Posted on 06/10/2008 9:03:27 AM PDT by youshouldknowthetruth
In other words, you demand a courtesy which you have refused others.
please site yours for the assumption that Hawaii was an incorporated territory from 1900 till 1950.
Happy to.
Organic Act To Provide A Government For The Territory Of Hawaii.
It was passed by Congress on April 30,1900.
It contains the following provision:
"That all persons who were citizens of the Republic of Hawaii on August twelfth, eighteen hundred and ninety-eight, are hereby declared to be citizens of the United States and citizens of the Territory of Hawaii."
Moreover:
"That the Constitution, and, except as otherwise provided, all the laws of the United States, including laws carrying general appropriations, which are not locally inapplicable, shall have the same force and effect within the said Territory as elsewhere in the United States"
That, of course, incorporates Hawaii - and the source is happy to show case law reaffirming it: "Where a territory is incorporated into the United States (as in the case of the Territory of Hawaii) the federal Constitution applies and becomes operative in such territory." [Territory of Haw. v. Yoshimura, 35 Haw. 324 (1940).].
Hawaii was an incorporated territory before it was a state, and its people were US nationals.
pSST.
Stop believing every mass email you read.
Do you really think a team of Harvard lawyers and millions of dollars on his team would let him do this, hoping nobody setting at home on the interwebs finds out?
Do you really think that his opponents and their millions and their team of Harvard lawyers would not know?
His socialist agenda is what we need to be pressing. Not chainletters from the interwebz.
Look at it this way. As much as I loathe Hillary, if she and her team can’t scrap up dirt on you, then there is no dirt there. She is the master at ruining people. This would have been an issue the moment he threw his hat in the ring.
There are simple ways to assert this:
1) release a copy of the birth certificate
2) conduct a records search of live births (assuming they are public records) during the month
3) petition the Department of State or a judge for a statement of citizenship. And have such provide an explanation as to nature of citizenship.
The point to this whole mess is ... the FEC should have a formal submission and review process that determines a candidates eligibility for President.
Why would Hawaii have gone from being an unorganized, unincorporated territory straight to statehood?
Why would it have been the only state in US history since 1789 not to have been organized or incorporated before being magically transformed into a state?
Doesn't that militate against all historical precedent and Constitutional logic?
Oh, but it is still interesting to guess what Barry is hiding? What was his given name? Who is listed as his father?
There are those that assert that he was born in Africa, not the US and such question would be quickly put to rest with the release of his birth certificate.
Correct. But note that even though these are not incorporated, Puerto Ricans are US citizens as are Virgin Islanders.
There are those that assert that he was born in Africa, not the US
And who are they? And what is their credibility?
Wouldn't energy be better spent on not chasing a rumor that could make conservatives look like silly conspiracists and instead focus on Obama's terrible policies, unimpressive record and lack of executive experience?
It’s a non-issue.
He was born on US soil to a US citizen.
The law quoted in the article refers only to children born abroad.
Obama was not born abroad, but in Hawaii.
But can he prove it?
If a man born on US soil to a US parent isnt an American citizen, no one here is.
He’s yet to prove he was born on US soil. News papers in Kenya were claiming he was born in Kenya.
Of course, McCain is a citizen because (1) both his parents were citizens, (2) the Panama Canal Zone was a U.S. territory when McCain was born (just as Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, and Guam are U.S. territories now), (3) he was born on a U.S. military base in Panama because his father was stationed there on active military duty, and (4) there was a specific statute at the time making anyone born to U.S. citizens in the Panama Canal zone a citizen.
It was a lame argument about McCain and it is just as lame about B.O.
B.O. is clearly not qualified to be President, but it is not because of his citizenship.
However, it seems pretty strange to me, that they won't release his birth records...
Why on Earth, would Obama not have his records released, if he has nothing sinister to hide, with regards to them?
I'm not big on conspiracy theories, and I know some folks questioned the McCain issue (canal, etc), but again, it's pretty simple. Either Obama releases his birth records, or we should be VERY suspicious! Am I wrong??
I agree 110%! How can you not force someone to release their FULL birth records, when they are trying to become the President of the United States???
“People born in incorporated territories are citizens according to law.”
There are many other circumstances in which persons born to U.S. citizens but who not born in the U.S. are, nevertheless, U.S. citizens by birth. {Section 301 of the INA [8 USC § 1401]}
CA was not organized or incorporated as a territory before becoming a state. The argument over this almost precipitated the Civil War 10 years early.
http://www.50states.com/statehood.htm
Indeed it was. It was incorporated into the US as part of the treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo.
It was under a military government at first, and then it held a constitutional convention to organize a territorial government.
It did so and spent 10 months as an organized territory (November 1849-August 1850) until it was admitted to statehood on September 9, 1850.
The argument over this almost precipitated the Civil War 10 years early.
California statehood was part of the larger compromise of 1850. California's bid for statehood was only a later part of the original and fierce argument over the Wilmot Proviso of 1846.
The crisis was precipitated by the Congressional debate over the abolition of slavery in Washington DC - a debate that began in 1848 while CA was still under military governance.
I believe you’re confused about CA history. An area became a territory when Congress passed a law organizing it as such. This never happened in CA.
President Taylor advocated immediate entry of CA as a state without first going through a period as a territory. The bill doing so promptly got entangled with the slavery issue and deadlocked.
In Sept. 1849 a convention met at CA and adopted a state constitution, not a territorial government. The legislature met in December as a provisional, unofficial state government.
In 1850 Congress finally admitted CA as a state. It never passed a bill establishing a California Territory.
http://www.southlandrealestate.com/CaliforniaStatehoodFrm.htm
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.