Posted on 06/19/2009 5:16:14 PM PDT by BuckeyeTexan
No. The Supreme Court needs to first rule on the constitutional interpretation of natural-born citizen as intended by the framers. It then becomes the responsibility of Congress to legislate the process by which someone can become naturalized. Even then, if there are disputes about who needs to be naturalized and who doesn't, it is the responsibility of the Supreme Court to interpret the naturalization laws as passed by Congress.
Why is there controversy? It’s all conjecture. No one on this board has evidence of where bH0 was born.
One could say that the court has done so in the Ark case and the Elg case among others. The Constitution clearly identifies only two forms of citizenship, so titles like citizen at birth, citizen from birth, and natural born citizen are synonymous. Claims that there are three or more classes of citizenship are unsupported anywhere in the Constitution or in law.
Because Polarik believes that the author is using leftist, liberal disinformation techniques to spread the lie that Obama was born in Hawaii, presented proof of his birth, and that Hawaii has confirmed that proof.
I disagree. In my opinion, the author clearly intends to convince anti-birthers that there are legitimate questions about Obama’s place of birth.
Nor would anyone have to "present" the baby to get the birth certificate. They'd just have to fill out the paperwork, sign it, and submit it to the state registrar.
The only necessary signatures are the "witness" (Attendant on the form block 19a and one parent (block 18a), although another witness could sign in 18a, since in both blocks there is a check box for "other".
NOT a single person who remembers seeing Obama's parents in Hawaii around the time his mother gave birth.
She was however seen in the Seattle area, at a time when the baby was "all pink" and when she did not yet know how to change his diapers. IOW, pretty shortly after the birth. Plus, it's been verified that Stanley Ann attended the University of Washington, for 3 terms (quarters) starting in mid September (at the latest, she'd have needed to show up somewhat earlier to get a place to live, arrange babysitting and so forth) of 1961. So she wouldn't have been in Hawaii to be seen, She didn't go back to U of Hawaii until the Spring of 1963.
But, IIRC, no one recalls seeing her pregnant in Hawaii either.
Certainly, one could argue that but if you read the author’s statements about Ark, you’ll see that one could also argue that the matter isn’t settled.
Are we all on the same side, or not?
Inquiring minds need to know.
There is NO proof bH0 was born in Hawaii, or Canada, OR Kenya. All we know about bH0 is in two ghost-written books.
NO one on this board knows where B. Hussein Obama was born.
Did you read Cicero’s comment?
Here it is:
I think that Polarik is correct about this.
As I said much earlier, this article is useful for what it focuses on, but somewhat lacking in other respects. What it usefully focuses on is the history of the term “natural born citizen” in legal cases and influential writings. Even that may need a bit of tidying up or correction, but it is useful in itself.
It is not the immediate concern of this essay whether or not the COLB is a forgery. That is a vital question, but it is not immediately relevant to the discussion here.
What I think is needed is a bit of tidying up and cleaning up, and a little less speculation about what an “original birth certificate” which no one has ever seen may say, if it exists at all. Also, as I said in my earlier post, history suggests that Hawaii was not all that reluctant to grant birth certificates to Asians and others who were actually foreign born, because of the peculiar history of this territory/state, and because of the large number of Asian residents and prospective voters.
Polarik offers a few other corrections or suggestions in earlier posts. I think that Touchen should read those carefully and consider them. It still seems to me that he has a very useful contribution here, but that it needs some cleaning up and revision to separate speculation from fact and concentrate on the main point—the constitutional meaning of “natural born citizen.”
I haven’t read Polarik’s earlier post since it first appeared on this thread, but as I recall there was just one point he makes that I would also clarify. He says that the Constitution grants citizens the basic rights as enumerated in the Declaration of Independence, including Life, Liberty, freedom of religion, freedom of speech, the right to bear arms and defend yourself, your family, and your neighbors, and so on.
That’s true in a sense, that the Constitution gives us those rights, but the Founders actually said that the Contitution recognizes these rights as God-given and “inalienable.” So, one could argue, these rights cannot legitimately be taken away even by a constitutional amendment.
I think this argument can be worked out, since Polarik and Touchen are really focused on two different aspects of the birth certificate problem.
105 posted on Monday, June 22, 2009 4:20:54 PM by Cicero (Marcus Tullius)
Again, only if you believe that there are three or more classes of citizenship, a concept not supported by the Constitution itself.
Actually, the author clearly intends to convince anti-birthers that the definition of natural-born citizen is unsettled in the law and that there are enough legitimate questions surrounding the circumstances of Obama’s birth that the matter needs to be investigated and settled by the SCOTUS.
Well, I’m sorry if it can’t be worked out. I’ve published a number of books, and I have gotten a number of reader reports on them. Some of it is useful, some of it is not. The first thing I learned is never to take criticism personally. It’s only human to take it that way on first reading, so I put it aside and then read it again. Then I decide what advice is helpful and what is best ignored.
So, if people have gotten mad about this, I’d let the dust settle and then just decide how much of the criticism is helpful.
