Posted on 05/01/2013 8:11:44 AM PDT by EXCH54FE
The Alabama Democrat Party just submitted a completely different birth certificate than the one that was posted at the White House website in 2011.
Larry Klayman, the plaintiff’s counsel submitted the forgery of Barack Hussein Obama’s birth certificate that was posted to whitehouse.gov on 4-27-2001 (seen below). Fogbow/Jack Ryan obot group produced another bogus one. Still a third birth certificate has been submitted by Alabama Democrats to the Supreme Court.
Remember, this court is being presided over by Chief Justice Roy Moore, who supported Lt. Col. Terry Lakin, when he believed Obama to be a usurper and denied following orders to deploy to Iraq until Obama proved his eligibility as part of keeping his oath (ironically Lakin was not supported by Mr. Oathkeeper Stewart Rhodes). Another justice on the court by the name of Tom Parker will also hear the case. He has stated in a previous case:
“McInnish has attached certain documentation to his mandamus petition, which, if presented to the appropriate forum as part of a proper evidentiary presentation, would raise serious questions about the authenticity of both the “short form” and the “long form” birth certificates of President Barack Hussein Obama that have been made public.”
While the Alabama Democrats attacked the merits of the appeal, calling the evidence by McInnish “inadmissible and not worthy of belief,” they also stated “A county sheriff from Arizona is not an ‘official source’ of anything in Alabama.”
But what stands out in their brief is something very new, Barack Hussein Obama’s long form birth certificate that has a different backing, something never before seen. It’s on page 33 in the document below.
(Excerpt) Read more at freedomoutpost.com ...
First of all, the point was that if the Founders and Framers and their generation had been so concerned as you claim, to eliminate "any possible foreign influence," they would never have tolerated a situation where 3 of our first 4 Presidents were dual citizens with another country while serving as President.
You can claim the French citizenship of Washington, Jefferson, and Madison was "just honorary." Here's what a contemporary of Washington, Jefferson and Madison had to say:
"According to the usages and understanding of all nations a man may have all the rights of a naturalized citizen or subject in his adopted country, and yet retain all his relations, civil and political, in his native country. For instance, the Marquis La Fayette was naturalized in the United States, but retained every such relation to France. So Mr. Jefferson was naturalized in France and there made a French citizen, and had he gone there would have been entitled to all the rights there of an adopted citizen, but he certainly retained all his relations to the United states, his rights and duties as a native citizen, and was in fact after such naturalization, elected President of the United States." - Nathan Dane, LL.D. Counsellor at Law, A General Abridgment and Digest of American Law: With Occasional Notes and Comments, in Eight Volumes (1833).
"So Mr. Jefferson was naturalized in France and there made a French citizen, and had he gone there would have been entitled to all the rights there of an adopted citizen..."
Gee. That sounds like a real citizen of France to me. And the French citizenship of George Washington and James Madison was exactly the same.
The point is good.
As for your current claim: Technically they were exempt from the NBC requirement, but they didn't have to be.
Fallacy: "The inclusion of that exemption [the "grandfather clause" of Presidential eligibility] for the Founding Generation was necessary, as the only Natural Born Citizens in America at that time, were newly born infants. Not a single American, 35 or older, would have qualified as President, without the existence of that exemption."
Once again, you spin more fallacies.
The grandfather clause was never passed for the purpose of making George Washington eligible. The sole reason it was passed was for making people like James Wilson and Alexander Hamilton, who weren't natural born citizens of the Colonies that would become the United States, eligible.
