can delay release of documents for ever, or until the public doesn't care. We have the most important Constitutional information we need, from Obama himself. Chasing documents is a dead end.

There does not need to be the discovery of a birth certificate. It wouldn't hurt, but it isn't necessary. Reaching discovery can be stalled by complicit (frightened) district judges. Obama told us he was in violation of the Constitution. Just because McCain is suddenly uncertain about the meaning of natural born citizen doesn't mean Tea Party members, or Hillary supporters (Berg), or even libertarians need be. This is government "by the people" as our legislators are finding out.

If Obama doesn't immediately resign, which is what I anticipate, the demand for documents will come out. If there are other criminal charges the demand for documents will come out. If he suddenly discovers that his father was not Obama I, the demand for documents will come out. But Obama himself provided the direct path to his removal, perhaps presuming that he and his supporters had already so weakened constitutional interpretation that people would say “Oh, OK; perhaps one citizen parent is enough.”

Not only is natural born citizenship defined in Vattel, the most cited legal reference during the writing of our Constituion, and until after 1821, it was a standard introduced to Parliament in 1580 and confirmed by Lord Coke in Calvin's case in 1608 “...any person born with the king's dominion beame the king's subject at birth, provided that his parents were at the time under the actual obedience of the king.” This was English common law when our Constitution was written. Our founders cited Vattel because, I believe, it was a more general statement and our nation would elect its kings, requiring particular scrutiny of a candidate's allegiances. But don't bother with the wild goose chases suggested by Obots based upon our presumed adherence to Blackstone - English common law.

74 posted on 02/26/2010 4:30:28 PM PST by Spaulding
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies ]

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