Posted on 12/05/2008 11:54:45 AM PST by America2012
At Barack Obama’s web site, the following admission:
“FactCheck.org Clarifies Barack’s Citizenship
‘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…’ “
Read that last line again.
“That same act governed the status of Obama Sr.‘s children…”
That’s an admission that Great Britain “governed the status” of Barack Obama, Jr. Barack Obama has chosen to highlight this on his own volition.
And this leads to the relevant question:
HOW CAN A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN’S STATUS BE “GOVERNED” BY GREAT BRITAIN?
A natural born citizen’s status should only be governed by the United States. This is the core issue before the Supreme Court of the United States.
And it appears, that on that particular "core case", the Supreme Court will deny cert. They issued two certs based on today's conferances, this was not one of them. It's not final, but it's also not looking good.
Well I think Keyes and the various Electors, have a better case for peeking at the real Birth Certificate anyway.
I hold UK/Canadian citizenship because of this...
They just can't be President of the United States. That's just the way it is because the Constitution says so. It's up to the Supreme Court to enforce it.
If they did that, then the Supreme Court justices would face tens of thousands of lawsuits for judicial misconduct from all across America for failing to uphold the Constitution, especially if Obama were to take office. All Presidential decisions and Supreme Court decisions from that point forward could be argued as "null and void".
The Supreme Court is the final say on all case law in America but if they fail to do their duty they would be facing misconduct charges in all 50 states. There's no way out for SCOTUS either.
But not a Natural Born one.
People keep writing that. But all the constitution says is:
No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.
So the question is "what are the requirements to be "natural born". The Constitution is silent on that matter, just as it is with the definition of most of its terms. It's probably fair to say that a necessary, but perhaps not sufficient, condition is to be a citizen at birth. If Barry was born in Hawaii, then he was a citizen a birth, and the question of "natural born" will then depend on further details, if any, in the meaning of "natural born", as the term was understood by Jay, Washington, and the other men who passed and ratified the Constitution
That probably means one should look to the law books of the time, and the writing of Blackstone and other legal scholars of the time, and shortly before. Undoubtedly the definition will include such factors as the place of birth or citizenship status of his parents, both of them. That is not on the Certification of Live Birth, whether the one posted or a legitimate one from the state of Hawaii.
But if Barry was not born in the US, then there is no question that he's not natural born, because he would not meet the criteria of "citizen at birth".
Thus:
How hard is it to direct the Hawaii Department of Health Statistics to send one to a court, or to a newspaper or other media outlet, not deep into Obamamania.
Tough Teats.
On a student visa, not a permanent resident visa. Probably anyway, those records are of course also "not available".
But it would not matter if he was an illegal alien, if little Barry made his appearance in a Hawaiian hospital, or grass hut for that matter. But which one was it?
If so - until his status - natural born or not - is established I predict endless attempts, like Whitewater , to question his legitimacy . Four tumultuous wasted years because he cannot or will not produce his birth certificate. The original. The one that says, hospital, doctor, time, date, COUNTRY ... he's hiding something. Guaranteed. ;-)
In particular from Book I,
§ 212. Citizens and natives. The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. As the society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights. The society is supposed to desire this, in consequence of what it owes to its own preservation; and it is presumed, as matter of course, that each citizen, on entering into society, reserves to his children the right of becoming members of it. The country of the fathers is therefore that of the children; and these become true citizens merely by their tacit consent. We shall soon see whether, on their coming to the years of discretion, they may renounce their right, and what they owe to the society in which they were born. I say, that, in order to be of the country, it is necessary that a person be born of a father who is a citizen; for, if he is born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country.
...
§ 214. Naturalization.(58) A nation, or the sovereign who represents it, may grant to a foreigner the quality of citizen, by admitting him into the body of the political society. This is called naturalization. There are some states in which the sovereign cannot grant to a foreigner all the rights of citizens, — for example, that of holding public offices — and where, consequently, he has the power of granting only an imperfect naturalization. It is here a regulation of the fundamental law, which limits the power of the prince. In other states, as in England and Poland, the prince cannot naturalize a single person, without the concurrence of the nation, represented by its deputies. Finally, there are states, as, for instance, England, where the single circumstance of being born in the country naturalizes the children of a foreigner.
§ 215. Children of citizens born in a foreign country.
It is asked whether the children born of citizens in a foreign country are citizens? The laws have decided this question in several countries, and their regulations must be followed.(59) By the law of nature alone, children follow the condition of their fathers, and enter into all their rights (§ 212); the place of birth produces no change in this particular, and cannot, of itself, furnish any reason for taking from a child what nature has given him; I say "of itself," for, civil or political laws may, for particular reasons, ordain otherwise. But I suppose that the father has not entirely quitted his country in order to settle elsewhere. If he has fixed his abode in a foreign country, he is become a member of another society, at least as a perpetual inhabitant; and his children will be members of it also.
§ 216. Children born at sea.
