Posted on 01/26/2011 5:57:29 AM PST by Reaganite Republican
 |
| Tim Adams |
More reactionary diatribes at Reaganite Republican
Okay how is this for precedent! There are a number of cases that have addressed citizenship using Vattel prior to the Wong Kim Ark case. The Wong Kim Ark case which you site as the “gospel” is the only case I have found that does not cite Vattel. The case of Wok Kim Ark completely ignored the Supreme Court’s own precedent. The following is a link to an in depth look at these cases.
http://www.thepostemail.com/2009/10/18/4-supreme-court-cases-define-natural-born-citizen/
Outstanding comment! You do our Constitution proud.
WHAT
IS
YOUR
POINT
?
Hello?
Answer me these, if the political party engaging in this sort of behavior as it did with Obama, an organization seen to have ANTHORITY, and an OBLIGATION to do things legally DOES NOT DO IT, who do you refer that to?
Who has the authority to take that case up?
Who has the authority to bring it to which official body? At what level of Government?
Who has the authority to challenge it?
Which official body has that legal responsiblity to DEAL with it?
Answers: There ARE NONE.
So you are foisting the responsiblity onto the citizens, the posters at Free Republic to do this duty. With No authority to make claims, to refute claims, to deal with claims, to even bring legal actions to court regarding such claims??!??!?! We the people don’t even have STANDING to challenge it! Thats been proven over 60 times in courts across the country in the past two years.
WTF.
I am NOT buying your logic (if you can call the assinine crap you and LorenC are pulling logic at all).
We have found that multiple laws have been broken. We are also finding that the Court system is utterly unwilling or unable to deal with it.
THIS IS A WEAKNESS OF OUR SYSTEM, yet you seem to be blaming FReepers for somehow not doing enough, or not doing it in a timely enough manner?
Do NOT try to feed me that sort of Bull Sh!t. Do not try to feed ANY of us here that. We are doing what we can to be responsible citizens, and in that have come to find ourselves more or less powerless to AFFECT it. We talk about it, we discuss it, we investigate it, we make it public as much as we can, but we are still helpless to change it, other than at a voting booth in November every two years. And then we are given a few choices which may or may not do a damn thing to fix it.
No, your whole point is a Make Wrong Game.
That is your ONLY purpose. Make FReepers wrong, ‘they didn’t find bla bla bla, before bla bla bla, so therefore it wasn’t and never should be an issue, bla bla bla’.
You serve no purpose here.
The ONLY thing you are doing is playing a game, and one that has no possible winners. Even when the REAL current issue is smacking you in the face, all you want to do is sift through tens of thousands of posts on who knows how many websites to make a point that is IRRELEVANT to the issues we are facing today?
Give me a flippin break.
Go back to your playground and sand box, not only are you and LorenC not credible in what you are pointlessly trying to do, you make yourselves a part of the problems of the past instead of addressing our collective needs as Americans Citizens TODAY.
If you aren’t going to be a part of the solution, and instead pick the scabs of the past then ****off.
I recomend the zot.
You don’t even know the detailed history of the Electoral Collage OR the fact that there are times the members DO NOT vote the direction of the citiznes they represent. They are called faithless electors, and it HAS happened in the pas.
Get off the tracks man, you are trying to stop a freight train with a BIG head of righteous steam behind it in the locomotive engine.
Prove to me or anyone else here that the chair your butt is planted on is real.
Let me give you a real big help out here... You can’t.
You cannot possibly be trying to argue the validity of a point of history and law based upon whether or not it appears at Free Republic.
NowI LOVE Free Republic. Not even I am ever going to say that it is the first middle and last word on ANYTHING. Whether or not something appears her or does NOT appear here does not make any point valid OR invalid.
ROTFLMAO
Your logic doesn’t even come close to being solid. You can’t even begin to argue your way out of that particular bit of wet paper bag with a machette of logic like that. The “Idiot Abroad” is smarter and more logical than you are.
Don’t tell me, you are just channeling the sound of one finger typing..... gotcha.
Their goal is to be part of the problem. They’re doing exactly what the appear to be doing. Their comments (and others on the same team) have nothing to do with trying to find the truth; their comments are designed to somehow help or provide cover for the Usurper.
That is why they don’t belong on FR. They’re not conservatives who have a differing opinion, they’re the opposition, working for the downfall of our Constitutional Republic.
“WHAT
IS
YOUR
POINT
?
