Posted on 06/14/2009 9:58:45 PM PDT by DavidFarrar
I have recently been bringing this debate over Obama's U.S. citizenship over at Talking Points Memo. Needles to say, I have received some heat for my efforts. But I have received an interesting response. One that I have been unable to get around. I hope I can find some answers here.
(Excerpt) Read more at tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com ...
Not so fast. There is no proof that Obama was born in Hawaii, and the mounting evidence is pointing towards a birth in Africa. At the time of his alleged birth, his mother was under eighteen and his father was a British national here in this country on a student visa. His mom was too young to automatically pass along her citizenship to him, and if Obama was not born on US soil, then he is not even a US citizen, let alone a natural-born one.
that is not the issue.
That is exactly half of the issue.
What is at issue is if he is a natural born citizen.
Yes, but that is not the only issue, nor is it the one that would actually remove him from office.
And the only way that can be is if he was born on US soil.
True!
and the only way to prove that is his ORIGINAL long form BC, but strangely and suspiciously, has sealed his long form
Both true! If the paper original long-form actually exists.
he has released a short form COLB
Not true! He had someone fabricate a forged COLB image and post it on the Internet.
His supporters insist that the COLB is good enough.
True! But it would not be good enough. even if it were real.
So if there is nothing to hide, then why hide the original long form?
Exactly! If the paper original long-form actually exists.
If Why pay thousands of dollars in legal fees to keep it sealed?
True, but it's up to $1 million, and counting. The legal fees are to keep hidden his true birth origins
Given that, among other evidence, I strongly suspect that he is not a natural born citizen.
Give that FReeper a cigar but don't light it just yet ;-)
There is no link in Post 51.
There are court cases all over the place. Parents both citizens, born anywhere, Born in the US, parents don’t matter, and Parents must be citizens, born in the US.
Well I've read the ones which say the nationality of the parent doesn't matter but I'm not familiar with a single court decision that supports the idea that only a person born in the U.S. of two U.S. citizen parents is a natural born citizen. Nor am I familiar with any case that defines three or more classes of citizenship. Can you point me to one?
And what are your ‘certain specific circumstances’?
Currently? A person born born outside of the U.S. and its outlying possessions of parents, both of whom are citizens of the U.S. and one of whom has lived in the U.S. or one of its outlying possessions before the birth; a person born outside of the U.S. and its outlying possessions of parents, one of whom is a citizen of the United States who had lived in the U.S. or one of its outlying possessions for a continuous period of one year prior to the birth and the other of whom is a national, but not a citizen of the U.S.; a person born in an outlying possession of the U.S. of parents, one of whom is a citizen who had lived in the United States or one of its outlying possessions for a continuous period of one year at any time prior to the birth; or a person born outside the U.S. and its outlying possessions of parents; one of whom is an alien, and the other a citizen of the U.S. who, prior to the birth, had lived in the U.S. or its outlying possessions for at least a total of five years, at least two of which were after attaining the age of fourteen years.
These are things ambiguous enough that a public hearing should be held, both as to facts and interpretation of law.
Which, amazingly enough, are all that are identified by the Constitution.
NS doesn’t recognize anything special regarding natural born citizen, for the purposes of conflating the issues to fit his/her/its approach to illiciting reactions on the threads.
Nonsense, a natural born citizen is someone who's born in the states or under circumstances that the law says qualifies them for natural born status. That's pretty special to me. Beats the hell out of being a natural born Iranian citizen or a natural born North Korean citizen.
This discussion is a source for personal amusement for Non-Sequitur, by his/her/its own admission on previous occasions.
I do find the extents to which you will go to bend the Constitution and the law to fit your narrow requirements amusing. I admit that freely.
ANYONE can walk into Hawaii's DOH, at any time, and tell them that he's never had a copy of his birth certificate. All he has to do next is (a) fill out a COLB request, (b) sign a statement that he was born in Hawaii, (c) provide proof of identity:a drivers' license or government-issued ID would work, and (d) proof of residency for the past year, and...
BINGO! A freshly printed COLB!
If the requester has an original birth certificate on file, and wants to amend it, all he has to do is (a) and (c), and...
BINGO! A freshly printed COLB!
The Constitution addresses for definition how one is defined as a citizen however, and there are two ways to meet that, by naturalization or by being born on U.S. soil and/or by having one or more parents be a U.S. citizen of legitimate age. And there are scotus cases which have been cited as illustrative of these citienship definitions.
That you continue to try and conflate the fourteenth amendment explanation of citizenship with the as yet unelucidated means to be a natural born citizen is quite telling, unless one recalls your admission that you play on these threads as a means to feed your twisted desire to incite emotional responses from Freepers, as if you've appointed yourself to be the exposer of freerepublic as populated by emotional, irrational folks. In sports, mocking is penalized, but fortunately for people like you, Freerepublic does not regulate such insulting behavior, since it is left to freepers to cite it for fellow readers.
Your Bagalaesque condescension drips from your smarmy dissembling posts.
In an action under law a pleading can make multiple claims, they can be contradictory claims. On that basis, in order to request full discovery in this matter I claim the following:
(1) Obama was not born to any parent who held US citizenship at the time of his birth.
(2) Obama was not born in the US.
(3) Obama is at birth a citizen of Kenya, then a colony of the British Empire due to his father Barack Obama’s citizenship.
(4) Obama is currently a citizen of Kenya, as that nation became independent of Britain, and all citizens of the colony became citizens of Kenya.
(5) Obama is not the son of Barack Obama, Kenyan.
(6) Obama’s actual birth father is unknown.
(7) Obama was adopted by Stanley Anne Dunham while he was an infant. He is of unknown birth parents.
