Posted on 08/15/2010 11:00:39 AM PDT by Man50D
Freepers have been debating for some time if Obama is or isn't illegally occupying the White House because he does or does not fulfill the natural born citizenship requirement in Article 2 Section 1 of the Constitution. I thought it would be interesting to put the matter to an informal vote to see where Freeperland in general stands on the issue. OK Freepers, start spewing!
oh nooooooooooooooooooooooes!
Heil Centurion! You return!
With the most infinitesimal simmering beginning about the (drum roll) BIRTH CERTIFICATE, you, professional sentinel, come again to protect the STATE!
Here to proclaim how silly we are to want answers from his most high Commander, Supreme Master of All, BH Obama Esquire!
How is your whistle?
Still nothing to add, I see. You can’t count on the U.S. military to bail you out with some miraculous coup d’etat. You’ll have to arrange for that to occur at the ballot box. That’s where I plan to be in 2012, how about you?
Subject: A person owing allegiance to a nation.
Subject: to be held accountable for.
Senator Howard made it quite clear that when he wrote the citizenship clause of the 14th. he was using the subject in reference to allegiance. Ark was declared a native born citizen because his parents(legally) had immigrated( a form of allegiance) to the U.S. and had set up residence.
While anyone in the jurisdiction of the U.S. is subject( held accountable to) to our laws, it does not make them a “Subject”(owes allegiance to).
You can not interchange the meanings of subject in the 14th.amendment just because it does not conform to your personal political beliefs.
I sure that obama know’s that I’am right and that is the reason he can NEVER let a copy of his birth certificate be released. It is the proof that he is NOT a natural born citizen.
SCOTUS should clarify this.
It is a fact his father was a British subject and I believe the founders intended for someone with sole allegiance to only be able to be elected President.
Therefore natural born citizen mens born of two US citizens...not one.
Natural born citizen: Both parents U.S. citizens (required for Article 2 Natural born citizen clause)
Naturalized citizen: a citizen who has immigrated to the U.S. and became a citizen by code.
Native borm citizen: This is often refered to as a 14th amendment citizen. Ths applies to children who are born on U.S. soil , but the parents ( legally immigrated) are not yet U.S. citizens or only one parent is a U.S. citizen.
No one from the State of HI made any sworn statement in a court of law.
Anyone could have phoned in the birth announcements, there is a lot of hanky panky connected with them, and the images of either announcements or the COLB on the internet are not valid for a court of law.
You ever get a driver’s license saying that your birth certificate is on the internet and here’s the link, they can look it up?
There was no doctor’s evidence; none whatsoever.
Whose team are you on, anyway?
Obama is most certainly NOT a Natural Born Citizen, as required by our Constitution.
One must be BOTH 1) born on U.S. Soil, ***AND*** 2) born to two U.S. citizen parents.
Obama clearly fails test 2, and quite undoubtedly fails test 1 as well.
You’re assuming that NBC only requires birth on U.S. soil. Only then would the Birth Certificate be critical.
But NBC status also requires birth to two U.S. citizen parents. This, Obama clearly fails, as his father was a British subject of Kenya.
Therefore, Obama is NOT a NBC, and is ineligible for POTUS.
But, dammit, I want to see his birth certificate anyway!
There are so many odd aspects in this story is difficult to know where to start. Since we don’t have any paperwork to hold in our hands to go on by which I mean his true long form birth certificate, then all is speculation.
However, I noticed one thing during the discussion.
Go to wiki and take a look at Stanley Ann.
you will see that she was born November 29, 1942.
This means that she was unmarried, single, and just 17 years old when she got pregnant with our president.
If indeed Barack Hussein Obama was born August 4, 1961, then Stanley would have been 17 years old when she was impregnated by a mysterious someone in Hawaii. Counting back for nine months of pregnancy, as the American Embassy did for my children when I went to get American passports for them, and they produced a pregnancy chart to make sure that I was indeed near my wife when she got pregnant — I didn’t even know such things existed — well then it seems to me that Stanley got pregnant in October or November 1960.
