Posted on 11/07/2008 11:00:42 AM PST by big black dog
The fact is that if Obama wanted to settle this issue once and for all it could be done very simply. The fact that he refuses to do so leads me to believe that he is attempting to deceive us and therefore I refuse to support him.
“It’s over. Hawaii says it’s a legal birth certificate.”
Exactly. This issue is a waste of time.
What is being shown is a printout of a Certificate of Live Birth from the data on file. But in Hawaii these digital forms can be given out for people born abroad to American citizens.
Wait. So you're saying that the State of Hawaii would issue a document saying that someone was born in Honolulu when they were in fact born overseas? Seriously?
Preposterous. We don't need to sink this low - we still have the substantive advantage, until we destroy our credibility with this nonsense.
“Obama, through no fault of his own, might have lost his U.S. citizenship — either through residency requirements or by the fact that he was legally adopted by an Indoneasian.”
That isn’t how it works. Nowhere does the Constitution say that. Residency requirements do not exist. I could be born in the US and live every day after that abroad and i’d still be an American citizen until I renounce it. Nor does foreign adoption do anything.
The fact is that if Obama wanted to settle this issue once and for all it could be done very simply. The fact that he refuses to do so leads me to believe that he is attempting to deceive us and therefore I refuse to support him.
He did. He had the State of Hawaii issue him a new copy of the birth certificate.
I needed a new copy of my birth certficate, so I went down to the county building and was issued a brand-spanking new computer printout, similar in form to the one Obama released. When I needed another copy of my son's birth certificate, I got one identical in form to mine.
This is what Hawaii issues. The state says it's legit. It's a dead issue, and a loser for us.
The more we persist with this nonsense the less credibility we'll have, and consequently the more he'll have. We must attack him on actual substance, which is still our strength.
Jackson was from Tennessee, not born there. That’s where the reference to “west of the Appalachians” comes from.
There has long been a dispute between North and South Carolina (even debated in Congress in 1929) over where Jackson was born.
I don’t know if Eckert is correct or not in his assertion that Jackson was born at sea.
My point was that the “controversy” over where Jackson was born could “potentially” be used to establish a precedent that even though questions exist about where he was actually born, Jackson did ultimately hold the office of President.
But, yes, Jackson was a citizen when the Constitution was adopted and was therefore eligible for the presidency. I’m not sure why the author claims otherwise.
The problem that I have with these reports, however, is that they tend to ignore the possible scenario that Communist USA citizen Frank Marshall Davis was Obama's real father. This increases the possibility that Obama is a natural-born USA citizen, regardless that he obviously doesn't doesn't want to discuss this family matter publicly. That's somewhat understandable.
But yes, all stones need to be turned over to get Constitution-ignoring Socialist Obama out of the Oval Office. In fact, if the people would get off their hands and insist that the federal government starts respecting the limited powers delegated to it by the Constitution, then Obama would be a lame-duck president already.
You said:
“If we really believe in the rule of law, then we acceot Hawaii’s verdict and finally let this issue rest.”
_____________________________________________________
Please tell me exactly when “Hawaii’s verdict” came in?
Your just making statements up to prove YOUR assumptions.
Look, some of us still care about upholding our Constitution.
I don’t want to move forward in this country if we don’t uphold our existing laws. It will not be a country worth keeping.
Why can’t you understand that.
If you don’t have any interest in our the nation that our founding fathers put together, then fine.
But, please butt out of this issue.
WE CARE. We are tired of defending the Constitution to people like you who think it doesn’t matter.
Constitutionally, yes he would be disqualified. But nobody cares about that stuff anymore, least of all the people who have sworn oaths to it.
Somebody is misinterpreting this. It would mean that a child born to a younger woman would be discriminated against. I find this highly unlikely.
I am researching the Nationality Act of 1940, as amended, to see just what it says.
It has been amended many times, even recently.
However, at least in the most recent amendments, the new provision did not change the citizenship status prior to each change.
If one had been previously determined to be natural born - he stayed so. Same for a naturalized citizen.
Per Berg’s Petition For Writ of Certiorari at SCOTUS:
“The laws on the books at the time of Obama’s birth required the U.S. Citizen to have resided in the United States for ten (10) years, five (5) of which were after the age of fourteen (14). Obama’s mother was only 18 when Obama was born in Kenya. Nationality Act of 1940, revised June 1952; United States of America v. Cervantes-Nava, 281 F.3d 501 (2002); Drozd v. I.N.S., 155 F.3d 81, 85-88 (2d Cir.1998).”
I want to find the exact text applicable in 1961 before I post my findings.
I have a problem with something that really hasn't been mentioned much, i.e. why is he BHO II, and not BHO jr?. Traditionally, your son is named jr and someone else's son is II.
So perhaps his Hawaii BC does list another as his father.
Here’s an additional nugget - Obama is in BIG trouble if he was born in Kenya ...
Montana v. Kennedy (366 U.S. 308 (1961)), decided May 22, 1961:
The Supreme Court ruled that a child born abroad prior to May 24, 1934, to an American citizen mother did not acquire American citizenship at birth, since at that time citizenship at birth was transmitted only by a citizen father.
Although subsequent legislation conferred upon American women the power to transmit citizenship to their children born abroad, such legislation was not retroactive and did not bestow citizenship on persons born before the enactment of such legislation.
Man ... did I just f**k up, I am SOOO sorry.
I COMPLETELY missed the birth date of the child.
I am flogging myself with a wet noodle - I promise to be more careful.
The Ayatollah Hussein IS NOT the President elect yet, and may never be. We will see what the Electors decide mid-December about supporting an illegal alien as President of the US. McCain may yet win.
True, but your post says he was born west of the Appalachians. He wasn't.
a few weeks after the child’s birth and she was already in Washington, unless she’d given birth in Canaday instead of Hawaii.
She didn’t know how to change a diaper by then either, supposedly.
You said: “If we really believe in the rule of law, then we acceot Hawaii’s verdict and finally let this issue rest.”
_____________________________________________________
Please tell me exactly when “Hawaii’s verdict” came in?
Your just making statements up to prove YOUR assumptions.
No, I'm not. Looks like you don't have all the facts.
Anyone really interested in defending the Constiution wouldn't waste a minute of our time on this nonsense, not to mention squandering what remains of our credibility.
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.