Here's how the grandfather clause has always been understood, throughout history. I'll start with an exposition by legendary Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story, in 1833:
“It was doubtless introduced (for it has now become by lapse of time merely nominal, and will soon become wholly extinct) out of respect to those distinguished revolutionary patriots, who were born in a foreign land, and yet had entitled themselves to high honours in their adopted country….” United States Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story, Commentaries on the Constitution (1833)
“The exception as to those who were citizens at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, was justly due to those men who had united themselves with the fate of the new nation, and rendered eminent services in achieving its independence ; and is, necessarily, of limited continuance.” James Bayard, A brief exposition of the Constitution of the United States, pg. 96 (1833)
“Why was this exception then made ? From gratitude to those distinguished foreigners who had taken part with us during the Revolution.” John Seely Hart, A Brief Exposition of the Constitution of the United States, pg. 71 (1860)
“The idea then arose that no number of years could properly prepare a foreigner for the office of president; but as men of other lands had spilled their blood in the cause of the United States, and had assisted at every stage of the formation of their institutions, the committee of states who were charged with all unfinished business proposed, on the fourth of September, that ” no person except a natural-born citizen, or a citizen of the United States at the tune of the adoption of this constitution, should be eligible to the office of president.” George Bancroft, History of the formation of the Constitution of the United States of America pg 346 (1866)
“The exception in favor of such persons of foreign birth as were citizens of the United States at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, is now practically extinct. The distinguished patriots who had so faithfully served their adopted country during the revolutionary struggle, and out of respect and gratitude to whom this exception was introduced into the Constitution, have all passed away. No one, therefore, but a natural born citizen can now be elected to the office of President.” Henry Flanders, An Exposition of the Constitution of the United States (1877)
“The exception to the “natural born” qualification was the Convention’s way of paying an extraordinary compliment to Alexander Hamilton and James Wilson, two distinguished members of the Convention who were foreign born. Of course, any other foreign- born citizen having the other qualifications would have been eligible, but the clause was drawn in favor of the two statesmen here mentioned.” Edward Waterman Townsend, Our Constitution: Why and how it was Made – who Made It, and what it is pg 186 (1906)
This understanding is also confirmed by James Madison's reasoning in the Smith case. He said, in essence, that Smith had been a citizen of the community that would become the State of South Carolina since his very birth:
I conceive the colonies remained as a political society, detached from their former connection with another society, without dissolving into a state of nature; but capable of substituting a new form of government in the place of the old one, which they had for special considerations abolished. Suppose the state of South Carolina should think proper to revise her constitution, abolish that which now exists, and establish another form of government: Surely this would not dissolve the social compact. It would not throw them back into a state of nature. It would not dissolve the union between the individual members of that society. It would leave them in perfect society, changing only the mode of action, which they are always at liberty to arrange. Mr. Smith being then, at the declaration of independence, a minor, but being a member of that particular society, he became, in my opinion, bound by the decision of the society with respect to the question of independence and change of government; and if afterward he had taken part with the enemies of his country, he would have been guilty of treason against that government to which he owed allegiance, and would have been liable to be prosecuted as a traitor.
So once again (as is typical of birthers) you display your ignorance, or your willful rejection, of our history and our law.
Sorry, Kenny. It seems to have started with post 17. :-(
By the way, Nathan Dane wasn't just some random lawyer. He was so influential that he was called "the Father of American Jurisprudence." Harvard's Law School was named after him. And the work that I cite was:
"'the first systematic treatise covering the entire field of American law.' It became a standard work, and every lawyer of distinction bought a copy."
So when Nathan Dane says the dual citizenship of President Jefferson (and by extension, the identical dual citizenship of George Washington and James Madison) was truly dual citizenship, we can believe him.
All of this totally blows the unhistorical, imaginary birther premise, that the Founding Fathers were so fanatically concerned about "pure allegiance" that they wouldn't tolerate the slightest hint of "divided allegiance," out of the water.
Yo Birther, Obama’s birth certificate(s) are the real deal unless you are ignorant, a hate filled rizzle or an Uncle Tizzle type. /s
No wonder you're in such a tizzy over this subject. You obviously can't comprehend plain English.
The first sentence of Clause 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...." means what it says, and nothing more.
Any person who was a citizen at the time the Constitution was adopted, and who met the other two qualifications expressed therein, would have been eligible to hold the office. That includes Washington, Jefferson, Madison, and every other Framer who was born in America prior to its incorporation as an independent nation state.
None of those men were natural born citizens, as the country didn't exist at the time of their birth.
