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 ...
What you wrote was: “Our Constitution clearly states that a person born on foreign soil when only one parent is a USA citizen cannot become President.”
Not only does the Constitution say no such thing, what it does say can’t even be stretched to mean what you wrote. If you really take seriously what the framers meant by “natural born citizen”, reading Orly Taitz’s latest pleadings will provide a very detailed and well referenced explication, the framers wanted both a birth on American soil, and both citizen parents. By their reasoning and understanding, anyone born overseas would not be natural born. And in fact, my eldest son, born in Indonesia to American parents, is not, to the best of my knowledge, eligible to the Presidency.
Thanks, Mel. Dr. Orly needs all the help she can get.
A state representative was on Plains radio the other night and said that he knew her personally, and that she has gone into over $8,000 in debt by dipping into her own funds for expenses and rarely gets over 4-5 hours of sleep per night. What a lady.
NS, has seen Minor v. Happersett before and about 4 to 5 other Supreme Court cases. He knows.
The language of Minor v. Happersett, while circuitous, does pin down the meaning of the term "natural-born citizen," via consideration of doubt, the standards of which are described starting with the first paragraph of my excerpt from that 1874 decision.
So, people who claim that the term "natural-born citizen" remains undefined, are wrong. Minor v. Happersett defined it adequately to disqualify Obama, due to doubt.
What are you getting at? That Taitz is deliberately being a double agent by throwing cases? To act as a 'honey pot' to attract anti-Obama eligibility clients, suck up the potential threats to Obama's presidency and squash them by making deliberate mistakes? If true, she has Alan Keys fooled.
The entire subject makes me very uncomfortable, because I am pro-Israel to the point of near-Zionism.
However, there’s something not quite kosher with this AIPAC, for which Orly Taitz has been and apparently still is spokesperson. That AIPAC has Jamie Gorelick on staff really sets off the sirens and warning signals.
It pained me to do it, but I looked further into the stories swirling around a recent court case involving this bunch, and a witness was purportedly tampered with, due to representatives of AIPAC suggesting that this witness fake a suicide. WSJ has covered this, as have Politico and others, so it’s not an obscure matter.
Gorelick has been on the scene of several misdirections and coverups, the 9/11 Commission, TWA Flight 800 ... now, she’s working alongside the most visible legal representation for the eligibility issue.
It gives me a great deal of pause. Ms. Taitz’ wild shenanigans and rambling, near-incomprehensible public statements, legal briefs and the lawsuits she’s filed herself have always bothered me, from the very outset.
She comes off like a dingbat regarding eligibility. But, AIPAC is anything but a dingbat outfit, yet they have her on staff.
Something doesn’t sound right, here.
Draw your own conclusions.
The only way to make this issue go away is for Obama to produce his original birth certificate (which, incidently, should make him go away). Obama also needs to be removed from office before he destroys our economy, our freedoms and country.
For just $15, Obama could do the American thing and provide his original birth certificate. Instead, he’s paid a million dollars to keep his birth certificate hidden. Looks like he’s answered our questions with that. He also rescinded Major Cook’s deployment orders instead of facing off in court. Again, he’s defined his natural born status with that move.
But some people were saying she didn’t represent the case well. And just doing it for the money. This guy Pidgeon seems like he has a good reputation. At least they are trying. thanks
A poster at World Net Daily found some Hawaii government documents from 1961.
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.
4. As I studied the 1961 blank birth certificate, I saw potential political minefields if Obama's long form birth certificate is ever released by Hawaii.
5. Let me emphasize this: I don't wand Obama to release his long form birth certificate. I want the Hawaii government to release it, because I don't trust anything that the Obama camp releases.
6. My point is this: I don't want anyone in the Obama camp to touch Obama's long form birth certificate once the Hawaii government releases it. I don't want anyone in the Obama camp to touch it.
7. Again, I saw a few items in the 1961 blank Hawaii birth certificate that may be serious problems for Obama.
8. The items in the birth certificate are numbered from 1 through 23.
9. Item 2: "Usual Residence of Mother"
c. City, town, or location"
d.Street Address
e. My point is this: If the information in the above items on Obama's long form birth certificate does not match the information that is found in the newspaper listing of Obama's birth that the pro-Obama camp brags about, then Obama has some explaining to do.
