Posted on 10/19/2012 11:59:50 AM PDT by NTHockey
Uh-oh. I give myself “mostly incorrect.” Apparently it was a hypothetical instance in the case of Lynch v Clarke, in which Julia Lynch WAS recognized as a citizen, having taken no measure on her own to renounce her citizenship.
While true for all the various state/county forms I've seen - every one of them required the BIRTHPLACE (TOWN AND/OR COUNTRY) of both the Mother and Father. Pertinent citizenship would be determined from other legal documents.
No Father declared or admitted at birth titles the child as a bastard, and unable to be considered for inclusion for the estate of a deceased father. (That was modified in England - not certain about the US.)
My two pennies:
Of the few mentions in the Constitution of the term "Citizen" - only ONE has any pre-qualification, and it is neither the first or the last notation of the term. The fact of the discovery of the letter to Washington (and the others of the committee) regarding the disallowance of 'foreign-born individuals' to become President leads me to believe "Natural Born Citizen" means born here of parents who are both Citizens before the birth.
You folks don't like it - AMEND THE CONSTITUTION!
Here is an additional Univ. of Washington record,
http://www.theobamafile.com/_images/AnnaUWashington.jpg
This is the first piece of information which I have seen that claims these were correspondence courses. I have previously seen written articles which refuted this possibility. Apparently they were mistaken. So okay, you have rendered indeterminate that piece of evidence. It doesn't prove Stanley Ann was in Hawaii, because she could have easily corresponded from Blaine Washington as well. We still have the other piece of evidence.
As to Susan Blake’s testimony:
“Susan Blake, another high-school classmate, said that during a brief visit in 1961, Dunham was excited about her husband’s plans to return to Kenya.”
We now know that Barack Obama never had any intentions of playing house with Stanley Ann. Either Stanley lied to Susan Blake to save face, or Susan lied about what Stanley said to save face for Obama.
A “brief visit” doesn’t suggest that she moved there in August, 1961.
It certainly does suggest that she moved there. How is the Broke Stanley Ann paying for flights to and from Hawaii? I can see her mother footing the bill once, and for cause, (To get an embarrassing pregnancy out of the way * and put the child up for adoption as indicated in Barack Obama's INS file.) but to pay for what amounts to pleasure jaunts? I don't think so. Stanley flew there to stay for awhile.
And this:
“Blake recalls that Dunham, who was calling herself Ann Obama at the time, visited her at her house in Mercer Island during the last week of August, 1961.”
There you go.
“She left Honolulu just as soon she had clearance from her doctor to travel with her new baby.”
Others have pointed out that no airline would have allowed an infant to fly in 1961 because the pressure change could rupture a baby's ear drums. I am given to understand that it was the normal and usual practice to ban infants on all flights.
Here is the thing that I consider silly. These friends of Dunham are being asked questions about an event that occurred 47 years previously.
What would have been so remakable that they would have remembered inimate exact details of a 47 year old event?
That's easy. Having your vacation to Santa Cruz cut short because fires (Austrian Gulch Fire, 1961) are ravaging the countryside. From The Obama file:
4. Susan had gone on vacation to Santa Cruz in summer of '61, had returned mid August because she remembered the fires around Santa Cruz at that time which caused her to return home. Soon after she was back, her mother told her that Stanley was coming to visit. Stanley had the newborn Barack Obama, roughly 3 weeks old. To Susan's best recollection it was sometime around Aug. 25th to Aug 30th.
Unless you can refute it, that piece of information pretty much establishes that Stanley Ann was in the vicinity of Seattle during the later half of August.
---------------------------------------------------------
* For proof that the pregnancy was Embarrassing to Madelyn Dunham, I direct your attention to these quotes from Madelyn Dunham's coworker.
Berry said she didn't realize Obama was Dunham's grandson until early this year while watching TV.
The norm is that a grandmother crows about her first grandchild, and often puts pictures on her desk. That no one in her workplace knew she had a grandson can only be explained by intent. She was ashamed, as would be expected of a White Girl from Kansas in 1961.
``She was pretty conservative from my point of view so back then it would have been surprising'' to know she had a black grandson, Berry said. ``I would have thought: `I wonder what she thinks about that?'''
