Posted on 08/09/2011 6:10:13 PM PDT by rxsid
Edited on 08/09/2011 6:11:45 PM PDT by Admin Moderator. [history]
When the White House posted online an image of President Obama's purported long-form birth certificate, it also linked to the previously circulated "Certification of Live Birth," the short-form version that had been presented as the only birth documentation available.
However, the short-form certificate to which the White House linked April 27 was a forgery, claims computer expert Ron Polland, Ph.D., who says he made the image himself.
(Excerpt) Read more at wnd.com ...
Hey SCHMUCK!
Your comment seems to be a reply to my post at #108 rather than my post at #107 which quotes Joseph Story. Are you confused; or hoping to confuse?
If you look at my post at #108, you should see that I knew very well that the quote had to do with some Congressman named Smith, and I included the extra line which indicated that that was what the issue was for Madison at the time. But to assert that the Madison quote is irrelevant is disingenuous at best. I also provided a link to the larger context. I'm not the one here trying to pull the wool over anyones eyes.
ML/NJ
I think the merit of the question is now to be decided, whether the gentleman is eligible to a seat in this house or not, but it will depend on the decision of a previous question, whether he has been seven years a citizen of the United-States or not.From an attention to the facts which have been adduced, and from a consideration of the principles established by the revolution, the conclusion I have drawn is, that Mr. Smith, was on the declaration of independence a citizen of the United-States, and unless it appears that he has forfeited his right, by some neglect or overt act, he had continued a citizen until the day of his election to a seat in this house. I take it to be a clear point, that we are to be guided in our decision, by the laws and constitution of South-Carolina, so far as they can guide us, and where the laws do not expressly guide us, we must be guided by principles of a general nature so far as they are applicable to the present case.
...
It is an established maxim that birth is a criterion of allegiance. Birth however derives its force sometimes from place and sometimes from parentage, but in general place is the most certain criterion; it is what applies in the United States; it will therefore be unnecessary to investigate any other. Mr. Smith founds his claim upon his birthright; his ancestors were among the first settlers of that colony.
It is well known to many gentlemen on this floor, as well as to the public, that the petitioner is a man of talents, one who would not lightly hazard his reputation in support of visionary principles: yet I cannot but think he has erred in one of the principles upon which he grounds his charge. He supposes, when this country separated from Great Britain, the tie of allegiance subsisted between the inhabitants of America and the king of that nation, unless by some adventitious circumstance the allegiance was transferred to one of the United States. I think there is a distinction which will invalidate his doctrine in this particular, a distinction between that primary allegiance which we owe to that particular society of which we are members, and the secondary allegiance we owe to the sovereign established by that society. This distinction will be illustrated by the doctrine established by the laws of Great Britain, which were the laws of this country before the revolution. The sovereign cannot make a citizen by any act of his own; he can confer denizenship, but this does not make a man either a citizen or subject. In order to make a citizen or subject, it is established, that allegiance shall first be due to the whole nation; it is necessary that a national act should pass to admit an individual member. In order to become a member of the British empire, where birth has now endowed the person with that privilege, he must be naturalized by an act of parliament.
What was the situation of the people of America when the dissolution of their allegiance took place by the declaration of independence? I conceive that every person who owed this primary allegiance to the particular community in which he was born retained his right of birth, as the member of a new community; that he was consequently absolved from the secondary allegiance he had owed to the British sovereign: If he was not a minor, he became bound by his own act as a member of the society who separated with him from a submission to a foreign country. If he was a minor, his consent was involved in the decision of that society to which he belonged by the ties of nature. What was the allegiance as a citizen of South-Carolina, he owed to the King of Great Britain? He owed his allegiance to him as a King of that society to which, as a society he owed his primary allegiance. When that society separated from Great Britain, he was bound by that act and his allegiance transferred to that society, or the sovereign which that society should set up, because it was through his membership of the society of South-Carolina, that he owed allegiance to Great Britain.
Mr. Smith being then, at the declaration of independence, a minor, but being a member of that particular society, he became, in my opinion, bound by the decision of the society with respect to the question of independence and change of government;
Madison concludes:
So far as we can judge by the laws of Carolina, and the practice and decision of that state, the principles I have adduced are supported; and I must own that I feel myself at liberty to decide, that Mr. Smith was a citizen at the declaration of independence, a citizen at the time of his election, and consequently entitled to a seat in this legislature.
As you can see, the topic at hand had nothing, not a single thing, to do with "natural born Citizen's."
