|
Posted on 07/29/2009 10:42:06 PM PDT by MissTickly
Until we have proof to the contrary we must continue to use the fact that Obama’s father was a Kenyan national with British citizenship named Barack Hussein Obama.
Obama can either defend his father being a British citizen or he can produce the DNA report showing he is the child of an American citizen, thus having to defend that.
I still go back to one point. We know Obama was adopt - when and how did he change his name back to Obama?
Obama’s twin? GULP!!!! One is bad enough.
Plus, Satan didn’t have a brother :-)
Sure rings true .. thank you for daring
to ask the hard questions. Stay safe.
“To speak of the dead is to bring them to life” ~ Egyptian proverb...
Hillary doesn’t have a tangible interest in obtaining Obama’s vital records.
~~~
Now that statement just doesn’t pass the smell test. Sorry. We know her too well.
You hit on something in this letter I’d nothing thought of previously.
Make a FOIA request with the state of Hawaii requesting all communications between Barack Obama, any of his legal agents, or any other person who has contacted the state requesting information on Obama’s BC.
What an interesting read that should turn out to be if they turn over the information and imagine how telling it will be if they refuse.
I agree, there is no definitive case and we should have a ruling from SCOTUS. They appear to be reluctant, however. But I want to remind everyone that Freedom of Choice isn’t defined in the Constitution, either. And how many millions of babies have been aborted?
There is nothing to stop the joint Houses of Congress with coming up with a definition of who is a natural born Citizen and a process after candidates are chosen but prior to elections being held, to vet them thoroughly.
(The following is from Leo Donofrio’s website: http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/ )
* * * * * * * *
The most on point US Supreme Court holding which discussed the meaning of “natural born citizen” – Minor v. Happersett (1874) – wherein the Supreme Court stated:
“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 [88 U.S. 162, 168] parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case it is not necessary to solve these doubts.”
In the Minor case, the person wasn’t running for President of the US so the court didn’t have to reach the nbc issue. But the court did note that the foreign nationality of a native born person’s parents could effect that native born person’s natural-born citizen status.
Furthermore, the court also stated that the definition of “natural-born citizen” was not found in the Constitution so “Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that.” Why is this important?
BECAUSE SCOTUS ISSUED THE MINOR HOLDING IN 1874 AFTER THE 14TH AMENDMENT WAS ADOPTED IN 1868.
* * * * * *
The 14th amendment, which is in the Constitution, has nothing to do at all with who is a natural born citizen. It deals strictly with native born.
Please see #147.
|
There is no other amendment, except for the 1st, that has been as misused, stretched, manipulated and destroyed of it’s original intent as the 14th.
We only have our Supreme Court to blame for failing to hold to the letter and original intent of the Amendment. The court time after time has the 14th themselves to justify stripping citizens of liberties and to justify new found rights never intended or considered by our founders.
A perfect example of an out of control judiciary.
My understand is a Natural Born Citizen (which refers to the office of President only) is one who is born on US soil from parents who are US citizens. In other words, the parents must be US citizens, not natural born US citizens themselves.
If Obama’s father had become a US citizen PRIOR to Obama’s birth, then Obama would be a Natural Born Citizen IF of course he was also born on US soil, ie Hawaii.
I wonder if they have a Marcy Park in Hawaii?
Good point, friend. It will be hard to argue politics in the future if there's no politics left to argue about. You are a Patriot!
They have a volcano...
Seek,
You’re exactly right. That is the standard most of us base our understanding of the criteria for NBC; as it was the standard for our founders, justices and others who wrote on the issue throughout the countries history.
The problem lies with the fact that the USSC has never made a ruling explicitly defining what exactly is the legal standard for a NBC. We have various rulings on citizenship issues, but not a single one that speaks specifically to the issue.
We have two failings in our election system that allowed an usurper into office.
1. We have a requirement within the Constitution requiring that a candidate for President and VP must meet the criteria of NBC yet we have no system in place nor an overseeing body whose job is is to verify a candidate meets the constitutional standard.
2. Not having a specific ruling by the USSC. This has allowed the States and our elected officials to determine on their own who meets the qualification without having a standard to go by.
It took Obama running for President for us to learn opening up a very scary scenario and setting a prescience we do not want established.
As it stands right now, a person who freely admits to having been born outside the US, who has not reached the age of 35 could demand their name be placed on the ballot of each 50 state. This person can easily use Obama’s ability to qualify as the basis for any legal actions that would be taken against the person.
Each State MUST before 2010 change their State constitution to state that a person must prove they are a NBC and meet the other Constitutional qualifications along with setting up a person or Dept that oversees the vetting of candidates.
Gee.....you are a LIBERAL/FEMINIST....how nice.
Is she a virgin? I thought they had to be virgins...
That is true. However we do have the process in place by which each candidate must sign a document along with Party leaders that they swear the candidate is constitutionally qualified to run for the office.
Every Secretary of State received such documents from Nancy and Obama. :)
Depends on what god you're trying to appease. I heard Obeyme ain't picky.
Thanks for your posts.
I spent a good deal of time on various Hillary blogs during the primary season and found I made several friends on them. We had and have, widely differing views on the proper role of government in the lives of citizens- but there has always been mutual respect between us. So in that spirit- welcome!
You may well be correct in your theories about officials in Hawaii- but we still need to be careful in making assumptions. Some of the things floating around about this issue are ridiculous. Still- there is too much about this man that remains unknown, unverified and clouded in dead-end mysteries.
Frightening.
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.
