Posted on 04/21/2010 8:28:03 PM PDT by MrChips
OK, so I have read a little, listened a little, and figured that the question of Obama's citizenship and birth would never be answered, so why dive into it. But just now, I listened to Anderson Cooper on CNN (I know, I know, why am I watching PRAVDA?) blabber on and on in a very assertive, denunciatory tone to someone from Arizona over that state's recent passage of a bill requiring presidential candidates to prove their citizenship. Cooper went on ad nauseum about how stupid anyone is who questions Obama, how the birth certificate has been PROVEN to be authentic, that the matter should be settled. But the adamancy in his voice bothered me. Why is he so exercised about it if that is really true? He'd be calm, or so I said to myself. Anyway, anybody else watch this?
(5) They want to use the issue to paint any opponent to Obama as an ignoramus and Neanderthal.
You made the assumption that you knew what the heck you were talking about. That has already been proven not to be the case.
“(5) They want to use the issue to paint any opponent to Obama as an ignoramus and Neanderthal.”
Most certainly this is a motivation. However, they would still fall under one of the four categories I previously mentioned. In this case, they don’t care what the constitution says or really care about “rule of law” except when it favors their position.
I always wonder if CNN’s pee-poor ratings also include people in airports who have to watch the stupid feed in the boarding areas??
I was busy with computer/personal things.
And, you are in your own little world.
“You can lead a horse to water, but you can’t make him drink”
“The lady doth protest too much, methinks.”
(Sorry, I couldn’t help myself!)
Just so that you know, the one that 0bama posted is a real certification of live birth, the same thing you’ll get if you go ask for a copy of your own. If you don’t believe me, go ask for a copy of your own birth certificate. That’s what you will get. You’re also unaware that the thing your mom and dad got from the hospital was not a “real” birth certificate when they brought you home. It was a certified copy of a record filed with the state. It even says so on its face.
I just got a copy of my birth certificate 2 years ago I was not allowed to see the original either this is standard practice in all states. I think its for ID theft. So they print out a state sealed copy thats legit for passport or such. But in this case if it was legit why not get this over with Mr President since you have to be born in the USA. And this issue is growing bigger as time goes by.
Have to agree with you there. In fact, I'd take it a step further and suggest that there are more constitutional scholars here on Free Republic than walk the halls of any court, SCOTUS or otherwise.
Unless the Supreme Court decides otherwise...
First, yes, SCOTUS needs to get off its duff, protect the constitution and firmly rule on this issue once and for all. Secondly, they have declared the definition of natural born outside of the Constitution on several occasions to have been born of citizen parents plural. Means both. Congress backed this definition up with their senate resolution regarding John McCain in 2008, declaring him natural born because McCain's parents (again plural) were both (plural again) citizens. Obama signed it.
I'm old enough to remember back in the day in High School Government class every Senior had to take, that this was discussed and it was common knowledge back then that natural born was higher than native born. And that natural born required both parents to be citizens. One of the things that aggravates me the most about this whole birther issue is the complete and total lack of knowledge about our founding, our government, and our constitution being taught to kids today. Liberals have totally revised our history and our foundations.
Here is an excerpt from a blog which clearly explains this issue and explains why the birthers have a rational basis for questioning Obama's Eligibility:
- On March 9, 1866, Representative John Bingham of Ohio, considered the father of the 14th Amendment, said the following in a speech before House of Representatives - [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.
- Occasionally, the U.S. Supreme Court has used the word "citizen" in reference to individuals who were either not born in the United States or not born of U.S.-citizen parents. Such individuals were U.S. citizens by law or by naturalization. But the Supreme Court has never referred to such persons as natural born citizens. In those few cases in which the Supreme Court has declared an individual to be a "natural born citizen", the individual was always U.S.-born to U.S.-citizen parents. For example, in Perkins vs. Elg (1939), Marie Elizabeth Elg was born in the United States in 1907. A year before her birth, her father became a U.S. citizen by naturalization, and her mother acquired U.S. citizenship through marriage. Thus when Miss Elg was born, both of her parents were U.S. citizens. The Supreme Court referred to Miss Elg as a natural born citizen.
- Emmerich de Vattel's, Law of Nations 1756 and used extensively by our framers in drawing up our Constitution stated the following - The natives, or natural born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. (Vattel §212) Benjamin Franklin had a copy of this book, Jefferson did, you may have noticed threads here on FR where Washington did and his book is overdue from the library!
- In 1874, in Minor v. Happersett, the Supreme Court implicitly acknowledged the definition of natural born citizen which had appeared in the 1797 English translation of Vattel's Law of Nations - "...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. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first." (Minor vs Happersett, 1874) Other cases which referred to natural born as the child of TWO citizens:
- The Venus 12 U.S. 253, 289 (1814)
- Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. 393 (1857)
- The Civil Rights Act of 1866 (Act of April 9, 1866)
- The Slaughter-House Cases, 83 U.S. 36, 73 (1873)
These are all cited and explained at Attorney, Mario Apuzzo's blog
All of the sources tell us what our framers intended with the natural born clause in the Constitution. And all of these sources give the birthers a solid case and that the case is one that has been thoroughly researched. Birthers are not idiots or nutcases despite what the media would have you believe, they are constitutionalists who deserve to be heard.
BTW: Thank you for your service!
Did everyone listen to Tom Fife?
http://www.breitbart.tv/the-b-cast-interview-was-obama-a-committed-marxist-in-college/
RaceBannon?