Hello?”
Little Curiosity’s point is to distract people with BS as she and Commie Politijab Loren know Obama is on the Titanic and will use futile attempts to save his sinking butt.
:)
I know, I am just backing them into a corner. Mostly because their logic is so patently false, its sort of easy. Fish in a barrel sort of stuff.
I am in the middle of a couple midterm essay questions, and this is letting my mind grind over a couple of thorny points I have to make.... :)
I agree. I vote ZOT.
Thank you! I have had some very good teachers here at Free Republic. If I stand tall, it is only because I stand on the sholders of giants!
JR knows little curiosity is a silly idiot troll.
JR to Diogenesis
"To: Diogenesis
Don’t feed the trolls.
He was responding to this post:
"To: curiosity; Jim Robinson; ConjunctionJunction; Al B.; SolidWood; Leisler; greyfoxx39; ...
You lack a respect for the Constitution.
Neither Pres_ _ent Obama nor Cand_ _ate Mitt Romney are
eligible to ever be President of the United States. .
- - - - - -
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/chat/2549919/posts?page=39#39
- - - - - - - - -
Little Curiosity is at least halfway to a ZOT.
My memory is like a steal trap. ;-)
Thanks for the welcome, and please accept my apologies for taking so long to reply. Our internet access was out of commission for 12+ hours yesterday and last night. Very frustrating - I don’t want anyone thinking their reply to my comments has been gaffed off because they’ve asked a question. The response took me by surprise; mostly I visit American Thinker, where there are outstanding and thoughtful comments - but not much commentor interaction. This place, however, is like discussion and debate around the kitchen table!
I don’t know much about adoptions in Hawaii per se. My second husband adopted my children from a previous marriage, and in the same time frame as Barry’s early childhood. Ours took place in New York State, which was likely the gold standard for adoption proceedures. One would hope other states - especially a striving-to-do-it-right brand new state such as Hawaii - would adopt the proven expertise example New York offered. Well - second thoughts about that remind me that during that same time period Hawaii was a mecca for U.S. Communists looking to become less high-profile. Famous among them was Frank Marshall Davis, who had no small influence on local Hawaiian politics, union activity, the local chapter of ‘pedophiles-R-us’, and his protege - our boy Barry.
You asked if he could have reversed the adoption. In comment #219, butterdezillion says Hawaii allows an adoption to be set aside. I had never even heard of such a proceedure. I wonder how it’s done - who has the right, whether it requires hearings, whether it can be contested, could it have been done without Lolo’s knowledge/consent etc.?
Beckwith, at #265, very logically pieces together a scenario of Obama, Sr’s 1971 Christmas visit to Hawaii as being for just that purpose: Sr adopting Barry “back”. Adding to that premise is that the boy - newly enrolled at Penahu school - was apparently Barry OBAMA all through high school.
As far as Barry’s eligibility status is concerned - what a remarkably good question!! His actual physical sire, being a British subject, meant Barry was ineligible from the gitgo. Lolo was also not a U.S. citizen, so no effect. The implications of a hypothetical - but not unlikely - situation are mind boggling: because the adopting man becomes the ‘conceiving father’, what effect does that have on the child if the bio-father was not a US citizen, but the adopting father IS a US citizen?
As to Barry’s present status, my understanding is - given the various possible scenarios - he would fall into one of the following:
> If Lolo adoption was ‘set aside’, it wouldn’t automatically revert to Barry’s original parentage. The sire gave him up, so would have to agree to ‘take him back’. It would have to involve legal consent, meaning an appearance in court, and signatures. As Beckwith suggests, this is the only reason Sr would have been in Hawaii visiting his former ‘family’ for a month. We need to keep in mind that while this visit was taking place, Stanley Ann was also visiting from Indonesia where she lived with her husband Lolo. We [or, I] know of this visit from only one source - Barry’s ‘Dreams...’ book. He gave no reason for the visit - just, oh - here comes dad, and I can hardly wait for him to leave. Whichever father was in effect, Barry was still was born to a non-citizen parent. Ineligible.
> If Barry remained Lolo’s legal son, he retained his Indonesian citizenship. To become an American citizen again, on reaching age 18 he would have to apply, pay the fees, and wait whatever the then-required time before oath-taking. He would be a naturalized citizen. Ineligible.
What it boils down to is that Natural Born Citizen means born to two US citizen parents.
