CNN via BREAKING on Drudge: White House releases Obama birth certificate

CNN ^ | 27 APR 11 | DCBryan1

[DCBryan1]

(CNN) The White House released President Obama’s original birth certificate Wednesday.

The surprise release follows recent and sustained remarks by businessman Donald Trump, among others, that raised doubts as to whether the president was born in the United States.

[Art in Idaho]

and people say that you can’t see a raised seal on a computer copy?

Good point. There it is on the Lee signature.

[Mr Rogers]

Again: were the Founders thinking of their own states, and the use of NBC in their state laws, or were they thinking of Vattel’s “indigene”? Were they thinking of Vattel’s native, or were they thinking of how they had used NBC when adjusting their state laws?

Were they thinking about “natural born citizen” - a legal phrase that existed prior to the Constitution - or were they thinking of Vattel? And if they were thinking of Vattel, why didn’t they adjust their other laws to match Vattel?

Vattel said citizenship followed the father. That was never true in US law. Even in the 1797 translation of Vattel, it read that the native, or natural born citizen - making an equivalence between native and NBC. Bad translation, but lets pretend it is true. They why are native citizens different in your view than NBC, when Vattel uses them as interchangeable?

[bushpilot1]

The discussion is Morse..lets stick to him..for the moment..did you read the highlighted sentence..did you see the number 4..did you look..down the page..Droit des Gens..he references 212. I posted 212 from the referenced book.

He writes in English the book is in French. What is he telling us about section 212..its meaning..

[Brown Deer]

The sig on 0bama’s is an obvious fake! Not even almost close.

[Brown Deer]

Why do you spend so much time defending 0bama?

[Mr Rogers]

The discussion is not Morse, but US Law and what the Founders and states were thinking of in writing and ratifying the US Constitution.

NBC was in use as a legal term prior to 1787. Were they thinking of the legal term used by states as a substitute for NBS, or were they thinking of Vattel & indigenous? If the latter, why didn’t they use indigenous? If the latter, then why didn’t the states change their laws to reflect Vattel instead of English common law? Why didn’t they make parentage the critical factor in citizenship, rather than birthplace?

[Mr Rogers]

“Why do you spend so much time defending 0bama?”

I don’t. I’m defending the US Constitution and the principle of original intent.

What was the intent of the Founders and the ratifying states in using NBC? Was it to follow Vattel, even though our laws have never reflected Vattel’s belief that the father is supreme? Did they mean to ignore the meaning of NBC as used prior to the Constitution, and instead use the meaning found in a bad translation of Vattel 10 years later?

No court will ever find that Vattel controls citizenship, because the Founders IGNORED Vattel on citizenship and followed the practice of English common law. They used and respected Vattel, but they did NOT change their laws on citizenship to follow Vattel.

[Brown Deer]

I’m defending the US Constitution and the principle of original intent.

Nonsense, you are defending 0bama!

It's quite obvious to anyone with half a brain, that the founders of our country did not intend for someone with multiple allegiances to become the future leader of our United States!

You are not fooling anyone. If you were truly defending the Constitution, then you would instead be focusing on how 0bama is not following the Constitution. Shame on you!

Re: Obama's birth and qualifications for the presidency
Vanity | May 1, 2010 | Jim Robinson

Posted on 05/01/2010 1:22:30 PM PDT by Jim Robinson

One of the constitutional requirements for the office of the presidency is that he be a "natural born citizen." This was put into place by the founders to keep foreigners or persons who do not bear a non-questionable allegiance to the US Constitution out. Obviously, and admittedly Barack Hussein Obama was born to a foreign citizen and is not 100% American. He's half-American, half-African and all Marxist. He obviously bears no allegiance whatsoever to the US Constitution and is working overtime to destroy it. He's a usurper and should be removed from office. He is exactly the kind of fraud/usurper the founders feared.

"If you cannot live with the above, fine, but keep your mouth shut about it while on FR. Don't fight against us on ANY of our deeply held beliefs!!"

[Mr Rogers]

I have attacked Obama on many issues, but he meets the Constitutional requirement of natural born citizen. The problem isn’t the Constitution, but the idiot voters who put a follower of Rev Wright and Bill Ayers in office.

And under the law, Obama is a full American citizen - just as Rev Wright is. Rev Wright hates America with a passion, but no one claims he isn’t a NBC. If the voters had chosen, they could have put Rev Wright in office.

The problem with Obama isn’t his birth, but his politics - and we need to beat him in the political arena. NO COURT WILL RULE OBAMA INELIGIBLE! We win at the ballot box, or we will not win at all.

[bushpilot1]

You are subverting the Constitution...for your own personal reasons. You do not have the heart to tell some one they cannot be President because you made a mistake.

Natural born Citizens are born from citizen parents.

[rlferny]

The first question mark in the ghost images looks like Hour of Birth to me.

