|
Post by keywestsun on Mar 31, 2011 18:11:29 GMT -5
John Bingham, the author of the 14th amendment , stated, "Any human born to parents who are US citizens and are under no other jurisdiction or authority." memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llcg&fileName=059/llcg059.db&recNum=680The Naturalization Act of 1790, declared "And the children of citizens of the US shall be considered as natural born, provided that the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been a resident of the US." Hamilton's original text, ARTICLE IX Sec 1 No person shall be eligible to the office of President of the United States unless he be now a citizen of one of the States or hereafter be born a citizen of the United States. This was changed to the natural born citizen one for the express purpose of keeping any foreign influence from the office. Was Obama a child born with foreign influence, YES, he was born a British citizen and a American citizen. The SCOTUS has never addressed this issue, I am not sure that it ever will. To me this show a total failure of our system to follow even our most basic laws. Pinned between a rock and a hard place, they gently pass the buck or turn their heads, they have had good cases that they did not decide on. Anyone of them could have settled the argument. There would have been crying losers on one side or the other, but we would have a decision instead of a stalemate.
|
|
henryclay
Senior Member
Joined: Feb 5, 2011 19:03:37 GMT -5
Posts: 3,685
|
Post by henryclay on Mar 31, 2011 18:56:08 GMT -5
For those who really want to know, read these. They are not short. For those who can't stay focused or who already know what they want to know, , , regardless of the real truth, just skip it. The earnest student of the phrase "natural born citizen" will print these out for leisurely absorbtion of their content later. Bookmarking them for quicker access would also be helpful. To begin understanding the phrase it is helpful to understand the importance placed on it by the Framers. Thus it stemmed from this: 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, , , , , , , 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.” Emerich de Vattel, Law of Nations, 1758. www.worldandi.com/subscribers/feature_detail.asp?num=26823federalistblog.us/2008/11/natural-born_citizen_defined.htmlThis next link refuses to print as a clickable link. It is therefore necessary to cut and paste it.webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:fMOpvbK9liUJ:www.birthers.org/USC/Vattel.html+federalist+papers+natural+born+citizen&cd=4&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us&source=www.google.comwww.birthers.org/OPED/NatrualBornCitizenshipDefined.pdf
|
|
mmhmm
Administrator
It's a great pity the right of free speech isn't based on the obligation to say something sensible.
Joined: Dec 25, 2010 18:13:34 GMT -5
Posts: 31,770
Today's Mood: Saddened by Events
Location: Memory Lane
Favorite Drink: Water
|
Post by mmhmm on Mar 31, 2011 19:04:50 GMT -5
The lawyer in the movie claims that Indonesian citizenship was required by the Indonesian government at that time in order to attend school. He also claims that Indonesia didn't allow dual citizenship at that time. Hence, Mr. Obama's father forsaking his son's US citizenship was a given--a kind of propter hoc argument. You're saying that you went to school in Indonesia in the 1970's and weren't subject to these requirements? Also, the "natural-born citizen" angle wasn't based on Mr. Obama's brief stint in Indonesia. The moviemakers claim that the constitution requires both parents to be American citizens and the child to be born on American soil in order for the child to be "natural-born". That is, the child should not be born to any parent who is subject to a foreign power. I don't believe there's any dispute to the fact that Mr. Obama's father is Kenyan. Hence, you disagree with the moviemakers on the constitutional interpretation of "natural-born", correct? Indonesia still does not recognize dual citizenship for adults; nor, did they do so at that time. I didn't go to school in Indonesia in the 70s; however, my daughter did. I didn't have to prove her citizenship. Even if that had been a requirement, I could have bought all the proof I needed that she was a citizen of the moon from any one of a dozen "officials". So is life in Indonesia. It wouldn't even have cost much in our terms. ![;)](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/smiley/wink.png) Yes, personally, I disagree with the moviemakers with regard to their interpretation of the meaning of natural-born citizen.
|
|
|
Post by magichat on Mar 31, 2011 20:37:25 GMT -5
Chester A Arthur already set the precedent for one parent that was not a citizen.
|
|
|
Post by keywestsun on Mar 31, 2011 21:04:38 GMT -5
Chester burned all his family records and did everything in his power to cover it up......................
|
|
handyman2
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 29, 2010 23:56:33 GMT -5
Posts: 3,087
|
Post by handyman2 on Mar 31, 2011 21:11:13 GMT -5
There are so many varying stories about Obama's citizenship that it is impossible to know what to believe. Like the aunt that said he was born in Kenya. Who but the mother could really be sure. To much time at this point wasted on this story.
|
|
henryclay
Senior Member
Joined: Feb 5, 2011 19:03:37 GMT -5
Posts: 3,685
|
Post by henryclay on Mar 31, 2011 21:22:41 GMT -5
"......... To much time at this point wasted on this story. ....."
handyman, I believe that is all too eeriely close to the probale hope of the left. If you can't slip it by, wrap it in victimhood, and if that doesn't work, try something else. And when everything else fails, just outlast them.
