Posted on 11/07/2008 11:00:42 AM PST by big black dog
For some reason this issue with Obama’s birth certificate will not fade away. There seems to be a nagging belief by many that he is not a natural born citizen of this country and is therefore not qualified to be president. Critics of those that continue to hang onto this theory simply swat away these suggestions as racist (I know, shocking) and coming from people that don’t want to see a half black dude in the White house.
One tiny little bit of information, that you will never find in the lamestream media, seems to point to the fact that those that doubt Obama’s citizenship status just might be on to something.
Back in April of ‘08 highly partisan Democratic Senator Claire McCaskill of Missouri, a staunch and fervent supporter of Barack Obama, inexplicably introduced Senate Resolution 511 a resolution recognizing that John Sidney McCain, III, is a natural born citizen. She was joined by five other Democratic senators including Barack Obama in an effort to push this bill through the senate. The original text of this bill read:
***********************
110th CONGRESS
2d Session
S. RES. 511
Recognizing that John Sidney McCain, III, is a natural born citizen.
IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES
April 10, 2008
Mrs. MCCASKILL (for herself, Mr. LEAHY, Mr. OBAMA, Mr. COBURN, Mrs. CLINTON, and Mr. WEBB) submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary
RESOLUTION
Recognizing that John Sidney McCain, III, is a natural born citizen.
Whereas the Constitution of the United States requires that, to be eligible for the Office of the President, a person must be a `natural born Citizen’ of the United States;
Whereas the term `natural born Citizen’, as that term appears in Article II, Section 1, is not defined in the Constitution of the United States;
Whereas there is no evidence of the intention of the Framers or any Congress to limit the constitutional rights of children born to Americans serving in the military nor to prevent those children from serving as their country’s President;
Whereas such limitations would be inconsistent with the purpose and intent of the `natural born Citizen’ clause of the Constitution of the United States, as evidenced by the First Congress’s own statute defining the term `natural born Citizen’;
Whereas the well-being of all citizens of the United States is preserved and enhanced by the men and women who are assigned to serve our country outside of our national borders;
Whereas previous presidential candidates were born outside of the United States of America and were understood to be eligible to be President; and
Whereas John Sidney McCain, III, was born to American citizens on an American military base in the Panama Canal Zone in 1936: Now, therefore, be it
Resolved,That John Sidney McCain, III, is a `natural born Citizen’ under Article II, Section 1, of the Constitution of the United States.
At first blush one may think “big deal” but read it again and see what these five Democrats were really trying to accomplish.
a)Whereas the term `natural born Citizen’, as that term appears in Article II, Section 1, is not defined in the Constitution of the United States
b)Whereas previous presidential candidates were born outside of the United States of America and were understood to be eligible to be President;
**********************
Now why would five Democratic senators including the one running for president bother drafting a resolution declaring their Republican opponent eligible for office while carefully crafting the bill to be accepting of someone born outside of the U.S. and perhaps NOT a natural born citizen to also be eligible to hold the office of president if elected? Hmmmmmm?
It seems clear to me what they were attempting to accomplish especially with statement “b” and that was to declare Obama eligible for the office of president even if he wasn’t born here or qualified as a “natural born” citizen.
There was no need to issue this resolution for McCain as he was already known to have been born at the Coco Solo Naval Air Station in the Panama Canal Zone, Panama which was under U.S. control at the time of his birth. His father was naval officer John S. McCain, Jr. McCain was cleared to run for president in 2000 based on this information so there was no reason for McCaskill and her pals to introduce the resolution except as cover for Obama in the event he was indeed elected as president.
The fact is that if Obama wanted to settle this issue once and for all it could be done very simply. The fact that he refuses to do so leads me to believe that he is attempting to deceive us and therefore I refuse to support him.
“It’s over. Hawaii says it’s a legal birth certificate.”
Exactly. This issue is a waste of time.
What is being shown is a printout of a Certificate of Live Birth from the data on file. But in Hawaii these digital forms can be given out for people born abroad to American citizens.
Wait. So you're saying that the State of Hawaii would issue a document saying that someone was born in Honolulu when they were in fact born overseas? Seriously?
Preposterous. We don't need to sink this low - we still have the substantive advantage, until we destroy our credibility with this nonsense.
“Obama, through no fault of his own, might have lost his U.S. citizenship — either through residency requirements or by the fact that he was legally adopted by an Indoneasian.”
That isn’t how it works. Nowhere does the Constitution say that. Residency requirements do not exist. I could be born in the US and live every day after that abroad and i’d still be an American citizen until I renounce it. Nor does foreign adoption do anything.
The fact is that if Obama wanted to settle this issue once and for all it could be done very simply. The fact that he refuses to do so leads me to believe that he is attempting to deceive us and therefore I refuse to support him.
He did. He had the State of Hawaii issue him a new copy of the birth certificate.
