Congressman Mike Castle's Townhall Meeting Attracts Anger Over Obama's Birth Certificate (video)

Conservative Wisdom ^ | 7/20/09 | staff

[pissant]

The campaign to make Obama produce an official long certificate is stirring up Americans all over the country demanding that Obama prove that he truly is an American citizen. Listen to what happened at a recent town hall meeting with Republican Congressman Mike Castle (DE)concerning the Obama birth certificate, and listen to this pansy Congressman deal with his constituents. This Congressman better be worried about his job in 2010 if this is the best answer he has, which is similar to an answer Roy Blunt gave me. Why are Republicans protecting Obama in this matter?

[DustyMoment]

I don’t know if he was born in Hawaii or not. I do know he is lying about something regarding his birth.

zero has, so far, failed to produce a valid birth certificate from an American hospital. Earlier, when this came up, zero produced a Certificate of Live Birth (COLB) from a Hawaii hospital. Shortly after he released it, it was proven to be a forgery and, after that, zero had all of his records sealed and pulled his alleged BC from his Internet site. In addition, the state of Hawaii revealed that, at the time, anyone could apply for and receive a COLB if they were alive. It was NOT a birth certificate indicating that the person was born in Hawaii (they have since ended the practice of issuing COLBs to anyone who wants one!). Since then, every challenge to his eligibility has been met with his legal team obstructing and squashing the challenge.

IMO, where there's smoke, there's fire.

[stuartcr]

Isn’t natural-born a legal thing, as opposed to the athletic thing? What is the accepted legal definition for eligibility used today?

[DustyMoment]

Barry Soetoro is the son of a British subject. He lacks “singular allegiance” to the United States of America.

I believe that is immaterial IF he was born on American soil in an American hospital. Today, we confer citizenship on Mexican babies born in American hospitals on the border. Those children are the offspring of Mexicans, but we still give them all the rights of citizenship.

I believe that the British citizenship issue should have been resolved by his 18th birthdate. I believe that to be an American citizen, he was supposed to declare his citizenship by that time. If he did not do that, then his dual citizenship could, indeed, be an issue.

[ml/nj]

It is not the definition today, if in fact it has changed, that should matter, but rather the definition commonly in use at the time the Constitution was adopted. That's why the Oxford English Dictionary is useful because it gives the history of the meaning of words. The idea that we can amend the Constitution merely by changing the meaning of the words the Framers used is absurd. (How difficult is it to change the meaning of a word? Consider: liberal, gay, marriage.)

As for a "legal thing," the Framers used many words and phrases: year, dollar, natural-born are examples. They used them because they were words that everyone of their time understood well. The phrase natural-born was so well understood that neither Story nor Rawles commented upon the natural-born citizen requirement in their commentaries. But Rawles does use the phrase elsewhere in his commentary in a way that makes it obvious what his understanding was.

ML/NJ

[stuartcr]

Did everyone have birth certificates then?

[ml/nj]

I think government keeping of such records (birth certificates) is a relatively recent thing. The government has no record that I went to a race track yesterday, but that doesn't mean that I didn't. In fact I could prove it in a variety of manners (e.g. witnesses, receipts, submitting to cross-examination) just as other facts are established in courts. I believe birth records at the time of the Founding were primarily maintained by churches.

ML/NJ

[stuartcr]

OK

[so_real]

Hmmm ... immaterial? ... We'll have to agree to disagree. A "citizen" is quite different than "natural born citizen". By law, the so-called anchor babies have been extended "citizenship", but no precedent exists granting them a claim on "natural born citizenship". If Barry Soetoro was born on American soil, I would willingly afford him, in accordance with the law, the responsibilities and rewards of citizenship. But, naturalized by law, does not equate to natural born in any legal proceedings I have read. It is wise that Vladimir Putin, for example, can not foster a child while vacationing in Hawaii and then use the wealth of the Soviet Union to acquire the office of the president for the child at a later date.

[MestaMachine]

Rush played an audio clip from this on his show today. Quite a bit of it, in fact.

[DustyMoment]

By law, the so-called anchor babies have been extended "citizenship", but no precedent exists granting them a claim on "natural born citizenship".

They are considered by American law, in all respects, to be "natural born citizens" of the United States, having been born in an American hospital on American soil.

If Barry Soetoro was born on American soil, I would willingly afford him, in accordance with the law, the responsibilities and rewards of citizenship.

As would most Americans. However, THAT'S the part he is unwilling to conclusively prove beyond a doubr.

It is wise that Vladimir Putin, for example, can not foster a child while vacationing in Hawaii and then use the wealth of the Soviet Union to acquire the office of the president for the child at a later date.

