Posted on 04/27/2011 8:26:51 AM PDT by patriotgal1787
. . . . .
So, Donald Trump is the new Ross Perot.
What we saw this morning is The Donald being played by the White House as the spoiler -- or the third candidate who will hand the election back to Obama in '12.
Look, first of all, it has never been about the birth certificate. Let me repeat that for those of you who are just catching up: It's NEVER been about the birth certificate. Even though the media and Trump have stayed focused on that, it's nothing more than a sideshow. A diversion from the real issue.
It is about the constitution, and the fact that under the Constitution, Obama is not a natural born citizen. He cannot be, because his father was Kenyan and a British subject.
So now that Obama has shown us "the birth certificate" we can go back to doing the work of the American people? Where have I heard that before?
This is a hoax, folks. A cruel hoax, and there's not a soul in Washington DC who will uphold their sworn duty to protect and defend the Constitution. Members of Congress were briefed about the matter in early 2009 when the Congressional Research Service issued a 14-page memo about Obama's eligibility question. What the memo told them was that the vetting process was the responsibility of the states and the electors. So what did Congress do?
Congress breathed a collective sigh of relief and went back to their knitting, conveniently ignoring the oath they took to protect and defend the Constitution.
Trump has a HUGE ego. We can all agree on that. Obama knows it too. Just as he played to the egos of Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid in pushing through his healthcare legislation, assuring them he would be there to help them shepherd it through (translation: ram it down our throats), he went into hiding, letting them do all the dirty, sweaty, heavy pushing. And it cost them their party and their majority in the House. But Queen Nancy was strutting through the streets cloaked in ermine on the day it was signed.
It's Obama's modus operandi. Seize and capitalize on the weakness of the opposition. Use their egos, play them by appealing to their ego.
Well, Obama got a two-fer today. By producing a birth certificate (legitimate or otherwise), he now can say "let's put it behind us" and move forward to "more important issues".
Obama has also legitimized Trump, making The Donald seem larger than life, powerful enough to force him to "show his birth certificate".
See, the only way Obama knows he can win reelection in '12 is if a third candidate splits the vote. And that's exactly what Trump will do, to the Republicans' detriment. Obama knows it, so he's giving Trump the credibility he needs to propel him forward.
(We're going to get into this issue with Elizabeth Letchworth, our Capitol Hill Insider, on tonight's radio program.)
Check back here during the day as I update this post with further observations. Meanwhile, Devvy Kidd weighs in with hers of this morning's circus act:
If it's real. Born in a hospital that won't confirm the birth. How convenient it pops up now with nothing new on it about his parentage and no doctor listed. This alleged BC was signed off by some flunky on Monday in Hawaii. They must have flown it to the White House in a jet to be released this morning in Washington, DC. It shows his father as Obama, Sr., and provides the proof that he was born with dual citizenship since his father was a Kenyan national under British citizenship at the time of Obama/Soetoro's birth.http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/rss_viewer/birth-certificate-long-form.pdf
Recall back in January, former Hawaii elections clerk, Tim Adams, signed a sworn affidavit that there was no long form BC: http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=254401
"Former Hawaii elections clerk Tim Adams has now signed an affidavit swearing he was told by hissupervisors in Hawaii that no long-form, hospital-generated birth certificate existed for Barack Obama Jr. in Hawaii and that neither Queens Medical Center nor Kapi'olani Medical Center in Honolulu had any record of Obama having been born in their medical facilities."
Here is another BC of a woman who had twins the day after Obama/Soeotro; same hospital: http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=105347
Note the certification at the bottom of hers has the doctor's name - missing from this newly minted one.
Also, the "new" one just released by the White House is the same green paper as the old short form. Mrs. Nordyke's is black background. Guess what? Mine is white with black ink which I obtained 40 years ago for travel purposes.
Jerome Corsi's book comes out in two weeks....we shall see. I'm betting on his impeccable research. For those who might not remember, he wrote the book that "swift boated" John Kerry and destroyed his chances for the White House.
Next will be the forensic folks looking at this suddenly released BC that will make The Donald - what? Oh, so happy because he can move on to more important issues? What a game.
Obama - Maybe a Citizen of the United States but Not a "natural born Citizen" of the United States
http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2010/03/obama-maybe-citizen-of-united-states.html
The Natural Born Citizen Clause of Our U.S. Constitution Requires that Both of the Child’s Parents Be U.S. Citizens At the Time of Birth http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2009/09/natural-born-citizen-clause-requires.html
Vatel's "Law of Nations", which the founders were known to have relied on and consulted, defined natural born as born in the country of citizen parents. (Plural)
And a letter from John Jay to George Washington said this:
"Permit me to hint whether it would not be wise and seasonable to provide a strong check to the admission of foreigners into the administration of our national government ; and to declare expressly that the command in chief of the American army shall not be given to, nor devolve on any but a natural born citizen. "
So you have "citizens" which include "naturalized citizens" that are foreigners that have come here. You have "Native citizens" that were born here, regardless of parents. And you have "Natural Born citizens" that were born here of two citizen parents.
