Posted on 04/23/2024 5:16:50 PM PDT by CDR Kerchner
(Apr. 23, 2024) – On Thursday, The Post & Email published an article reporting the National Archives’ displaying of an “unauthenticated” long-form birth certificate image purportedly issued by the State of Hawaii in 2011 to Barack Hussein Obama.
The revelation was made by Mike Zullo, lead investigator of a 5+-year probe into the image’s authenticity launched by then-Maricopa County, AZ Sheriff Joseph Arpaio at the request of more than 100 of his constituents and delegated to his “Cold Case Posse.”
Concerns had arisen soon after Obama, the junior first-term U.S. senator from Illinois, announced his presidential ambitions in February 2007 amid numerous reports of his birth overseas, presumably precluding him from being a “natural born Citizen,” as Article II of the Constitution requires of the president.
While such reports were not contested prior to Obama’s announcement, after launching his campaign he claimed to have been born August 4, 1961 in Honolulu, HI. While some sources contemporaneously reported the birth occurred at Queens Hospital, others said his birthplace was the Kapi’olani Medical Center for Women & Children, then known as Kapi’olani Maternity & Gynecological Hospital.
Six months into the investigation, Zullo reported in an initial press conference that he and his fellow team members were unable to clear the image as derived from a real, paper document. Further, Zullo declared the image a “computer-generated forgery” created “with the intent to deceive.”
(Excerpt) Read more at thepostemail.com ...
What is "fortunate" about that sh*thead's presidency?
There is nothing particularly fortunate about that natural born citizen's presidency. What was fortunate was that no court accepted nonsense as law.
I said the letters pretended to be certified but they weren’t, because it’s true.
Why did they put a seal, certifying statement, and signature there if they weren’t supposedly trying to certify it? And why would they pretend to certify it if it wasn’t even required in their rules, as I’ve shown you that it was?
That is an understatement. His "presidency" was a disaster, and it highlighted the exact issues the framers sought to avoid by requiring the president to be a natural citizen.
And he's not a natural born citizen. He is at best a 14th amendment citizen, and we have yet to see any adequate proof that he is even that.
Circumstantial evidence indicates he was born in Canada, and with his mother too young to transfer citizenship, he is possibly a Canadian.
What was fortunate was that no court accepted nonsense as law.
You mispeak. Courts routinely accept nonsense as "the Law!"
Trump's trials are perfect examples of this.
A friend mentioned earlier today how County Tax assessors routinely overvalue properties in order to extract the highest possible taxes.
Should New York try all their tax assessors for doing what they claimed Trump did?
The law is a circus and the administrators of it are often clowns.
And he's not a natural born citizen.
Like Charles Arthur before him (VP and Prez), Obama was also a natural born citizen, having been born in the U.S., subject to its jurisdiction.
Thjere are two classifications of citizen, and two only: naturalized and natural born.
Chester Arthur, not Charles. MInor point.
You keep repeating that he was born here, (14th amendment "naturalized" citizen) but we have seen no actual proof that this is true.
Fake documents from Hawaii may be good enough for idiot/incompetent courts, but they don't prove anything to more rational people.
And one can be “naturalized” at birth by acts of Congress per man-made laws and acts such as the Naturalization Act, Title 8 Section 1401. But naturalization at or by birth does NOT make that child a “natural born Citizen” which is a Natural Law kind of Citizen. Neither does the 14th Amendment create a “natural born Citizen”. No where in that amendment is the word “natural”. Both of those are man-made laws and acts “naturalizing” a child at birth.
Adjectives mean something and the adjective “natural” means created by nature, not by man.
Only the Principles of Natural Law and the precise circumstances of being born in the country to parents (plural) who were both Citizens (naturalized or born themselves as Citizens) of the country can procreate a “natural born Citizen”. The framers knew that. That is why there was a grandfather clause in Article II Section 1 Clause 5 because they knew that the country had to wait awhile until the original Citizens could procreate the natural born Citizens, who then would be eligible to be President and Commander in Chief of our military once the founding generation was gone.