The only way to logically define the term “natural born” is that the birth status is unencumbered by any possibility of other than United States’ governing influence, and that it came about by Constitutional declaration and therefore without application of statute [such as naturalization].
No matter which way they try to slice this salami - Obama’s not eligible, and no twisting or cajoling, or application of statute, can trump Article II, Section 1.
I really don’t know anything about Hawaii birth index records. In New York State, no information pertaining to a sealed adoption can be public - including the information that there even IS a sealed adoption record. Apparently Hawaii plays fast and loose with regulations - or only has regulations if their Obie-boy enacts an Executive Order.
Thanks RS! I am glad your mind is like a steel trap, because mine is more often like a steel seive... ugh. Thats what I get for having a course load of reading and writing to do.
I am thinking its past time for James777, curiosity, and LorenC to move on off of FR.
Thank you for your very well thought out and articulate post!
A little background on me, I was born in Hawaii in 1969. I have on occasions proven or dis-proven various claims made by posters with regard to Hawaii Department of Health and its procedures. Mostly because I can access the department at any time to obtain my own records, or to ask questions. So I have first hand access.
Recently I debunked the implied notion from the HDOH that they only ever send out computer generated short form birth certificates. They DO send those out, it just is not easy to get. There are two reasons why.
Hawaii recently took the step of naming the Long Form birth certificate filled out by a doctor and listing a hospital at the time of a baby’s birth, the same as the short form computer generated document.
Yes, EXACTLY! That is confusing as hell, done deliberately. I am willing to bet they refer now to the two different documents by a number or other such notation.
Why did they do that?
When someone approaches the office for a copy of their certificate of live birth, the office automatically generates the short form. When you go back to them and say, no I need a certificate of Live birth, they say, thats what you got. Then you get the run around with the line that has been seen in the papers... thats all we give out.
Well in fact, if you send a letter addressed directly to Alvin T. Onaka the head of the department, stating that you want a copy of your hand filled out Certificate of live birth, the document signed by my mother and doctor on xx/xx/xxxx date, that is the actual starting place for getting the copy you need. You can get a certified copy, or an uncertified one. I know this because Dr. Onaka asked me directly when I spoke to him personally on the phone. It took me two separate requests to his office to obtain it.
The first got “lost” in the office, and my father was in end stages cancer, so I sort of blew it off for a while. About a month after my Dad’s passing I was ready to wonder where the heck the thing was, it had been a couple months since I had sent the request in. So I sent another, but this time sent it return receipt requested. I got the card back, so I knew that the office had received it. But yet, upon calling them, they could not find it. I was eventually passed along to Dr. Onaka’s secretary, but it took some very firm line holding on my part, saying, no, I need to bump this up to a supervisor, I demand the record I paid for. This all led to that eventual conversation where Dr. Onaka asked me why I wanted the document, a piece of information he is allowed to ask in the process of finding a document, but cannot use in deciding to give it to me. I have a legal right to that document, and every other document in my file. They are not allowed to refuse me.
Thus it has been proven that Hawaii DOES produce Long Forms upon request.
Back to Obama, I believe you are correct in saying that the man is not constitutionally eligible. It has been my belief for some time, that he could not have been a Natural Born Citizen from the instant he was conceived. It does not matter where he was born.
Obama is using the Birth Certificate controversy in order to hide the underlying reality which is the CONDITIONS of his birth... to the son of a British National.
It is the CONDITIONS of one’s birth which dictate whether or not a person is a Natural Born Citizen. Those conditions are, being born to two parents who are citizens, and born upon their native soil.
It is start raving clear in history, from documents written to the founders between themselves and those published at the time, that this is the very definition they used when placing the Clause in the requirements for POTUS.
The left’s causi belli has been to attempt to distract from this reality. This provable reality. With any means necessary. Lying and obfuscating the truth is but a couple of their tools.
This truth remains however, at this moment in time, we do NOT have a Constitutional Federal Government. The Head of that government, Barrack Obama, is NOT a legal and constitutional president. Nothing he signs, says or does is legal and valid.
World leaders know this, it is why not one of them takes him seriously. They know that if he is found out, it it becomes public and credible in the press, the man will be out on his can if not in a federal penitentiary overnight.
We stand on a VERY perilous moment in history. We do NOT have a United States of America. We have what seems like it... but the Federal Government as lead by an unconstitutional usurper has NO authority. All it has is our money, and a lot of big sticks with which to bludgeon us and force us to its will.