Isn't that about what the last couple of years has been like on all the political fronts?
Think about it. Since Obama came to the presidency, what exactly has the country produced except disharmony?
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Jun 28, 2024 15:16:46 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 31, 2011 21:35:12 GMT -5
|
|
safeharbor37
Well-Known Member
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 23:18:19 GMT -5
Posts: 1,290
|
Post by safeharbor37 on Mar 31, 2011 21:35:44 GMT -5
Anyone who was there even if they weren't actually in the delivery room [if there was one]. Many people in my generation didn't have "documentation," but were able to prove legitimate status, many to qualify for Social Security, by providing witnesses and most all were successful even when they didn't try until they qualified for Social Security [birth certificate required to prove age eligibility]. Many of these people were from very rural areas where there were few records and where life span was below the national average. In other words, a lot of people should [or should have] know[n]. Trump's position is that Obama should pony up the evidence simply to quash the controversy ~ if he has nothing to hide. I still think the issue is a waste of time....I don't know what Trump has in mind. [Wouldn't it be interesting if he has something?]
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Jun 28, 2024 15:16:46 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 31, 2011 21:46:30 GMT -5
On June 13, 2008, after months of hounding by the media and wild Internet speculation that Obama was actually born in either Indonesia or Kenya, the Obama campaign finally released a copy of Obama's "Certification of Birth" from Hawaii and posted it on the Internet. The document states that Barack Hussein Obama II was born on Aug. 4, 1961, at 7:24 p.m. in Honolulu, Hawaii, to parents Stanley Ann Dunham and Barack Hussein Obama.
Our friends from FactCheck.org went to Chicago, held the document in their questioning hands and examined it closely. Their conclusion: It's legit.
On Oct. 31, 2008, Dr. Chiyome Fukino, director of the Hawaii Department of Health, issued this statement: "There have been numerous requests for Sen. Barack Hussein Obama’s official birth certificate. State law prohibits the release of a certified birth certificate to persons who do not have a tangible interest in the vital record.
"Therefore I, as director of health for the state of Hawaii, along with the registrar of Vital Statistics who has statutory authority to oversee and maintain these type of vital records, have personally seen and verified that the Hawaii State Department of Health has Sen. Obama's original birth certificate on record in accordance with state policies and procedures.
"No state official, including Gov. Linda Lingle, has ever instructed that this vital record be handled in a manner different from any other vital record in the possession of the state of Hawaii."
Even the governor of Hawaii, Linda Lingle, a Republican who at the time was stumping for John McCain, said it was on the up-and-up.
Here's what the DHLL site says now: "the State Department of Health (DOH) no longer issues Certificates of Live Birth. When a request is made for a copy of a birth certificate, the DOH issues a Certification of Live Birth."
Said spokeswoman Janice Okubo. "That (what was posted on the Internet) is considered a birth certificate from the state of Hawaii."
"There's only one form of birth certificate," she said, and it's been the same since the 1980s. Birth certificates evolve over the decades, she said, and there are no doubt differences between the way birth certificates looked when Obama was born and now.
"When you request a birth certificate, the one you get looks exactly like the one posted on his site," she said. "That's the birth certificate."
As for the theory that Obama's original birth certificate might show he was foreign-born, Okubo said the "Certification of Live Birth" would say so. Obama's does not. Again, it says he was born in Honolulu.
We have one more thing. We talked to reporter Will Hoover, who wrote a well-researched story for the Honolulu Advertiser on Nov. 9, 2008, about Obama's childhood years in the the Aloha State. It ran under the headline "Obama Slept Here."
In researching the story, he went to the microfilm archives and found the birth announcement for Obama. Actually, he found two of them, one in his Honululu Advertiser on Aug. 13 , 1961, and in the Honolulu Star-Bulletin the next day . They both said the same thing: "Mr. and Mrs. Barack H. Obama, 6085 Kalanianaole Highway, son, Aug. 4."
