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)
I see your tenure as troll began in ‘04 around the time of the election. Did you also then employ this “because I say so” defense regarding Monsieur Kerry and his highly questionable war record?
Importance of the newly located Dunham/Obama Sr divorce decree in proving ineligibility
Tuesday, January 06, 2009 1:34:29 AM · 806 of 829 MHGinTN to Will88
The founders were concerned with people who had divided loyalties. The founders presumed this divided nature could come through fathers not American citizens:
The “natural born” Clause’s origins have been traced to a July 25, 1787 letter from John Jay to the presiding officer of the Constitutional Convention, George Washington. Jay wrote, “Permit me to hint, whether it would be wise and seasonable to provide a strong check to the admission of Foreigners into the administration of our national Government; and to declare expressly that the Commander in Chief of the American army shall not be given to nor devolve on, any but a natural born Citizen.”
Thomas Jefferson wrote Virginia’s birthright law of 1777 requiring the father to be a citizen. “We can say with confidence that a natural-born citizen of the United States means those persons born whose father the United States already has an established jurisdiction over, i.e., born to father’s who are themselves citizens of the United States.“
“The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. As the society can not 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 a 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.” Vattel, Citizens and Nations,” par. 212
From the Federalist Papers website:
The Supreme Court operates under the precedent of Marbury v. Madison, in which it asserted (without subsequent refutation by the legislative or executive branches) that it is the role of the Supreme Court to declare what the language of the Constitution means.
There are exactly zero decisions by the Supreme Court in the history of this country that are on point. No definition of the term “natural born citizen” has ever been provided. The founders of the country, and the framers and ratifiers of the Constitution, were more or less all well-versed in the major (read influential) philosophical and political texts of the day. These included de Vattel’s 1758 masterpiece “Law of Nations or the Principles of Natural Law Applied to the Conduct and to the Affairs of Nations and of Sovereigns Congress or the Executive.
According to de Vattel, “[t]he natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens.” This provides a positive definition of the exact term “natural born citizen” that leaves no wiggle room, rendering it perfect for use in a founding document like the U.S. Constitution.
No wonder there is no discussion of what the term means. Each and every one of the founders was well aware of de Vattel’s apparently authoritative definition, such that no such discussion was needed. In the same passage, de Vattel also flatly states that if a person is born in a given country of a father who is a foreigner, “it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country.” This provides a precise example of a person who does not qualify as a natural born citizen that, in the case of Barack Obama, is not only directly on point, but unfortunately for him, damning.
Post Reply | Private Reply | To 805 | View Replies
Now, Obamanoid liberal professor, how about answering the questions posed to you.
Re: Polarik’s final report: Obama’s ‘Born’ ConspiracyForged images, phony photos, and felony fraud
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/2136816/posts
-
Re: OBAMA’S ‘BORN’ CONSPIRACY - Important and corrections
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/2141142/posts
Mister Polarik, do you have the images of those 'other' certifications of live birth from Hawaii which also show born in Honalulu, like the one for the famous Chinese fellow?
BTW, I use the same argument when debating with atheists who like to Jefferson on the supposed "wall of separation" of Church and state.
Furthermore, Virginia did not have a 3rd class of citizen. They just had two: natural born and naturalized. If you were not a natural born citizen, i.e. you were not born in Virginia to a US citizen father, you were not a Virginian citizen at birth and had to be later naturalized. This was overturned when the 14th Amendment was passed.
As to Vittel, his definition was hardly authoritative and not the only one in use at the time.
As to the courts, they recognize only two categories of citizen: natural born and naturalized. There is no third category.
You, like most Obamanoid apologists, seem given to making assertions which are hollow, at best: “As to the courts, they recognize only two categories of citizen: natural born and naturalized. There is no third category.” Since the courts have never ruled on a case of Presidential ineligibility based upon the natural born citizen issue, but have used the term in other rulings, I’d say your opinion is no more valid than mine of Thomas Jefferson’s. But you do have a persistent deceitful energy to champion your Obamessiah. Are we now going to contemplate citizenship SCOTUS cases, as your next level of misdirection? Others in your obscene platoon seem to jump there when they are exposed as obfuscators.
So you clearly admit that Virginia law in early America understood Vattel's meaning of the term "natural born citizen" and accepted it as including both parentage and location of birth.
As to the courts, they recognize only two categories of citizen: natural born and naturalized. There is no third category.
That's not true. The Court's interpretation of the 14th Amendment created a third category -- think about it.
But Coast Hospital in Mombasa is not in Honolulu. Any idiot should know that.
implausible to whom??? you??? the Obamanoids??? the limpminded lining up at the public trough for their handouts???
It's plausible to 55% of the American population by recent polls, and 98% of the thinking public.
If this all blows up in 0’bs and the RATS face Rush will look like a genius for mounting operation CHAOS and getting hilary beat.
Chinese fellow? Was his name, No Bah Mah?
I think you may be talking about the Japanese fellow, Jason Tomoyasu.
They are all in my final report: polarik.blogtownhall.com
No. Under the Articles of Confederation, under which the Virginia law was passed, citizenship was an issue left to the states. Virginia chose to only confer citizenship at birth to babies born in Virginia to parents who were citizens of either Virginia or another state.
This was also the policy of the UK at the time (hence Vattel's definition of the term).
But this was not the policy of every state and every nation at the time.
The Constitution intitially also left it up to the states to determine what qualified a baby to be a citizen at birth, which is the same thing as being a natural born citizen. The 14th Amendment changed that, however.
The Court's interpretation of the 14th Amendment created a third category -- think about it.
How so?
The poster is a lying sack of obamanoid worship. He actually ignores the status of black people as fractiuonal citizens at the time of the founding and until black people were recognized as full citizens. But that’s just more evidence of talking point droidery that the dungfly tries that misdirection repeatedly like his fellow dungflies.
anchor baby citizens
Yes, facts and logic and the literal meaning of words are anathema to a liberal trying to get tenure so that he can keep slurping at the trough of public funds.
It never seems to sink into the thick heads of obamanoids that the very reason teh framers included the exception clause was to allow non-natural born citizens--themselves British subjects born on this continent--to become President, but only those at the time of the adopting of the Constitution. When they died, the excpetion ended and one had to be natural born to take the oath.
-- the Hawaii Department of Health released the following statement on October 31 by Health Department director 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. What they didn't explain is what is in BOX 7C of this record. Original Hawaiian Birth Certificates had a funny thing on them in the 1960s. It allowed for births OUTSIDE Hawaii to be registered IN Hawaii. "BOX 7C" on an Original Birth Certificate says "County and State or Foreign Country" of birth. - source: www.cusc.org
It's all on my blog: polarik.blogtownhall.com
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.