Dr. John Drew PhD ? -— who knew him very well as a gay passionate Marxist.
http://www.breitbart.tv/the-b-cast-interview-was-obama-a-committed-marxist-in-college/
All are lying, or fantasizing, angry FReepers would attack all of these people??? Isn’t it much more likely that each is telling what he saw and heard many years ago —— I listened and read about each, they seem truthful and honest people to me ....
No one can say any of the documents on the Internet are real or not as they are all just pixels in cyberspace ... Zero has the real piece of paper- can we see it? Why can’t we see it? McCain showed his immediately after being challenged ... Why not the Big O ???
All the Kenyan documents and this one fit into a finely developed skein of obfuscation, deceit, erasure, and witness reports all fit VERY well together; whereas the opposite idea of this Marxist being born in Hawaii has no witnesses, no photos, no paper documents, just ad hominem attacks such as your own. There must be 30 newspapers out there now and one Hansard all saying this guy was born in Kenya, as well as Kenyan and American real live persons.
The smallest typo or a single missing link to a jpeg means ... we are incompetent, fools,” birthers”, who only ask that the Constitutional requirements be upheld and the most basic information be truthfully released. I guess we are “Birth Certificate Truthers”, and until a single sheet of paper, the original Long Form Birth Certificate is provided, I think many of us here on FR will not stop bringing it up and asking questions.
Best, D.T.O.M.
Very well stated.
I too don’t understand all the shouting.
If you say “Please show me your original BC like John McCain did” they just explode.
Why? Well, you already answered that but still it is extremely disconcerting.
And surprising.
And upsetting.
And unnecessary.
Natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. That is the legal definition of the term, and is the definition that has been used by the Supreme Court in many cases. The issue is not only if Obama was born in Hawaii, but that his father was NOT a US citizen. Obama admits on his own fight the smears website, “When Barack Obama Jr. was born on Aug. 4,1961, in Honolulu, Kenya was a British colony, still part of the United Kingdom’s dwindling empire. As a Kenyan native, Barack Obama Sr. was a British subject whose citizenship status was governed by The British Nationality Act of 1948. That same act governed the status of Obama Sr.‘s children.”
If Obama was a “Natural born citizen”, he would NOT be subject to the laws of a foreign nation. He was a British subject the moment he was born, and he is NOT eligible for the Office of President.
Yes its the law, and its the most mis-interpreted and rewritten of all of our laws. The 14th amendment never changed the meaning of natural born as referenced by the amendment's author John Bingham with his statement:
"I find no fault with the introductory clause, 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;..." (Representative John Bingham (OH) - as found in "The Congressional Globe" - House of Representatives - 39th Congress - 1st Session - 1866 - page 1291.
Again Attorney Mario Apuzzo explains what the 14th amendment is and isn't.
Your definition of the 14th would allow Osama Bin Laden to impregnate one of his wives, ship her here to give birth, raise the child in his cave, then return the child to the U.S. as an adult, send him to college here, let him live here for 14 years, and at the age of 35 run for President. Hardly what the framers had in mind or Rep. Bingham!!!!!
Natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. That is the legal definition of the term, and is the definition that has been used by the Supreme Court in many cases. The issue is not only if Obama was born in Hawaii, but that his father was NOT a US citizen. Obama admits on his own fight the smears website, “When Barack Obama Jr. was born on Aug. 4,1961, in Honolulu, Kenya was a British colony, still part of the United Kingdom’s dwindling empire. As a Kenyan native, Barack Obama Sr. was a British subject whose citizenship status was governed by The British Nationality Act of 1948. That same act governed the status of Obama Sr.‘s children.”
If Obama was a “Natural born citizen”, he would NOT be subject to the laws of a foreign nation. He was a British subject the moment he was born, and he is NOT eligible for the Office of President.
Natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. That is the legal definition of the term, and is the definition that has been used by the Supreme Court in many cases. The issue is not only if Obama was born in Hawaii, but that his father was NOT a US citizen. Obama admits on his own fight the smears website, “When Barack Obama Jr. was born on Aug. 4,1961, in Honolulu, Kenya was a British colony, still part of the United Kingdom’s dwindling empire. As a Kenyan native, Barack Obama Sr. was a British subject whose citizenship status was governed by The British Nationality Act of 1948. That same act governed the status of Obama Sr.‘s children.”
If Obama was a “Natural born citizen”, he would NOT be subject to the laws of a foreign nation. He was a British subject the moment he was born, and he is NOT eligible for the Office of President.
If you want to actually become educated on this topic, you have to do a lot of reading. Plenty of highly intelligent people on FR (and elsehwere) have done heroic research. You can take advantage of that and learn, or not.
Your choice.
If you choose not to, then you can keep up posting foolish and ignorant drivel.
I certainly won’t waste my time reading it.
Does that mean you won’t be wasting my time with your pointless, ignorant insults anymore?
It doesn’t really matter what the Framers had in mind. That may sound crass but it’s true. Parents owing allegiance to foreign sovereigns are diplomats. This has been referenced multiple times. I am not going to make the same case over and over again. As of 2010 in the United States of America you can gain citizenship in 2 ways, by becoming “Naturalized” or by being born a citizen. There is absolutely no 3rd form of citizenship. There has not been any case which has come out and said, “Bob Smith you are a citizen from birth but not a natural born citizen.”
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.