Nope, I am. I made the assumption that someone living in Newfoundland and who had children which were born and died in Newfoundland, would bury those children in Newfoundland. Apparently they traveled all the way to Kansas to bury them. Whoda thunk? My salient point was still valid. The family was living in Canada in 1959.
Frankly, I think you can drop the whole Newfoundland line of inquiry and stick with the Blaine, Washington line.
I agree, though we don't really know how long they stayed in Newfoundland and it is possible that Aunt Eleanor was there in 1961, but much less likely. Thanks for pointing that out.
Very likely less so than I had previously thought. I wonder if there is a simple means to trace Ralph Lee Berkebile's residences through his Military records?
Or unless you were a former slave prior to 1868, or unless you were an Indian prior to 1924, or unless you were a British Loyalist before during and after 1776.
Why you people absolutely refuse to realize your theory is nonsensical and riddled with exceptions is baffling.
you are automatically a natural born citizen for purposes of presidential eligibility.
Yes, we always wanted foreign princes, anchor babies and tourist babies to be eligible to lead our nation. We always wanted Presidents with dual loyalties and foreign draft eligibility. Who could doubt it?
I just want to say that I admire and appreciate all the fine work you have done on this issue.
Doug might not, but abuse hit. That’s way out of line bucko.
You appear to be a particularly unhinged birther. You should really seek help. Just because 99.9999% of people including the entire US Government, courts, congress and scholars disagree with your position is no reason to put yourself into such an unhealthy state of mind.
“Responding to his defecations is pointless”
What part of no personal attacks don’t you understand?
“Responding to his defecations is pointless”
What part of no personal attacks don’t you understand?
I’m not disagreeing with you (Obama sr. only married her to make an honest woman of her and grandparents were not happy about things). I’m just trying to separate provable facts from things that may or may not be possible.
That time period is cloudy for her whereabouts. She appears to have dropped from site between January and August 1961. She took no classes at U of H in the spring of 1961 (which could be explained by her being pregnant and out of sight or having been sent to Washington). She doesn’t show up until late August/early September in Seattle. Even that seems mysterious as Blake says late August and Box says early September and both say they never saw her again after that visit. And both say that she never mentioned going to U of W. Both were under the impression that she was going somewhere to visit her husband. But how much of that is the fog of 47 year old memories?
Here is my problem with the Canada/Seattle birth - Why the Hawaii BC or birth announcements?
Assume that the birth occurred in White Rock, Canada, if they were so anxious to get a US citzens BC, mom and 1-day old baby could drive across the border and report a home birth to Washington officials. I haven’t checked the archived Washington revised codes but here is what the current one says,
RCW 70.58.080 Birth certificates — filing — establishing paternity — surname of child.
[skip]
(6) If there is no attending physician or midwife, the father or mother of the child, householder or owner of the premises, manager or superintendent of the public or private institution in which the birth occurred, shall notify the local registrar, within ten days after the birth, of the fact of the birth, and the local registrar shall secure the necessary information and signature to make a proper certificate of birth.
[skip]
(8) When no alleged father is named on a birth certificate of a child born to an unwed mother the mother may give any surname she so desires to her child but shall designate in space provided for father’s name on the birth certificate “None Named”.
[2002 c 302 § 708; 1997 c 58 § 937; 1989 c 55 § 2; 1961 ex.s. c 5 § 8; 1951 c 106 § 6; 1907 c 83 § 12; RRS § 6029.]
Why have the grandparents go to the Hawaii DOH and register the birth? There is no advantage to having a Hawaiian BC or having a Washington BC.
I have read Vattel in French.
So have a lot of people. Irrelevant.
You have an OPINION. It is not fact, and most disagree with it.
Supplication to the opinion of the masses is a fallacy known as "argumentum ad populum." Intelligent people know that something is not true just because large numbers of people believe it to be true. Truth is not decided by consensus.
And now I must tackle your subsequent massive run on sentence which contains numerous faults and fallacies.
