Posted on 08/01/2009 12:58:37 PM PDT by Askwhy5times
The evidence would indicate young Barack Hussein Obama was adopted by Indonesian citizen Lolo Soetoro after Soetoro and Obama's mother were married. The most convincing evidence is the Hawaii divorce papers filed in 1980 as Stanley Ann Soetoro vs. Lolo Soetoro. This document lists the couple as having two children. One is under the age of eighteen. That would be Maya Soetoro who was born in 1970. The other child is listed as over eighteen and in need of educational support. That would be Barry Soeroto (Barack Hussein Obama.) There are no other know children related to this marriage.
(Excerpt) Read more at bluegrasspundit.com ...
Barry Soetoro is the name of the Barack who graduated from an Hawaiian High School and likely the name of the Barack who entered Occidental College; if he entered Occidental College as Barry Soetoro, Indonesian citizen, and/or if he applied for funding as an Indonesian student, he has shwon his American citizenship is abandoned and his Indonesian citizenship is his default. He is not a natural born citizen, and if he has had a legal name change where he switches to Barack Obama as an American citizen who held dual citizenship, he is naturalized ONLY. This lyting bastard knows all this and signed swearing he was eligible anyway.
You just got the equivalent of ‘Nanananana, I can’t hear you, I’ve got my fingers in my ears.’
see section d
state department:
http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/86757.pdf
7 FAM 1131.6-2 Eligibility for Presidency
(TL:CON-68; 04-01-1998)
a. It has never been determined definitively by a court whether a person
who acquired U.S. citizenship by birth abroad to U.S. citizens is a natural born
citizen within the meaning of Article II of the Constitution and,
therefore, eligible for the Presidency.
b. Section 1, Article II, of the Constitution states, in relevant part that “No
Person except a natural born Citizen...shall be eligible for the Office of
President;”
c. The Constitution does not define “natural born”. The “Act to establish an
Uniform Rule of Naturalization”, enacted March 26, 1790, (1 Stat.
103,104) provided that, “...the children of citizens of the United States,
that may be born ... out of the limits of the United States, shall be
considered as natural born citizens: Provided that the right of citizenship
shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in
the United States.”
U.S. Department of State Foreign Affairs Manual Volume 7 - Consular Affairs
7 FAM 1130 Page 9 of 103
d. This statute is no longer operative, however, and its formula is not
included in modern nationality statutes. In any event, the fact that
someone is a natural born citizen pursuant to a statute does not
necessarily imply that he or she is such a citizen for Constitutional purposes
Strange. I've read a lot and that's exactly what I've seen. Here's one: "....‘those children born in the country, of parents who are citizens.’.. (Source: The Law of Nations by Emerich De Vattel, Book 1, c. 19, sec. 212 (c. 1758).
Here's some more (SCOTUS cases which cited the above source by Vattel):
• Shanks v. Dupont, 28 U.S. 242, 245 (1830) – same definition as Vattel.
• Ex parte Reynolds, 1879, 5 Dill., 394, 402 – same definition as Vattel and actually cites Vattel in this case.
• United States v. Ward, 42 F.320 (C.C.S.D.Cal. 1890) – same definition as Vattel and actually cites Vattel in this case.
More recently: Senate Resolution 511 which states the following conclusion regarding John McCain qualifying as a 'natural born' citizen: "Whereas John Sidney McCain, III, was born to American citizens on an American military base in the Panama Canal Zone in 1936: Now, therefore, be it resolved, That John Sidney McCain, III, is a `natural born Citizen' under Article II, Section 1, of the Constitution of the United States."
And Obama signed it! Notice the plural regarding parents and the notation military base (U.S. soil). Vattel's definition STILL has not changed.
It's not in the Constitution, it's not in the Federalist Papers.
It is in the constitution, 'natural born' was a common definition understood by all at that time exactly as laid down by Emerich de Vattel and Blackstone and that definition as not changed in the last 220 years per Senate Resolution 511 last year.
As per the Federalist papers I've read them too, and yeah its in there. Try the Federalist blog
I noticed. Probably thinks I'm lying or something (shaking my head here).
Anyhoo.......the news is:
It's a girl!!!!!!!!!!!
We couldn't be more excited! So I don't care what he thinks!!
EXACTLY!!!!!!! Thanks for posting that link.
This is precisely why they ENCOURAGE the gals to go home so that THERE IS NO DOUBT.
Thanks be to God for a healthy little girl! She stepped out of God’s direct presence right into our world, just so you could love her plenty.