They understood this - why can't you? Oh that's right. It's because to understand it, you'd have to admit that your boss isn't eligible to hold the office of President.
You're tiresome, Fogblower. You understand all of the arguments that have been presented to you, but you're in flat out denial, and reject even the most ironclad logic, facts, and reason on the subject. Any honest, rational person, would have conceded the argument long ago, but you can't, because you're on a mission to protect Obama and sow seeds of doubt and discord amongst conservatives.
I've got your number, and so does every other Freeper who's crossed swords with you. You're a paid infiltrator, plain and simple. Spit at me if you like, but we've seen your kind before, and we know how this all ends.
None of those men [Washington, Jefferson, Madison, and every other Framer who was born in America]were natural born citizens, as the country didn't exist at the time of their birth.
Obviously, YOU don't understand plain English.
It's not hard. Except, of course, for someone who is either a tone-deaf birther, bent on conforming history to his personal wishes, or a complete idiot.
The Declaration of Independence and the adoption of the Constitution didn't throw us into a state of nature with no laws. The laws we had generally continued in force. And membership in our American political society continued unabated.
Prior to these events, this was generally called "subjecthood." And members of our political society were called "subjects."
Those who were born members of our political society were called "natural born subjects."
Upon these events, we changed the term "subject" to "citizen." Previously, the term "citizen" had been used mainly to refer to persons who were members of the society of a particular CITY. That in fact is where the term CITIZEN derives from.
But we weren't thrown back in to a state of nature. Those who had been born members of our American political society (which at the time had consisted of Colonies) CONTINUED as members of those societies.
So when we changed the term "subject" to the term "citizen," and (for example), the Colony of New York to the State of New York, EVERY SINGLE PERSON who had previously been a "natural born subject of the Colony of New York" became, instantly, a "natural born citizen of the State of New York."
This was the clear doctrine of the Founding Fathers, as espoused clearly by Father of the Constitution James Madison, and it is agreed on, as far as I am aware, by every significant authority in history.
Are you incapable of reading? Or is it simply understanding that you're incapable of? Or is it simply an utter, jackass determination to twist our history and law to your personal preference?
I'm going to try again. Read slowly.
"I conceive the colonies remained as a political society, detached from their former connection with another society, without dissolving into a state of nature; but capable of substituting a new form of government in the place of the old one, which they had for special considerations abolished. Suppose the state of South Carolina should think proper to revise her constitution, abolish that which now exists, and establish another form of government: Surely this would not dissolve the social compact. It would not throw them back into a state of nature. It would not dissolve the union between the individual members of that society. It would leave them in perfect society, changing only the mode of action, which they are always at liberty to arrange. Mr. Smith being then, at the declaration of independence, a minor, but being a member of that particular society, he became, in my opinion, bound by the decision of the society with respect to the question of independence and change of government; and if afterward he had taken part with the enemies of his country, he would have been guilty of treason against that government to which he owed allegiance, and would have been liable to be prosecuted as a traitor."
- James Madison, FATHER OF THE CONSTITUTION.
So here Madison says exactly what I just stated: Our political society continued unabated. We merely separated each State from the King. The allegiance to the King was dissolved. The allegiance to the local political society, the Colony that became a State, continued uninterrupted. And every person who had previously been born a member of that AMERICAN political society (previously called a "colony") CONTINUED as a natural-born member of that American political society, which was now called a "State."
Further as to whether George Washington and other American-born citizens were "natural born citizens" or not, and as to why the "grandfather clause" was passed, here are explanations by legal and historical experts throughout history:
“It [the grandfather clause] was doubtless introduced (for it has now become by lapse of time merely nominal, and will soon become wholly extinct) out of respect to those distinguished revolutionary patriots, who were born in a foreign land, and yet had entitled themselves to high honours in their adopted country….” United States Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story, Commentaries on the Constitution (1833)
Joseph Story was one of our Supreme Court Justices, and one of our nation's few most prominent experts on the Constitution and our laws.