But here's the thing. Newspaper officials he checked with confirmed those notices came from the state Department of Health.
"That's not the kind of stuff a family member calls in and says, 'Hey, can you put this in?'" Hoover explained.
Take a second and think about that. In order to phony those notices up, it would have required the complicity of the state Health Department and two independent newspapers — on the off chance this unnamed child might want to one day be president of the United States.
The Health Department says the "Certification of Live Birth" is Hawaii's version of a birth certificate....
Some details from the politifact piece... but they all cover it in detail...
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Jun 28, 2024 15:16:46 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 31, 2011 21:51:20 GMT -5
Also, the "natural-born citizen" angle wasn't based on Mr. Obama's brief stint in Indonesia. The moviemakers claim that the constitution requires both parents to be American citizens and the child to be born on American soil in order for the child to be "natural-born". That is, the child should not be born to any parent who is subject to a foreign power. I don't believe there's any dispute to the fact that Mr. Obama's father is Kenyan. Hence, you disagree with the moviemakers on the constitutional interpretation of "natural-born", correct? That is not an accurate interpretation of the term natural born citizen.
|
|
burnsattornincan
Well-Known Member
Joined: Dec 25, 2010 23:05:21 GMT -5
Posts: 1,398
|
Post by burnsattornincan on Mar 31, 2011 22:12:31 GMT -5
No, it is a real official birth certificate, raised seal, signature & everything. See the website I posted earlier.
Ms. Angel D, you will have to do better than that. I have heard about this FactCheck proclamation before but have never looked at it in earnest. I would suggest you take a very close look at all the images and use the magnify where appropriate. I can attest that the four images presented do not correspond to each other. If you need me to explain in detail I will be happy to. I urge anyone here to do the same. Mr. henryclay, I am sure you have already been there.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Jun 28, 2024 15:16:46 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 31, 2011 22:13:59 GMT -5
Sweetie... it has been verified... over and over again...
|
|
burnsattornincan
Well-Known Member
Joined: Dec 25, 2010 23:05:21 GMT -5
Posts: 1,398
|
Post by burnsattornincan on Mar 31, 2011 22:21:17 GMT -5
Sweetie... it has been verified... over and over again...
Well thats fine Ms. oped. I am simply telling you that the images on FactCheck.org off Ms. Angel D's link on the first page do not correspond to each other. The first image of the copy (it appears to be a copy) do not match the last image (which appears to be an original) after magnification. See for yourself. I am just stating this fact.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Jun 28, 2024 15:16:46 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 31, 2011 22:31:58 GMT -5
The fact is the document has been in the hands of many people, including Health Department and Government officials from the state which issued it.. and has been verified both as real and authentic, and as an accurate record, and the form through which birth certificate requests are delivered in the state...
The image is the document released by the state in response to requests of birth certificates... I'm not sure what part you think doesn't 'match up'? The pictures on that site were just the whole doc and then blown up bits of specific sections...
|
|
henryclay
Senior Member
Joined: Feb 5, 2011 19:03:37 GMT -5
Posts: 3,685
|
Post by henryclay on Mar 31, 2011 22:42:37 GMT -5
Mr. Burns, I can't be sure I have been "there" ![:P](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/smiley/tongue.png) But I have about wrung this thing out and there's just no more Obama water to be carried. I was once closely familiar with the people behind factcheck. It was a front for Alinskyites and morphed into a mouthpiece for anybody who had a systemic problem where victimhood could be used rather than productive energy. Obama was hand and glove with the Annenberg foundtion who I believe got it up and running. It has also been debunked by the best re the birth certificate. Insofar as credentials, he is an active member of the Association of Certified Fraud Examiners, American College of Forensic Examiners, The International Society of Forensic Computer Examiners, International Information Systems Forensics Association - the list goes on. He also a board certified as a forensic computer examiner, a certificated legal investigator, and a licensed private investigator. He has been performing computer based forensic investigations since 1993 (although back then it did not even have a formal name yet) and he has performed countless investigations since then. See: atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atlas_shrugs/2008/07/atlas-exclusive.html
|
|
|
Post by marshabar1 on Mar 31, 2011 22:56:41 GMT -5
Native born vs Natural born? Anyone? The courts would have to address it I guess. Here's what some people think. www.theobamafile.com/obamanaturalborn.htmThis is from the official Obama Fight the Smears website:
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Jun 28, 2024 15:16:46 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 31, 2011 22:59:26 GMT -5
"why would any politician spend millions of valuable campaign dollars defending these law suits "
What law suit has Obama defended? ... There have been none... any suit has not been brought against Obama specifically, to my knowledge... and any suit has been thrown out before anyone had to defend it...
lol...
|
|
hello fromWarsaw
Senior Member
Hiya! Wake UP!!
