Home › Blogs › davidfarrar's blog ›

Did you know...

Submitted by davidfarrar on Sat, 06/06/2009 - 21:08
in

... Hawaii issues two separate, and NOT interchangeable, documents that pertain to someone’s birth. One is a long form birth certificate, the other is the certificate of live birth. The only thing Obama's campaign has provided for “proof” that he was born in Hawaii is the COLB, a document Obama, himself, has yet to even acknowledge as his own. His sister Maya Soetoro Ng also has a COLB issued in Hawaii and she was born overseas, has never claimed to be a citizen, much less "natural-born" as the constitution stipulates for someone to be eligible to take the oath of office of the presidency of the United States. There are many other documented cases of someone having an Hawaiian COLB, even though they were born in other countries (Sun Yat Sen, for example).

Over at Office of Science and Technology "Open Government Initiative Discussion Phase: Transparency Principles"  we have been confronting the issue of government transparency with this issue. Needless to say, they are none too happy about it. They are trying every trick in the book to sweep us under the rug, get us out of sight. At present, they have moved most of us, completely arbitrary to their own rules, to the "Off-topic" page. But this exercise in government transparency isn't going away.

By the way, the forum format over there is childish, to say the least.  It's as if they hired some kid in high school to create it. When I got there they were simply removing posts they didn't like without leaving any removal notice whatsoever. They are still doing that, but they have taken my advise and created an "Off-topic" page with a direct link to same -- pathetic. It's forums like this that make you appreciate this one so much more.

Good job, guys!

Holy, crapola, look at the Google Ads bar...it's full of birth certificate ads. Quick, someone make a post on nude women!

 

ex animo

davidfarrar

2.333335
Your rating: None Average: 2.3 (3 votes)

Comments

lol

Submitted by Ray in TX on Sun, 06/07/2009 - 00:10.

They presented a certified birth certificate. There is also a contemporary newspaper clipping announcing his birth. What more do you really need? Are you serious?

Do you think that there was some conspiracy to fake his birth in the US 45 years ago because they knew he was going to be president and needed an alibi?

Honestly, the Obama birth certificate deniers are about as detached from reality as the "9-11 was an inside job" types.

This was nothing more than a contrived campaign controversy whose usefulness ended when the votes were tallied last November. Both parties engage in this kind of tactic every election, but most people move on after the election ends.

But that's just it....

Submitted by davidfarrar on Sun, 06/07/2009 - 08:07.

...it wasn't a certified birth certificate, it was simply a certificate of live birth. And tell me, how hard is it to get a birth announcement printed in the local newspapers?

But you are right on one score, this wasn't as conspiracy to fake his birth US 45 years ago because they knew he was going to be president and needed an alibi. This was simply an exercise to have the child declared a U.S. citizen.

Lastly, this is not a contrived campaign controversy whose usefulness ended when the votes were tallied last November. This has nothing to do with politics. Do you think I want Joe Biden to become president anymore than I want Nancy Pelosi?  Even if Obama resigns, the reins of power will remain. Nothing will change. This is simply a matter of abiding by and respecting the Constitution. You have to be a "natural-born" citizen to take the oath of office of the presidency of the United States.

This is a simple matter of governmental transparency. A simple request to have access to a verifiable governmental record that has been acknowledged to be in the hands of the Hawaiian health officials.

ex animo

davidfarrar

HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA

Submitted by thirdeblue on Sun, 06/07/2009 - 08:24.

HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA .... you get the idea.

Golly, I never expected my post would bring out...

Submitted by davidfarrar on Sun, 06/07/2009 - 08:30.

...all the leftest trolls inflecting themselves on this site. What was it that Rush said: "If everybody is thinking the same thing, somebody isn't thinking?"

ex animo

davidfarrar

Here are some things to think about

Submitted by NextRightNando on Sun, 06/07/2009 - 08:51.

Here are some things to think about:

1) During the primary, would not the Clinton people have investigated this angle and pounced on it if they thought there was something there?

2) During the general, would not the McCain people have investigated this angle and pounced on it if they thought there was something there?

