Replies

To boil it down to it's essence, you say whatever Hawaii says is good enough, even if it's a lie, because procedures and good will says so.

It is not what I say — it is what the Constitution and U.S. law says, as I cited and quoted. The authenticity of an official state document by the issuing state is final and not subject to challenge in federal court or in any court of any other state.

It is not a matter of procedures and good will but of state sovereignty. Neither New York, California, nor the Federal government tell Hawaii what is an official state document of Hawaii.

As you asked about the FOUNDERS (as opposed to the FRAMERS), I noted and documented that not only was the state determination not appealable, there was no place to appeal it to. Each state was explicitly stated to be a free, sovereign and independent state within the Article of Confederation. Under the FOUNDERS' Articles, state sovereignty was absolute and a state could not even be taxed without its permission.

*YOU* and others claim the English common law applies to citizenship, so if Obama is born in Canada, he is *NOT* a citizen under *YOUR* preferred rules.

This is utter nonsense. Nobody but you has said any such ridiculous thing.

As I have documented, one can be a natural born United States citizen, and eligible to be President of the United States, incident to a birth in a foreign country, provided the conditions for birth citizenship set forth in U.S. citizenship law at the time of birth are met.

Now you come along and say all courts must accept this thing that does not prove what needs to be proved. (birth in the US.)

NO, I cited and quoted the Constitution and statute laws. You just disagree with what they say and make up your own imaginary bullcrap and vomit it up on the board.

Birth in the United States need not be proved. Acquisition of U.S. citizenship at the moment of birth, acquired incident to the birth is required. An official state document is proved in accordance with the U.S. Constitution and Federal law. When a State "proves" one of its official documents in the proper form, it's authenticity as an official state document is established. Its sovereign act is not reviewable by any federal or other state court.

Are you telling us that you simply do not care where he was born, or if he is even a citizen at all?

NO. I linked, cited and quoted what the law is. You do not like what it says.

You seem to have a problem with state sovereignty. In your world, apparently the Federal government would determine what is, and is not, an official State document.

Your arguments achieve that result, so one begins to think you are okay with a lie so long as it achieves the result you want.

Your ridiculous arguments purport to achieve the result you want despite the necessity of disregarding the Constitution, laws, and court opinions. If actually taken to court, they would result in dismissal, and possibly sanctions for frivolous filing.

Excerpts from Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898)

[664] The term 'citizen,' as understood in our law, is precisely analogous to the term 'subject' in the common law, and the change of phrase has entirely resulted from the change of government. The sovereignty has been transferred from one man to the collective body of the people, and he who before as a 'subject of the king' is now 'a citizen of the State.'"
[665] "The common law principle of allegiance was the law of all the States at the time of the Revolution and at the adoption of the Constitution, and, by that principle, the citizens of the United States are, with the exceptions before mentioned,"
(namely, foreign-born children of citizens, under statutes to be presently referred to)
[666-667] IV. It was contended by one of the learned counsel for the United States that the rule of the Roman law, by which the citizenship of the child followed that of the parent, was the true rule of international law, as now recognized in most civilized countries, and had superseded the rule of the common law, depending on birth within the realm, originally founded on feudal considerations.
But at the time of the adoption of the Constitution of the United States in 1789, and long before, it would seem to have been the rule in Europe generally, as it certainly was in France, that, as said by Pothier, "citizens, true and native-born citizens, are those who are born within the extent of the dominion of France," and
"mere birth within the realm gives the rights of a native-born citizen, independently of the origin of the father or mother, and of their domicil;"
and children born in a foreign country, of a French father who had not established his domicil there nor given up the intention of returning, were also deemed Frenchmen, as Laurent says, by "a favor, a sort of fiction," and Calvo, "by a sort of fiction of exterritoriality, considered as born in France, and therefore invested with French nationality."
[667] The Code Napoleon of 1807 changed the law of France and adopted, instead of the rule of country of birth, jus soli, the rule of descent or blood, jus sanguinis, as the leading principle; but an eminent commentator has observed that the framers of that code
"appear not to have wholly freed themselves from the ancient rule of France, or rather, indeed, ancient rule of Europe — de la vielle regle francaise, ou plutot meme de la vielle regle europienne — according to which nationality had always been, in former times, determined by the place of birth."
[668] Nor can it be doubted that it is the inherent right of every independent nation to determine for itself, and according to its own constitution and laws, what classes of persons shall be entitled to its citizenship.
[688] The effect of the enactments conferring citizenship on foreign-born children of American parents has been defined, and the fundamental rule of citizenship by birth within the dominion of the United States, notwithstanding alienage of parents, has been affirmed, in well considered opinions of the executive departments of the Government since the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution.

It is not what I say — it is what the Constitution and U.S. law says, as I cited and quoted.

That's what *YOU* say it says. My understanding of constitutional law is that it cannot be interpreted in such a way as to allow idiocy.

A document which *DOES NOT PROVE* the thing needing to be proved, is worthless. It cannot be called "proof" if it cannot prove anything.

This is like calling a man a "woman" because he puts on women's clothes. A lie dressed up in official drag does not make it the truth.

*YOU* and others claim the English common law applies to citizenship, so if Obama is born in Canada, he is *NOT* a citizen under *YOUR* preferred rules.

This is utter nonsense. Nobody but you has said any such ridiculous thing.

I'm a little unclear about what particular "ridiculous thing" you are referring to. From all the reading I have done of the naturalization acts since the Cable act of 1922, I see nothing in there that would allow a woman to convey citizenship to a child of a foreign father born in a foreign country, without the woman having first met the US residency requirements stipulated in the various acts.

We know Stanley Ann Dunham did not meet these residency requirements, and therefore if Obama was *NOT* born in Hawaii, (or some other US jurisdiction) he has no US citizenship.

So what part is ridiculous?

Two things.

1. Stanley Ann Dunham clearly did not meet the residency requirements as stipulated in the naturalization act of 1952. (I think that's the right one)

2. The Supreme court disagreed with your claim regarding children born in foreign countries, in their US vs Wong Kim Ark decision. They specifically say that such children are naturalized citizens.

Yes, it's dicta, but that's what it says. I'll point it out for you if you like. :)

Birth in the United States need not be proved. Acquisition of U.S. citizenship at the moment of birth, acquired incident to the birth is required.

In the case of Stanley Ann Dunham, acquisition of US citizenship cannot be proven unless he was physically born in the US. If he was not, then he does not have US Citizenship because Stanley Ann failed to meet the residency requirements for foreign born children to acquire US citizenship from their mothers.

Excerpts from Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898)

I'm glad you are familiar with it. If you read further into it you will find a section that says foreign born children cannot acquire citizenship except by a naturalization act created by congress.

"Every person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, becomes at once a citizen of the United States, and needs no naturalization. A person born out of the jurisdiction of the United States can only become a citizen by being naturalized, either by treaty, as in the case of the annexation of foreign territory, or by authority of congress, exercised either by declaring certain classes of persons to be citizens, as in the enactments conferring citizenship upon foreign-born children of citizens, or by n abling foreigners individually to become citizens by proceedings in the judicial tribunals, as in the ordinary provisions of the naturalization acts."