This, is, if we believe that the child was actually born in August of 1961. Since the dates from summer of 1960, to August of 1961 are complete blank in this woman’s life, with no photos of the hospital no photos of the doctor no report from the doctor no report from the nurse no wedding certificate no baby photos no photos of the child and the bassinet at the hospital, no witnesses, no photos of the mother while she’s pregnant, no photos of the mother holding a baby in her arms, — and most of all no normal Hawaiian birth certificate ever produced. Clearly, it is highly possible that the child was born in the spring of 1961 by the summer of 1961 and only registered in Hawaii on August 4, 1961.
Imagine this: Stanley and gets pregnant at the ripe young age of 17 in Seattle were on the beach in Hawaii is Frank Marshall Davis bragged in his pornographic book. What a scandal! Think about it, as another poster mentioned — an unmarried, white, 17-year-old girl, pregnant by a black man, in 1960 — and if that black men is the very married Frank Marshall Davis who already has one white wife and was busy writing his bisexual, pornographic novel bragging about how he slept with a girl named Anne on the Hawaii beaches — what would any family, and what would any young girl do in a situation like that?
I guess she would run to Russian class at the University of Hawaii, and find someone who would volunteer to pretend to be the father — and that is why Barack Hussein Obama does not look at all like his very black African father.
Of course, this is all speculation. Until someone can get rich by picking up his knife or fork or spoon or water glass at a state dinner we will not know any of the answers. But, one idea does pop into my mind. Why are all his records in Kenya locked up and closed? What does even he have records in Kenya at all? What is locked up? What are they protecting? That too makes no sense to select the entire sex on the beach episode in Hawaii with a girl named in is difficult for normal people to believe that as more and more is revealed it seems like Stanley was not much of a normal person. Remember when she boasted to her friends “I don’t need to get married to have children”. Well I guess she certainly put this policy into action.
Could she have gotten pregnant in the summer of 1968 while in Seattle and just finishing high school? Why did the family leave Seattle so precipitously and moved to such a strange location, Hawaii? This too makes no sense at all.
I don’t believe Barack Hussein Obama was born August 4, 1961, I believe he was born in March or April or May of 1961 and the birth was registered in Hawaii August 4, 1961 and automatic berth announcement that was generated was sent over to the two newspapers at the time. Again, sheer speculation, just a feeling, just a gut feeling — but there are so many incredible amazing bizarre strange things about this man’s life that I believe gut feelings probably have more to do with the real situation than the false trail and false paperwork that he has released. Now that I think about it, I don’t think he’s released a false trail at all, it is pretty much covered up all the tracks and refused to release any information at all.
So, there’s some of my speculation on the Hawaii episode, and why the family moved there in such a hurry, and for no apparent reason at all, and who the father might truly be, and what Barack is trying to cover up.
What does everybody think?
Later (and I blockquote it below) you say that a court lacks the authority to determine presidential eligibility. I don't think you are intending to base your position on a Catch-22 (never been litigated, lack of authority to determine eligibility), and have a couple of other remarks about the bases for whatever your position is.
Dual citizenship results in a person having dual loyalties, where the relative strength of those loyalties is variable depending on where the person is located, and on the state of affairs between the nations claiming powers over the dual citizen.
While what you say is true of a dual US citizen located in the US, the issue isn't one of "affecting ones rights as a US citizen." The issue is whether or not the person has sufficiently strong loyalty to the United States, that they are fit to lead the country. Divided loyalty, divided duty, and the potential presence of foreign power influence were the effects that Natural Born Citizenship are designed to preclude.
Dual citizenship is a big deal, and it shocks the conscience that the known and admitted fact of dual citizenship passed by Congress without so much as a brief mention, let alone a full and serious debate on the question of eligibility posed by a person born into divided allegiance.
