Posted on 07/19/2009 6:49:59 AM PDT by PurpleMountains
Fair-minded people are still baffled by Obama’s refusal to clear up the continuing controversy over his birthplace, and by his determination to stop every attempt to delve into this matter through harassment and costly litigation. He is reported to have spent over a million dollars in legal fees fighting the determination of this issue.
His relatives have testified that he was born in Kenya, but not under oath. His original birth certificate has been withheld; what are we to believe? Our Constitution clearly states that a person born on foreign soil when only one parent is a USA citizen cannot become President.
(Excerpt) Read more at forthegrandchildren.blogspot.com ...
Included in the documents is a standard 1961 blank birth certificate.
Here is what the WND poster wrote:
"RE: Race
Go to the following and download the 1961 document
http://www.nber.org/vital-statistics/historical/
here is a direct link to the file:
http://www.nber.org/vital-statistics/historical/nat61_1.CV.pdf
then go to the Technical Appendix, Section 5 and then on page 231 on race and color.
The Birth Certificate is based on a standard. I have been saying this for months. The State of Hawaii has to follow the CDC guidelines as this data is compiled for other statics."
*******
This is me, mirse, writing: When you see the document above on your monitor screen, follow these directions to see the 1961 blank birth certificate:
1. Left side: Look for "Section 5: Technical Appendix"
2. Then go to Right side: Look for "Standard certificate page 5.3"
3. Note: On my computer, it is page 228 of 246, while on the document itself, it is page 5.3.
******
This is mirse. Could someone help me?
I'm trying to post a blank 1961 birth certificate that is here, but I can't do it.
If someone with more computer skills than I have can post a copy of a blank 1961 Hawaii birth certificate here, I would appreciate it.
NOTE: The link to the Hawaii blank 1961 birth certificate is at the beginning of this message.
We just returned from a five state midwest weekend roadtrip. I duct taped a 2’ x 3’ sign asking “where was obama born?” to the back window of my minivan. We got lots of feedback; some thumbs up, some scowls, some gave us the bird, but no one ran us off the road. My wife was quite the trooper to allow me to do this. Anything to raise awareness.....
Pinging to #16.
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.
We have beds. They miss us alot. LOL
“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;”
Well, that does it. He DEFINITELY was NOT a natural born citizen OR a citizen of the United States at the time of the Adoption of the Constitution.
Aww MAN!!! Don’t ya just wish it was that easy?
Dobbs’ radio show
During his radio program, Dobbs stated: “[S]hould he
produce his birth certificate — the long form, the real
deal? Should he be a little more forthcoming? ... What is the
deal here? I’m starting to think we have a — we have a
document issue. Do you suppose he’s un — no, I won’t even
use the word undocumented. It wouldn’t be right.”
Dobbs later stated that when examining the birth certificate
issue, at first he “thought, ‘Here we go with the
lunatic fringe. This is a bunch of quackeroos going after
him.’ “ However, Dobbs said he now believes that there
are “some issues here that should be really
resolved” with Obama’s birth certificate.
During his program, Dobbs repeatedly faulted Obama for what
he said was Obama’s failure to definitively answer questions
raised about his birth certificate:
* Dobbs stated: “The first thing is to determine
whether or not his birth certificate is valid. And what I
don’t understand is why that has not been released and given
over to the public record.”
* After a caller said “something doesn’t smell
right” with Obama, Dobbs said that the “way to get
rid of those odors is always just open the windows and let
the sun shine in. And all we need here is a doggone document,
but for some reason the president doesn’t want to release
that.”
* Dobbs said that in contrast to efforts undertaken by
Sen. John McCain “to determine that he met the standard
of natural-born citizen,” there is “absolutely, you
know, no effort to do so on the part of Barack H. Obama. Nor,
as also our callers have pointed out, this president would
not release his medical records. And the national media
seemed to be fine with that, whereas they probably would have
eviscerated John McCain for failing to do so.”
* After a caller theorized that Obama is rushing through
programs because Obama “knows what’s coming” with
regard to the birth certificate lawsuits, Dobbs said:
“Certainly your view can’t be discounted at this point,
because this president refused to provide the documentation
that would settle all of the controversy here.”
* After a caller said she initially thought the birth
certificate controversy was “the dumbest thing
ever,” Dobbs replied:
DOBBS: Well, it is a dumb thing. I think we have to all
admit this is a dumb thing either way, because, I mean, I
can’t understand why the president wouldn’t just move to get
this stuff out of the way. Show the documents, get it done —
I mean, he — think about it.
