Let's prove Obama Was Born In Hawaii So we Can Move Onto His British Birth

NaturalBornCitizen Blog ^ | 09/21/2009 | Leo Donofrio

[BuckeyeTexan]

Let this post be fair warning… Leo Donofrio is now interested in the birth certificate… so that we can finally prove Obama was born in Hawaii and stop the never ending circus surrounding BIGFOOT – an official long form birth certificate for President Obama.

The nation faces a crucial legal question:

How can a person who admits to having been born a British citizen – governed at birth by British law – be a natural born citizen of the United States?

This is a very serious legal question. Obama's father was never a US citizen and was never permanently domiciled in the US. The leading Supreme Court decision in Wong Kim Ark indicates that the native born son of an alien is not natural born. There is no conspiracy theory attached to this question. Let's state it another way:

Can a person who is at birth a dual citizen be considered a natural born citizen for purposes of meeting the Constitution’s requirements to be POTUS?

That is in no way a conspiracy theory. The US State department web site - now run by Obama – tells us that dual citizens owe allegiance to both nations and that while on the soil of the foreign nation that nation has a greater claim to the person than the US. It is certainly not trivial for US citizens to ask whether dual citizenship at birth means a person is not a “natural born citizen” of the US.

But as long as the never ending search for Bigfoot continues to obscure the real legal question, the true issue here will not only be attached to the conspiracy theory, it will be ridiculed as well.

Because of the conundrum, this blog will now also be concerned with an investigation into the vital records of President Obama as well as an intense focus upon the activities of the Hawaii Department of Health and the Hawaii Office of Information Practices. I hope to one day put these officials under oath and cross-examine them thoroughly.

I have always believed that Obama was born in Hawaii and I expect this investigation will reveal that he was. Upon proving that he was born in Hawaii, we may uncover details which indicate that Obama and Hawaii government officials purposely used the birth certificate issue to distract the nation from his British birth problems. If a smokescreen can be made clear, the nation will better comprehend the Constitutional blasphemy inherent in the 2008 POTUS election and the current White House resident.

Should our investigation prove that he wasn’t born in Hawaii, I will be very surprised, but I am certainly open to that conclusion.

I have written this post as a preview to some very interesting research – documents and letters issued by the State of Hawaii – which have not been made public yet. I will be making those public very soon as they are the product of researchers I am working with. Stay tuned. It’s going to get interesting.

[BuckeyeTexan]

The U.S. Foreign Affairs Manual stipulates the following:

Ed. 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.

http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/86757.pdf

Our own government stipulates that one may be a citizen by birth but may not be a natural born citizen who is eligible to the Presidency. They clearly understand that the law is unsettled on this matter. These citizens are not naturalized, they’re citizens by birth. So it would seem there is a higher requirement to be a natural born citizen than just being a citizen by birth.

So if the goverment believes there is uncertainty as to their eligibility status, it is abundantly clear, to me, that we need a SCOTUS ruling on the clear definition of “natural born.” If Scalia believes that there are only two classes of citizenship, then we know how he’ll vote on this matter, but we need a vote.

[Vendome]

That is the way I see it.

[allmendream]

Very Interesting! I found this right below the passage you cited. I also find it interesting that they say that they are unsure if someone who is a “natural born citizen” by statute is a “natural born citizen” as required by the Constitution Article II. That would be quite a nit to pick. “Sure you are a natural born citizen.... by statute, but NOT for Constitutional purposes!”.

I agree that a ruling by the SCOTUS would be nice. And I definitely disagree with the opinion that nobody has “standing” because nobody was “harmed” by the 0bama Presidency. I feel “harmed” every time he opens his mouth and reveals what a bumbling incompetent he is.

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.”

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.

[BuckeyeTexan]

Now you see where I am on this issue. There are supporting documents for either side of this argument. So I say let’s get this in front of the SCOTUS and make them give us a definition once and for all. The best argument wins.

It’s ridiculous for the government to be publishing guidelines that further muddy the issue, but what else are they supposed to say? The SCOTUS is the one and only authority on the matter and to date, they’re silent!

[Non-Sequitur]

So if the goverment believes there is uncertainty as to their eligibility status, it is abundantly clear, to me, that we need a SCOTUS ruling on the clear definition of “natural born.” If Scalia believes that there are only two classes of citizenship, then we know how he’ll vote on this matter, but we need a vote.

So how you going to get it? Through Orly's antics? No standing to sue on the part of her plaintiffs. How else?

[Non-Sequitur]

The true meaning of "Natural Born Citizen" is clearly given therein, and you refuse to accept it.

Where? Which one?

Federalist Papers

[Non-Sequitur]

How does a devoted Obummanite manage to stay here lying, deflecting, and dissembling?

If lying, deflecting, and dissembling were grounds for banishment then based on your performance here it appears that you'd be long gone.

[BuckeyeTexan]

Certainly not through Orly’s pathetic display of legal ability. She’s a joke.

Since I don’t believe that any of the cases thus far have really had standing, I don’t think directly suing Barack Obama is going to force the SCOTUS to hear the issue. No one except John McCain can demonstate unique injury.

I believe we’re going to have to force the responsible authorities in each state who approve candidate applications for the ballot to obtain a ruling from the courts themselves. That’s what I’m working on in Texas. My complaint won’t seek to address the results of the 2008 election because I think the courts won’t even consider entertaining such a case now. I’ll seek to prevent Obama’s name on the 2012 ballot.

Others can focus on Quo Warranto and obtaining Obama’s vital records in Hawaii.

[Non-Sequitur]

I believe we’re going to have to force the responsible authorities in each state who approve candidate applications for the ballot to obtain a ruling from the courts themselves.

FWIW I agree that the only way anything concerning requiring the president to produce proof of his or her qualification is going to get done is through the states.

Illegal for private citizens unless filed in the D.C. courts.

[Jude in WV]

It sounds to me, as if by this definition, you are saying that any foreigner, student, tourist, etc. can give birth to a baby on American soil and that child is a natural born citizen. Is that right?

I don’t agree. I think “subject to US jurisdiction” is the key point to citizenship.

[Jude in WV]

http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2009/08/law-of-nations-and-not-english-common.html

[Sibre Fan]

It sounds to me, as if by this definition, you are saying that any foreigner, student, tourist, etc. can give birth to a baby on American soil and that child is a natural born citizen. Is that right? I don’t agree. I think “subject to US jurisdiction” is the key point to citizenship.

Under the law as it stands today, that is right. Under the law, as it stands today (Supreme Court precedent), "subject to US jurisdiction," means subject to the laws of the US, and all foreign visitors, immigrants (legal or illegal) are subject to the laws of the US.

For the last decade or so, multiple organizations such as the Heritage Foundation, Eagle Forum and others have filed amicus briefs in the Supreme Court when this issue has been raised, even tangentially, by a case. They argue that the law should be changed, such that a child born to a foreign visitor or immigrant (legal or illegal) should not be so considered. To date, the Supreme Court has declined to take up the issue. The most "famous" (or - infamous) recent case was Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, decided in, IIRC, 2004. There, the issue was whether a combatant captured in Afghanistan was entitled to constitutional protections because he was born in the U.S. while his Saudi parents were here on a work visa. They made multiple arguments, including the "subject to jurisdiction" argument. The Supreme Court accepted the briefs -- but still held that he was a citizen entitled to constitutional protections. (In his dissent, Scalia indicated some "doubt" possibly, by referring to Hamdi as a "presumed" US citizen.)

The amici in those cases raised some very good arguments. However, even those organizations recognized that the law, as it stands today grants such citizenship. They have been working hard - and will continue, I suspect to work hard to change the law.