3) Fearing for their "legacy" (i.e. perpetual war in Iraq), do you not think the Bush Administration would have employed the CIA and the FBI and the State Departmen to investigate this angle and then fed it to the McCain campaign or leaked it to the press directly (Valerie Plame, anyone?) if there was something there?

4) Obama's 1961 birth announcements appear in two Honolulu papers, available on microfiche in Hawaii libraries. How was that arranged?

You will no doubt reply "well why doesn't he jump through a few hoops to satisfy ME?" Here is why: it is a trap, laid for people like you to make yourself look foolish.

Why do you bring this up now? Are you that freaked out by the Cairo speech, and the possibility of detente?

Come on NextRightNando...

Submitted by davidfarrar on Sun, 06/07/2009 - 09:28.

...this is a perfect example of what I am talking about. There is no real answer as to why Obama simply doesn't allow a thorough examination of his "birth certificate".

1)  No, I don't. However, I do recall stories circulating around that they did have a smoking gun, but never used it.

2)  No, of course not. Are you kidding?

3)  No. I don't think Bush gave a sh-t. But more than that, Bush was an honorable man. To do what you are suggesting would have been illegal

4)  Simple, you call the newspapers up and you announce the birth.

Who would consider it a dishonor to comply with the requirements of the Constitution? Some would consider it one of the highest honors that can be bestowed -- presenting your birth certificate to take the oath of office of the presidency of the United States. I would, and I am sure you would -- any "natural-born" citizen of the United State would. Why wouldn't Obama?

Lastly, I explained my motives in my original post. This is a simple matter of governmental transparency. People have a right to request this document, it's in the Constitution, and they have a right to have it verified. It's just that simple.

ex animo

davidfarrar

I can't decide which is funnier

Submitted by NextRightNando on Sun, 06/07/2009 - 09:42.

I can't decide which is funnier - Hilary Clinton had da bomb but didn't use it, or that the Bush Administration was too honorable to involve themselves (Valerie Plame?)

you call the newspapers up and you announce the birth

In 1960's Hawaii, the state Dept. of Vital Records issued a list of births and deaths once a week, and that is what the paper's printed. Even if you could somehow arrange to call two Honolulu newspapers from a mud hut in Kenya in 1961 (what would that cost, and why would you do it?) it wouldn't be of any use, becasue the paper wouldn't print the information.

Like a moth to a flame....

You can believe what you like...

Submitted by davidfarrar on Sun, 06/07/2009 - 21:50.

...about Hilary and Bush. But it's not such a big deal for the Hawaiian state Dept. of Vital Records to record a live birth from direct testimony. I am sure it is done all the time with home births.

As far as making phone calls from Kenya in 1961, that, too, wouldn't have been necessary. If Obama's mother was in Hawaii at the time, or just shortly after Obama's birth, it wouldn't have been a big deal to arrange for the issuance of a COLB.

But, of course, the really, really perplexing question is, why doesn't Obama simply allow his Hawaiian birth certificate to be verified instead of fighting it? No one is above the law. The  people have a right to know, it says so in the Constitution.

 

ex animo

davidfarrar

Conjecture, supposition, guesswork

Submitted by NextRightNando on Sun, 06/07/2009 - 22:24.

is what you are offering, despite the number of hard facts that are presented to you. BTW, in this comment you seem to be agreeing he was born in Hawaii, so what is the point of all this?? And why now - what has you so freaked out that you have to start in with this nonsense which has been raised and dismissed dozens of times?

He may have been born in Hawaii...

Submitted by davidfarrar on Mon, 06/08/2009 - 09:49.

...according to the Hawaiian health officials. He may even be a U.S. citizen. However, it may be open for discussion as to whether or not he is a "natural-born" citizen. As I stated earlier, this is just a pure transparency issue. Here we have a government held record, that constitutionally the public has a right to gain access too, and to verify.

ex animo

davidfarrar

mccain is far more dubious

Submitted by Knackers on Mon, 06/08/2009 - 13:41.

having been born in the panama canal zone.

I gave your post all the respect it deserved.