Dobbs also claimed that a soldier questioning Obama’s
citizenship “should be taken seriously. There are real
questions here that need to be answered” and
“reasonable people should be interested” in the
birth certificate issue:
DOBBS: I mean, because I got to be honest with everybody.
When I started looking at this and the lawsuit — Orly Taitz
his attorney, for Major Cook, when he — you know, I thought
this is kind of peculiar. But I thought we should find out
what’s going on because, you know, it’s a lawsuit — a major
who is — he is, by the way, a combat veteran. Some people in
the media have called him a coward; they are fools for doing
so. But they’re fools, anyway; it isn’t this one instance
that makes them fools.
This is a man who should be taken seriously. There are
real questions here that need to be answered. And people talk
about, quote-unquote, the lunatic fringe are the only ones
interested in this, and it turns out that reasonable people
should be interested, and reasonable — excuse me —
reasonable minds have to understand what’s going on. And this
can be dismissed with one — the production of one simple
little document, and that’s a birth certificate. It’s
extraordinary.
In his book, Dreams, he made a big frigging deal about finding his birth certificate and his childhood immunization records, so why did he have to order a new copy from Hawaii during campaign? That crap post on factcheck was a BS fake and why is he hiding his medical records, college records, you name it, he hides it. His whole life is a lie and oh yea, he’s gay too.
Yeah, I know. It’s just that the short def under the graphic would be SOOO much easier to PROVE!!!!
Wuz being giddy at this middle of the night/mornin’ time. Gonna visit my bed now, say hi to muh pillow, maybe smoke half a cigarette before I pass out.
With any luck, I might even sleep for more than an hour.
Thank you for your rather dismissive view of our Constitutional process.
And this has what to do with my post?
They both found that children born in the U.S. are citizens from the moment of birth regardless of the nationality of their parents. Since the Constitution identifies only two forms of citizenship - natural born and naturalized - then regardless of whether you call it natural-born citizen, citizen at birth, citizen by birth, all mean the same thing.
Would you like for me to cut and paste the pertinent text, so we can see, that neither addressed or even mentioned this pertinent, specific Constitutional term, unlike Minor v. Happersett, which clearly did address the term, and still does?
I would rather you cut and pasted the clause of the Constitution that defines natural-born citizen. Or the clause that identifies three or more classes of citizenship. Or the federal law that defines natural-born citizen as only those born on U.S. territory of two U.S. citizen parents. How about that?
“...Before the public voted and the electors voted and the House counted the electoral votes, it was stipulated that his daddy was a Kenyan. And he was sworn in without a peep....”
guess this is why APUZZO is suing CONGRESS, including CHENEY
I wonder what would happen if a number of people stood up during one of his upcoming townhall meetings, and asked him, “Why should Americans agree to your Health Care plan or any of your other plans, given that you are, by Law, an illegal President who fraudulently obtained the office you now hold?”
The term "natural born subject" is clearly defined as a matter of English common law as being a person who is the subject of the sovereign of the place where he or she is born.
The term "natural born citizen" in our constitution was lifted by the framers from the English common law term and the word "subject" was changed to "citizen" because we don't have subjects (yet) but only citizens.
The more I look at the issue, the more I have become convinced that if I ever got the opportunity to talk to the U S Supreme Court on the topic, I think the meaning of the term in the U S Constitution is pretty clear.
I don't know if that is dicta from a case or where you got it. It's pretty close but there are a couple of distinctions.
After 476 in Western Europe, there weren't people who had rights associated with the Roman concept of "citizen"--the local authorities were Kings and their subordinate royalty and delegates. So you wouldn't have had legal principles that turned on "citizenship"--the people who lived there were subjects of the local authority. The serfs were conceptually closer to the concept of Property.
And the fundamental underlying Common Law principles were founded on "subjects" of the King of the place. If you were born there, you were his subject.
Depending on the jurisdiction, you might have had an argument if you had a couple who were citizens of one country who were visiting somewhere else and had a child but I believe, as to England, the child probably would be held to be a subject of the King of England. Although I have not researched that question and probably would if I were going to argue the case to the Court.
And there wasn't any way to get rid of being a subject. That is, there was no legal process to cut off the sovereignty of the King of the place you were born.
That's why they used the term in the Constitution--they just changed the word "subject" to "citizen" to conform to our fundamental view of sovereignty in the US.
I tend to doubt that Orly and a few volunteers are likely to win this. That just isn’t how our legal system works in the modern world—maybe it ought to but that isn’t how you make it happen.
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.