“The exception as to those who were citizens at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, was justly due to those men who had united themselves with the fate of the new nation, and rendered eminent services in achieving its independence ; and is, necessarily, of limited continuance.” James Bayard, A brief exposition of the Constitution of the United States, pg. 96 (1833)
Bayard's target="_blank">work was read by Chief Justice John Marshall, by Joseph Story, by Chancellor James Kent, "and other distinguished jurists," not one of whom lodged any objection. Only one person (Chief Justice John Marshall) objected to any point in the book, a statement regarding construction of military and post roads.
Chief Justice Marshall added, "With this exception, I do not recollect a single statement in your book which is not, in my judgment, entirely just." “Why was this exception then made ? From gratitude to those distinguished foreigners who had taken part with us during the Revolution.” John Seely Hart, A Brief Exposition of the Constitution of the United States, pg. 71 (1860)
“The idea then arose that no number of years could properly prepare a foreigner for the office of president; but as men of other lands had spilled their blood in the cause of the United States, and had assisted at every stage of the formation of their institutions, the committee of states who were charged with all unfinished business proposed, on the fourth of September, that ” no person except a natural-born citizen, or a citizen of the United States at the tune of the adoption of this constitution, should be eligible to the office of president.” George Bancroft, History of the formation of the Constitution of the United States of America pg 346 (1866) George Bancroft was a famous historian and statesman who served as Secretary of the Navy, and established the US Naval Academy at Annapolis.
“The exception in favor of such persons of foreign birth as were citizens of the United States at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, is now practically extinct. The distinguished patriots who had so faithfully served their adopted country during the revolutionary struggle, and out of respect and gratitude to whom this exception was introduced into the Constitution, have all passed away. No one, therefore, but a natural born citizen can now be elected to the office of President.” Henry Flanders, An Exposition of the Constitution of the United States (1877)
“The exception to the “natural born” qualification was the Convention’s way of paying an extraordinary compliment to Alexander Hamilton and James Wilson, two distinguished members of the Convention who were foreign born. Of course, any other foreign- born citizen having the other qualifications would have been eligible, but the clause was drawn in favor of the two statesmen here mentioned.” Edward Waterman Townsend, Our Constitution: Why and how it was Made – who Made It, and what it is pg 186 (1906)
Townsend was a US Representative.
All of these distinguished voices, including Father of the Constitution James Madison, Chief Justice John Marshall, legendary Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story, Chancellor James Kent, and others, say you're completely full of crap.
And in my opinion: Anyone who had half a brain would at this point stop making himself look like a fool. Of course, that usually doesn't include birthers, who are known for pushing the same baseless points no matter how stupid it makes them look.
As our leader is truly a man of all seasons, I see no reason for him not to have a Birth Certificate for all occasions. And I repeat, those are not bad jobs of photoshopping or whatever. From 10-15 feet away, they are good enough for any man.
Truth is simple. Lies are complex.
You're full of it.
If I made an argument "in fifty words or less," you'd claim that was all the evidence I had.
You're nothing but a total, absolute phony. You can't refute any of the words of our early legal authorities and Founding Fathers. You can't refute any of the arguments.
And you'll never acknowledge the words of those Founding Fathers and legal authorities. The truth is, in any REAL terms, you despise our Founding Fathers and early legal authorities, because they refute all your BS.
All you can do is sit and call names like a 3-year-old. I'd call that pretty pathetic.
This, incidentally, is part of the MO of a scumbag Constitution-twisting birther.
No evidence is ever good enough. There's nothing that anyone could possibly present that would be "good enough."
If you present a short argument, that's not enough evidence. If you present a longer, more detailed argument that comprehensively refutes BS after BS after BS, that's no good because it has "too many words."
If you point out that our courts, including the US Supreme Court, have ruled absolutely against the "two citizen parent" claim, those rulings are "wrong," or they didn't say what they actually do say.