Submitted by thirdeblue on Sun, 06/07/2009 - 13:01.

n/t

points of disagreement

Submitted by Ray in TX on Sun, 06/07/2009 - 09:51.

 ".it wasn't a certified birth certificate, it was simply a certificate of live birth"

You see an argument there. I see semantics. Birth certificate, certificate of birth. If your quibble is over the word "certified", then perhaps you should rethink what the word "certificate" means.

 

"This was simply an exercise to have the child declared a U.S. citizen."

How patriotic! What's the issue?

 

"This is simply a matter of abiding by and respecting the Constitution. You have to be a "natural-born" citizen to take the oath of office of the presidency of the United States."

This has nothing to do with the Constitution, and everything to do with partisan motivations to disqualify a popular Democratic president who was fairly elected by a sizable majority of the American populace. You are wanting to overturn the clear will of the people by arguing on a technicality, and trying to legitimize the effort by wrapping yourself in the Constitution.

And for the last 8 years, I'm very sure that you had no trouble overlooking Constitutional violations by the previous administration simply because they were Republican. 

As I stated, Ray...

Submitted by davidfarrar on Sun, 06/07/2009 - 21:48.

... Hawaii issues two separate kinds of births certificates. One is a long-form birth certificate, with the name of the attending physician, time of birth, footprints, etc.  They also issue a simple Live Birth certificate, which simply indicates a live birth. The two are NOT interchangeable. Moreover, as I have said, and which none of you trolls have disputed, is the fact that as a matter of record, there are many, many instances where a foreigner holds a valid Hawaiian Live Birth Certificate, but not a valid birth certificate. Obama's sister is just such a person. This is not semantics. This is a matter of the record.

This has nothing to do with partisan politics. The election is over. Nothing will change politically. The Democrats will still be in power.The Constitution calls for a "natural-born" citizen to be the president of the United States. Obama says he is a natural-born citizen. We are not asking him to get circumcised. All we are asking him to do is publish his Hawaiian birth certificate.

By the way you guys are going off your top, one would think you don't believe Obama has a valid Hawaiian birth certificate. I believe he has one, which is why I want him to show it and be done with the issue. No matter how you cut it, two things are clear: The Constitution calls for the president to be a "natural-born" citizen, and the people have a right to verify it.

ex animo

davidfarrrar

and what if there is no "long-form" certificate?

Submitted by Ray in TX on Sun, 06/07/2009 - 22:00.

Seriously, what will you argue? That he is not qualified to be president because he does not have the correct form for his birth certificate?

Does that mean that any child born at home whose only notice happens to be something like a "certificate of live birth" is ineligible to be president just because they don't have the particular form that you approve of?

Ultimately, it doesn't matter. Citizenship in America can be gained at birth. Obama's parents followed the procedures at the time to ensure that he had a birth certificate and proper citizenship. The fact that 45 years later he became President and political opponents were willing to argue anything to discredit his candidacy is irrelevant to that.

A baby was born. The proper paperwork was filed. The baby became an American citizen. That's pretty much how it works.

 

and from the Dred Scott decision..

Submitted by Ray in TX on Sun, 06/07/2009 - 22:05.

here is SC clarification... note the 4th point:

========================

The Constitution having recognized that persons born within the several States are citizens of the United States, one of four things must be true:

  First. That the constitution itself has described what native-born persons shal or shall not be citizens of such State, and thereby be citizens of the United States; or,

  Second:. That it has empowered Congress to do so; or,

  Third. That all free persons, born within the several States, are citizens of the United States; or,

  Fourth. That it is left to each State to determine what free persons, born within its limits, shall be citizens of such State, and thereby be citizens of the United States.

=======================

I would argue that, by issuing a certificate of live birth, the state of Hawaii determined in 1963 that Barack Hussein Obama was a citizen of the United States.

A U.S. citizen cannot be President

Submitted by davidfarrar on Mon, 06/08/2009 - 08:08.

If Barry Soetoro was born in Hawaii as claimed, he might in fact be a “U.S. citizen,” but not necessarily a “natural-born citizen” in accordance with Article II, Sec 5 of the U.S. Constitution.

