Posted on 09/22/2016 2:33:28 PM PDT by DOC44
Interesting. FOUR Simple questions from an attorney Here are 4 Simple questions from an attorney..... are there ANY logical answers? You be the judge...... Here's what I would like to know. If the TRUTH ever comes out and it is decided that Obama was never eligible to be president, what happens to all the laws he signed into being and all the executive orders? Should they all be null and void? Here are 4 Simple questions from a reputable attorney .... this should really get your "gray matter" to churning, even if you are an Obama fan. For all you "anti-Fox News" folks, none of this information came from Fox. All of it can be verified from legitimate sources (Wikipedia, the Kapiolani hospital website itself, and a good history book, as noted herein). It is very easy for someone to check out. 4 Simple Questions .... 1. Back in 1961 people of color were called 'Negroes.' So how can the Obama 'birth certificate' state he is "African-American" when the term wasn't even used at that time ? 2. The birth certificate that the White House released lists Obama's birth as August 4, 1961 and lists Barack Hussein Obama as his father. No big deal, right? At the time of Obama's birth, it also shows that his father is aged 25 years old, and that Obama's father was born in "Kenya, East Africa." This wouldn't seem like anything of concern, except the fact that Kenya did not even exist until 1963, two whole years after Obama's birth, and 27 years after his father's birth. How could Obama's father have been born in a country that did not yet exist? Up and until Kenya was formed in 1963, it was known as the "British East Africa Protectorate" (check it below) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kenya_%28http:/en.wikipedia..org/wiki/Kenya%29 3. On the Birth Certificate released by the White House, the listed place of birth is "Kapi'olani Maternity & Gynecological Hospital". This cannot be, because the hospital(s) in question in 1961 were called "KauiKeolani Children's Hospital" and "Kapi'olani Maternity Home," respectively. The name did not change to Kapi'olani Maternity & Gynecological Hospital until 1978, when these two hospitals merged. How can this particular name of the hospital be on a birth certificate dated 1961 if this name had not yet been applied to it until 1978? (CHECK IT BELOW) http://www.kapiolani.org/women-and-children/about-us/default.aspx Why hasn't this been discussed in the major media? 4. Perhaps a clue comes from Obama's book on his father. He states how proud he is of his father fighting in WW II. I'm not a math genius, so I may need some help from you. Barack Obama's "birth certificate" says his father was 25 years old in 1961 when Obama was born. That should have put his father's date of birth approximately 1936 - if my math holds (Honest! I did that without a calculator!). Now we need a non-revised history book - one that hasn't been altered to satisfy the author's goals - to verify that WW II was basically between 1939 and 1945. Just how many 3 year olds fight in Wars? Even in the latest stages of WW II his father wouldn't have been more than 9 years old. Does that mean that Mr. Obama is a liar, or simply chooses to alter the facts to satisfy his imagination or political purposes ? Very truly yours, RICHARD R. SILVERLIEB Attorney at Law 354 Eisenhower Parkway Livingston, NJ 07039 (https://www.linkedin.com/in/richard-silverlieb-3145502a)
"A pen in the hand of this president is far more dangerous than a gun in the hands of 200 million law-abiding citizens. Send this to as many Patriots as you can! Ask your Republican friends in Washington D.C. If they have a backbone ... why in the hell can't they use it and get media coverage to explode this across our country? Impeachment in itself is not justice! We are talking orange jumpsuit & long prison sentences.
Madison viewed them as aliens requiring naturalization.
Apparently his opinion did not carry enough weight to be make its way into the 1794 Act. We are still left with the original understanding of NBC for foreign-born as an open issue.
Rogers v. Bellei
Nothing definitive here that I can see.
You completely misconstrue the 1790 Act. That Act definitively shows that the foreign born children of citizens required naturalization. This is underscored by Burke’s statement. It is doubly underscored by Madison’s statement.
There is no 1794 Act. What are you talking about?
It is obvious you have not read Rogers v. Bellei.
What are YOU talking about?
The 1790 Act clearly states that “...the children of citizens of the United States, that may be born beyond sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born citizens...”
Burke’s and Madison’s opinions notwithstanding, this assertion has not been contravened in law.
You keep referring to other things and don’t explain your reasoning on this issue in your own words. Quit referring me to Rogers v. Bellei which I skimmed. YOU explain why Rogers v. Bellei proves that an NBC cannot be foreign born.
Exactly.
Here’s a clue: it’s a naturalization act. Without that act they would not be citizens. A framer of that act said so. So does Madison. Rogers v. Bellei explains that the foreign born Bellei starts from a position of non-citizenship, that statute permits him the possibility to gain citizenship. Your assertion most certainly has been “contravened in law”, from the very first naturalization act to the current, as well as by the Supreme Court. Your assertion that foreign born children of citizens are natural born citizens has never been supported by law.
