Replies

> Have you ever read Wong?

You mean where the SCOTUS ruled that under the Fourteenth Amendment, a child born in the United States of parents of foreign descent who, at the time of the child's birth are subjects of a foreign power but who have a permanent domicile and residence in the United States and are carrying on business in the United States, and are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under a foreign power, and are not members of foreign forces in hostile occupation of United States territory, becomes a citizen of the United States at the time of birth.

That ruling, Parsley?

Yeah, I've seen it. I don't think Wong Kim Ark was running for President, though. And the case did NOT rule upon the definition of "Natural Born Citizen," ESPECIALLY in the context of Article II, Section 1, Clause 5.
That is, unless I missed something ... hold on, let me check ... NO, I didn't.

Further, I don't think that Barack Obama SR had a "permanent domicile and residence in the United States," either at University of Hawaii OR at Harvard when he was on leave from the British Empire (near Mombasa) in 1961 ... unless I missed something ... hold on, let me check ... NO, I didn't.

Yet another After-Birther myth de-bunked ...

So, Parsley ...

In Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898), which addresses citizens and the native born,
did they have prima facie that appeared in the Courtroom? I mean, there are standards
for jurisprudence ... even back at the start of the "Progressive Age" when Judges started
to falsely believe the Constitution was a "breathing document."

File:Sworn Statement of Witnesses verifying Departure Statement of Wong Kim Ark.gif

DO you think the Justices accepted a black and white PICTURE of witness statements
supporting Wong Kim Ark's claim of native born status, or do you think they would have
insisted on an ACTUAL certified copy of that document before accepting it as "FACT".
Hmmm, maybe they just used the Internet ...

Seriously ... in the case of a BRITISH Subject like Obama, in order for
Obama's "birth certificate" to be accepted as a legal "fact" —
as HRS 338-13(b) and 338.19 permits — the "birth certificate" should
at least have the common courtesy to appear in Court. It NEVER has.

As the Certification says very clearly:

“This copy serves as prima facia evidence

NOT

"This COPY OF A copy serves as prima facie evidence of the fact of birth in any court proceeding."

In one of the early cases, I think it Bob Bauer, who footnoted FactChuck.org to allege Obama’s nativity story was legit. This was the closest the alleged COLB ever got to being seen in court. But all he said was that this amateur, Obama-linked Web site came to a conclusion that Obama was legit and only tangentially mentioned the existence of a publicly released birth certificate.

Here’s the problem. Why cite a third-party opinion when the document has to be presented in court, like you point out, in order to have full legal weight?? It’s admissable in court (if legit), so the appropriate move is to admit the actual document and not Web-based hearsay.

“but who have a permanent domicile and residence in the United States and are carrying on business in the United States, and are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under a foreign power,”

I think I have already sent you the appropriate language
which refutes the permanent domicile stuff. Do I need to re -send it?

“DO you think the Justices accepted a black and white PICTURE of witness statements
supporting Wong Kim Ark’s claim of native born status, or do you think they would have
insisted on an ACTUAL certified copy of that document before accepting it as “FACT”.
Hmmm, maybe they just used the Internet ...”

No, they did not have the internet in 1898. GOTCHA!!! (I am just doing an imitation of edge19!)

Actually, the point here is, Obama hasn’t had to present the COLB, because no court action has made it that far, yet. Should it, I fully expect him to have to present a certified COLB. Which I have no doubt he will.

“Yeah, I’ve seen it. I don’t think Wong Kim Ark was running for President, though. And the case did NOT rule upon the definition of “Natural Born Citizen,” ESPECIALLY in the context of Article II, Section 1, Clause 5.
That is, unless I missed something ... hold on, let me check ... NO, I didn’t.”

No, I think you missed most of it. Wong came to the decision that a “natural born citizen” is one born inside the country, subject to the stated exemptions, which do not apply to Obama.

The question of whether there is some other qualification which is necessary for a president, HAS NOT yet been put to the SCOTUS. But, after reading Wong, should this matter ever get to SCOTUS, I know where I am going to put my money....

I sort of doubt that it will make to SCOTUS. Some lower federal court will so rule, and the appeals court will affirm, and SCOTUS will refuse to take. Unless SCOTUS has original jurisidiction in these questions, which I have not looked up.

parsy

The SCOTUS has never ruled definitively on the definition of natural born citizen and the Constitution itself does not define it. That much is indisputable fact.

Whether or not Barack Obama Sr. had a permanent domicile in the U.S. is not immediately clear.

One could argue that he did since he attended college in Hawaii for an extended period of time, married an American citizen, and (supposedly) set up residence with her for the purpose of raising a child. He then went on to attend college on the mainland for some period of time.

(I declare my home in Texas as my permanent main residence for tax purposes. If I sell it and move to Seattle, the house in Texas was still my permanent residence for the period of time I lived there.)

On the other hand, one could argue that Obama Sr. did not have a permanent residence because he was attending college on scholarship with the full intention to return to Kenya to put his education to use. That he married an American citizen could be attributed to the fact that he knocked her up and felt pressured to marry her. It could be that his tribal marriage in Kenya negated his marriage to Dunham because some tribal marriages were recognized by GB.