It did occur to me on reading this that there’s a natural tendency for writers to give an opponent his due on issues that aren’t important to their central argument. I don’t know how many conservative columns I’ve read that gave clinton or obama credit on some other point, when they frankly didn’t deserve it—just to show that they are “fair and balanced” and not mean-minded. I would refrain from doing that. Better to stick to the facts.
For instance, would the State of Hawaii fake a COLB or a birth certificate deliberately? Or would they employ legal fictions and pretend that someone was born in the islands who was actually born in Kenya or China? I don’t think that can be casually ruled out. That kind of thing does happen.
No need to accuse the Hawaiian government of doing it, since that’s not relevant to the case being made. We don’t know that they did. But also no need to let them off the hook just to be nice. We don’t know that they didn’t. We don’t know much of anything, in fact, until we see the evidence. Close reading of the statement of the govt of Hawaii about the issue of Obama’s BC finds that they say virtually nothing definite. They have some kind of original birth certificate or copy of a Kenyan certificate or whatever, but they really are not specific enough for us to know what it is that they are refusing to talk about.
One doesn’t have to believe that there are three or more classes of citizenship to also believe that the matter is unsettled. Read the related portions of the document.
Agreed on all points.
I don’t think there is anything to be worked out. Polarik and Tonchen have separate goals.
Polarik’s opinions about Tonchen’s intentions don’t change anything for me. I respect both of them and will defend both of them. It’s all good.
Yep, I read Cicero’s comment. He says Polarik is right, although I’m not sure what he thinks Polarik is right about because he then goes on to agree with me that the document is useful for its intended purpose. Polarik doesn’t think the document is useful at all. In fact, he believes it is disinformation intended to hurt the birther cause.
Yep, we’re ultimately on the same side. The issue is that Polarik and I disagree about whose side Tonchen is on. I say he’s on our side. Polarik says he’s not. Polarik has argued his case. I’ve argued mine. The reader must make his/her own conclusions.
I disagree. Being sworn is a requirement, just as being a natural born citizen, being at least 35 and resident in the US for 14 years are. However the President elect becomes President at noon on January 20th, provided he has qualified.
We don't really even do that right. The swearing in should start before noon, so as to be complete before noon. IIRC it was at least 12:30 before Obama took the (wrong) oath. The oath is specified, word for word, in the Constitution, so he'd not even qualified then, since he took the wrong oath.
Article. [XX.]
Section. 1. The terms of the President and Vice President shall end at noon on the 20th day of January
Before he enter on the Execution of his Office, he shall take the following Oath or Affirmation: — "I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."
(Last piece of Art. I section 1).
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; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.
From Art 1. Section 1.
That's true, but in this context and case, the "fraud" would certainly be a "high crime" and thus an impeachable offense. Not that I'm holding my breath waiting for the 'Rat House to bring Articles of Impeachment.
Besides which, the doctore COLB leads directly to the conclusion that he's ineligible, on mulitiple grounds. Not necessary if having a British national father makes one not a natrual born citizen, but call it icing on the cake if he was not even native born, and possibly not even a citizen if he was not later naturalized. (And if he was, that would make "not natural born" pretty obvious).
You have mail.
Roger Dat,,,
At this point we have no Proof at all who his parents
were,,,where he was born or anything else about his life.
While I lean toward Kenya as his birthplace I guess it
could be Canada,,,
I don’t think it was Hawaii,,,
He’s spent a million? bucks to hide this fact,,,
Nothing else makes sense to me...
First, if it was offered purely as sarcasm, it has taken as axiomatically the opposite that Hawaii issued what Obama claims is his 'valid' CoLB.
Second, it goes from the axiomatic to the 'double meaning turning the syllogism back into its assumptions' ploy, a typical leftist tactic ... re, 'intentionally committed fraud' is assumed the opposite of what the reader would believe of the Hawaiian authorities, and the natural reasoning flows to 'must not be a fraudulent thing if issued by Hawaiian authorities, because they would not intentionally commit fraud'.
Third, the assertion aims to apply Occam's power, the simplest answer to this doubled-over assertion is 'there is no fraudulent document so Hawaii didn't commit fraud.'
If you catch Paul Begala on CNN and MSNBC occasionally, he uses this same technique to herd the undisciplined minds of CNN viewership whenever he wishes to slam a conservative or conservative principle(s). The offered 'Primer' uses this same approach in several places, strategically, when playing 'surely Caesar was an honorable man' or 'the man is an Hawaiian by birth but there are sticking points as to his genuineness in some minds'.
BS. Every word of it. I said it sarcastically, I meant it sarcastically. There was no hidden meaning, no double meaning, no implied meaning.
I make no definitive claim as to whether or not Obama has a valid Hawaiian birth certificate. Nobody knows that. Anybody who claims to know for sure one way or the other is wrong.
It’s not enough for you to attack the author’s intentions? Now you want to take my statement and use it against me to make me look like a troll with some ulterior motive? Go for it.
I didn’t make any of my objections to your comments personal. Why are you making this personal? I’m not out to prove you or Polarik or anybody else wrong. You’re entitled to whatever opinion you want to hold about the author. But you’re not entitled to twist my words into a meaning that was never implied and never intended.
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.