There is a significant difference between a “citizen of the United States” and a “natural-born" citizen of the United States for the purpose of eligibility for the office of President and Vice President of the United States under the Art II, Sec. 5 of the Constitution of the United States.

Click here to see the following excerpt from: Wikipedia on United States nationality law.

Eligibility for public office

A U.S. citizen is eligible to become a member of the Congress of the United States or of the Senate of the United States as defined in Article I of the United States Constitution. However, a modern U.S. citizen is not eligible to become President of the United States as defined in Article II of the U.S. Constitution; they must be a “natural born citizen”, a term of birthright to a nation.

A person who becomes a U.S. citizen through naturalization is not considered a natural born citizen. Consequently, naturalized U.S. citizens are not eligible to become President of the United States or Vice President of the United States, which would ordinarily be the case as established by the Presidential Succession Act. For example, though the Secretary of Commerce and the Secretary of Labor are tenth and eleventh in the presidential line of succession, Elaine Chao and Carlos Gutierrez (respectively former U.S. Secretaries of Labor and Commerce under President George W. Bush) would have been unable to succeed to the presidency because they became U.S. citizens through naturalization. The highest-ranking naturalized citizens to have been excluded from the Presidential Line of Succession were Henry Kissinger and Madeleine Albright, each of whom would have been fourth in line as Secretary of State had they been natural born citizens.

Whether this restriction applies to children born to non-U.S. citizens but adopted as minors by U.S. citizens is a matter of some debate, since the Child Citizenship Act of 2000 is ambiguous as to whether acquisition of citizenship by that route is to be regarded as naturalized or natural-born. Those who argue that the restriction does not apply point out that the child automatically becomes a citizen even though violating every single requirement of eligibility for naturalization, and thus the case falls closer to the situation of birth abroad to U.S. citizens than to naturalization. This interpretation is in concert with the wording of the Naturalization Act of 1790, that “the children of citizens of the United States that may be born beyond the sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born citizens”, which does not draw a distinction between biological children and adopted children, even though the process of adoption was certainly well known at the time.

The phrase “natural born citizen” is distinguished as a separate legal entity from the phrase “U.S. Citizen” in Article II of the United States Constitution by the word “or”. “Natural born citizen” is not defined anywhere within the text of the Constitution other than its specific separation from the term “U.S. citizen”.

The U.S. Constitution was based upon the encyclopedic “The Law of Nations,” (Droit des gens; ou, Principes de la loi naturelle appliqués à la conduite et aux affaires des nations et des souverains) a treatise written in 1758 by Swiss lawyer and diplomat Emerich de Vattel as a manual for how government should function. Book I, Chapter XIX, part 212, codified the definition of “Natural born citizen” as jus soli jus sanguinus: “The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens.”[13]

John Bingham, considered to be the “Father of the 14th Amendment” confirmed the understanding and the construction that the framers used in regards to birthright and jurisdiction. While speaking on civil rights of citizens in the House on March 9, 1866, he said:
“ [I] find no fault with the introductory clause [S 61 Bill], which is simply declaratory of what is written in the Constitution, that every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen…. . . ”

ex animo

davidfarrar

Davidfarrar, your point makes no sense

Submitted by Ray in TX on Mon, 06/08/2009 - 11:06.

You wrote:

If Barry Soetoro was born in Hawaii as claimed, he might in fact be a “U.S. citizen,” but not necessarily a “natural-born citizen” in accordance with Article II, Sec 5 of the U.S. Constitution.

 

 

Re-read what you just wrote. Paraphrased: "Even if he was BORN IN HAWAII, he may not necessarily be a natural-born citizen."

At this point, you are becoming irrational. Good luck convincing anyone that you have a leg to stand on.

Not so.

Submitted by davidfarrar on Mon, 06/08/2009 - 12:29.

You can be a U.S. citizen but not necessarily a "natural-born" citizen.

ex animo

davidfarrar 

In such a case, Barack Obama must resign as President.

Submitted by davidfarrar on Mon, 06/08/2009 - 08:25.