Robbing a bank by one person does not absolve a second person of criminal punishment when they rob a bank. One usurper Chester Arthur getting away with faking his “natural born Citizen” status and getting away with it does not absolve Barack Hussein (some say Mohammad) Obama from being criminally punished for his usurpation of the Presidency and CinC. And the Dems set the precedence in impeaching a former President after he left office. So, maybe at some point Obama the usurper will be impeached and maybe even convicted in the Senate. Or maybe he will be criminally prosecuted for the use of forged short and long form birth documents, a forged draft registration card, and using one or more stolen SSN’s prior to being sworn in as the usurping President.
See this White Paper on “natural born Citizen” (”nbc”) for more details about the Who, What, When, Where, WHY, and How the “nbC” term was put into the Presidential Eligibility clause of our U.S. Constitution: http://www.kerchner.com/protectourliberty/naturalborncitizen/TheWhoWhatWhenWhereWhyandHowofNBC-WhitePaper.pdf
Also for some basic logic and a Euler Diagram to prove the fallacy of your argument about the various kinds of Citizens see: https://cdrkerchner.wordpress.com/2016/02/14/euler-logic-diagram-shows-logical-relationship-of-constitutional-article-ii-natural-born-citizens-to-other-type-citizens-of-the-united-states/
Also see this chart for the types of Citizens (five) mentioned in the U.S. Constitution: https://www.scribd.com/doc/11737124/Citizenship-Terms-Used-in-the-U-S-Constitution-The-5-Terms-Defined-Some-Legal-Reference-to-Same
Pardon my brain fart. You are, of course, correct. Chester Arthur, whose father was not a citizen of the United States when Chester was born.
And one can be “naturalized” at birth by acts of Congress per man-made laws and acts such as the Naturalization Act, Title 8 Section 1401. But naturalization at or by birth does NOT make that child a “natural born Citizen”....
Take your nonsense to court. hmmm... No wait, that could result in being cited for frivolous filing AGAIN.
NOBODY can be naturalized at birth. It is legally IMPOSSIBLE.
https://law.justia.com/codes/us/2021/title-8/chapter-12/subchapter-i/sec-1101/
8 U.S.C. 1101; Definitions
(23) The term "naturalization" means the conferring of nationality of a state upon a person after birth, by any means whatsoever.
As naturalization may only occur after birth, it is impossible for it to occur at birth.
It is impossible for naturalization to make one a natural born citizen. That requires the acquisition of citizenship at birth, not suibsequent to birth. To be eligible for naturalization, one must be an alien, legally present in the United States.
All persons born in the allegiance of the United States are natural born citizens.
Wong Kim Ark at 169 U.S. 662-63:
In United States v. Rhodes (1866), Mr. Justice Swayne, sitting in the Circuit Court, said: "All persons born in the allegiance of the King are natural-born subjects, and all persons born in the allegiance of the United States are natural-born citizens. Birth and allegiance go together. Such is the rule of the common law, and it is the common law of this country, as well as of England. . . . We find no warrant for the opinion that this great principle of the common law has ever been changed in the United States. It has always obtained here with the same vigor, and subject only to the same exceptions, since as before the Revolution."
169 U. S. 702.
The Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution, in the declaration that"all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside,"
contemplates two sources of citizenship, and two only: birth and naturalization. Citizenship by naturalization can only be acquired by naturalization under the authority and in the forms of law. But citizenship by birth is established by the mere fact of birth under the circumstances defined in the Constitution. 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.
https://fam.state.gov/FAM/08FAM/08FAM030101.html#M301_1_1
[State Department, Foreign Affairs Manual]
8 FAM 301.1-1 INTRODUCTION
(b) A child born in an immigration detention center physically located in the United States is considered to have been born in the United States and be subject to its jurisdiction. This is so even if the child’s parents have not been legally admitted to the United States and, for immigration purposes, may be viewed as not being in the United States.
There is an Hawaiian birth record, proved by the State, that must be accepted in all the State courts and Federal courts. It is not even subject to review by DiogenesLamp or your Court of the Imagination™.