(8) Obama is the child of Stanley Anne Dunham and she knew who the birth father was, and it was not Barack Obama.
(9) Obama’s mother SA Dunham was never married to Barack Obama.
(10) Obama’s mother moved to Indonesia and married Lolo Soetoro who then adopted Barack Obama.
(11) Obama is a citizen of Indonesia, a status gained when he was adopted by Mr. Soetoro.
(12) Obama returned to the US as a child but retained his Indonesian citizenship.
(13) At 20 years of age Obama renounced his claim to US citizenship by traveling to Pakistan under Indonesian passport.
(13) At 20 years of age Obama renounced his claim to US citizenship by traveling to Pakistan under Kenyan or British passport.
(13) At 20 years of age Obama renounced his claim to US citizenship by traveling to Pakistan under Kenyan or Canadian passport.
(14) Obama was born in Canada.
(15) Obama attended US colleges and received preferential admission by enrolling as a foreign exchange student from Indonesia.
(16) Obama is not a US citizen because he relinquished his citizenship and took a foreign citizenship as a adult.
(17) Obama is not a natural born citizen because he father was not a US citizn, and natural born status requires that both parents be US citizens or that the father be unknown.
“From what I’ve read, Hawaii started a major scam shortly after they became a state. Hawaii decided to “convert” all of their Asian immigrants into Hawaiian citizens by sending them short-form birth certificates. These new citizens would then make it possible for Hawaii to receive federal monies for the social services, health services, and educational services that they provided to this undocumented Asian population.”
And Hawaii was never called on this? Didn’t realize the state just mailed them the forms. I thought they had to ask/apply for it.
Granny was no dummy and made sure her new grandson would receive all the benefits of being a citizen, albeit not a natural born one.
Too bad FR no longer posts polling questions. Your listing of the pleadings at post #127 would be a good one!
Thanks bvw and Gemsbok. There’s a lot of important information in this thread. . . bookmarked.
Ping to #127.
“This is why I would really like to see that erroneously marked seal on his COLB. That would be dispositive.”
Let me continue from yesterday (and please excuse me if this has been answered above).
A lot of effort has been made by qualified FReepers to address the authenticity of the COLB that O placed in the public realm.
What ultimately will be dispositive of the issue is the statement by the Hawaiian official (to be obtained under oath) that Polarik has described for us, together with the expert testimony of the several professionals who have examined the document.
You may have read elsewhere in this thread that
“No one is saying he is not a citizen...”
That statement is entirely incorrect and misses an important point.
First the fact: O’s mother was not of sufficient age to confer U.S. citizenship on an O born in Kenya or Canada (per statute and explained on State’s current website).
Thus, if it is established O was born in either of those two locations there is no question he is unqualified to hold his office. To say nothing of the rest of his life.
Thank you, Mr. Polarik,
That seems to have cleared that issue up.
As to the seal issue, I was given a link, which didn’t actually open up correctly. But there seems to be some question about Obama’s copy of his COLB on his website being embossed with the wrong stamp. However, to date I haven’t seen any photographic evidence to support this claim. If such evidence exists, that would be very important, it would seem to me. Do you have any suggestions as to where this evidence can be substantiated?
ex animo
davidfarrar
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"...At the time of the adoption of this Constitution only nine (9) of the fifty-five (55) delegates who actually attended the 1786-1787 Federal Convention in Philadelphia to draw up the Constitution had been born beyond the shores of the Republic. So if "natural born" meant the same thing to the framers of the Constitution as did being born in this country, why the "or"? Clearly, "natural born" was not only seen by these gentlemen as being different than a U.S. citizen, but something superior to just being a U.S. citizen. To me, in my studies on this subject, that difference can be nothing but having both parents U.S. citizens at the time of birth. ex animo davidfarrar
Because at the time most of the delegates were born the country didn't exist?
Clearly, "natural born" was not only seen by these gentlemen as being different than a U.S. citizen, but something superior to just being a U.S. citizen.
Natural born is seen as superior as naturalized. The founders did believe that the president should have a birth tie to the country, and not just anyone who moved here at a later point in life and who became a citizen should be allowed to hold the highest office. But what the founders did not do is define 'natural born' as somehow higher than the run-of-the-mill person born in the U.S. The Constitution does not make that distinction. Anywhere. It clearly divides citizenship into two classes; natural born and naturalized. If you're not one then you're the other.
No, it's Congress' job to define it. The Constitution grants Congress the authority to establish a uniform rule for naturalization. Part of defining who can be naturalized is identifying who doesn't need to be. In other words who is a natural born citizen.
The Constitution addresses for definition how one is defined as a citizen however, and there are two ways to meet that, by naturalization or by being born on U.S. soil and/or by having one or more parents be a U.S. citizen of legitimate age. And there are scotus cases which have been cited as illustrative of these citienship definitions.
Agreed. The Ark case and the Elg decision are two examples where the Supreme Court ruled that the nationality of the parent was irrelevant to whether a person born in the U.S. is a natural born citizen.
That you continue to try and conflate the fourteenth amendment explanation of citizenship with the as yet unelucidated means to be a natural born citizen is quite telling...
But the means to be a natural born citizen has been elucidated. The definition has been defined and refined by Congress on a number of occasions. Currently it can be found Here, in Title 8 > Chapter 12 > Subchapter III > Part I > § 1401 of the U.S. Code.
...unless one recalls your admission that you play on these threads as a means to feed your twisted desire to incite emotional responses from Freepers, as if you've appointed yourself to be the exposer of freerepublic as populated by emotional, irrational folk.
Nonsense
Why do you hate America?
I don't.
Why do I hate Albania?
Why do you lie about your deep visceral hatred of America?
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.