You’re entitled to your opinion, but have brought no facts.
Your assertion that foreign born children of citizens are natural born citizens has never been supported by law.
We're starting to go around in circles here and for whatever reason you fail to acknowledge what is in the black and white text of the 1790 Act allowing for the possibility of a foreign-born person being an NBC. My assertion WAS ABSOLUTELY supported by law.
Feels like we're talking past each other here even though as far as I know, I've addressed your points whereas it seems you ignore mine, at least this one particular point which is my MAIN point.
The 1790 act conferred a legal status upon a person who without this act would be an alien.
The foreign born child of a citizen was not in 1790, is not now, nor ever has been a natural born citizen in fact. From 1790 through 1795 they have, in law, been considered as natural born citizens. They were not in fact natural born citizens.
The foreign born child of a citizen is an alien requiring naturalization.
The only power Congress has on this head is naturalization. The foreign born child of citizens, Bellei, lost his citizenship because he did not fulfill the terms of naturalization statute. Congress can only strip citizenship from those to whom it grants citizenship.
The foreign born child of citizens, Bellei, was an alien who without Congressional act would be an alien. This has always been the case.
Since 1795 the status conferred has been “citizen”. The act in force at the time of birth controls.
> the black and white text of the 1790 Act allowing for the possibility of a foreign-born person being an NBC.
They are not NBC. That status is being conferred upon them by law. Without that law their status is “alien”.
"Negro" was certainly preferred over some other racial epithets in 1961, but if you were a White parent in 1960 whose daughter had married a very dark-skinned man from another continent, you might want to avoid using that word to describe your grandchild and go with "African" instead. It would be easier on the child to have an "exotic" background than to be just another American Negro.
The only “otherwise” is another pre-1964 Hawaiian birth certificate with “African” as a racial designation on it.
As I said, I certainly can't get one of those. In any case, the set of children born in Hawaii who had an African parent from Africa was probably very, very small, so the number of birth certificates you would find (if you could find any birth certificates of that era at all) would also be very, very small.
Your argument is the Constitution gives Congress the power of naturalization which is true. But the Constitution distinguishes between a “naturalized” citizen (Art I, Sec 8, Cl 4) and a “natural born citizen” (NBC) (Art II, Sec I, Cl 5). A “naturalized citizen” is not the same thing as an NBC. By definition an NBC doesn’t have to be “naturalized” as a citizen because he is automatically a citizen upon birth.
So there’s some vagueness and ambiguity in the Constitution about this. Obviously Congress cannot “naturalize” an NBC. However, since the Constitution does not define NBC, Congress and/or the courts need to.
Nevertheless, Congress HAS legislated that an NBC MAY be in some cases born on foreign soil. Congress has NEVER legislated that an NBC may NOT be born on foreign soil. And for the above reasons, the naturalization statute in Bellei may not apply when the issue is NBC.
That still reasonably leaves open the issue whether an NBC may be born on foreign soil. And again, IMO, either Congress needs to expressly clarify whether an NBC may be born on foreign soil and/or the courts need to tackle individual NBC cases of this sort.
If the foreign born child of a citizen is a natural born citizen then by what power was Bellei’s citizenship stripped?
So, it all boils down to the citizenship laws applicable at birth. If there are none other than US citizenship laws applicable, then the child is natural born.
If the foreign country in which the child was born grants citizenship at birth via jus sanguinis, by blood, then they're still OK since there's no competing citizenship claim. That is, unless one of the parents actually is a citizen of that country, in which case there would be a competing citizenship claim.
If the country in which the child was born grants citizenship at birth via jus soli, by soil, then they're not OK because there is a competing citizenship claim.
You need to address the difference between a “naturalized citizen” and a “natural born citizen” and my argument concerning that difference.
These would be cases, like Cruz’s, that would need to be adjudicated and decided by a federal court, individually, one by one, if there was a genuine issue of a material fact.
You’ve made no argument. You have voiced an opinion with out any supporting facts.
We’re obviously not communicating even though I stated the issue, gave you some rules, and gave a reasoned argument using those rules.
I think we’re done.
Your position seems to be that the foreign born child of citizens, Bellei, was/is NBC. Is that correct?
No, I honesty think you’re not paying attention to what I’m saying and are talking past me.
Review carefully what I summarized in the previous post and if you want to have a good-faith discussion by addressing those points I summarized on the previous post, then fine. But I’m not interested in going around in circles like this.
I have paid attention and have asked you to clarify your position.
Is Bellei NBC? Yes or no? No paragraphs, just “yes” or “no”, please.
Don’t know - the court didn’t address that issue.
NOW, YOU go back and read the SHORT PARAGRAPHS in post #90 that make up a reasoned summary of the issue, the rules, and the the rationale behind what I’m saying or else fugeddabouddit.
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.