[erkelly]

I'm just wondering if Taitz does have a point here because Hawaii did not become a state until 1959. If Barak Obama was born in 1962 then Hawaii had only been a state for about 3-4 years. So my question is does living in an American territory count as living in the USA? If it does not, then Taitz is right and young Stanley Ann could not have conferred citizenship. Any legal types/lawyers out there who can answer this?

[philman_36]

If Taitz is using that law to advance her argument then she needs to go back to the drawing board.
Read the page linked to in the article. It says at the top, in bold,
Citizenship Rules for People Born Outside the United States.

[sometime lurker]

I'm just wondering if Taitz does have a point here because Hawaii did not become a state until 1959. If Barak Obama was born in 1962 then Hawaii had only been a state for about 3-4 years. So my question is does living in an American territory count as living in the USA? If it does not, then Taitz is right and young Stanley Ann could not have conferred citizenship. Any legal types/lawyers out there who can answer this?

I'm not a lawyer, so maybe one can shed more light. However, as you pointed out, Hawaii became a state before 0bama was born, so that wouldn't affect anything. In any case, Barry Goldwater was born in Arizona when it was still a territory. I was a little young to recall everything about the campaign, but I don't remember that being an issue.

[GreenLanternCorps]

I'm just wondering if Taitz does have a point here because Hawaii did not become a state until 1959. If Barak Obama was born in 1962 then Hawaii had only been a state for about 3-4 years. So my question is does living in an American territory count as living in the USA? If it does not, then Taitz is right and young Stanley Ann could not have conferred citizenship. Any legal types/lawyers out there who can answer this?

Taitz does not have a point.

The Territory of Hawaii, prior to Statehood, was an incorporated territory of the United States. This means that unlike the Philippines, an unincorporated possession, the Territory of Hawaii was a fully integrated part of the national territory of the United States, it's people held citizenship by virtue of the Constitution, not by Act of Congress.

The Insular Cases* in the early 20th Century created a distinction between incorporated territories (The Indian Territory, Oklahoma Territory, Arizona Territory, New Mexico Territory, District of Alaska, and the Territory of Hawaii), and unincorporated possessions, owned by, but not part of the United States (The Philippines, Puerto Rico, Guam, and American Samoa). the former were integral parts of the American nation, the latter just owned by the US.

*Note: I consider the Insular Cases to have been wrongly decided and repugnant to the Constitution. They allowed the Congress to create a situation in people were compelled to become part of the US by treaty, but denied the rights and benefits of citizenship. All territory belonging to the US should be fully incorporated into the United States national territory, without exception.

[Drew68]

Any legal types/lawyers out there who can answer this?

That depends. Do you want your answers to from from actual practicing litigators or from "google lawyers" who only post on birther sites?