Posted on 07/31/2009 4:30:00 PM PDT by real_patriotic_american
The Obama "long form" birth certificate has been in question for a long time. A large movement is asking for his official birth record (see reasons below). Likewise, another movement is growing -- saying that the first group is nuts and is wasting everyone's time.
Lawsuits are continually being filed for proof of President Obama's eligibility. The latest from someone in the military.
The "Vault or Long Form" certificate has been wrongly interchanged with the "Certificate of Live Birth" as proof of birth although they are two different documents.
Although I do not subscribe to either side of the debate, here are some of the alleged reasons floating around on the internet fueling the movement for the President to prove his eligibility to lead our country. (i.e. do not shoot this messenger)
A video explains why Obama is not eligible according to the law (YouTube video)
Obama was born at Kapi'olani Medical Center for Women and Children in Hawai'i (snopes)
Obama was born at Queens Medical Center in Hawai'i (snopes screen shot)
Kenyan Ambassador Peter NRO Ogego says Obama was born in Kenya (sound recording from on-air Detroit WRIF radio show to Kenyan Embassy)
Obama's birth certificate was thrown out in 2001 when the hospital went paperless (See LA Times)
Obama's birth certificate was NOT thrown out in 2001 when the hospital went paperless (Same above LA Times article)
"We don't destroy vital records," says Hawaii Health Department spokeswoman.
Obama's birth certificate number is later than the Nordyke twins even though he was born a day earlier (Free Republic w/substantiating links)
Obama was born in Kenya according to Kenyan grandma (YouTube video)
Obama online "proof" of birth certificate likely came from PhotoBucket (Isreal Insider)
Kenya has sealed Obamas' medical records (source scrubbed)
Obama's birth certificate was lost in a fire at the hospital
Winnie the Poohs birth certificate is more authentic than Obamas (Canada Free Press)
Hawaiian law: [§338-17.8] Certificates for children born out of State. (a) Upon application of an adult or the legal parents of a minor child, the director of health shall issue a birth certificate for such adult or minor, provided that proof has been submitted to the director of health that the legal parents of such individual while living without the Territory or State of Hawaii had declared the Territory or State of Hawaii as their legal residence for at least one year immediately preceding the birth or adoption of such child. (b) Proof of legal residency shall be submitted to the director of health in any manner that the director shall deem appropriate. The director of health may also adopt any rules pursuant to chapter 91 that he or she may deem necessary or proper to prevent fraudulent applications for birth certificates and to require any further information or proof of events necessary for completion of a birth certificate. (c) The fee for each application for registration shall be established by rule adopted pursuant to chapter 91. [L 1982, c 182, §1]
Obama's birth certificate was eaten by the dog (ok …I made that up)
two words — Jack Ryan.
But they corrected their error with the next version of that Act.
Good summary bump! Heh! This thing is finally getting the legs it deserves. ;-)
Below is the NR article, posted yesterday on FR by pissant.
Required reading for those who want to know.
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=ZmJhMzlmZWFhOTQ3YjUxMDE2YWY4ZDMzZjZlYTVmZmU=
FYI, prior FR post and discussion. Good reading.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2304411/posts
You can’t say that they thought it was a constitutional error.
These are the same people that wrote the Constitution. This act was only a few years later.
It was taken out in 1795. You don’t know why. No definition has ever appeared again.
The difference in the three acts that were passed were reallly about notice requirements and residency requirements.
I have read so many historians that think this was done to decrease the amount of voters who would vote for one particular party.
Adams barely won over Jefferson. Would he have lost without those Acts?
Perhaps Natural born citizen was taken out to decrease the chances of that particular party getting a candidate in the future.
We just don’t know. But to say it was because they thought it was a procedural error is incorrect...unless you can show me a letter or note they wrote that says such a thing.
Thanks and I agree! I believe we are getting closer to seeing Obama removed from office.
You wrote-
“Good summary bump! Heh! This thing is finally getting the legs it deserves. ;-)”
Er, you suppose way too much I think.
What “retrospective application” is going on here ?
Where do I say that statute laws define the Constitutional test ?
