Posted on 12/14/2009 7:02:03 AM PST by Danae
Only DNA will tell for sure.
* * * * *
Yikes - now we’re up to, not even a birth certificate will suffice, we gotta impose DNA tests. Just to be absolutely sure.
My FRiend, Collins was quoting Vattel. The source of his conclusions IS Vattel. The legalities of Obama Sr.’s marriage are going to be very difficult to nail down given that both people are now dead. The only person with standing to investigate that is Obama Jr. and I don’t think he is going to do that. This being so, we only have what we have to go on. We have to assume the marriage was legal, because the divorce was legal. Because that is the only proof in the United States that there was a legal marriage is that. Because that is what is available, that is all that our courts can go on, until or unless someone can get a court to force Kenya to release marriage documents regarding Obama Sr. if indeed there ARE any.
Its not that I am ignoring the issue, there is just no where to take the issue, or any way to investigate or prove the theory.
Oh and PS: Yes, if Obama were the illegitimate son of Obama Sr. then he would be an NBC, but that is not what Obama says is it?
True, but Kezia, BHO Sr’s first wife is very much alive and able to testify in any legal proceeding to determine whether any subsequent marriage was bigamous under Kenya's marriage law which doesn't allow bigamy even for Muslims or subsequent to tribal marriages. The 1964 HI Dunham divorce cannot retroactively nullify a bigamous 1961 marriage.
See her story in the Daily Mail where BHO Sr is described as a bigamist, apparently by Kezia:
Thank you for that.
The fact that Obama could be NBC, if born in HI due to an illegitimate birth means that it cannot be asserted with certainty that Obama is not NBC.
This is the reason I give Coulter and Levin, both keen legal minds, a pass.
As constitutionalist truth seekers we increase our credibility by scrupulously declaring certainty only to facts clearly in evidence. To me, declarations that Obama is not an NBC fail to meet the certainty standard due to lack of available legally established facts surrounding his birth location and the legitimacy of his parents marriage, specifically whether or not it was bigamous.
For me, the fact of the HI marriage was legally substantiated by the HI release of the vital record of the Dunham-Obama marriage, but that says nothing about whether it was bigamous.
Yes, Obama has invited us to assume he is legitimate by pointing to the 1948 BNA, but he lies all the time, so why should we believe anything he says, especially something like this that was scrubbed by his legal team?
I suspect that Obama is pointing us towards the 1948 BNA which he knows can defend with illegitimacy and away from his vital records, which may open the chance of discovery of a foreign birth which he cannot defend, if proved.
“Given we have the original paperwork, a direct line from concept through enactment into law, should we not use Jay/Washington are the primary source for the definition of NBC?”
No, because there’s this little thing called the 14th amendment which swooped in and made Jay/Washington irrelevant on the issue later on.
“we have not been given enough information to determine if the President is legitimate in any way shape or form. That in and of itself should be a crime”
Check me if I’m wrong, but in order for one to have committed a crime, one has to break a law. I am at a loss to say, even if he’s illegitimate, that Obama has broken a law. As for “treason,” well, he was legally on the ballots and duly elected, confirmed by the senate, sworn in by the Chief Justice, etc. If his occupying the office is illegal, it’s not so much as a result of his breaking the law. The law was broken by whatever controlling legal authority allowed him to be sworn in.
All Obama did, again if he is in fact ineligible, was take advantage of a broken system. No one forced him to offer proof. He doesn’t have to do so just because the Constitution says the president must be this and that. The reason we have the three branches of government is so that they will enforce the provisions of the Constitution (among other things).
“You can voluntarily give up your citizenship, its called renunciation, and if you were a Natural Born Citizen, this means you lose the claim to the status.”
You give up your citizenship, not the status with which you were born. Come on, I expect you Birthers to know that one can do nothing to change the status with which one is born.
“You can regain your U.S. citizenship, but only as a Naturalized citizen after a whole legal process.”
The Constitution says that the president shall be a natural born citizen, not that he not have stopped being a citizen at some point. Not even that he need be a citizen at all, though I think that part’s implied. Just because you’re naturalized at this point does not change the fact that you were born a citizen, which is what being a “natural born citizen” entails.
“The Constitution says that the president shall be a natural born citizen, not that he not have stopped being a citizen at some point.”
Let me try that again. It says you must be born a citizen, not that you must remain a citizen your entire life. It’s a loophole.
