DOH indirectly confirms: Factcheck COLB date filed and certificate number impossible

Butterdezillion | Feb 23, 2010 | Butterdezillion

[Las Vegas Ron]

Condescending little defender of the won, aren't you.

Somebody find out where your goat was tied?

[parsifal]

The Disrespectful Drone says, Most of what you said is wrong and not worthy of response. You are just peeved because you couldn’t smack me around on the Birther stuff.

The one thing you did say that is worth response is:

” Alexander Porter Morse’s 1881 treatise on: “citizenship, by birth and by naturalization, with reference to the law of nations, Roman civil law, law of the United States of America, and the law of France; including provisions in the federal Constitution, and in the several state constitutions, in respect of citizenship; together with decisions thereon of the federal and state courts”

and I recommend it to all patriots who wish to debate these DRONES”

No, birthers. Don’t waste your time. Not unless you enjoy reading for the joy of reading. Lookie at a calendar. 1881 is BEFORE 1898 by 17 years. 1898 is when Wong was decided.

Which is later? I submit 1898, but when one is debating with birthers, one can never be sure such things will be accepted without much argument and distress. That book isn’t LAW. It will never be LAW. Wong is LAW and will be until, if ever, it is overturned.

Since Wong was cited, as good law, only a few months ago, and used to determine that Obama was a natural born citizen, Wong is probably going to be a lot better read.

parsy, who is buzzing in defiance of the Queen Bee!

[Las Vegas Ron]

Bwaahahaha! Isn't it a bit too early in the day to be consuming so much koolaide?

BT has an intravenous feed.

[patlin]

And, why don't you go on and tell the folks that the Indiana ruling is not precedent setting for constitutional purposes?

No lower court rulings are. They are only precedent if they reach the SCOTUS and the SCOTUS upholds those rulings.

So I say, let's get the case before the SCOTUS.

[parsifal]

“AMEN! I, for one, would LOVE TO SEE A BIRTHER NARRATIVE. Because such a thing doesn’t actually exist ....”

Brother, did you ever say a mouthful!

parsy, who is ROTFLMAO!!!

[El Sordo]

“How does a free country become a tyranny..”

Good question, isn’t it?

A better question, given human history, might be how does a free country happen at all?

That said...

Quite often it was because the population demanded it. For our modern age, that may very well be the greatest lesson. In general, people demand tyranny because they become convinced that tyranny is the solution to their problems.

Though I’m pretty confident that no free country ever became a tyranny due to the circumstances of birth of an elected leader.

But what we’re talking about here is more a matter of perceptions of current events. No matter who is in power you’ll be able to find someone, somewhere who is convinced that those in power are engaged in something nasty.

Reagan was going to implement martial law to keep himself in office. Then Bush the Elder was going to do it. Then Clinton was going to use the military to avoid impeachment and stay in office and continue selling tainted blood (If you could pull up the Mia T posts from 1992 through 2000 you’d be in for quite a ride). Then Bush ChimpyMcHitler and his illegal war for oil started by a false flag operation that killed thousands of Americans….

But, all of that passed. It passed because none of it was true and there was never any evidence for it, just what people wanted to believe. It was, at best, well intentioned people who couldn’t grasp events. And at worst, foul folks who simply had no interest in truth only in venting their own anger and frustration.

I really don’t think I can convince you, I don’t plan to really try. I just want you to remember these conversations in four years when the pendulum swings the other way and you hear allegations of President Palin having sold oil rights in Alaskan wilderness refuges to gain the dirty money she used to steal the 2012 election and how the GOP used displaced caribou to intimidate minority voters. And of course, how she will be planning a military coup in order to declare herself Emperess.

A few days ago I sent you a link to a Townhall.com column by Jonah Goldberg. That column was somewhat pertinent to your question. You might check it out if you haven’t had the chance yet.

Here’s a link to that same article at National Review for anyone else who might be interested: http://article.nationalreview.com/425923/better-here-than-there/jonah-goldberg

If you want to delve into this further, I strongly recommend the following books:

Vision of the Anointed by Thomas Sowell

The True Believer, by Eric Hoffer

The Paranoid Style in American Politics, by Richard Hofstadter

As well as anything else ever written by Thomas Sowell, Eric Hoffer or Victor David Hanson.

[BuckeyeTexan]

Grow up. You’re not too ignorant to realize that there is no law federal or state that requires a presidential candidate to produce his birth certificate. Until such a law exists, forcing Oblahblah to produce his is political theater.

[BuckeyeTexan]

No. Actually I consulted a federal judge in Dallas for whom my mother works as a court reporter. He’s conservative ... very conservative.

[Fred Nerks]

If you want to know what Barbara Nelson said in the original interview you won’t find it because the article has been removed:

http://www.buffalonews.com/2009/01/20/554495/teacher-from-kenmore-recalls-obama.html

But she repeats herself in the WND interview:

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=87233

“...”I just said tell me something [that has happened],” she said. “And he says Stanley had a baby, and that’s something to write home about.”

NOTICE: THERE’S NO WHERE OR WHEN THERE.

[patlin]

Why don't you highlight the PROPER part?

I know, because it doesn't help your argument.

7 FAM 1131.6-2 Eligibility for Presidency
(TL:CON-68; 04-01-1998)
a. It has never been determined definitively by a court whether a person who acquired U.S. citizenship by birth abroad to U.S. citizens is a natural born citizen within the meaning of Article II of the Constitution and, therefore, eligible for the Presidency.

b. Section 1, Article II, of the Constitution states, in relevant part that “No Person except a natural born Citizen ... shall be eligible for the Office of President;”

c. The Constitution does not define “natural born”. The “Act to establish an Uniform Rule of Naturalization”, enacted March 26, 1790, (1 Stat. 103,104) provided that, “...the children of citizens of the United States, that may be born ... out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born citizens: Provided that the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in the United States.”

d. This statute is no longer operative, however, and its formula is not included in modern nationality statutes. In any event, the fact that someone is a natural born citizen pursuant to a statute does not necessarily imply that he or she is such a citizen for Constitutional purposes.