What I was saying was that the test is undefined, and that nobody can say for certain what a court will find - other than that it will not declare Obama, already President, unqualified. And I think you and yours know this very well.
As for your other post re Vattel, again you presume too much. That is your theory of what constitutes original intent, but that is just a theory. If it were to come down to a case it is highly unlikely that is what any court in the US in these times will decide.
You can of course counter by asserting that any decision not following Vattel and etc. would be unconstitutional, i.e., the court would be wrong. But the court is the court, and you are just you, and you have no legal means to impose your interpretation.
It is anecdotal, but Washington could have vetoed; Bingham whose words we have during a floor debate and who was considered the father of the 14th defined natural born in a way contrary to the 1790 Naturalization Act which was changed in 1795, taking out the phrase ‘natural born citizen’.
Yeah, I heard Rush Limbaugh mention McCarthy’s article today.
You wrote-
“Below is the NR article, posted yesterday on FR by pissant.
Required reading for those who want to know.”
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=ZmJhMzlmZWFhOTQ3YjUxMDE2YWY4ZDMzZjZlYTVmZmU=
He looks like a reporter who is relying on misinformation being posted on Free Republic.
If anyone knows him tell him he has got it wrong
“For now, let’s just stick with what’s indisputable: He was also born a Kenyan citizen”
Use the words
Marriage Void Ab Initio
and tell him it is not an indisputable fact.
Also, Kenya did not recognize a mix of customary and statutory marriages and the US did not recognize a bigamist marriage.
Can’t any reporter do any real research anymore.
It was Washington’s idea to come up with a Uniform Rule of Naturalization. Congress did so. Washington did not veto.
I know that one of the concerns in the 1795 act was people who were involved with the French Revolution. They did not want them coming over here and becoming citizens and voting, etc. . Historians have been talking about it for years.
I suspect that is why the natural born clause was taken out but I don’t know that.
But just as much of a reason was to suppress immigrant voters because they favored Jefferson...
If they took out the natural born citizen clause because they were worried about revolutionaries...then one could argue that same thought could be a concern today.
At least that is a line of argument I would go down if I was trying to have a stricter interpretation of the clause.
The fall of Bastille was before the 1790 act as was The Diamond Necklace Affair...but that was just the beginning.
I think it is more likely they took it out because of the voter issue/French Revolution than they took it out for procedural error.
My question is.. If he is proven to be not qualified to serve then who in that mess in D.C. is going to make him leave the White House??
The MSM isn’t gonna scream like they did with Nixon, the Supreme court can’t seem to find anyone who has “standing”, and the Dumbocratic controlled Congress hasn’t the guts or interest in standing up to him. So will the Pentagon have to circle the tanks??
Politics hasn’t changed all that much has it, m’Lady! It’s a blood sport.
I think there was a thread the other day on which “Dr. Polarik” said he was working on something with Joe Farah and that it would be released “soon or shortly.’
Anybody recall the thread?
How do we know he spent this much money to cover up the BC? Where is the facts? We must back up every statement with fact.
Unlike our fast talking foes we need to talk about facts—does Obama’s Half sister who was born in Indonesia have a Hawaiian Certificate of Live Birth? Is this fact or fiction? Lets get all the facts on the table and see where we can press to get to the truth.
Actually, in cases like that, Ex Post factos laws ARE perfectly legal, per the US Supreme Court. The Supremes decided that the famous Ex Post Facto ban only applied to CRIMINAL laws, but said CIVIL laws could be retroactive to Congress’ heart’s content! LOL. Two COMMON examples: retroactve tax laws, and retroactive gun control laws. I DO wish we had a CONSTITUTION and an AMERICAN President!
This is the only indisputably true thing you can manage to say. LOL
Your logic is just a bit flawed.
It was precisely BECAUSE of the accepted definition of a natural born child (born within the sovereignty of two citizen parents) that the provision for extending natural born status to extraterritorial births of citizen in the naturalization law passed in 1789 was thought necessary in the first place. Thus it is evidence on its face in support of the position that I have set forth.
That a few years later cooler heads realized that they had in effect attempted to legislate an Amendment to the Constitution, saw that this as an extremely bad precedent to set, and forthwith repealed the act. Another bit of evidence in support of my position.
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.