This is where you lose me in your argument. I don't understand the point you are trying to make. Naturalized citizens are those who were born else where and renounced their citizenship in the country of their birth to become American citizens. If Putin were to adopt a natural born American child, there is nothing in our laws to prevent that child from becoming the President (assuming that that child retains his/her American citizenship), regardless WHO buys the office for him. I'm not sure how this even factors in the debate. Barry Soetero CLAIMS to be a natural born American citizen but, so far, has been unwilling/unable to prove it beyond a doubt. His origins are exceptionally cloudy and muddy, which adds to the controversy.

IF he were born in Hawaii, as he claims and IF his father was a naturalized British citizen, giving Barry dual citizenship, his father's nationality (natural or otherwise) would be immaterial IF Barry had renounced his British citizenship by age 18. IF Barry DID NOT renounce hsi British citizenship, then you are correct, it is a consequential issue, making him ineligible.

The controversy over what passport he traveled to Indonesia on adds fuel to this fire but, for the most part, is based on speculation. It creates an interesting tangent to the debate that takes the focus off the debate itself. The primary debate remains rooted in whether or not he is actually a natural born citizen and CAN PROVE IT.

[so_real]

They are considered by American law, in all respects, to be "natural born citizens" of the United States, having been born in an American hospital on American soil.

I'll need a citation for that. Not in any of the legislative or judicial proceedings that I have read is this claim made. In fact, a case for the opposite is made. Wong Kim Ark, for example, required a ruling by our highest court to even be afforded the basic right of citizenship -- natural born citizenship was off the table -- and he was born in San Francisco. "Citizen", yes. "Natural Born Citizen", no. If you have a quote and citation indicating otherwise, I would be pleased to read it. To the extent of my own vast research, the so-called anchor babies have been afforded the status of "citizen" by virtue of birth within the jurisdiction of our nation, but have not been extended the status of "natural born citizen" by any legislative or judicial proceedings.

If Putin were to adopt a natural born American child, there is nothing in our laws to prevent that child from becoming the President

That is not the premise I've laid. Putin, in my scenario, would *father*, not adopt, a child. Adopting a natural born citizen (and potentially jeopardizing the child's singular allegiance) is a completely different argument than that of an alien visitor fathering a child on U.S. soil. Putin, like Obama Sr., is not a naturalized citizen of the U.S. Therefore, he cannot father a natural born citizen of the U.S. If this were a possibility, colonial British agents would have reacquired the United States territories through the office of the President long ago. This was a particular concern of the Founders -- falling back under the British monarchy -- and they did well to curtail the possibility.

We may disagree on the distinctions of the "natural born" status, however, we do seem to agree completely that burden of proof lies with the job applicant, Barack Obama, and not the employer, We the People. He ought to prove he is a qualified applicant for the job or step out of the office.

[DustyMoment]

U.S. Constitution - Amendment 14 - Citizenship Rights

1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

2. Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice-President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.

3. No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

4. The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.

5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

Upon my first reading of paragraph 1 of this Amendment, I felt self-satisfied that I had provided the proof I needed to prove my point. Then I stopped and re-read it a few times and I begin to see your distinction. Paragraph 1 only addresses "born or naturalized" citizens. In our litigious society, though, "born" is not defined in a way that distinctly addresses what the Amendment means or how it is intended to be implemented.

Perhaps your argument is not as "immaterial" as I initially believed. Thanks for a good discussion and helping me learn a thing or two!!

[so_real]

Thanks for a good discussion

You're welcome and thank you as well. That is what I love most about Free Republic -- highly intelligent people engaged in (largely) civil discourse.

[freedommom]

i READ THIS COMMENT ON ORLY TAITZ WEBSITE obama +deception+need for cover=??

For those of you who haven’t read the entire dossier, Burgermeister points out that the outbreak we had in May was declared a level 5 pandemic by WHO and the US govt.. (When two or more countries are involved, that makes it a level 5.) THE IMPORTANCE OF THIS IS THAT WHEN THE NEXT OUTBREAK OF THIS MANMADE PANDEMIC OCCURS THIS FALL OR LATE SUMMER, IT WILL AUTOMATICALLY BE A LEVEL 6. WHEN A LEVEL 6 OCCURS, THE GOVERNMENT HAS THE “DUTY” AND “RIGHT” TO QUARANTINE ITS CITIZENS, DECLARE MARTIAL LAW, PUT CITIZENS IN A CONCENTRATION CAMP, REMOVE ALL WEAPONS, SEARCH YOUR HOME, MANDATE INNOCULATIONS, ETC. IN OTHER WORDS, THE PRESIDENT BECOMES A DICTATOR!