[BP2]

Pansy, I've read the Wong Kim Ark Opinion — as well as Justice Fuller's Dissenting Opinion — numerous times, especially in dealing with After-Birthers like yourself. When I point out exact references to you, and you stutter-step and say the Wong is not the correct reference for you to use, it's obvious that your understanding of it extends no further than your hand-fed bullet points.

Wong Kim Ark's Dissenting Opinion is obviously the Dissenting Opinion, but it's also VERY instructive of how Justice Roberts will proceed when this issue is accepted at the SCOTUS. The answer lies in looking at the Framers' intent.

To that end — as I've instructed you on over and over again — EVEN Justice Gray CLEARLY re-iterated the MINOR v. HAPPERSETT majority Opinion (as reaffirmed by your Judge Dreyer):

“The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar”

THAT means that Justice Gray acknowledged, as Justice Roberts has on other Constitutional questions — and will affirm on Natural Born Citizen — that the answer lies in looking at “Original Intent”, NOT 20th Century Case Law from Liberal judges.

ORIGINAL INTENT certainly doesn't involve looking at a 1896 version of “Digest of the Law of England with Reference to the Conflict of Laws” as your APPEALS OF INDIANA opinion from Judge Dreyer does. How laughable!

I'm not sure why this is so hard for you to understand ...

... well, actually I have a pretty good idea of why it is.

[Fred Nerks]

Too much logic, too much common sense, who’s going to believe THAT? sarc.

[BuckeyeTexan]

Leo has since removed his correspondence with Okubo from his website. But I believe he (or TerriK) made a specific request for index data regarding any amended vital records for Barack Hussein Obama or Barry Soetoro and Okubo responded that there were no vital records in the Birth Index that met that requirement.

Danae and rxsid posted on Leo’s blog too. They may remember what I’m talking about or have more information.

[parsifal]

Easy. Nothing to it, and in facts backs up Wong!

From you:

c. The Constitution does not define “natural born”. The “Act to establish an Uniform Rule of Naturalization”, enacted March 26, 1790, (1 Stat. 103,104) provided that, “...the children of citizens of the United States, that may be born ... out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born citizens: Provided that the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in the United States.”

d. This statute is no longer operative, however, and its formula is not included in modern nationality statutes. In any event, the fact that someone is a natural born citizen pursuant to a statute does not necessarily imply that he or she is such a citizen for Constitutional purposes.

WHAT THAT is saying, is that no “statute” can define what natural born citizen is, because the Constitution is where that term is contained, and you can’t AMEND the Constitution by statute. Obvious. Congress can’t pass a law to Amend or interpret the Constitution. If they could, we would all have to run for the hills! Congress could decide that a “militia” is the national guard and take our guns. Changes to the Constitution or interpretations thereof are by Amendments or judicial interpretation. And Thank God it is!

parsy, who figured there was more to it.

[BuckeyeTexan]

Dumbass, the part you underlined undermines YOUR position not mine.

My position is that not all natural born citizens are necessarily eligible to the presidency.

What’s your position?

[parsifal]

Already have. But the fact that it used Wong, shows the trend and that Wong is still considered GOOD LAW. If Wong were BAD LAW, the Court would not have cited it. And the reasoning is important. Judges do not like being overturned. If the judge had thought Wong was suspect or flaky law, he would have found some other way to drop kick the birthers out the door.

Birthers, LEARN TO LIVE WITH WONG!

parsy, who says this is too easy....bzzzz...bzzzz

[edge919]

Brother, did you ever say a mouthful!

Brother?? Dude you misspelled 'birther' this time or are you saying that YOU are a 'birther' and I'm your brother??Nice meltdown.

[BP2]

WOW, Buckey, I'm impressed. Very Good.

We here have been pointing this out to After-Birthers for about 16 months now, but it's still good to see you trying to help instruct Parsley that there are more than two types of Citizens:

d. This statute is no longer operative, however, and its formula is not included in modern nationality statutes. In any event, the fact that someone is a natural born citizen pursuant to a statute does not necessarily imply that he or she is such a citizen for Constitutional purposes.

The only Federal office that requires the person be a "Natural Born Citizen" is as equally UNIQUE as — under our Constitution — there is only ONE Head of State. There can be only ONE, and by its very nature, the office of President has unique Eligibility requirements as set forth by the Framers.

[parsifal]

Congratulations! I am proud of you!

Now lets take your point.

The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar”

WHAT THAT MEANS: Is that since it ain’t defined, the Wong court has to determine what the Framers meant. After reading Wong, you will now realize that is exactly what the Wong court did. That is why you see all those wierd cites to Coke, and other people in England. Coke by the way, was an English Judge, so the cite is to his decision.

So, your blurb means nothing, except TO BACK UP WHAT I HAVE BEEN TELLING YOU. Wong is good law. It was based on the original intent of the Framers as determined by the Court.

Now, today, an attorney could argues that the Wong court got it wong, er wrong. He might win. I doubt it. Two reasons:

....1. The Wong Court didn’t make a mistake. They got it right.

....2. Wong is established law, and to overturn requires a real real real good reason, which don’t exist.

That’s the reality. You know its reality because I gave yu a link to the 3 month old Indiana case.

Now, I have a question for you: Why did i say your Blackstone statement was crazy and bizarre? If you know, feel free to say so.

parsy, who is so proud you read the dang case!

[BP2]

Parsley: "I know I'm wrong, but I'm going to pretend that I'm not!"