“He was under the jurisdiction of British law, and his fight the smears website plainly admits that.”
Does being under the jurisdiction of British law in some manner (if Obama, indeed, was) mean you’re not under the jurisdiction of U.S. law? No. Remember, the U.S. government does not recognize dual citizenship. It could care less. Being born with the right to claim citizenship in another country does not alter one’s citizenship status one whit. Yet, you think it does impinge upon that person’s presidential eligibility, based on no laws whatsoever, and completely against the grain of our government’s policy of ignoring dual citizenships.
“Otherwise, the nationality of the alien parent also passes to the child, which will not prevent them form being citizens, but does prevent them from being Natural Born citizens because another Nation has claim to them.”
What law says this?
“Native or Natural Born? Sounds clear enough they aren’t the same”
No, they aren’t the same. One is born in a country’s territory, while the other is born of a country’s citizens. Does this mean their status is different? No!
Just because they have different names is not proof, no matter what Birthers claim, that they are two different classes. Nothing about the fact that native born citizens have a special name means they can’t also be natural born citizens. The same holds for Texans, who also are Americans. Hey, why do people call Texans Texans if they are also Americans? Does that mean somewhere, deep down, they know Texans really aren’t Americans?
“Blue or red. Different colors. Purple would result, but it ain’t blue or red. It’s blue and red.
How’s that for an analogy?”
Bad. Colors are colors. We all know there’s more than one, but we pretty much treat them all the same. Sure, there are subdivisions. We divide primary from secondary, for instance. But do we treat primary colors as different from secondary colors? No. Do we treat different primary colors, for instance blue and red, as if they formed seperate and distinct categories? No.
If ever we were interested in affirming that colors have certain rights, would we deny the rights belonging to blue in the case of red because red is not blue? No. We might find a reason for denying something to red—perhaps because it’s to gaudy, I don’t know—but certainly not simply because we it has a different name.
Actually, there's a very good reason not to show any of those documents: not a single one one of them is necessary to prove he was born in Hawaii.
The COLB, photos of which have been posted only, is sufficient to prove US birth in any court or Federal agency. If that were not enough, Hawaii Dept. of Health officials have publicly confirmed that their vital records corroborate the information on that COLB.
Nothing else is necessary, so he doesn't show it because he doesn't have to.
This isn't complicated.
“The fourteenth amendment can be changed. The original Framers can’t.”
What on earth are you talking about? No one’s talking about changing the Framers, but rather the laws that were created by the Framers. There’s a very specific process for changing what they did, known as the amendment process. When I say the Framers are irrelevant, I mean their laws and their opinions about their laws are irrelevant once new laws have replaced theirs. I trust you knew that when I said the Framers are irrelevant that’s what I meant.
“The baby is as much a citizen...
Not the baby is as Natural Born as a NBC.”
First of all, it did say that natives are every bit as much a citizen as those children natural born to citizens, which implies to me that they are, in fact, every much as natural born. For if they are not also eligible to be president, then they are NOT every bit as much citizens.
Secondly, in the very least it didn’t address the natural born issue, since it was about whether they were citizens at all, not whether they were eligible to be president.
“If you would just look carefully, they’re spelled differently.
They both have NAT but one has IVE and the other has URAL.”
Okay, this is getting ridiculous. Have you ever studied philosophy or logic? Are you not aware that two things can have different names and belong to the same class? Have you ever seen a Venn diagram? “Natural born citizens” would be a giant circle, with a smaller circle labelled “native born citizens” inside.
“but not two forms of Natural Born Citizens”
Says who?
“It is today routinely believed that under the Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, mere birth on U.S. soil is sufficient to obtain U.S. citizenship”
B.S. Everyone knows about exceptions like having diplomats as parents or parents that are part of an invading army.
“It is today routinely believed that under the Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, mere birth on U.S. soil is sufficient to obtain U.S. citizenship”
B.S. Everyone knows about exceptions like having diplomats as parents or parents that are part of an invading army.
“I’ve yet to have a ‘anti-birther’ be able to answer a single one of those questions.”
Then you haven’t been paying attention. A minor cannot renounce his citizenship without an involved process, of which there would be evidence. If he was listed as a citizen of Indonesia at the age of 6, it really wouldn’t make any difference by itself. As for what country’s passport he travelled on, if he had not renounced his U.S. citizenship, it wouldn’t matter to U.S. law.
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.