10. Father:
11. Item 8. Color or Race
Problem: If the Race listed is different from the COLB birth certificate that the Obama camp displayed on Obama's fight the smears site during the campaign---"African" was listed---then Obama and Hawaii officials have a lot of explaining to do.
12. Mother: Item "Mother's Mailing Address"
13. If mother's mailing address is different from the address listed in the newspaper list of births, then, again, Obama and Hawaii officials have some explaining to do.
14. Information about doctor:
a. Item 18a. Signature
b. Item 18b. Attendant at birth: md do midwife other(specify)
c. Item 18c. Address
d. Item 18d: Date signed
e. The items about the doctor are very importnt, because if no such doctor exists, then Obama and his camp have some serious explaining to do.
15. Item 20: Registrar's signed signature
16. Item 21: Date on which given name added
17. In summary, I say this: If Obama has no reasonable explanation as to why item details on his long form birth certificate are different from what we have been led to believe during the presidential campaign---for instance, he has no explanation as to why the race of his father is different on the long form birth certificate than it is on the COLB short form birth certificate that appeared on his official fight the smears site----then Obama is in a lot of political and maybe even criminal trouble.
.
What money? She’s over $8,000 in debt from usiing her own funds. Doing it for the money????
Flying all over the country night and day on 4 hours sleep, never seeing her children for the money- when she has a sucessful dental practice and real estate business.
Who have saved freedom? A brave few… This is how it was in the beginning, how it has always been and how it will be.
Orly has made defending the Constitution and the American way of life a personal ambition, in the absence of any constitutional leadership.
You seem to think I have nothing better to do with my time than respond to your posts, as entertaining as they may be.
Minor v. Happersett was as case involving voting rights. And in the case itself, Justice Waitie points out that the Constitution does not define what a natural born citizen is. And he also makes it clear that it is not the duty of the court in this particular case to make that definition. So at best, Minor v. Happersett defines only one kind of natural born citizens, not all kinds.
So, people who claim that the term "natural-born citizen" remains undefined, are wrong. Minor v. Happersett defined it adequately to disqualify Obama, due to doubt.
You are wrong on that.
I am just saying what other people were saying.
Devil’s advocate if she really had something wouldn’t some of these big bucks be backing here. There is a lot at stake.
Devil’s advocate if she really had something wouldn’t some of these big bucks be backing here. There is a lot at stake.
________________
Don’t understand what you mean. Explain
You bring up some interesting points. I agree with them all.
If someone ever gets a court to order discovery they should ask for BOTH a copy of the original birth certificate and also generate a COLB. (Released directly from Hawaii)
We would be able to see what his real COLB would look like to compare it directly the the supposed forgery.
I also want all his other relevant paperwork released through the courts.
Sorry to drag you away from whatever it is that is ever so much important than responding to my meager reply.
You seem to suppose that the nature of the case, voting rights, somehow precludes applicability of precedent set by Minor v. Happersett. A curious assumption on your part.
You also seem to suppose that the term "natural-born citizen" was somehow not defined by the Supreme Court in the plain language of the decision.
That plain language states:
At common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first.
It's you who is wrong, Non-Sequitur. Doubt, and a clear standard of applicability to the term "natural-born citizen," combined with a clarification of the Constitutional meaning of the term itself, is contained within Minor v. Happersett.
Tomorrow
“Outside of her much-balleyhooed eligibility lawsuits, she’s also working with Jamie Gorelick, did you know that?”
*****************
Who is working with Jamie Gorelick? Orly??? Please cite source.
Not at all. As a voting rights case the question of who or what is a natural born citizen was not part of the case before the court. Had they defined natural born citizen then the comments would have been made in dicta.
It's you who is wrong, Non-Sequitur.
You should actually read the decision some time. The very next sentence says, "For the purposes of this case it is not necessary to solve these doubts." In other words, defining natural-born citizen is not part of their decision. You may say that natural born citizens are only those born of two U.S. citizen parents. The Happersett decision agrees that such people are indeed natural born citizens. But nowhere does the court say that is the sole deciding factor.
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.