I needed a new copy of my birth certficate, so I went down to the county building and was issued a brand-spanking new computer printout, similar in form to the one Obama released. When I needed another copy of my son's birth certificate, I got one identical in form to mine.
This is what Hawaii issues. The state says it's legit. It's a dead issue, and a loser for us.
The more we persist with this nonsense the less credibility we'll have, and consequently the more he'll have. We must attack him on actual substance, which is still our strength.
Jackson was from Tennessee, not born there. That’s where the reference to “west of the Appalachians” comes from.
There has long been a dispute between North and South Carolina (even debated in Congress in 1929) over where Jackson was born.
I don’t know if Eckert is correct or not in his assertion that Jackson was born at sea.
My point was that the “controversy” over where Jackson was born could “potentially” be used to establish a precedent that even though questions exist about where he was actually born, Jackson did ultimately hold the office of President.
But, yes, Jackson was a citizen when the Constitution was adopted and was therefore eligible for the presidency. I’m not sure why the author claims otherwise.
The problem that I have with these reports, however, is that they tend to ignore the possible scenario that Communist USA citizen Frank Marshall Davis was Obama's real father. This increases the possibility that Obama is a natural-born USA citizen, regardless that he obviously doesn't doesn't want to discuss this family matter publicly. That's somewhat understandable.
But yes, all stones need to be turned over to get Constitution-ignoring Socialist Obama out of the Oval Office. In fact, if the people would get off their hands and insist that the federal government starts respecting the limited powers delegated to it by the Constitution, then Obama would be a lame-duck president already.
You said:
“If we really believe in the rule of law, then we acceot Hawaii’s verdict and finally let this issue rest.”
_____________________________________________________
Please tell me exactly when “Hawaii’s verdict” came in?
Your just making statements up to prove YOUR assumptions.
Look, some of us still care about upholding our Constitution.
I don’t want to move forward in this country if we don’t uphold our existing laws. It will not be a country worth keeping.
Why can’t you understand that.
If you don’t have any interest in our the nation that our founding fathers put together, then fine.
But, please butt out of this issue.
WE CARE. We are tired of defending the Constitution to people like you who think it doesn’t matter.
Constitutionally, yes he would be disqualified. But nobody cares about that stuff anymore, least of all the people who have sworn oaths to it.
Somebody is misinterpreting this. It would mean that a child born to a younger woman would be discriminated against. I find this highly unlikely.
I am researching the Nationality Act of 1940, as amended, to see just what it says.
It has been amended many times, even recently.
However, at least in the most recent amendments, the new provision did not change the citizenship status prior to each change.
If one had been previously determined to be natural born - he stayed so. Same for a naturalized citizen.
Per Berg’s Petition For Writ of Certiorari at SCOTUS:
“The laws on the books at the time of Obama’s birth required the U.S. Citizen to have resided in the United States for ten (10) years, five (5) of which were after the age of fourteen (14). Obama’s mother was only 18 when Obama was born in Kenya. Nationality Act of 1940, revised June 1952; United States of America v. Cervantes-Nava, 281 F.3d 501 (2002); Drozd v. I.N.S., 155 F.3d 81, 85-88 (2d Cir.1998).”
I want to find the exact text applicable in 1961 before I post my findings.
I have a problem with something that really hasn't been mentioned much, i.e. why is he BHO II, and not BHO jr?. Traditionally, your son is named jr and someone else's son is II.
So perhaps his Hawaii BC does list another as his father.
Here’s an additional nugget - Obama is in BIG trouble if he was born in Kenya ...
Montana v. Kennedy (366 U.S. 308 (1961)), decided May 22, 1961:
The Supreme Court ruled that a child born abroad prior to May 24, 1934, to an American citizen mother did not acquire American citizenship at birth, since at that time citizenship at birth was transmitted only by a citizen father.
Although subsequent legislation conferred upon American women the power to transmit citizenship to their children born abroad, such legislation was not retroactive and did not bestow citizenship on persons born before the enactment of such legislation.
Man ... did I just f**k up, I am SOOO sorry.
I COMPLETELY missed the birth date of the child.
I am flogging myself with a wet noodle - I promise to be more careful.
The Ayatollah Hussein IS NOT the President elect yet, and may never be. We will see what the Electors decide mid-December about supporting an illegal alien as President of the US. McCain may yet win.
True, but your post says he was born west of the Appalachians. He wasn't.
a few weeks after the child’s birth and she was already in Washington, unless she’d given birth in Canaday instead of Hawaii.
She didn’t know how to change a diaper by then either, supposedly.
You said: “If we really believe in the rule of law, then we acceot Hawaii’s verdict and finally let this issue rest.”
_____________________________________________________
Please tell me exactly when “Hawaii’s verdict” came in?
Your just making statements up to prove YOUR assumptions.
No, I'm not. Looks like you don't have all the facts.
Anyone really interested in defending the Constiution wouldn't waste a minute of our time on this nonsense, not to mention squandering what remains of our credibility.
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.