Posted on 04/27/2011 6:21:07 AM PDT by therightliveswithus
The White House has released the President's birth certificate on TwitPic. According to them, this is President Obama's long-form birth certificate:
Why they waited until now and why they released it to TwitPic is unknown at this time.
No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible ...
That is NOT a period after United States. That is a comma. Therefore, the phrase "at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution" modifies the phrase "or a Citizen of the United States" and should be read as one -- as a whole. You should have learned that in 8th grade English.
See more here: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2710016/posts
That is an image that was found several years ago, and everytime it has been posted there has been much flak, so much flak that I have kept it in my files for a better time and place. A person with clear vision can easily guess why so many anti-birthers want that document to stay hidden.
Kinda like hoarding.I keep my Obama files to myself. Nobody really cares for the truth anymore. And Fr is too heavily infested with Obots to wage a continuous battle with them.
Sorry it takes so long to reply, I drive a lot and computer access is limited.
Yes it could very well be the real deal.
Obama is born at the Coast Provincial Hospital in Mombasa, Kenya.
Grandmother Dunham gets baby “registered” in Hawaii, like buying a truck in Texas, the pink slip is issued from Texas but then you move to Nevada and you get the vehicle registered for Nevada plates, but by law there is no requirement to get the original title transferred to Nevada.
This is what Obama is.And out of country registrant taking advantage of the state of Hawaii’s program of registration.
of course the majority of America is having the wool pulled over their eyes right now by Obama, but in the future the truth will arise, this lie will not last forever.
In the Venus case, the court waded through areas of law undefined by Congress or Constitution, finding that it was reasonable to treat differently a citizen born in America with another who was FOREIGN-BORN and naturalized, and who maintained business ties with a nation we were at war with, and in fact, the reliance on Vattel, to whom Natural Law and natural-born clearly indicates that the court did NOT establish the original intent of the phrase, “natural born” meant. The reference to Vattel is to establish that it is reasonable to distinguish between foreign-born and native-born, not to assume all of Vattel’s interests in making that distinction, nor establish Vattel as a controlling authority.
Again, Shanks v DuPont merely asserts that moving oversees is NOT inherently a renunciation of citizenship, even when it is to form a marriage with a foreign natural. This actually boosts Obama’s claim, because it suggests that neither Obama nor Dunham lost citizenship when they moved to Indonesia; Even if Obama was underage, he doesn’t renounce his citizenship if his parent does. Nothing in Shanks suggests that the national character of an un-naturalized immigrant in America is legally or incidentally that of his homeland; it is, in fact, quite reasonable to suppose the opposite: that the legal, permanent-resident alien has adopted the natural character of America, even before his naturalization has taken place.
In Minor v. Harperset, the court finds that a person born in America of citizens is constitutionally a natural-born citizen. But the Chief Justice purposely ventures into areas not applicable in the case to prevent later case law reading him as creating a narrow definition of natural-born citizens, specifically declining to settle whether any children born in America, whether their parents are citizens or not, are inherently natural-born.
In US v Wong Kim Ark, the Supreme Court plainly rules contrary to your assertion, saying that any child born under US jurisdiction is natural born. This ruling is controlling authority. In error or not, the notion that the Supreme Court would nullify a presidential election which was conducted in accordance with its own precedent is absolutely unthinkable, and would create an unrecoverable constitutional crisis. Stare Decisis is a much abused notion, but this is absolutely the reason why it exists.
LOL. That is no more real than Dan Rather’s handiwork - proportional spacing, Times New Roman font. Ask Buckhead. Really: it’s time to move on.
There are readings from the past centuries that indicate both parents must be citizens for one to be natural born.
If that was the intent of the authors of the US Constitution, then that’s what it was.
There is a valid logic to it: they did not want anyone with covert loyalties in the office of the presidency. Those born of a parent with a foreign loyalty is reasonably suspect about loyalty.
Rather than ever to have to deal with it, they made the requirement: natural born citizen, i.e., someone with both parents loyal to the US.
It would be nice if someone would post the first COLB along side the second COLB so we can see the differences.