Joined: Feb 13, 2011 1:24:04 GMT -5
Posts: 2,044
|
Post by hello fromWarsaw on Mar 31, 2011 23:17:57 GMT -5
Keep it up, Pubs and Dittoheads- the Indies think you're out of your tiny little minds! Palin/Bachmann 2012!! ![8-)](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/smiley/cool.png)
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Jun 28, 2024 15:16:46 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 1, 2011 6:55:39 GMT -5
The funny thing is that if you go actually read the court cases referred to in the above link, they prove the exact opposite of what the website is trying to say.
|
|
|
Post by magichat on Apr 1, 2011 7:17:58 GMT -5
Chester burned all his family records and did everything in his power to cover it up...................... So to avoid being hypocrits, Henry and Burns need to demand that all legislation signed by Chester A Arthur was illegal? Got it.
|
|
|
Post by keywestsun on Apr 1, 2011 8:00:39 GMT -5
I think the SCOTUS need to address this issue, the framers used it to stop foreign influence in our commander and chief. It seems in the courts view that nobody has the standing to even ask the question, well maybe the congress should take action to force the court to decide. However we know that nobody in the DC Boyz's club is going to rock the boat, Obama will be out of office like Chester before this is ever decided one way or the other, if it is every decided. To many on the court now decide on how they feel about a law, instead of what the founder intended. Heck,,, half of the people think they live in a democracy not a republic.
|
|
henryclay
Senior Member
Joined: Feb 5, 2011 19:03:37 GMT -5
Posts: 3,685
|
Post by henryclay on Apr 1, 2011 8:12:44 GMT -5
'........ So to avoid being hypocrits, Henry and Burns need to demand that all legislation signed by Chester A Arthur was illegal? Got it. ......"
He, Let's go for it. Especially now that the meaning of what the Constitution says is better understood.
|
|
|
Post by magichat on Apr 1, 2011 8:29:39 GMT -5
'........ So to avoid being hypocrits, Henry and Burns need to demand that all legislation signed by Chester A Arthur was illegal? Got it. ......" He, Let's go for it. Especially now that the meaning of what the Constitution says is better understood. Better understood now compared to when?
|
|
|
Post by privateinvestor on Apr 1, 2011 8:31:26 GMT -5
Where's all the outcry from the left here about Obama invading Libya without a constitutionally mandated congressional declaration of war....the silence here Henry is particularly deafening considering Obama himself explicitly said in 2007 that such unsanctioned invasions are blatantly unconstitutional..
|
|
|
Post by magichat on Apr 1, 2011 8:35:20 GMT -5
Where's all the outcry from the left here about Obama invading Libya without a constitutionally mandated congressional declaration of war....the silence here Henry is particularly deafening considering Obama himself explicitly said in 2007 that such unsanctioned invasions are blatantly unconstitutional.. There was a whole thread about it or did you forget?
|
|
|
Post by privateinvestor on Apr 1, 2011 8:41:46 GMT -5
The invasion of Libya clearly shows that Obama and the Dems really could care less about the Constitution or genuinely care about our country's founding documents..
|
|
|
Post by magichat on Apr 1, 2011 8:42:45 GMT -5
The invasion of Libya clearly shows that Obama and the Dems really could care less about the Constitution or genuinely care about our country's founding documents.. I agree, but they are following in the foot steps of traitors to the country like Reagan, so it's hard to fault them there.
|
|
chiver78
Administrator
Current Events Admin
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 13:04:45 GMT -5
Posts: 38,874
|
Post by chiver78 on Apr 1, 2011 8:50:16 GMT -5
the invasion of Libya was a UN-sanctioned thing, it was not a sole decision by the Obama administration.
|
|
henryclay
Senior Member
Joined: Feb 5, 2011 19:03:37 GMT -5
Posts: 3,685
|
Post by henryclay on Apr 1, 2011 9:00:09 GMT -5
"............. I agree, but they are following in the foot steps of traitors to the country like Reagan, so it's hard to fault them there. ........"
But the left has had it's turn. Reagan, Bush 1, Bush 2, and slamming all their supporters in between. Crying "don't pick on me" sounds a little weak this morning. It's OUR turn now.
Get over it.
|
|