Posted on 09/21/2009 11:32:45 AM PDT by BuckeyeTexan
My contention is he was born in Kenya, and here are the stats:
* This is correctly a typed document Copy submitted to
court and was issued on Feb 19, 2009 by
Hilton Magonga:Chief Administrator
Issued by: Coast Province General Hospital
Mombasa British Protectorate of Kenya
Certificate Number 32018
DOB August 4, 1961 Time: 7:42PM
Weight: 7Lbs, 1 Oz
18” Long
Width at Shoulders: 6”
Mother: Stanley Ann Obama
Maiden Name: Dunham
Birthplace of Mother:
Wichita, KS, United States
Residence of Mother:
Honalulu, Hawaii, United States
Occupation of Mother: Student
Father:
Barak Hussein Obama
DOB: 1936
Birthplace of Father:
Kanyadhiang village,Kenya
Occupation of Father: Student
Attending Physician:
James O. W. Ang’Awa
Hospital Administrator:
John Kwame Odongo 8/7/1961
__________________________________________________
Why doesn’t this get more “play”?
Looks good to me.
Who could make up all these names out of thin air? Are they made up? Disproved in some way?
Thread needed?
What about the DNC creating TWO, nearly identical documents, certifying him but one of the two leaves off the statement that he is constitutionally qualified ???????
Isn’t this quite amazing, and can’t FReepers locally check out which one was accepted in each state?
No MSM on this at all?
Ever?
Correct, the court did make that determination.
-- a native born citizen aka natural born citizen of the US, regardless of the citizenship of his parents.
Wrong. There is a clear distinction made in Wong Kim Ark, between a child born here of a resident alien, and the natural-born child of citizens. It is clear that a child born here of a resident alien is a citizen. But, it is also clear that such a child is not natural-born.
You're misconstruing citizenship with natural born citizenship. The two are not the same, under the Constitution. The rights and duties of all citizens are the same, except as the Constitution makes a distinction, whether they're newly minted and naturalized, or whether they're descended from nothing but natural born citizens all the way back to the first citizens of this country under the grandfather clause.
The only time the Constitution makes a distinction is regarding eligibility for the office of President.
So, Wong Kim Ark was a citizen, just as much of a citizen as the natural-born child of citizens.
To paraphrase, the legal status that Wong Kim Ark had in common with natural born citizens was citizenship, not being natural born.
And, it does make clear the distinction between the natural born and aliens or foreigners.
The status of natural born citizens is never in doubt, that much is clear from your cite.
The part that says subject, which means you're not citing US law.
Wrong. You are quoting one isolated paragraph that DOESN'T decide one way or the other, and ignoring the rest of the decison which does decide.
"It thus clearly appears that, by the law of England for the last three centuries, beginning before the settlement of this country and continuing to the present day, aliens, while residing in the dominions possessed by the Crown of England, were within the allegiance, the obedience, the faith or loyalty, the protection, the power, the jurisdiction of the English Sovereign, and therefore every child born in England of alien parents was a natural-born subject unless the child of an ambassador or other diplomatic agent of a foreign State or of an alien enemy in hostile occupation of the place where the child was born.""III. The same rule was in force in all the English Colonies upon this continent down to the time of the Declaration of Independence, and in the United States afterwards, and continued to prevail under the Constitution as originally established."
Read post #65. The decision makes it clear the rule applying to “subjects” continued to apply to “citizens” after the establishment of the US.
I don’t understand your point. how does it matter where his mother was if he was born on Hawaii?? If he was born on Hawaii then his mom was also on hawaii. The only way your contention makes sense is if his mom isn’t his mom, or
else she somehow teleported him to Hawaii direct from the womb..
Or it is when you mangle the quote it is US law, but when quoted accurately it is not?
Are you the same poster who previously insisted our founders would never use the word “subject” in regards to U.S. citizens? That is also incorrect.
So if you concede that Obama was born in Hawaii then what do you sue over? And why should any future suits not suffer the same fate as all the rest, dismissed due to lack of standing?
No. Factcheck posted images of the document provided by the Obama campaign.
"Next it was shown forensically to be a fake."
No, it hasn't been. A couple of internet crackpots tried to make that claim. No actual expert has made such a claim.
"Next the words from Hawaii were parsed, they were lawyerized, they never stated they had the long form birth certificate, just that they had the origonal COLB. We know that in 1961, there were 4 different ways to get a Certification (not Certificate) of Live birth, and 3 of those 4 ways do not involve being born in the Hawaiian Islands. I can provide links for them refuting each item I specified if you can’t find them."
You are repeating birther distortions. None of them make the existing COLB go away, or change the fact that it says he was born in Honolulu.
You’ll find no such thing in the legal decision, and you’ll find no such thing authored by any of the Framers of the Constitution, or in the Consitution itself.
We fought a war to cease being subjects. I’m constantly amazed at people who cannot grasp the distinction between subject and citizen, monarchy and constitutional republic.
No wonder we’re in such a mess. Nobody has the faintest clue regarding basic civics anymore.
More paragraphs:
There are some exceptions which are founded upon peculiar reasons, and which, indeed, illustrate and confirm the general doctrine. Thus, a person who is born on the ocean is a subject of the prince to whom his parents then owe allegiance; for he is still deemed under the protection of his sovereign, and born in a place where he has dominion in common with all other sovereigns. So the children of an ambassador are held to be [p660] subjects of the prince whom he represents, although born under the actual protection and in the dominions of a foreign prince.
3 Pet. 155. “The children of enemies, born in a place within the dominions of another sovereign, then occupied by them by conquest, are still aliens.” 3 Pet. 156.
and on and on.
That contends that he is a Kenyan citizen, hence a British Subject. We did not have dual citizenship with Great Britian in 1961, so he did not qualify at birth to be a US Citizen.
That doesn't make sense. Obama's mother, so far as I can tell lived all her life prior to her 14th birthday in the US.
If you're talking about the former rule that the US citizen parent had to have lived in the US for 10 years, five of them after the age of 14 for children to be citizens, that applied to children born outside of the US. If Obama was born in the US to a US parent he was a US citizen from birth.
To say that we didn't have or recognize dual citizenship with Great Britain, means that we didn't recognize that American citizens could also have British citizenship. It doesn't mean that those who could possibly claim foreign citizenship weren't American citizens. It means that Britain's claim was irrelevant so far as requirements for US citizenship are concerned.
How do "we" know this?
I can provide links for them refuting each item I specified if you can’t find them.
Please do. Only don't post links to blogs. Post links to actual, verfiable sources. Berg's blog telling me that there are four ways to get a Hawaiian CoLB holds no more water than you telling me this. Certainly, there have to be more reputable sources than "It's posted on so and so's blog" if you expect people to accept this claim as fact.
We are all “subject” to the jurisdiction of the United States of America; we prefer the term “citizen”, but the use of the term “subject” was not unknown; as the decision in Kim Wong Ark shows.
Here is the quote that Denofrio mangles in its original language, clearly it says that the child of a foreign national born here is a “natural born subject” of the United States.
“strong enough to make a natural subject, for if he hath issue here, that issue is a natural-born subject;” and his child, as said by Mr. Binney in his essay before quoted, “if born in the country, is as much a citizen as the natural-born child of a citizen, and by operation of the same principle.”
Now you are reduced to arguing that “natural born subject” somehow doesn’t mean “natural born citizen”.
I just posted it!
"No wonder we’re in such a mess."
No wonder.
Those paragraphs aren't helping you either.
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.