>> There are readings from the past centuries that indicate both parents must be citizens for one to be natural born <<
Could you point any out, because the reliance on Vattel by many making that argument would be downright wierd. Why are so many citing a foreign-language, foreign-land reference who has no concept of Natural Law and doesn’t use directly translatable concepts if there’s a better reference?
http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llcg&fileName=071/llcg071.db&recNum=332
Go to link
Read 2nd column, 2nd full paragraph
I presume your intent is to highlight this: “that every person human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing any allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is in the language of the Constitution a natural-born citizen.” Are you presuming that anyone who is not yet naturalized owes allegiance to a foreign sovereignty, but that anyone who is owes none? I’d argue that anyone who has voluntary legally taken up permanent residence, except in the direct service of another nation, is not only the current legal standard under Ark, but also much more sensible, and neither creates the crisis of an underclass of descendants of legal immigrants who have no standing in any other nation, but are not natural born here either. Everyone is natural-born somewhere.
Note, also that the Congressman disagrees with this language, asserting however, that anyone born under U.S. Law is a citizen:
“I deny that the Congress of the United States ever had the power to say that any man born within the jurisdiction of the United States, not owing foreign allegiance, is not and shall not be a citizen of the United States.”
Further, that he is a citizen by means of Natural Law, that is, he is natural-born:
“Citizenship is his birthright, and neither Congress nor the States can justly or lawfully take it away from him”
That is NOT a period after United States. That is a comma. Therefore, the phrase “at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution” modifies the phrase “or a Citizen of the United States” and should be read as one — as a whole. You should have learned that in 8th grade English.
I did. You OTOH clearly missed the portion of American history class that dealt with citizenship, or perhaps your unionized teachers failed to impart that to you? Maybe you just napped that day?
If someone is born in an American state, it matters not what the nationality of the parents is - that person is a citizen. Your “natural born” angle only applies to people like McCain, born to American-citizen parents in another country. I think we’re in agreement that people like Arnie Schwarz. are DQ’d due to being “naturalized”.
I hate Obozo as much as you but unless this dumb COLB is shown to be a fake, it looks like the incompetent hypocritical elitist cowardly prick of a president was qualified to be so.
you’re flat wrong on this issue...and the silence of tens of thousands of constitutional lawyers today who’ve likely seen this document is more proof. Far wealthier people (the Clintaxes) spent more time & $$ than you or I and found nothing. Give it up and let’s focus on getting a candidate to beat this cowardly asshole in 2012.
OR you can continue to waste your time and energy on what’s now a dead-end issue and look like a whackjob.
http://www.usconstitution.net/consttop_citi.html
Who is a natural-born citizen? Who, in other words, is a citizen at birth, such that that person can be a President someday?
The 14th Amendment defines citizenship this way: “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.” But even this does not get specific enough. As usual, the Constitution provides the framework for the law, but it is the law that fills in the gaps. The Constitution authorizes the Congress to do create clarifying legislation in Section 5 of the 14th Amendment; the Constitution, in Article 1, Section 8, Clause 4, also allows the Congress to create law regarding naturalization, which includes citizenship.
Currently, Title 8 of the U.S. Code fills in the gaps left by the Constitution. Section 1401 defines the following as people who are “citizens of the United States at birth:”
* Anyone born inside the United States *
That said, the point is simply that this is not a new discussion and far pre-dates the Obama presidency.
Therefore, ideas put forward in support of dual-parent citizenship are not just spur-of-the-moment creations from thin air. For example, go here to this book about Chester Arthur that argues he knew about and attempted to hide his father's citizenship at the time of his birth. The Point: natural born citizenship was viewed as requiring citizenship by both parents and Arthur knew it and was hiding it.
How a British subject became president of the United States
And, finally, there is always this picture to comfort us on warm winter nights without Arab Oil to keep us comfortable. It's instructive.
Of course he is; Did you read anything I wrote? If so, how could you possibly think I missed that distinction?
As for the Chester Arthur book: The point is whether Arthur was born in the U.S. at all, not whether he was natural-born.
They have actively hidden it from public comments with never ending pretenses, ranging from lowering taxes to protecting individual liberty.
The socialism is only in plain sight for a minority whose intensity of interest is like the average Freeper. We use microscopes. This is required just to get past the years of propaganda which have programmed huge numbers of people to think the words socialism and communism are conspiracy theories and can only come from the mouths of nuts.
Obama and his fellow communists have neither the courage nor the intelligence to simply come out and state “We think socialism is best for the country.” The amount of effort they put into hiding the scope of their true intentions is massive.
All they can do is perpetrate socialism while painting it as something else. This tactic uses a function of the mind which is fundamentally the opposite of intelligence.
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.