Two things are evident here. One, Hawaiian health officials have already stated as a matter of record that there is one and they have it in their possession. This is why, in fact, I believe Pres. Obama to be a natural-born citizen. If they somehow misplace or lose the long-form birth certificate, Barack Obama would have to resign as President because there would be  no legal predicate that would establish the fact that he was born in Hawaii. As I have stated, a COLB simply states there was a live birth, and that non-U.S. citizens also have Hawaiians  COLBs, including Barack's own sister.

Secondly,  no one is above the law, not even the President of the United States. Indeed, many believe, as do I, that it should be the President of the United States who should exemplify this ideal more than anyone else. Therefore, I am proud to add my voice to those who are now calling for the President of the United States to show himself not above the law by providing the public a verifiable copy of his Hawaiian, long-form, birth certificate forthwith.

ex animo

davidfarrar

Take your meds.

Submitted by NextRightNando on Mon, 06/08/2009 - 09:19.

The requirement is that he be a natural born citizen - not that he have an original copy of his birth certificate.

At first this thread was amusing, but now you are sounding quite unhinged.

Well, of course that's the requirement...

Submitted by davidfarrar on Mon, 06/08/2009 - 09:56.

...so prove it. Produce a certified copy of the long-form birth certificate Hawaiian health officials say they have in their possession, and allow verification thereof.

As far as I am concerned, if Barack Obama can prove he was born in Hawaii, via his (long-form) birth certificate, and that his mother was a U.S. citizen at that time of his birth. Bingo! he's a "natural-born" citizen.

Fair enough?

ex animo

davidfarrar

Why are you going on about this

Submitted by NextRightNando on Mon, 06/08/2009 - 10:19.

You concede that Hawaiian health officials confirm the existence of his lon-form birth certificate, you conceded that he was born in Hawaii and you concede that his mother was a citizen. And yet you bang on about this. As I said before, I suspect he doesn't do it becasue it exposes people like you as deeply irrational and therefore not the kind of people that moderates want to associate themselves with.

The next time you go on about how FDR caused the Great Depression, lets recall this thread and put 2 & 2 together.

I'm done here.

There is just the matter of proof.

Submitted by davidfarrar on Mon, 06/08/2009 - 11:14.

Every thing you have just stated is just unsubstantiate assertions. In terms of governmental transparency, where the government holds the record, access too and verification of the record is essential to a transparent government, especially if such a record is specifically called for by the Constitution.

If your assertions are, in fact, true, Barack Obama should be the first one demanding his Hawaiian (long-form) birth certificate be published and authenticated as a matter of governmental transparency, which he, himself, has called on to restore.

ex animo

davidfarrar

well, if you really want absolute proof

Submitted by Ray in TX on Mon, 06/08/2009 - 11:21.

Before you can bring this case to court, you need to first prove that you indeed have legal standing to do so.

You need to prove your citizenship with a certified birth certificate. You can scan and post on the web at your convenience. That's the easy part. In addition, you need to prove that you have not given up your voting rights by being convicted of a felony. For this, we will need to run a background check on you with all 50 states before proceeding. This could take 3-6 months, depending on how quickly you can gather up the necessary funds and legal waivers to do so.

And finally, we will also need to verify that you have not applied for citizenship with any country that does not allow for dual citizenship. This will take some time, as we will need to verify with individual countries. 

You will need to provide a non-refundable deposit to pay for the necessary expenses involved in properly proving your citizenship and legal standing. 

Also note that some of the countries we'll need to check, such as Iran and North Korea, are notoriously slow to respond to diplomatic inquiries so this will take some time. I'm guessing we'll be confident of your legal standing with 7-8 years and then we'll be able to proceed with your case.

After all, we want to make absolutely sure that you are an American citizen before beginning.

 

I can assure you Ray...

Submitted by davidfarrar on Mon, 06/08/2009 - 12:23.

...if and when I raise my right hand and solemnly swear the oath of office to the presidency of the United States, it will be an honor for me to publish a certified copy of my long-form birth certificate. I had to obtain a certified copy of my "original" birth certificate by federal law in order to a get a driver's license. It's time for Obama to do what millions of Americans have to do every day, by law.

ex animo

davidfarrar

so what you're saying now...

