Posted on 04/25/2011 9:19:23 PM PDT by MrTim29
Act of March 26, 1790, 1 Stat. 103, 104 (emphasis supplied). See Weedin v. Chin Bow, 274 U.S. 657, 661 -666 (1927); United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, 672 -675 (1898). With minor variations, this language remained law in subsequent reenactments until an 1802 Act, which omitted the italicized words for reasons not discernable. See Act of Feb. 10, 1855, 10 Stat. 604 (enacting same provision, for offspring of American-citizen fathers, but omitting the italicized phrase).
We can speculate all we want about the definition of natural born citizen. Right now, if you are born abroad to two US citizens, you are an American citizen with all of the rights and privileges that implies. We don't have natural born citizens as a separate class from those who receive citizenship via jus solis or jus sanguinis. There are only two types: natural born (automatic) and naturalized.
The issue of defining natural born citizenship as a criterion for eligiblity for the Presidency has never been decided in the courts. It will have to go to the courts eventually. By 2050 one in every 5 residents of this country will be foreign born compared to one in 8 now.
Nice job.
I would add a topic on date accepted vs. date filed COLBs.
COLB’s with a mother’s signature, doctor’s signature and administrator’s signature are attestations a live birth took place and a sworn statement they are willing to testify about the event if called into a legal proceeding. The registrar “accepts” the attestion and notes the date accepted on the COLB.
A COLB filed is a situation where a court has ordered the vital record information to be filed with the registrar after testimony was heard in court. The registrar cannot accept the evidence because the registrar did not examine/hear testimony of a live birth. The registrars only option is to file the information in the court order.
The Left makes some argument about birth registrations from field hospitals and the vital record application is filed at the main office in Honolulu. Not true. The registrar “receives” documents from field offices.
mark
i said nothing about being a regular citizen
the issue is about being a NATURAL BORN citizen. the definition of which is common knowledge and only ‘murky’ to those attempting to skirt the requirement
the founders purpose was to insure we never got someone with foreign allegiances in the office. for if we did, they would undoubtedly work against the best interests of the country.
kind of like what’s been happening for the last 2 years.
Wrong! Being a "citizen" isn't the same as what the Constitution is talking about. Both parents have to be citizens, period! Sr. was no doubt a British citizen which would not allow his son to EVER be "natural born." The founders used Vattel's definition of a natural Born citizen on purpose to make sure the president wouldn't have mixed feelings about his fealty to the US. Until we see who the mother claimed the father was, we can't legally know who the father was. We don't know if she even named the father. If she did name Obama Sr as father, he was married to a woman in Kenya while married to Jr's mother. We do not recognize bigamy as a legal situation in the US.
Obama's mother entered school within 2 weeks of his alleged birth in Washington state.
All of these things need to be flushed out in court. The tricky thing is the phrase "Natural Born Citizen". If he has no "legal" father, can he fit the definition,.....I don't know. If Sr. is his father,...definatly not. Some have suggested that Frank Marshall Davis might be his father as he was in Hawaii and hung around all the communists and admitted to be a pedophile. I'm sure a young 18 year old Dunham would attract a sleaze bag like him, but we don't know without a BC. At least it would take the birther thing out of the way if it was him. As far as I know he was an American citizen. If the BC says he was a Muslim, he would be legal but it might embarrass him. The same with being listed as "white" on the BC. Having a white mother and a black father in 1961 was pretty tough and maybe mom didn't tell them he was black. My personal opinion is Sr wasn't even there when Jr was born. Mom and dad weren't even together after he was born as far as we can tell. They attended school in 2 different states. We can't know what is on the BC until he shows the BC. It looks like mom dumped the kid with grandma and dad left completely at birth. I would want my president to at least get some therapy before taking office if that's the case.
The canard of saying he is just holding it back and spending $2million to keep it hidden to embarrass the GOP is wearing thin. He is a public servant. When you have a third of the US thinking you aren't legally the president, that is a problem that can only be fixed by showing the BC. Hiding it any further is pretty much admitting he can't produce one, or he knows it won't pass Constitutional muster.
Just as a PS on the last post, we have to get this straightened out because what is coming up next is some anchor baby running for president that can’t speak English and thinks Mexico should get 4 or 5 states given back. “Natural Born Citizen” is in the Constitution for a reason. Just being a citizen isn’t a very high bar in this day.