Kawakita v. US, 343 U.S. 717 (1952) is about a dual citizen (US and Japan) who was charged with treason against the US. Not to say that being a NBC is a guarantee of fidelity to the US, that's not the point. The question is whether or not a dual citizen at birth is within the ambit of "natural born citizen" as qualified for the presidency.
-- 4. All of the above could be debated in court. But the Constitution does not give the Supreme Court, or other Article III courts the authority to determine Presidential eligibility. That rests with the Congress, who took a pass in January 2009 when the Electoral Votes were tabulated. When the Congress took that pass and did not consider the issue, it effectively decided in Obama's favor. --
I think what you are saying here is that a Court can't impose the remedy of removal from office. The Courts and the Congress have been reluctant to say anything that might cut against eligibility. There is one case in Indiana where the court went so far as to assert that born on US soil is sufficient qualification. The Courts haven't covered themselves in glory on this either, rendering "opinions" in cases they are powerless to remedy.
As to whether the decision has been effectively rendered, I think not, unless the only effect one considers is presence in office. The inaction of Congress in this case is akin to the Dred Scott decision by the Supreme Court. The full depth of depravity will be revealed by history, if not by current events.
-- What this means is that Obama cannot legally be touched on this issue until the 2012 election, and then only in two ways. --
Congress put him in, Congress can take him out at any time. Congress has the power. Impeachment, by its nature, is a mix of political and constitutional/legal action.
Congress won't even hint at involving the citizenship issue in Obama's presidency. A significant number of people in Congress think born citizenship is too limiting, and some of the radical ones would, I wager, admit a non-citizen foreigner to the office. They will also avert attention here, because it exposes their 2009 inaction. Congress is purely self-serving.
The change wasn't the 14th amendment, alone. It is the 14th amendment in combination with decisions by the United States Supreme Court.
Citizenship to a child born on US soil to legally present, permanent resident aliens, was established by Wong Kim Ark. That case essentially read out the phrase "subject to the jurisdiction of the US" by making presence in the US the same thing, legally. I hold that Wong Kim Ark was wrongly decided, one of many failures by the Supreme Court.
Anchor babies (citizenship to parents in the country illegally) was established almost 100 years after that, in Plyler v. Doe, 457 US 202 (1982).
Now that I reflect on it, it is typical for the Supreme Court to put out a trash ruling, then leave the dirty work to lower courts. It's done this with the Heller case (2nd amendment), and by inaction as lower courts imposed radically botched application of other precedents (Presser, Miller). All that as prelude to a Supreme Court refusing to revisit Wong Kim Ark and/or Plyler, and to be even MORE averse to becoming involved, as the stakes are raised. Heck, Dred Scott was never reversed by the Supreme Court!
The entire federal government is a massive work of corruption, and one day it'll come tumbling down. Can't happen soon enough to suit me, I hope I'm alive to enjoy some schadenfreude.
Personally,...I think the nickname “Zero” is apt.
“we have to presume legally the President is eligible.”
Why?
Obama is a natural born citizen, having been granted citizenship upon birth when he was born on American soil.
A viable alternative story.
Does make him a natural born citizen though.
Would explain why those in power who have most likely seen the paperwork or otherwise know the truth, including those who have reason to oust him, do not question his legitimacy as president yet support keeping his BC under wraps (embarrassing but not legally harmful; “you hide my skeletons and I’ll hide yours”).
Subject: A person owing allegiance to a nation.
Subject: to be held accountable for.
Senator Howard made it quite clear that when he wrote the citizenship clause of the 14th. he was using the subject in reference to allegiance. Ark was declared a native born citizen because his parents(legally) had immigrated( a form of allegiance) to the U.S. and had set up residence.
While anyone in the jurisdiction of the U.S. is subject( held accountable to) to our laws, it does not make them a “Subject”(owes allegiance to).
You can not interchange the meanings of subject in the 14th.amendment just because it does not conform to your personal political beliefs.
I sure that obama know’s that I’am right and that is the reason he can NEVER let a copy of his birth certificate be released. It is the proof that he is NOT a natural born citizen.
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.