In fact, the person's eligibility in question (Mr. Smith) was a "a citizen of the United States, at the time of the adoption of this Constitution" which is in contrast (via the OR clause) to "natural born Citizens."
The context of Madison's words surround the question of eligibility to the House of Representatives of Willaim Smith, who was challenged by Dr. Ramsay.
House of Representatives, Contested Election
22 May 1789Annals 1:397--408
Resolved, That it appears to this House, upon full and mature consideration, that the said William Smith had been seven years a citizen of the United States, at the time of his election.
Mr. Smith.--As the House are inclined to hear the observations I have to make, I shall begin with admitting the facts stated in the memorial of Doctor Ramsay, hoping the House will excuse the egotism into which I am unavoidably drawn. I was born in Charleston, South Carolina, of a family whose ancestors were among the first settlers of that colony, and was sent to England for my education when I was but twelve years of age. In 1774, I was sent to Geneva, to pursue my studies, where I resided until 1778. In November, that year, I went to Paris, where I resided upwards of two months in the character of an American gentleman. Immediately on my arrival there, I waited on Doctor Franklin, Mr. Adams, and Mr. A. Lee, the commissioners from Congress to the court of France, as a citizen of America, and was received as such by them. In January, 1779, I left Paris for London, whither I went to procure the means of embarking for America, from the gentleman who had been appointed my guardian by my father when I was first sent to Europe in 1770, and from whom alone I had any hope of obtaining such means. But in this endeavor, I was disappointed, and remained some time in England, with the hope of receiving remittances from Charleston. Here again my expectation was defeated. The rapid depreciation of the continental money rendered the negotiation of money transactions extremely difficult, and thus I remained till the fall of Charleston. I took this opportunity of studying the law, but could not be called to the bar, because I had not taken the oath of allegiance to Great Britain, which is a necessary qualification. After the surrender of Charleston, the whole State of South Carolina, fell into the hands of the enemy, and it was impossible at that time to return. No sooner, however, did I acquire the means, and an opportunity offered, than I prepared myself to go back to America. I quitted London for that purpose in October or November, 1782, not in a vessel bound to Charleston, then a British garrison, and which I certainly should have done, had I considered myself a British subject, and which would have been most convenient, as there were vessels constantly going from London to Charleston; but I travelled to Ostend, and there embarked in a neutral vessel bound to St. Kitt's, from whence it was my intention to proceed to a Danish island, and thence to some American port in North Carolina or Georgia, from whence I could reach the American camp. In the beginning of January, 1783, I sailed from Ostend, but was detained a considerable time by contrary winds, and in the middle of the month of February, was shipwrecked on the coast of England, and was obliged to return to London in order to procure another passage. These circumstances unavoidably prevented my return to Charleston, until some time in November, 1783.
...
http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/a1_5s13.html
There were questions of Mr. Smith's allegiance, because he had been in Great Britain and parts of Europe during the revolution...and weather or not he meet the 7 years residence requirement for the House of Reps seat.
That quote of Madison's had nothing to do with who they considered "natural born Citizens."
Madison's statement, and the context of that debate, have nothing...not a single thing to do with "natural born Citizens."
Mr. Smith was, "No person except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States, at the time of the adoption of this Constitution,"
because he was born in South Carolina prior to the Constitution (actually, prior to the revolution)...but had traveled to Great Britain and other parts of Europe. So his allegiance to the U.S. came into question...as did weather or not he meet the 7 years residency requirement for eligibility to the House of Representatives.
Madison states that William Smith's allegiance should not be questioned, simply because he was in Europe for some time....because Mr. Smith never renounced his citizenship (gained after the Declaration of Independence) and was born in South Carolina.
Their use of that quote regarding the issue of who a "natural born Citizen" is, is nothing more than an attempt at deception and obfuscation. The only question is...are they doing it intentionally, or out of ignorance?
Hey JERK....the debate I’m in...to which YOU interjected...is PRECISELY about Madison’s quote regarding William Smith.
Who? and I missed that ping >.<
Recently, it is getting hard to keep up with who everyone is :/
I THINK I still remember the ‘birthers’ that were thinking along the same lines as me before the elections.. and most of us are still trying to scratch out the misinformation planted to confuse us and the real deal stuff... I remember *(edited names... don’t want to give the trolls someone else to search for to harass)* that I stayed up for almost 3 days.. going through all of the information coming in.. I finally had to sleep.... I think that thread is still there (maybe 10k posts since the last time I saw it?!)..
I have never given up... but I have tried to stay quiet since then to see what else surfaces... I will never give up.
Screw the obots or the afterbirthers.. there are still some of us here who know, believe, and hope that it can be proven.