Sten, you are on the right track. Were Barack Obama Sr. a citizen, there would be a public record. There is a best selling book and a man claiming to be President of the U.S. who has told us his father was a British subject when he, the son, was born. Barack has told us he is not eligible by our ‘old’ Constitution to be president, but there is no one willing to accept his admission.
There is no doubt. It is amazing to see the inability of so many presumably literate people to trust their abilities to reason. What else can anyone believe when they can read the words of Chief Justice Morrison Waite in the first few paragraphs of one of the most important Supreme Court Cases on women's suffrage, Minor v. Happersett, from 1874:
“The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners.”
World Net Daily has figured out that they will make lots of money by publishing a book supporting the diversionary tactic which Progressives have used so well to obscure the truth. Perhaps they too are cynical about the intelligence of the public, and figure they might as well make some money from the campaign - "Where's The Birth Certificate." Were they serious their billboards would have asked something like "Were mom and dad both citizens?" or "Dreams From My Father the Alien?"
Many justices, including Wong Kim Ark's Horace Gray, have repeated the truth: “Citizens are either natural or naturalized”. From our common-law, as Justice Waite explained, comes the only definition every used by our Supreme Court - “born on the soil of citizen parents.” Barack told us “I am a native-born citizen of the U.S.” His statement is from Title 8 US Naturalization Code, and is simply the admission that he was born on our soil, but not of citizen parents. He has the same status as Wong Kim Ark, based upon the 14th Amendment; he is a citizen, born on our soil. Some will claim native-born citizens are the same as natural born citizens. That means that anchor babies are eligible to be president. That means that the baby born to natural-born British subjects would have been eligible to be president after 1788. That is nonsense.
Obama was not born of citizen parents, and is ineligible. Every U.S. Senator signed Senate Resolution in April of 2008, agreeing the natural born citizens were born of citizen parents. SB 511 sponsored by Democrats on Obama’s campaign committe to convince people who might have paid attention during the eight years of questions about McCain's eligibility, that he was eligible. The Senate said McCain was eligible because of a condition, U.S. citizen parents, which Obama didn't satisfy. Those who know try to avoid the subject, but they all know. They are all afraid of the prospect of removing the ineligible black man. It is reverse racism, and fear of the thug enforcers of the left, and fear of the media who will continue to mislead those too busy working to read about our history. From SB 511 Hearings before the Senate Judiciary Committee:
“My assumption and my understanding is that if you are born of American parents, you are naturally a natural-born American citizen,” Chertoff replied. “That is mine, too,” said Leahy.”
14th Amendment originator, Congressman, Judge Advocate at Lincoln assassination conspiracy hearing, John Bingham explained natural born citizens to the House in 1866, because the 14th Amendment has no effect on natural born citizenship, but would express the Constitution's mandate, Article 1 Section 8, to establish a uniform code of naturalization - who were the naturalized citizens:
"I find no fault with the introductory clause [S 61 Bill], which is simply declaratory of what is written in the Constitution, that every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen….
These are facts. The exotic life of Stanley Ann, her connections to the Geitners, the hints of connections to all sorts of characters from our past, make a more exciting story than the philosophy of our founders and framers. Ignoring the wisdom of our framers who were so concerned about foreign intrigue, and who employed a very old principle to try to insure the allegiance of our Chief Executive is costing us terribly. Learning the legal truth of Obama’s ineligibility does not prevent anyone from trying to learn about his past. It is full of intrigue, probably by design, to keep your attention off the ball. The book would probably still sell very well. But if our citizens cannot understand our Constitution, they will have deserved to lose its protections.
Bingo! McCain was born at the public hospital in Colon, Panama about a mile from the PCZ. BTW, the PCZ was never considered U.S. Territory it was merely leased from Panama. Carter decided not to renew the lease.
sfl
There are scholars on both sides of the issue. The fact is that it has never been challenged in the courts. Until then, it is just speculation. McCain was the Rep candidate and the Senate passed a bipartisan resolution saying he was eligible to run under the Constitution.
There is no need to speculate upon the "definition" of natural born citizen. It's spelled out quite clearly in at least four Supreme Court cases.
Please cite them.
What the number of foreign born residents of the United States has to do with the price of tea in China is something you might need to spell out.
The U.S. adds one international migrant (net) every 36 seconds. Immigrants account for one in 8 U.S. residents, the highest level in more than 80 years. In 1970 it was one in 21; in 1980 it was one in 16; and in 1990 it was one in 13. In a decade, it will be one in 7, the highest level in our history. And by 2050, one in 5 residents of the U.S. will be foreign-born.