Natural born wass removed from the 1795 version precisely to avoid conflicting with the understood meaning in the Constitution regarding presidency eligibility.
that and they cant change the constitution without an amendment
Any pictures of Barry Soetoro in the yearbook? Every one I have seen shows Barry Obama. Does anyone have an original copy?
Nor do I.
Today I was walking by a classroom and overheard a teacher say "... our friend Mr. Obama ..." note "Mr." not "President" and the lightly ironic use of "friend."
Congratulations.
http://supreme.justia.com/us/28/242/case.html
You either did not read the case or you misunderstood it. Justice Story, who wrote the opinion of the court, does not mention “natural born” anywhere. The only references to “Natural born” are in the opinion of the dissenting judge, Justice Johnson. His opinion sets no precedent because he was in the minority. His opinion failed to convince his fellow judges.
Ex parte Reynolds
The only reference I could find:
Citizenship of the United States, Expatriation, and Protection Abroad, By United States. Dept. of State
This is a murder case, and the defendant claims that he is not under the jurisdiction of federal courts since his wife is an Indian, and the murdered man was married to an Indian - his contention is that therefore he can only be tried in an Indian court. Vattel and his definition are mentioned. The defendant failed to make his case, and let's face it, being married to an Indian doesn't make you an Indian. And there's not much precedent there for qualifications for the Presidency.
United States v. Ward, 42 F.320 (C.C.S.D.Cal. 1890)
I have been unable to find a copy of this case on the Internet, therefore I can make no comment on it. Show me where I can read that decision, then I'll have an opinion on it.
The John McCain Resolution does not address the citizenship of someone born in the United States. Saying that x was born outside the United States and is a natural born citizen does not affect the status of Y, who was born within the United States.
As far as the Federalist Papers, since you claim it is in there, can you cite the actual paper number? Help me out in my ignorance.
On second thought you won't find it in the Federalist Papers. You know why? Because if it was in the Federalist Papers everyone on Free Republic would be able to quote it. Rush Limbaugh would be quoting it a minimum of five times a week on his show. The Federalist Papers would be a hot best seller with publishers not able to meet the demand.
So everything hangs on the words of an obscure Swiss philosopher? One not even mentioned in conjunction with the United States Constitution? Wouldn't someone at the Constitutional Convention have put down in writing somewhere, sometime, “We liked the Vattel definition better than the English Common Law definition and that's what we went with.”? I would expect men, lawyers among them, born and raised under English Common Law to use it as a starting point and if they found it wanting they would say so.
I don't think that any of this is going to convince anyone who hasn't already made up their mind.
My opinion is subject to change when someone can produce some proof.
Alternative theory:
Chester A. Arthur did not hide anything. He was born in the United States and was regarded as a natural born American. The fact that his father did not obtain American citizenship until after his son was born was known and not hidden, and not considered an impediment to his serving as Vice President, and after Garfield’s assassination, to his serving as President.
There were allegations made during his lifetime that he was born in Canada. He never replied to them, and certainly his enemies were looking through his past for anything to use against him. I presume they found out about his father’s citizenship status and regarded it as not affecting his ability to serve as Vice President or President.
And since "natural born citizen" has never been defined to exclude a person who acquired U.S. citizenship by birth abroad to U.S. citizens, a person who fits that description is eligible for the presidency.
The only thing that could stop such a person from becoming president would be a SCOTUS ruling that such people were not constitutionally qualified for the office or Congress would have to pass such a law, which it will not.
However, the SCOTUS is not likely to make such a decision in light of the 14th Amendment and the Equal Protection Clause.
Furthermore, the Senate Resolution that recognized John McCain as a "Natural Born Citizen" even though he was born in Colon, Panama, outside of a US military installation.
So therefore, if you really want to stop persons who were born overseas to American parents from becoming president, you will have to repeal the 14th Amendment.
And that is not going to happen.
obumpa
Ummm, I read the entire case, thanks. You will also remember that when I cited it I said this case used the same definition as Vattel, not that this particular case was a ruling on the natural born clause of the constitution. Ummmm so let’s go back shall we and once again look at what Vattel wrote in 1758:
In Book One, Chapter 19; Section 212 - “The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. As the society cannot 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 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; and these become true citizens merely by their tacit consent. We shall soon see whether, on their coming to the years of discretion, they may renounce their right, and what they owe to the society in which they were born. I say, that, in order to be of the country, it is necessary that a person be born of a father who is a citizen; for, if he is born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country.”