In order to accept your opinion one must agree that Vattel meant BOTH parents,
I could write an essay on this topic alone. Your first mistake is assuming Vattel is the only source for this concept or understanding. You are so ignorant of history that I have to explain it from the ground up, from the Latin "Patria" means land of my Father" and Greek all the way to the present. Suffice it to say, the two parent aspect was a consequence of the need to have the father be a citizen, because the mother was automatically of the same citizenship as the father. This was originally the common law, but later codified by Congress. This was not changed until the Cable act of 1922, And further strengthened by the Women's citizenship act of 1934.
And that rebuttal of your point only touched the surface. I could keep citing documents and history further, but I have to limit my responses if I am ever to finish this message.
which is not necessarily true since he believed rights came from the father,
And yet he said "Les Naturels ou indigènes font ceux qui font nés dans le pays de Parens Citoyens.". Note the plural form of the word "Parent" and the word "citizen".
you must also believe that this was the common understanding at time of writing of the Constitution and that the common law in practice among the states drew more from Vattel than England,
Geeze, I could write an essay on this part too! First of all, to assume that the Founders simply copied everything about English law is just wrong. The Founders copied the basic framework and rejected many of the principles such as eternal allegiance to the crown and the establishment of the Church of England.
What could the Convention have done? If they had in general terms declared the Common law to be in force, they would have broken in upon the legal Code of every State in the most material points: they wd. have done more, they would have brought over from G.B. a thousand heterogeneous & antirepublican doctrines, and even the ecclesiastical Hierarchy itself, for that is a part of the Common law. If they had undertaken a discrimination, they must have formed a digest of laws, instead of a Constitution.”
The principles which outlined our declaration of Independence were completely contrary to English law, but dovetail neatly with the Principles outlined by Vattel.
Given that it was against the very law of English Subjectship to break away from the King, do you think we felt obliged to adhered to it in it's other particulars?
and you must believe that such definition has remained unchanged through time.
The meaning of constitutional terms does not change. If the words are permitted to be redefined, then they will cease to have any meaning or purpose even. The document then becomes useless. Congress has no power to re-define constitutional terms, and neither do the courts. Only a constitutional amendment can change constitutional law.
In essence, in your argument, the 14th amendment creates a second class of citizen which is native born but not natural born which is kind of ironic considering Vattel himself uses the word native, not the word natural.
Again, you have created a morass of inaccurate and conflicting concepts which have to be unwound like a tangled fishing line. This is why I absolutely HATE discussing anything at all with you.
Take for example, this piece you wrote: "the 14th amendment creates a second class of citizen...". It is intended to evoke revulsion because of the historical association of the term "second class citizen" with the ugly period in civil rights history when blacks were treated unequally in all dealings with the government. It is a loaded term, used only for the purpose of imputing a disrespect to the distinction being drawn between "citizen" and "natural citizen", though they share equally in all rights but one. (Even England requires Jus Sanguinus for their Executive.)
The fact remains that citizens come in many different "classes" or types, (depending on how you wish to illustrate it) none of which has any impact on their rights and privileges. We have male citizens, we have female citizens, we have citizens who are under 35 (also prohibited from being president) and we have citizens over 35. We have citizens that haven't lived in the nation for the required 14 years, and we have those who have. This "second class citizen" argument is just a obfuscatory dodge.
The next aspect of your 14th amendment argument which I intend to address is the fact that the 14th amendment omits using the term "natural born" to describe the type of citizen created by it. Had they intended for it to repeal article II, it would have explicitly used the term "natural born". As it did not, it is clear that they had no intention of repealing article II. As a matter of fact, the Supreme court subsequently said that the 14th amendment does not define who is a "natural born citizen."
Seven years after the 14th amendment was ratified, the supreme court said:
The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens.
This is an implicit statement that rejects any 14th amendment basis for natural citizenship. It is a tacit acknowledgment that the 14th amendment makes no one a natural born citizen.
Now to your next point: "which is native born but not natural born which is kind of ironic considering Vattel himself uses the word native, not the word natural."
In 1787, and thereafter for many years, the term "native" and the term "natural" meant virtually the same thing. For someone to be "just visiting" a nation which was several thousand miles away from their home, long enough to have a child, was exceedingly rare. The extreme majority of people who were "native born" were also born to parents who had come here to stay. As a matter of fact, the Supreme court explicitly states that these words mean essentially the same thing as used during that time period.