Prayers for all of us, this may be the last change the Republic has..
change = chance... oops >.<
What evidence? Where is it? The notion that the Colonists preferred French law over their own law is new to me. Mr. Jefferson wasn't drawing from Rousseau or Voltaire when he drafted the Declaration. The Madison quote clearly shows that he thought soil was at least as important as blood.
FReepers need to see that the whole NBC thing is a red herring. Obama's entire pre-Chicago existence is a FRAUD. He has no legitimate birth certificate he is willing to show. He seems to have a fraudulent Social Security number. No passports. A ghostwritten "autobiography." Yet some want to focus on blood vs soil. The fact is that his mother was a US citizen. His grandparents were US citizens. His British/Kenyan father had ZERO influence on his upbringing; and so if I had to judge his eligibility based upon the supposed intent of Framers who put blood above soil, I would have to say he is eligible.
ML/NJ
I'm going to assume you are not alleging that Story was equating "natural born Citizens" with naturalized citizens (which he goes on to decribe).
That quote, is simply refering to the OR part of the requirement. The "grandfather" clause.
"a citizen at the adoption of the constitution, and for fourteen years before his election"
which isn't in question (or at play) here.
I am sure it will eventually be made public.
All of bovril’s comments got deleted. Things are speeding up so fast I have no idea what thread he got zotted on. I can look through my comments and find it, just let me know if you want to.
I know there’s a way to see deleted comments, I wrote down the archaic formula but never tried it.
Bovril must have been banned previously at least once.
BTW I notice the heavy duty researchers on FR are barely posting any more. Too many idiots on here what to speak of WH operatives trolling for info or just lurking. I assume that’s why they aren’t posting much.
The PTB here on FR have eliminated the method of seeing deleted posts. It doesn’t work anymore.
bovril1a and retread bovrila were both ZOTted here:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/2760763/posts
See Posts 147 and 173
Hope that helps.
Bovril opted to taunt TheOldLady.
With predictable results. ;)
“From what I read, the “natural born citizen” clause, some say, seems to be somewhat ambiguous.”
There are two ways to become a citizen....be born a citizen, and be naturalized a citizen. There are no classes of citizenship, with all citizens enjoying the same rights and responsibilities no matter what the source of their citizenship.
Natural Born citizenship is the most common form of born citizenship (children born in the country of citizen parents) and it’s definition has been well established in USSC decisions from the earliest days of the Republic. In US law being a NBC holds no special cashe (again there are no citizenship classes in the US) except in meeting the requirements of Article II of the Constitution.
What other other forms of born citizenship besides Natural Born Citizen are there? The courts are still defining/redefining these other forms of born citizenship.
The USSC case Wong Kim Arc is just such a case. WKA was declared a born citizen (no need to be naturalized) even though his parents were not US Citizens (note their legal residence in the US). The court, using the 14th Amendment, decided that his birth on US soil, to parents in aliegance to the US, was sufficient to confer born citizenship.
Note that WKA was declared a born citizen, not the more restrictive form of Natural Born Citizen. He enjoyed all the rights common to all US citizens.
Holding the office of the US President is neither a right nor a responsibility of US Citizenship. Eligibility requirements, as spelled out in the Constitutions Article II, must be met. Being born in the country to citizen parents (NBC) is one of several requirements. WKA, a born citizen, did not meet Article II eligibility requirements to become US President.
Barack Obama’s birth to a foreign citizen father, even if in the US as pro-offered, precludes him from being considered a NBC. Barack Obama’s election and installation as US President, flies in the face of US Law, and is at the crux of our current Constitutional crisis.
I would say they are doing it because it is the only straw they have to grasp. :) Nothing else in the record ( of which I am aware) supports their argument.
I see the concept of "time zones" is confusing for you too, old fella? It's almost 4 PM on the West Coast, don't fret over it - dinner will be served soon, gramps!
Keep on showing your ignorant stupidity noob.
Here's a link old-timer - maybe you can use it to learn about fallacious arguments.
Ah, thank you! I never tried reading deleted posts actually, being a certified and bonded techtard, just heard of it!
It has never been a subject of discussion because neither that association nor his degrees involve the analytical expertise (i.e. the credentials) he anonymously claimed to have when evaluating the Intenet image. There is nothing in his background that demonstrates such expertise, and his analyses are rife with amateur errors. He is a fraud who was banned from Free Republic.
Because if you read what you have posted very carefully, you'll notice that Madison mentions that Mr. Smith founds his claim on birth. Not that Madison necessarily agrees with an appeal to blood.
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.