So now lets look at what Shanks v. Dupont actually does say shall we?
“..under the circumstances of this case, she might well be deemed to hold the citizenship of her father, for children born in a country, continuing while under age in the family of the father, partake of his natural character as a citizen of that country.” (Shanks v. Dupont, 28 U.S. 3 Pet. 242)
“If she was not of age, then she might well be deemed under the circumstances of this case to hold the citizenship of her father, for children born in a country, continuing while under age in the family of the father, partake of his national character as a citizen of that country.” (Shanks v. Dupont, 28 U.S. 3 Pet. 245)
I’m thinking here you are the one that needs to go back and re-read this case and note the comparisons between the above quotes and the above quote directly from Vattel. The liberal talking points you are regurgitating regarding this case instead of actually READING the thing aren’t helpful.
You posted a very helpful link regarding the case of Ex Parte Reynolds so I’ll reference that one since you were so kind enough to post it in an attempt to refute me. Unfortunately you should have READ the entire link. (P.S. It was much more than just a ‘murder case’ – it was a paper that in-depth was discussing the citizenship status of native Americans). Yet that part went over your head probably because once again you were just regurgitating liberal talking points and really didn’t bother to read anything yourself. You MISSED the following:
Page 58 of “Citizenship of the United States, et. Al – “Indians born within the territorial limits of the United States, members of, and owing immediate allegiance to, one of the Indian tribes (an alien, though dependent power), although in a geographical sense born in the United States, [Hint: Jus Solis] are no more born in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof within the meaning of the first section of the fourteenth amendment, than the children of subjects of any foreign government born within the domain of that government, or the children born within the United States of ambassadors or other public ministers of foreign nations.” – Justice Gray
Page 59 – “In Ex Parte Reynolds, supra, the question was discussed at some length……..Their offspring follows the condition of the Father, and the rule partus sequitur patrem prevails in determining their status.”
Page 68 – “The law of nations, which becomes, when applicable to an existing condition of affairs in a country, a part of the common law of that country, declares the same rule. Vattel, in his Law of Nations [Catch this? Vattel is being directly quoted from here which is exactly what I said …”actually cites Vattel in this case”] (p. 101) says: ‘As the society can not exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, these children naturally follow the condition of their fathers and succeed to their rights.***The country of the father is, therefore, that of the children, and these become true citizens merely by their tacit consent.’ Again on page 102, Vattel says: “By the law of nature alone, children follow the condition of their fathers and enter into all their rights.” This law of nature as far as it has become a part of the common law, in the absence of any positive enactment on the subject, must be the rule in this case.”
Now on to the Federalist Papers. As you know the Federalist Papers (Oct 1787 – May 1788) are 85 essays written by Alexander Hamilton, John Jay, and James Madison. Go back and read them again because the main focus of essays 2-5 (written by Jay) entitled “Concerning Dangers from Foreign Force and Influence” were written to impress and focus upon the need for a strong central government in order to protect the nation from foreign military, but also to suggest that a strong central government can help protect a nation from foreign influences. Concern about foreign influence also appears in Essay number 20 (written by Hamilton and Madison); Essay 43 (Madison); and Essay 66 and 75 (Hamilton). The key one is Essay 68 (Hamilton) where he discusses the presidential selection mechanism in limiting foreign influence. Here’s a quote for you:
“Nothing was more to be desired than that every practicable obstacle should be opposed to cabal, intrigue, and corruption. These most deadly adversaries of republican government might naturally have been expected to make their approaches from more than one quarter, but chiefly from the desire in foreign powers to gain an improper ascendant in our councils. How could they better gratify this, than by raising a creature of their own to the chief magistracy of the Union?”
Now what better way for a foreign power to gain ascendancy into our government than by having a child born of a foreign citizen become President???? Get the point yet??? That’s EXACTLY what these essays are talking about.
A final quote:
“Every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen.” [Representative John A. Bigham (OH) Cong. Globe, 39th, 1st Sess., 1291 (1866)]
Your problem isn’t the lack of documentation – its that you don’t want to accept what has already been written. Therefore, your needing 'more proof' is not and never will be the issue.
Mmmmmmm. Sorry, it didn't work.
Let's get this straight. You lost your credibility when you tried to tell me things were in the Federalist Papers that aren't there. I certainly have no further interest in your legal research, or opinions for that matter, since the quality is so poor questionable.
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.