Submitted by Ray in TX on Mon, 06/08/2009 - 13:42.

Obama's driver's license would be sufficient?

Please review his official driving record here (which requires a valid driver's license):

http://www.politifact.com/media/files/obamadriving.jpg

 

Hey do you know...

Submitted by Remains of the ... on Sun, 06/07/2009 - 00:21.

 

that 'Palin faked her pregnancy'.... At least this thing is more plausible...

Interesting read.

Submitted by Vern Rutter on Mon, 06/08/2009 - 11:30.

Thanks for the link.

the point is...

Submitted by spartacus on Mon, 06/08/2009 - 19:23.

...there are 2 documents, a Certificate of Live Birth which can actually be altered post birth based on circumstance, such as adoption, and the Birth Certificate, which is unalterable and identifies much more information about the birth itself...  and the only one that was provided is the one that is unsigned and had no seal and can be altered... Just saying.

I don't believe there's ever been a reason provided for why Obama didn't produce the Birth Certificate, which is not a public document, but would have certainly eased the minds of so many people who think Obama was not really born on Oahu.

For me, I let it go a long time back - I don't subscribe to a conspiracy theory here - but I do get the point that it's interesting.

Question

Submitted by Repack Rider on Mon, 06/08/2009 - 21:00.

I don't believe there's ever been a reason provided for why Obama didn't produce the Birth Certificate, which is not a public document, but would have certainly eased the minds of so many people who think Obama was not really born on Oahu.

Why should the President of the United States dignify morons and conspiracy theorists by responding to them?  They're not going away any time soon, better to let them sit in the corner by themselves, mumbling.

The suggestion that there is a conspiracy going back 45 years to put a BLACK MAN in the White House is so ludicrous, that no amount of mocking these fools could possibly suffice.  I would have to do a lot of research to find a crazier accusation, and I STILL might not find one.

Nobody that I know of, or want to know of....

Submitted by davidfarrar on Mon, 06/08/2009 - 22:31.

...has ever suggested this was part of a conspiracy going back 45 years to put a BLACK MAN in the White House. This was exactly what it seems to be, a successful effort to get Barack Obama declared a U.S. citizen, nothing more. Today, the real question is: Do our elected officials see themselves above the law and the Constitution?

I was also surprised to learn the idea that birth confers citizen regardless of nationality of the parents has actually never gone before the U.S. Supreme Court. I have always thought this was illegal. But many, many people believe that it is the law of the land.

Secondly, "natural-born" citizen requires that both parents be U.S. citizens at the time of the birth of the child. While Obama may be a U.S. citizen, he cannot be a natural-born citizen. This too has never been placed before the U.S. Supreme Court. I hope some thinking Republican Congressman can pose this question to Sonia Sotomayor. When she looks at Article II, Sec. 5 of the U.S. Constitution, what would be her interpretation of "natural-born" citizen?

ex animo

davidfarrar

"I was also surprised to

Submitted by Ray in TX on Mon, 06/08/2009 - 22:49.

"I was also surprised to learn the idea that birth confers citizen regardless of nationality of the parents has actually never gone before the U.S. Supreme Court. I have always thought this was illegal."

 

Why have you thought this?  It seems counter-intuitive to what the phrase means.

In fact, George Clinton sets a precedent counter to that. A vice-president and in line for the presidency, Clinton's father was born in Ireland.

Ray, you got me on that one.

Submitted by davidfarrar on Tue, 06/09/2009 - 08:45.

I don't even understand it.

But if I can expound a little bit more on the question of what it means to be naturally born, as per the U.S. Constitution, I think it would be helpful. I really can't understand how it is that anyone with even a little sense of understanding of the U.S. Constitution, specifically Art. II, Sec. 5, "No person except a natural born citizen, OR a citizen of the United States at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President"... could possibly conclude that Barack Obama was a "natural-born" citizen?  While it is true there is no definition of what a natural-born citizen is in Art. II, Sec. 5, it is clear the "or" indicates the writers of the Constitution considered a natural-born citizen and a U.S. citizen to be separate and distinct categories of  citizenship, and that natural born superseded U.S. citizen in some fashion.