At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their [p168] parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case it is not necessary to solve these doubts.
And now that I am attempting to respond to the rest of your message I am finding it gone. I am suspecting you have been zotted, which will suit me just fine.
One can only hope.
A very good practice, and I thank you for giving me a bit more information with which to correct my knowledge.
Here is my problem with the Canada/Seattle birth - Why the Hawaii BC or birth announcements?
Because without the intervention of the Grandmother filing an "at home birth" affidavit, Barry Dunham\Obama does not get American citizenship, which in 1961 was regarded as highly valuable.
Madelyn may not have wanted to deal with the social problems entailed from having a black grandchild, but I see no reason why she should want to hurt him, or through inaction allow him to be hurt. From the research I have seen, birth announcements were created automatically from a list generated by the Hawaiian Health Department.
Assume that the birth occurred in White Rock, Canada, if they were so anxious to get a US citzens BC, mom and 1-day old baby could drive across the border and report a home birth to Washington officials
You make a good point. The only thing which I can suggest to address this point is that Stanley Ann was an irresponsible flake who might not have understood the need to do so. The only one in that family who seemed to be grounded in something approaching reality was Madelyn Dunham.
Why have the grandparents go to the Hawaii DOH and register the birth? There is no advantage to having a Hawaiian BC or having a Washington BC.
No there is not, but given what I have read of Hawaii's role in granting birth certificates to foreigners not born there, and their weird and lax birth certificate laws, it might actually have been easier to declare him born in Hawaii.
Complying with this aspect of Washington State birth certificate law: "the local registrar shall secure the necessary information and signature to make a proper certificate of birth. may have been more difficult given a bureaucrat that was likely unwilling to accept a nod and a wink. They might have demanded actual proof, and some sort of medical examination. Perhaps Stanley simply couldn't trust herself (or be trusted by her mother) to carry it off.
As an example of what I am talking about regarding Hawaii giving out birth certificates to foreigners, the Cold Case Posse claims to have numerous examples of such. Also this man claims to have been born in Brisbane Australia, yet also claims to have a Hawaiian birth certificate. (Look under "Man in the Mirror." )
I, too, was issued a Hawaiian Certification of Live Birth after applying for the document based on Hawaiian law 338-17 which allowed me to gain natural-born American natal status despite my birth in Brisbane, Australia. I am natural-born citizen of the United States because the laws of the state of Hawaii says I am, despite the fact that my natal origins are nowhere near American soil. I could actually run for President, despite being born abroad, under the same circumstances Barack Obama was.
Now I want to make myself clear. I'm not saying that it is absolutely provable that Barack was born in Canada. At this point it obviously is not. My statement was that I see more circumstantial evidence that he was born in Canada than that he was born in Hawaii. I think what I have posted so far bears this out.
I do not know where he was born, but I will not be surprised if it turns out to be either Hawaii or Canada. (I'm rooting for Canada though, because I WANT him to be an illegitimate President. I don't want to believe that America could turn out such a loon.)
Much of the legalistic dodging and parsed words coming out of Hawaii leaves me with the belief that they are hiding something, and my suspicion is that it is weak documentation regarding the circumstances of his birth, i.e. an at home birth affidavit.
I welcome any new information or analysis regarding this subject.
“The only thing which I can suggest to address this point is that Stanley Ann was an irresponsible flake who might not have understood the need to do so.”
But the great aunt and uncle are also there. They could have taken her to the hospital in Canada. Why not take her the Washington DOH.
And in the case of the Washington DOH - they would actually be able to produce a days-old-baby to be examined.
As far as the “Man in the Mirror” has he posted the Hawaii BC online?
With the except of my question about the man in mirror BC, I think the rest will have to wait until more info is available, if there ever is.
I was not zotted. I requested my own post be removed. I agreed not to continue in the conversation. I will keep to that except to say that French pluralize adjectives. You can research yourself by translating the modern French “parents citoyens” or consult a French speaker.
All of that work, and you address only one trivial point of it. And people wonder why I deride you.
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.