You must think the founders believed in playing stupid little games with the truth.
Here is truth.
Hawaii will create *FAKE* birth certificates for people not actually born there. This undermines any such document for proving someone was actually born in Hawaii.
Hawaii has not even *SHOWN* us the original record. They've shown us a fabrication, easily demonstrated to be a fabrication.
The Framers didn't say "show birth certificate." So it's not a requirement. What *IS* a requirement is proof that someone is a "natural born citizen."
Whether it be by your 14th amendment naturalization standard, or an actual correct standard of being born to an American father, Hawaii has provided no proof of either thing being true.
Nobody has shown proof that Obama was born in Hawaii. There is in fact some proof that he was born in Kenya, though I don't believe any of that nonsense. I think he claimed to have been born in Kenya because he thought it made him sound more exotic or something, but it was just another lie he told.
So the fact remains, the only thing that has been put forth is a non-determinitive document that doesn't serve as actual proof of being a 14th amendment citizen.
Judges will accept any codswallop so long as it follows the procedures they have been brainwashed to believe are correct. Reality doesn't matter to them.
The Framers didn't say "show birth certificate." So it's not a requirement. What *IS* a requirement is proof that someone is a "natural born citizen."
The Framers DID say, at Article 4, Section 1:
Full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state. And the Congress may by general laws prescribe the manner in which such acts, records, and proceedings shall be proved, and the effect thereof.
Hawaii proved and published documentation of Obama's birth, just as the Framers stated in the Constitution. And the Framers said that when that is done, "Full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state." That applies even in the State of DiogenesLamp.
Apparently you cannot read what the man-made law Title 8, which is an act/law passed by Congress which is empowered only to create naturalized citizens states, when Title 8 declares which persons get “collective naturalization at birth”. Yes “at birth” and the relevant section of Title 8, which I will share literally further down states “at birth”. So you are deceiving readers here by omission of key facts in and about Title 8. That is a key characteristic of the far-left when it comes to discussing who is a “natural born Citizen” of the United States and who is not.
See title Title 8, then 8 U.S. Code Subchapter III, NATIONALITY AND NATURALIZATION, Then drill down to 8 U.S. Code Part I - Nationality at Birth and Collective Naturalization of which 8 U.S. Code § 1401 is a section. That secion creates “Nationals and citizens of United States at birth”.
Or go the other way. Start at this link and work you way back up the law to the main title: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1401
Clearly Title 8 Section 1401 is a man-made “naturalization law” which “collectively naturalizes” certain persons “at birth”. It clearly states “at birth”. Read it:
The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth:
(a) a person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof;
(b) a person born in the United States to a member of an Indian, Eskimo, Aleutian, or other aboriginal tribe: Provided, That the granting of citizenship under this subsection shall not in any manner impair or otherwise affect the right of such person to tribal or other property;
(c) a person born outside of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents both of whom are citizens of the United States and one of whom has had a residence in the United States or one of its outlying possessions, prior to the birth of such person;
(d) a person born outside of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is a citizen of the United States who has been physically present in the United States or one of its outlying possessions for a continuous period of one year prior to the birth of such person, and the other of whom is a national, but not a citizen of the United States;
(e) a person born in an outlying possession of the United States of parents one of whom is a citizen of the United States who has been physically present in the United States or one of its outlying possessions for a continuous period of one year at any time prior to the birth of such person;
(f) a person of unknown parentage found in the United States while under the age of five years, until shown, prior to his attaining the age of twenty-one years, not to have been born in the United States;
(g) a person born outside the geographical limits of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is an alien, and the other a citizen of the United States who, prior to the birth of such person, was physically present in the United States or its outlying possessions for a period or periods totaling not less than five years, at least two of which were after attaining the age of fourteen years: Provided, That any periods of honorable service in the Armed Forces of the United States, or periods of employment with the United States Government or with an international organization as that term is defined in section 288 of title 22 by such citizen parent, or any periods during which such citizen parent is physically present abroad as the dependent unmarried son or daughter and a member of the household of a person (A) honorably serving with the Armed Forces of the United States, or (B) employed by the United States Government or an international organization as defined in section 288 of title 22, may be included in order to satisfy the physical-presence requirement of this paragraph. This proviso shall be applicable to persons born on or after December 24, 1952, to the same extent as if it had become effective in its present form on that date; and
(h) a person born before noon (Eastern Standard Time) May 24, 1934, outside the limits and jurisdiction of the United States of an alien father and a mother who is a citizen of the United States who, prior to the birth of such person, had resided in the United States.