In order to find a definition of what a natural born citizen might have been at that time, we would have to go to "The Law of Nations", a Dutch treaties written in 1758 by Swiss lawyer and diplomat Emerich de Vattel as a manual for how government should function, and upon which the U.S. Constitution is largely thought to be based.  Book I, Chapter XIX, part 212, codified the definition of a natural born citizen as: “The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens.” I, myself, find it extremely hard to conjure up any other reasonable definition. In my mind, and I am sure in many others, the term "natural born" means born of parents who were both U.S. citizens, regardless of where the two U.S. citizens happen to reside at the time of birth.

Under these terms, can someone please explain to me how Barack Obama can possibly be considered a "natural born" citizen and therefore eligible to take the oath of office to the presidency of the United States?

ex animo

davidfarrar

 

You're trying a little too

Submitted by bonneville on Tue, 06/09/2009 - 10:17.

You're trying a little too hard and are getting tripped up by the language a bit which is not uncommon. the "natural born" is a bit of relic of the 18th century.   You should look to the 14th amendment and to the common law.  Persons born in the US are citizens of the US. That was the policy at the time of Obama's birth.

So the short answer for you is that no really knows what "natural born citizen" means. But luckily it's definition is not required to confer citizenship in this country.

You can rest assured that Obama is a citizen.

Thank you, Bonneville for your help.

Submitted by davidfarrar on Tue, 06/09/2009 - 11:33.

I understand the citizenship clause of the 14th Amendment as Congress's (Republican) intent to reverse that portion of the Dred Scott v. Sandfors decision that declared that African American were not and could not become citizens of the United States. The Civil Rights Act of 1866 had already granted U.S. citizenship to all people (not subject to any other foreign powers) born in the United States. The actual intent of the framers of the Fourteenth Amendment was to simply enshrine this principle in the Constitution in order to stop the Supreme Court from ruling it unconstitutional for want of congressional authority to pass such a law, or a future Congress from altering it by a bare majority vote.

I see nothing in the 14th Amendment that would provide a legal predicate to suggest that a person born to a mother who is a subject of another foreign power is automatically a U.S. citizen. What I see here is a respect for and a continuation of the legal predicate that in order to be a U.S. citizen by birth, the mother has to be a U.S. citizen

If, and when, Barack Obama publishes his original birth certificate to establish he was born to Stanley Ann Dunnham, a U.S. citizen,  in Hawaii, he would certainly be a U.S. citizen. But would he be a "natural born" citizen?

Now to this uneducated, natural born U.S. citizen, a U.S. citizen means a person born to a U. S. citizen. A natural born U.S. citizen means a person being born with both parents being U.S. citizens. Fortunately, we don't need Obama's birth certificate to establish the fact that his father was not a U.S. citizen, therefore; Obama cannot be a "natrual born" U.S. citizen.

ex animo

davidfarrar

Well, I guess your only

Submitted by bonneville on Tue, 06/09/2009 - 13:59.

Well, I guess your only recourse is to get a lawyer and argue this one all the way up to the Supreme Court.  Good luck.

oy. you realize you sound like the man who just shot people

Submitted by Knackers on Wed, 06/10/2009 - 14:36.

down in DC today?

Brunn, a WWII veteran, also wrote a screed on President Obama’s citizenship that was re-posted to popular right-wing blog Free Republic.

 

sheesh!

Do you realize you are one sick...

Submitted by davidfarrar on Wed, 06/10/2009 - 22:39.

....

 

ex animo

davidfarrar

tiffany jewelry

Submitted by louis vuitton on Fri, 08/07/2009 - 02:14.

I'll add to this some other observations (either from dkos or 538, don't ask me where my memory comes from!): people don't "lock in" their partisanship until they vote multiple times (two or three). So we're looking at a span of anywhere between 4 to about 12 years, in which someone makes up their political mind.

thanks for the math, it's good. cheap tiffany jewelry