Posted on 01/05/2009 2:03:24 PM PST by autumnraine
Thank you for contacting me to share your concerns over President-elect Obama's citizenship. I appreciate hearing from you.
Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 of the United States Constitution states, "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." President-elect Obama demonstrated his citizenship during his campaign by circulating copies of his birth certificate, which showed he was born in Hawaii on August 4, 1961.
On December 8, 2008, the Supreme Court declined to hear a case filed by a New Jersey attorney, Mr. Donofrio, regarding President-elect Obama's citizenship. Unlike many of the lawsuits regarding President-elect Obama's citizenship, which claim he was really born on foreign soil, Mr. Donofrio's case concedes that President-elect Obama was born in Hawaii but contends he still held foreign citizenship at birth. Mr. Donofrio's lawsuit argues that since President-elect Obama's father was a Kenyan citizen and therefore subject to the jurisdiction of the United Kingdom at the time of President-elect Obama's birth, then Obama was a British citizen at birth and not eligible to be President of the United States.
Another attorney, Mr. Berg, has filed a lawsuit regarding President-elect Obama's citizenship and is waiting to hear whether the Supreme Court will take up the case or not. A federal judge in Eastern Pennsylvania threw out Mr. Berg's lawsuit in October, saying he lacked legal standing to bring the challenge since he could not show he faced individual harm even if he could prove his claims about President-elect Obama's citizenship. The judge did not get to the merits of the case. Mr. Berg is appealing the standing issue to the Supreme Court.
If a person is born in the United States, a certificate of live birth issued where one is born is sufficient proof of U.S. citizenship. The certificate, confirmed by the Hawaii Department of Health as authentic, shows that President-elect Obama was born in Hawaii.
If you would like to receive timely email alerts regarding the latest congressional actions and my weekly e-newsletter, please sign up via my web site at: www.chambliss.senate.gov . Please let me know whenever I may be of assistance.
THIS IS MY REPLY:
Thank you for responding to my email, but I take exception to that last paragraph.
"If a person is born in the United States, a certificate of live birth issued where one is born is sufficient proof of U.S. citizenship. The certificate, confirmed by the Hawaii Department of Health as authentic, shows that President-elect Obama was born in Hawaii. "
This is incorrect. Unfortunately, there have been alot of people who have taken this idea ran with it, making an assumption that they should not.
You are correct in stating that the Hawaii Dept of Health has acknowledged that they DO indeed hold A birth certificate for Obama. They DID not state that he was born there, as Hawaii has had a statute that allows a person to register a birth of a child born outside of the state as long as one parent shows they held a residence there within the past 12 months. No one is debating Mrs. Dunham-Obama's residence before or after Obama's birth.
Please see statute §338-17.8 Certificates for children born out of State. (a) Upon application of an adult or the legal parents of a minor child, the director of health shall issue a birth certificate for such adult or minor, provided that proof has been submitted to the director of health that the legal parents of such individual while living without the Territory or State of Hawaii had declared the Territory or State of Hawaii as their legal residence for at least one year immediately preceding the birth or adoption of such child. (b) Proof of legal residency shall be submitted to the director of health in any manner that the director shall deem appropriate. The director of health may also adopt any rules pursuant to chapter 91 that he or she may deem necessary or proper to prevent fraudulent applications for birth certificates and to require any further information or proof of events necessary for completion of a birth certificate.
Please see the following statement by Dr. CHIYOME FUKINO For Immediate Release: October 31, 2008 08-93
STATEMENT BY DR. CHIYOME FUKINO
"There have been numerous requests for Sen. Barack Hussein Obama’s official birth certificate. State law (Hawai'i Revised Statutes §338-18) prohibits the release of a certified birth certificate to persons who do not have a tangible interest in the vital record. "Therefore, I as Director of Health for the State of Hawai'i, along with the Registrar of Vital Statistics who has statutory authority to oversee and maintain these type of vital records, have personally seen and verified that the Hawai'i State Department of Health has Sen. Obama’s original birth certificate on record in accordance with state policies and procedures. "No state official, including Governor Linda Lingle, has ever instructed that this vital record be handled in a manner different from any other vital record in the possession of the State of Hawai'i.” ### For more information, contact: Janice Okubo Communications Office Phone: (808) 586-4442
Therefore stating there IS a birth certificate is NOT stating he was born in Hawaii. It's not like in Georgia where if there is a birth certificate in the archives for you, then it must mean you were born here.
I hope you continue to act on this matter and not leave the country feeling as our constitution does not matter. There at this point been NO agency that has officially verified Obama's certificate. I had to present one in order to drive in Georgia. I had to present my children's to enroll them in school. Can not the very least of this requirement be mandated for someone who will be in charge of our military and intellegence?