Defining “citizen at birth” doesn’t help to define “natural born citizen”.
The only gap to be found is in our knowledge, not in the Constitution. The term had a definition in 1787, and the framers understood it. (Otherwise we’ve got them writing nonsense.)
We’d be better off hunting down their definition than trying to shoehorn ours into the document they wrote and ratified.
To make it more confusing, though, the first or second congress, temporarily defined “Natural Born” much wider, but they repealed the “Natural Born” language the next session. And it’s believed that they repealed it because they recognized they didn’t have the authority to redefine “the Natural Born criteria”, though they could define citizenship.
Congress doesn’t have the authority to redefine most Constitutional terms by statute. Only a constitutional amendment can do that.
It makes zero difference what "Law of Nations" says if that language was never incorporated into either the Constitution or the U.S. Code.
And a letter from John Jay to George Washington said this:
Again...
Meaningless quote? From a court in 1844, cited by the US Supreme Court 50 years later?
If you READ the decision, you would know WHY it was made. The judge cites many examples and explains in detail.
“citizen at birth” is equivalent to natural born.
You can probably “hunt down their definition” by actually doing some research on this subject - as I did! :)
Stormer, your question wasn’t addressed to me, but the answer is that even if he “finds what he is looking for”, he will then find something else to look for.
Egos and great dislike and mistrust are involved here, and when these are combined, people will never, ever give up their position.
Please correct me if I'm wrong.
Note the emphasis.
Those commas mean something.
I'll say it again...
Article 1, Clause 4. The Congress shall have Power...To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization...
Congress can't legislate natural born citizenship.
You look like you don't have even the simplest understanding of the Constitution when you post statements like yours.
I’ve never seen anything quite like “Birtherism”. Of course this latest turn of events will only require yet another moving of the goalposts and generate more breathless idiocy.
I’ve answered it before. There is more or less the same fuzzy wiggle room if you use “born a Citizen” or “No person except a natural born citizen.” If the founders had wanted to clarify this point they could have easily done so in plain language e.g. said “no person except a person born in the United States” or “no person a child of two citizens.” Now.....that I’ve answered the question please address my specific points about the failure of ANYONE to even ask Arthur about his father’s lack of citizenship.
I’ve answered it before. There is more or less the same fuzzy wiggle room if you use “born a Citizen” or “No person except a natural born citizen.” If the founders had wanted to clarify this point they could have easily done so in plain language e.g. said “no person except a person born in the United States” or “no person except a child of two citizens.” Now.....that I’ve answered the question please address my specific points about the failure of ANYONE to even ask Arthur about his father’s lack of citizenship.
I’ve answered it before. There is more or less the same fuzzy wiggle room if you use “born a Citizen” or “No person except a natural born citizen.” If the founders had wanted to clarify this point they could have easily done so in plain language e.g. said “no person except a person born in the United States” or “no person except a child of two citizens.” Now.....that I’ve answered the question please address my specific points about the failure of ANYONE to even ask Arthur about his father’s lack of citizenship.
Sure it is worth something but letter’s don’t have much legal weight except, of course, when the ACLU cites Jefferson’s letter about separation of church and state!
I'm not convinced either. He's a 100% fraud.
It's obvious that "Natural Born Citizen" is different from "Citizen" or the clause in the constitution becomes redundant. Whether or not Vatel's makes no difference depends on whether there can be made an argument that "Natural Born" meant something other than Vatel's definition to the founders.
Of course the question is moot if the Supreme Court remains too chicken to take the matter up. At least until a state passes an eligibility law that defines the meaning of "natural Born", or until a state passes an eligibility law that leaves it undefined and a Secretary of State enforces Vatel's definition and is challenged.
The letter lead directly to the phrase "Natural Born Citizen" in the Constitution so I'm not sure why you are comparing an opinion of Jefferson to a request from a future Supreme Court Justice to the Father of our Country. It carries much more weight then your claims of the absence of questions about Arthur's parents' nationality status.
You are totally incorrect when you say that natural born is the same thing as citizen at birth.
Natural born does not depend on congressional law at all.
Your research is lacking. The citizenship of the parents is a key issue. This might help:
Minor v. Happersett , 88 U.S. 162 (1875)
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. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents.
United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898)
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.
Also the supreme court cases habitually cite “The Law of Nations” Book I, Chapter 19, § 212, which in translation says:
§ 212. Citizens and natives.
The citizens are the members of the civil society: bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. As the society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights. . . .
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.