That worries the hell out of me. At this moment in time, I consider this nation so fragile, that I just want Obama gone - don’t give a rat’s ass what happens to him (other than a real heavy dose of karma) - I want ANYONE with constitutional eligibility in that seat as POTUS.
It has gone WAY past political parties. Forget about that, because the GOP is not screaming about this crisis, it is in my mind a part of the problem. Remove Obama, raise Biden in his place - at least we have a freaking constitutional government with a head of state who can legally act as Commander in Chief.
The longer this goes on, the more dangerous it becomes. The more people who realize, oh hey, we don’t have to pay taxes to a federal government which is not Constitutional, the more are also going to realize that no federal laws apply to anything.
Those in power reading this, don’t think that your cover is going to last until the elections of 2012. It is crumbling around your ears FAST. Bloody fast. You see what is happening on the Arab Street? Those are legitimate governments with legal authority being challenged and overthrown. You all are trying to keep the veil of legitimacy up, but it is so thin now it only has one side.
This dangerous game HAS to end before we end up like Greece, Egypt, Tunis, Yemen. Think it is unimaginable here? You are fools for trusting ignorance so far. The sleeping giant is awake, it’s name is the Tea Party, and it is NOT happy with the state of the union. Not at all.
Sorry for the rant. I am honestly and deeply concerned for this union of states we call America. If this is NOT addressed, then we have no union. I do NOT find this an acceptable state of affairs, and I am certainly not alone.
Yes, they cited Vatel, but not a single one excluded US-born children of non-citizen parents from natural born citizenship. There's more to Vattel than just his definition of citizenship.
The Wong Kim Ark case which you site as the “gospel” is the only case I have found that does not cite Vattel.
Citing Vattel is not the same thing as endorsing your view of natural born citizenship.
The case of Wok Kim Ark completely ignored the Supreme Court’s own precedent
That is simply false.
And yet I'm somehow still here.
Permit me, for a moment, to descend to the maturity level of a typical birther: Nyah, Nyah, Nyah, Nyah, Nyah!
Yup, you’re still here future Zot.
I'm not. I'm trying to say that a specific interpretation of a phrase in the constitution did not exist, ANYWHERE IN THE PUBLIC DOMAIN, before Nov. 2008. That makes it very unlikely to be correct.
July 1, 2008 and there were earlier threads as well:
Yes, I have seen that quoted before as the law of the land in 1961. Now it may well conflict with many assumptions about what a “natural born” citizen is, but it appears that according to the law prevailing in 1961 that even if Obama WAS born in Hawaii or any other US state, he was not a US citizen at birth because his father was not a citizen and with only one parent (his mother) as citizen she needed to have resided in the USA for “minimum ten years, five of which must be after the age of 16”..... it may be a very strange way for the law to have been written, to say that an natural born US citizen who is under the age of 21 may not give birth to a natural born US citizen if the father is not a US citizen, but isn’t that what the text of this law implies???? Are there any FReeper lawyers who care to give their analysis of the law prevailing in 1961 on the citizenship status of a baby born to a US citizen mother and a foreign citizen father??
“US Law very clearly states: ‘. . . If only one parent is a U.S. Citizen at the time of one’s birth, that parent must have resided in the United States for minimum ten years, five of which must be after the age of 16.’ Barack Obama’s father was not a U.S. Citizen is a fact.
Obama’s mother was only 18 when Obama was born. This means even though she had been a U.S. Citizen for 10 years, (or citizen of Hawaii being a territory), his mother fails the test for at-least-5-years- prior-to Barack Obama’s birth, but-after-age-16.”
108 posted on Tue Jul 01 2008 17:44:32 GMT-0500 (Central Daylight Time) by Enchante (OBAMA: “That’s not the Wesley Clark I knew!”)
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2039352/posts?q=1&;page=108
Thats total BS.
It was published by George Collins in The American Law Review (1866-1906); Sep/Oct 1884; 18, American Periodicals Series Online pg.831
That is just the FIRST refrence that comes to mind. There ARE others.
So going back all the way to 1884, Americans KNEW what a Natural Born Citizen was. Thanks to Liberals in our schools and writing the text books those definations just didnt’ get passed down in the generations closest to ours. That does NOT mean that it doesn’t exist. Ignorance of the law does NOT protect you if you break that law.
*tink* you have been flicked back to the sandbox.
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.