What this means is that we will have a growing population of citizens born here of immigrant parents who are not yet naturalized citizens. There will be growing pressure to amend the Constitution to reflect that reality. And no doubt, there will be questions raised when some of these children wish to run for President.
On a personal note, my daughter was born abroad while I was on assignment as a diplomat. I would hate to think that my daughter is ineligible to be President or that someone in the military like Admiral McCain could have his children ruled out similarly while abroad in the service of his country. We will just have to agree to disagree about how the courts would rule in such instances. The bottom line is that this is all speculation. There is no definitive consensus on what a natural born citizen is. If there was, we wouldn't be having this conversation.
The Connecticut Social Security Number issue is both interesting and troubling. Has the Social Security Administration said anything about it?
They are being sued by Orly Taitz refusing FOIA requests...
http://obamareleaseyourrecords.blogspot.com/2011/03/fac-filed-in-lawsuit-about-obamas-bogus.html
http://obamareleaseyourrecords.blogspot.com/2011/04/atty-orly-taitz-slams-arizona-gov-jan.html
http://obamareleaseyourrecords.blogspot.com/2011/04/attorney-taitz-discusses-her.html
You might want to add “...or Canada” to this.
Peace Arch Hospital maternity ward expands
http://www.theprovince.com/health/Peace+Arch+Hospital+maternity+ward+expands/4221327/story.html
“Have you considered looking at other repositories for the Hawaian newspapers beyond the LOC and Hawaii? For example, large university libraries?”
Actually, there appear to be very few copies of these microfilms.
We have tracked libraries that have both films for those dates to five libraries. The three I have collected from and the other two are in NYC, and Chicago. I think there may be a sixth set, but I don’t know where.
There are a handful of libraries that have one of each film. Berkley CA, and the State library in CA also has one each. A lib. in HI has one.
The bottom line is that there are not a ton of these. I believe we have it tracked to about nine or ten films for each newspaper for those dates.
Ten films happen to be how many service copies can be made from the master negative.
That birth announcement in the two newspapers contemperaneously with Obama's birth is probably the strongest argument in favor of Obama being born in Hawaii. Of course, we know that there are other factors involved that could make those announcements meaningless in that regard, e.g., the address, the apparent differences in copies, how Hawaii registered births, etc. I wish we could destroy this "evidence" definitively. You have done a great job in laying out the facts. Lots of smoking guns.
“TOPIC: A statement by the former Hawaii Health Director, Dr. Chiyome Fukino, confirms she has seen Obama’s birth certificate WHAT THE LEFT SAYS: The director of Hawaii’s Department of Health confirmed that Obama was born in Honolulu WHAT THE RIGHT SAYS: Dr. Chiyome Fukino is biased. Also, she is a medical doctor and does not have any forensic or legal experience. She issued a legal and factual opinion based on a document that may or may not be accurate FACT: The actual statement was, “I, Dr. Chiyome Fukino, director of the Hawaii State Department of Health, have seen the original vital records maintained on file by the Hawaii State Department of Health verifying Barack Hussein Obama was born in Hawaii and is a natural-born American citizen. I have nothing further to add to this statement or my original statement issued in October 2008 over eight months ago….” Dr. Fukino did not attest to seeing the actual Certificate of Live Birth, but rather Obama’s vital records. According to Governor Abercrombie in January 2011, the definition of “vital records” was reduced to an unspecified listing or notation of Obama’s birth that someone had made in the state archives and not any type of birth certificate at all.”
Did you see this thread, ch? Lot’s of excellent info. Definitely puts a finer point on Fukino’s statement. What DID she see? How can we make any reasonable evaluation of her statement, unless we know what ‘vital records’ she talking about?
Just as important, what DOES she mean by, ‘Natural Born Citizen’??? If she’s using the term the way I understand it, she’s telling us that a British subject was NOT Barry’s father. [Unless you think the Framers put that phrase into the Constitution specifically to protect the right of future British subjects to spawn American presidents.] Is she desperately trying to signal that Barry’s baby daddy was a citizen? That would blow Dreams from my Father out of the water, wouldn’t it?
All told, her statement is worthless. W’out legal/factual clarification, it’s just mud in the water.
Yes I have that bookmarked and chief engineer get all the credit.
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.