If you point out that virtually all of our legal experts throughout history, including legendary Supreme Court Justices, our most highly esteemed legal experts, authors of comprehensive studies of our Constitution, authorities quoted by the US Supreme Court, and major conservative Constitutional law foundations absolutely contradict their BS claim, then they'll say all of that is just "crap evidence" (DiogenesLamp's exact words) - and then claim that the opinion of an absolutely obscure little judge who presided over several counties and had nothing to do with national law is the REAL authority.
If you point out that virtually all of history and law is against their theory, that "natural born citizen" historically NEVER meant what they claim, then they'll say you have to start with the THEORY of "what would the Founders do," rather than look at the FACT of what those Founders actually DID.
So it's all BS. BS with a capital B, and a capital S.
Because the entire birther Constitutional doctrine is BS. That's all it is.
Fogblower, you've been given lots of elbow room and civil respect on this forum - by me, and many others. I've patiently explained my thinking and made my case to you many times, using quotes from the Constitution, rational arguments, and essays by excellent thinkers on the subject.
When all that failed, I appealed to your sense of logic to get you to see my point, by posing a question which would lead you to discover the Framers' wisdom for yourself.
You rejected all of that. Instead of quietly and studiously considering the thoughtful arguments presented to you, you responded with walls of copypasta and spittle-laden diatribes worthy of a Wall Street lawyer who's losing the biggest case of his career.
And you haven't just treated me that way. That's been your behavior with everyone you've debated this issue with at FR. Frankly, it's simply a waste of time to continue going round and round in circles with you.
You've got your viewpoint, we know what it is, and there's little else to be said about it. We disagree. I, for one, am not interested in continuing to throw my valuable time away by talking to a fence post.
If I respond to anything you say on the subject from this point forward, expect nothing but dismissiveness, derision, and ridicule. You've more than earned it here.
Civil respect? And you begin your paragraph by calling me an ugly name?
HA!
When it comes to rational arguments... well, semi-rational, at least.
Your argument basically consists of, "This is what I would do. Therefore, it's what the Founders did."
I pointed out the completely flawed nature of that argument. And what was your response? Simply to act as if your fallacy didn't exist.
WE DON'T JUDGE WHAT THE FOUNDERS DID BY WHAT YOU OR I OR JACK OVER THERE WOULD DO. WE JUDGE WHAT THE FOUNDERS DID BY WHAT THEY ACTUALLY DID.
And the only way to know THAT is to look at history and the law.
But our history, and our law, all say you're wrong. So you throw those out the window, insisting again that whatever YOUR personal preference is, why, that MUST be what the Founders did. If I respond to anything you say on the subject from this point forward, expect nothing but dismissiveness, derision, and ridicule. You've more than earned it here. Fogblower, you've been given lots of elbow room and civil respect on this forum - by me, and many others. I've patiently explained my thinking and made my case to you many times, using quotes from the Constitution, rational arguments, and essays by excellent thinkers on the subject.
If I respond to anything you say on the subject from this point forward, expect nothing but dismissiveness, derision, and ridicule...
I will. Because you and I both have made it clear that you don't HAVE any valid historical or legal argument. You can't even REPLY to any of the dozens of quotes from our best and most authoritative historical and legal figures. So personal opinion, dismissiveness, derision and ridicule is all you have left.
This:
But our history, and our law, all say you're wrong. So you throw those out the window, insisting again that whatever YOUR personal preference is, why, that MUST be what the Founders did. If I respond to anything you say on the subject from this point forward, expect nothing but dismissiveness, derision, and ridicule. You've more than earned it here. Fogblower, you've been given lots of elbow room and civil respect on this forum - by me, and many others. I've patiently explained my thinking and made my case to you many times, using quotes from the Constitution, rational arguments, and essays by excellent thinkers on the subject.
Should've been merely:
But our history, and our law, all say you're wrong. So you throw those out the window, insisting again that whatever YOUR personal preference is, why, that MUST be what the Founders did.
Jeff everyone knows you’re from Fogbow.
Ugly? No need to be so self-deprecating, Fogblower. I think your name has a certain trollish charm to it.
An argument.
You don't have one.
The fogbow is full of monsters.
Scott you’re the one spreading misinformation regarding Obama.
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.