[TigersEye]

Emmerich de Vattel - 1778 Edition

BOOK 1, CHAPTER 19

Of Our Native Country, and Several Things That Relate to It

§ 212. Citizens and natives.

The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. As the society cannot 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 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; and these become true citizens merely by their tacit consent. We shall soon see whether, on their coming to the years of discretion, they may renounce their right, and what they owe to the society in which they were born. I say, that, in order to be of the country, it is necessary that a person be born of a father who is a citizen; for, if he is born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country.

-----------------------------------------------------------

Volume I A Photographic Reproduction of Books I and II of the First Edition 1758 with an Introduction by Albert de Lapradelle

TRANSLATION OF THE EDITION OF 1758 By Charles G Fenwick WITH AN INTRODUCTION BY ALBERT DE LAPRADELLE

CHAPTER XIX One's Country and Various Matters Relating to It

The members of a civil society are its citizens. Bound to that society by certain duties and subject to its authority, they share equally in the advantages it offers. Its natives are those who are born in the country of parents who are citizens. As the society can not maintain and perpetuate itself except by the children of its citizens, these children naturally take on the status of their fathers and enter upon all the latter's rights. The society is presumed to desire this as the necessary means of its self preservation, and it is justly to be inferred that each citizen, upon entering into the society, reserves to his children the right to be members of it. The country of a father is therefore that of his children, and they become true citizens by their mere tacit consent. We shall see presently whether, when arrived at the age of reason, they may renounce their right and the duty they owe to the society in which they are born. I repeat that in order to belong to a country one must be born there of a father who is a citizen; for if one is born of foreign parents, that land will only be the place of one's birth, and not one's country.

------------------------------------------------------

THE LAW OF NATIONS

FROM THE NEW EDITION, BY

JOSEPH CHITTY, Esq. Barrister At Law

WITH ADDITIONAL NOTES AND REFERENCES,
By EDWARD D. INGRAHAM, Esq.
PHILADELPHIA:

T. & J.W. JOHNSON & CO., LAW BOOKSELLERS,
No. 535 CHESTNUT STREET.

1883.

§ 212. Citizens and natives.

The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. As the society cannot 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 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; and these become true citizens merely by their tacit consent. We shall soon see whether, on their coming to the years of discretion, they may renounce their right, and what they owe to the society in which they were born. I say, that, in order to be of the country, it is necessary that a person be born of a father who is a citizen; for, if he is born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country.

[Arthur Wildfire! March]

I did a google search “Tim Adams confessed” ....

http://www.google.com/search?q=%22Tim+Adams+confessed%22&hl=en&num=10&lr=&ft=i&cr=&safe=images&tbs=

No results yet. I’m no great authority on him and had been out of the research network for several months, but if you have his confession, please show me a smoking gun link.

[palmer]

The S in Stanley is a little wider although same font. Here's another fairly high res image with slight distortion from being a digital photo: http://twitpic.com/4q47pm/full

[Khepri]

Would you do me a favor? E-mail your cut and paste to Sean Hannity....he simply does not understand that both parents have to be citizens for a person to be “natural born.” He really irritated me talking down to 2 callers today who knew what was correct. Thanks!

Done....not that it'll get through that thick head of his...:)

[Khepri]

But that was the dissent, and it never answered why the Framers used NBC if they didn’t mean it in the same sense that it was used prior to 1787...

Hmm, good points. Thanks for the extra comments....I just want to get to the bottom of it, either way, and input like this does help to keep us birthers honest and give some clues as too what type of challenge birthers would face were this issue to land before SCOTUS...:) Thanks!

[Khepri]

Today is really separating the sheep from the goats!

It sure is looking that way...geesh!

[Khepri]

Did you not see this part of the citation in #920?

Yeah I saw it. That's why I cited the 1874 case...

[rxsid]

Check my profile.

I'm on record for a LONG time stating that the SCOTUS cases I cite, mention born in soverign territory to citizen parentS in the dicta.

You, on the other hand, tried to pass off the dicta of a state court case as having found someone born in N.Y. to foreign parents as being NBC...

"Lynch was found to be a natural born citizen.
...
1,251 posted on Wednesday, April 27, 2011 3:31:35 PM by Mr Rogers"

When in fact, they did no such thing. The ruling of the court was that she was a "citizen."

 

You blatently lied.

You don't do yourself a favor regurgitating the crap from OBOT sites like Dr. Conspiracy's

[Mr Rogers]

You quote dicta, and so do I. The difference is you quote it out of context.

“You don’t do yourself a favor regurgitating the crap from OBOT sites like Dr. Conspiracy’s”

If Mario Apuzzo can post and debate on Dr Conspiracy - and do so with courtesy and honesty - then perhaps you could learn something there. And the only thing I’ve used that site for was a picture of the 1787 American translation of Vattel - which Dr Conspiracy got from a friend of Mario Apuzzo. If you haven’t heard of him, try reading here:

http://puzo1.blogspot.com/