As to children born at sea, if they are born in those parts of it that are possessed by their nation, they are born in the country: if it is on the open sea, there is no reason to make a distinction between them and those who are born in the country; for, naturally, it is our extraction, not the place of our birth, that gives us rights: and if the children are born in a vessel belonging to the nation, they may be reputed born in its territories; for, it is natural to consider the vessels of a nation as parts of its territory, especially when they sail upon a free sea, since the state retains its jurisdiction over those vessels. And as, according to the commonly received custom, this jurisdiction is preserved over the vessels, even in parts of the sea subject to a foreign dominion, all the children born in the vessels of a nation are considered as born in its territory. For the same reason, those born in a foreign vessel are reputed born in a foreign country, unless their birth took place in a port belonging to their own nation; for, the port is more particularly a part of the territory; and the mother, though at that moment on board a foreign vessel, is not on that account out of the country. I suppose that she and her husband have not quitted their native country to settle elsewhere.
§ 217. Children born in the armies of the state.
For the same reasons also, children born out of the country, in the armies of the state, or in the house of its minister at a foreign court, are reputed born in the country; for a citizen who is absent with his family, on the service of the state, but still dependent on it, and subject to its jurisdiction, cannot be considered as having quitted its territory.
OK, that's one for "Citizenship by blood". Of course the 14th amendment likely modified that, but maybe not. The 14th makes persons born in the US, and subject to their jurisdiction, citizens of the US, but that may or may not be the same as being natural born citizens.
But it's completely clear that if Obama was not born in the US, he's not a natural born citizen, and he may not be a citizen at all.
He's hiding something. It may be his place of birth, or something else. But it's hard to imagine what else would be worth the hassle at this point. Of course it's not that much hassle with so many people running interference for him.
Have you seen this?
They could have it by Monday if it was requested today during conference.
When I say, that an alien is one who is born out of the king's dominions, or allegiance, this also must be understood with some restrictions. The common law indeed stood absolutely so; with only a very few exceptions: so that a particular act of parliament became necessary after the restoration, for the naturalization of children of his majesty's English subjects, born in foreign countries during the late troubles. And this maxim of the law proceeded upon a general principle, that every man owes natural allegiance where he is born, and cannot owe two such allegiances, or serve two masters, at once. Yet the children of the king's embassadors born abroad were always held to be natural subjects: for as the father, though in a foreign country, owes not even a local allegiance to the prince to whom he is sent; so, with regard to the son also, he was held (by a kind of postliminium) to be born under the king of England's allegiance, represented by his father, the embassador. To encourage also foreign commerce, it was enacted by statute 25 Edw. III. st. 2. that all children born abroad, provided both their parents were at the time of the birth in allegiance to the king, and the mother had passed the seas by her husband's consent, might inherit as if born in England: and accordingly it hath been so adjudged in behalf of merchants. But by several more modern statutes these restrictions are still farther taken off: so that all children, born out of the king's ligeance, whose fathers were natural-born subjects, are now natural-born subjects themselves, to all intents and purposes, without any exception; unless their said fathers were attainted, or banished beyond sea, for high treason; or were then in the service of a prince at enmity with Great Britain.
The children of aliens, born here in England, are, generally speaking, natural-born subjects, and entitled to all the privileges of such. In which the constitution of France differs from ours; for there, by their jus albinatus, if a child be born of foreign parents, it is an alien.
As you can see this differs a bit from the Law Of Nations (written originally in French). But the English had the same distinction between naturalized and "natural born".
Naturalization cannot be performed but by act of parliament: for by this an alien is put in exactly the same state as if he had been born in the king's ligeance; except only that he is incapable, as well as a denizen, of being a member of the privy council, or parliament,
I think would have to go with the Blackstone version. For two reasons, one proximity in time, Blackstone wrote in 1765, while Monsieur De VattelO a Swiss, wrote in 1758. But more importantly the English law, both Common and Statute, was much more familiar to the Early Americans, so recently separated from England, than something in French (although most of the more learned Americans would have read French as well), and because they operated under those laws until less than two decades before the Constitution was written. They are not that much different anyway, except on the critical point of a child of an alien (non citizen) being a natural born "subject" if born in English lands.
Actually as you can see from the excerpt, or the full book at the link, there were exceptions. § 215 indicates that someone born abroad of two citizen/subject parents, like McCain, would still be a citizen. But that generally, but not in England, Citizenship followed that of the father. In England, it did for English fathers, but for alien fathers it did not, unless the offspring renounced his citizenship. That is, someone born of a foreign father in England would be a natural born citizen, but could renounce that in favor of the father's country. The exact same situation as B.H.O. was in. That's why the question of traveling on a foreign passport after age 18 (or 21) is important, but only if BHO was born in the US. Otherwise, the man is Kenyan, Indonesian or possibly a naturalized American. (Remember the passport data intrusion)
I know, I’m studying for my civics exam... 18 months and I can become a US 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.