Thank you,
(Autumnraine)
Yes it does. Have you not even looked at it? It clearly states Honolulu as the place of birth.
Those who argue it isn’t legit claim it doesn’t give the specifics on location that one would find on the full form , such as hospital, thus, it is not valid. (for the record, I disagree and think some are really stretching.)
Yes, well, I agree with you that this is an absurd argument. How could the name of the hospital and attending physician possibly be relevant to his citizenship status? Of course, it is not.
-------------------- NO ARTICLE 2 THEN NO AMENDMENT 16 --------------------
Count yourself lucky. You didn't have to endure a full page of his prefabricated sophistry.
Great, then he should have no problem presenting a hard copy of this document to the joint session of Congress on January 9th, and to any court of law where his qualifications are being challenged.
But he won't for fear of perjury because that document has been altered and is a forgery.
Unless the hospital on the certificate is in Kenya and the attending physician is a Kenyan. Any college professor should know that -- even in Seattle.
Uh, Honolulu, Hawaii, is not in Kenya. Any idiot should know that.
If Congress, or a court, were to ask him to see it, I am sure he would show it to them. Thus far, this has not happened. It is also very unlikely to happen given the sheer implausibility of the notion that he was born anywhere other than Honolulu, Hawaii.
The son of a British subject is not a natural born American citizen either, regardless of where the child is born, but there appear to be lots of posters trying to erase that truth in order to fudge up a pass for their chosen almost black candidate. That son of a British subject could be, probably would be, a citizen, but would be the exact example of what the writers of the Constitution wanted ineligible by their specifying only natural born citizen need apply.
Show where it says that in the Constitution.
Prior to 1982, anyone requesting a certification of live birth and depositing a copy of their actual certificate of birth long form but not born in Hawaii would be issued a certifiction of live birth stating place of birth as Honolulu. It is instructive of the Obamanoids that they keep trying to use that deception on a site like FreeRepublic where more than mere leftist assertion, actual data, is common. More than one example of the pattern has been posted here int he last two months. [Do you, Polarik, or Lucy T, have access to that imagery from past threads or that long thread on which Polairk posted his final report on the forged COLB? Time to bury this lie with the documentation, and I don’t have access on this slow system I use.] The Obamanoids don’t expect anyone to question their lying. It must be frustrating for these Axelrod sycophants.
The term was well understood to mean American citizen parents by men like John Jay, George Washington, and Thomas Jefferson. A father of foreign loyalty was to be avoided, thus the inclusion of the phrase 'natural born citizen'. In Jay's letter to Washington and Jefferson's writing of the Virginia state Constitution, a man of divided loyalties through his father was not a natural born citizen. Quotes showing their understanding of the term have been posted numerous times on threads where you have posted, so we may assume you've read them. [MHGinTN, Beckwith, would one of you post those quotes again for this professional deceiver?]
Why do you, professor, continue to try that deceit? Show us where the term 'arms' is defined in the Constitution. Show us where the meaning of 'Church' is explained in the Constitution. Show us where the term press is defined in the Constitution. You cannot, but the understanding of those terms has Historical context which may be readily consulted. That you don't like the meaning drawn from History is very 'liberal' of you, Oregonian.
So what kind of citizen would he be? Clearly the 14th Amendment makes him a citizen from brith. And clearly he is not naturalized. So what legal category would his citizenship fall under if not natural born?
That son of a British subject could be, probably would be, a citizen, exact example of what the writers of the Constitution wanted ineligible by their specifying only natural born citizen need apply.
Please cite the specific passage in the Constitution where sons of British subjects are excluded from natural born citizenship status.
That is simply not true. Stop making stuff up.
I defy you to find a single instance in which one of these men states that the American-born son of a British subject is excluded from natural-born citizenship status.
Until you find such a quote, it is you who is guilty of idiotic misdirection.
What is not true about it, Obamanoid?
Everything.
I also suggest you cut out the name calling. It only makes you look childish.
In typical leftists style, you never answer any questions posed to you but continue to repeat your own idiotic queries. There are two types of common citizenship, naturalized or born here. But these are not natural born citizens according to what the term meant when the frmamers included it in the Constitution. It is interesting that you Obama worshippers keep tryng to sell this lie that there are only two types of citizens. Is it related to your desire to have anchor babies build the leftists numbers, or is it a flaw in your leftists’ agenda to amnesty the tens of millions of illegal invaders?
It must frustrate your leftist mind that you cannot demand respect for your leftist sycophancy at FreeRepublic and get your way. I will name you as I see fit and let readers decide the balance.
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.