(June 27, 1952, ch. 477, title III, ch. 1, § 301, 66 Stat. 235; Pub. L. 89–770, Nov. 6, 1966, 80 Stat. 1322; Pub. L. 92–584, §§ 1, 3, Oct. 27, 1972, 86 Stat. 1289; Pub. L. 95–432, §§ 1, 3, Oct. 10, 1978, 92 Stat. 1046; Pub. L. 99–653, § 12, Nov. 14, 1986, 100 Stat. 3657; Pub. L. 103–416, title I, § 101(a), Oct. 25, 1994, 108 Stat. 4306.)
You know this and are clearly here posting here your misleading disinformation to further goal of protecting the non-natural born Citizen usurpers - Barack Hussein Obama and Kamala Harris.
For all other readers here who can read clearly and use common sense, critical thinking and logic to see through the disinformation posted here by the far-left operatives like Woodpusher, and to learn more about who is and who is not a “natural born Citizen” of the United States see:
See this White Paper on “natural born Citizen” (”nbc”) for more details about the Who, What, When, Where, WHY, and How the “nbC” term was put into the Presidential Eligibility clause of our U.S. Constitution: http://www.kerchner.com/protectourliberty/naturalborncitizen/TheWhoWhatWhenWhereWhyandHowofNBC-WhitePaper.pdf
Also for some basic logic and a Euler Diagram to prove the fallacy of your argument about the various kinds of Citizens see: https://cdrkerchner.wordpress.com/2016/02/14/euler-logic-diagram-shows-logical-relationship-of-constitutional-article-ii-natural-born-citizens-to-other-type-citizens-of-the-united-states/
Also see this chart for the types of Citizens (five) mentioned in the U.S. Constitution: https://www.scribd.com/doc/11737124/Citizenship-Terms-Used-in-the-U-S-Constitution-The-5-Terms-Defined-Some-Legal-Reference-to-Same
Natural Birth Citizen
bkmk
Natural Born Citizen
bkmk
Apparently you cannot read what the man-made law Title 8, which is an act/law passed by Congress which is empowered only to create naturalized citizens states,
It is you who needs reading comprehension assistance.
Your asiten rants underscore the need for birther control. Birthers such as yourself continue to recycle failed legal arguments, some of the arguments having failed for more than a century. When you tried your crap in court, you were cited for FRIVOLOUS filing.
The LOSING Briefs from the precedent setting U.S. Supreme Court case of Wong Kim Ark reveal the slightest tinge of racism involved in the attempt to save the nation from Yellow Peril. United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898), at the U.S. Supreme Court. Brief on Behalf of the losing Appellant (United States), by George D. Collins, Of Counsel for Appellant, and also signed by Holmes Conrad, Solicitor General; at page 34:
For the most persuasive reasons we have refused citizenship to Chinese subjects; and yet, as to their offspring, who are just as obnoxious, and to whom the same reasons for exclusion apply with equal force, we are told that we must accept them as fellow-citizens, and that, too, because of the mere accident of birth. There certainly should be some honor and dignity in American citizenship that would be sacred from the foul and corrupting taint of a debasing alienage. Are Chinese children born in this country to share with the descendants of the patriots of the American Revolution the exalted qualification of being eligible to the Presidency of the nation, conferred by the Constitution in recognition of the importance aud dignity of citizenship by birth? If so, then verily there has been a most degenerate departure from the patriotic ideals of our forefathers; and surely in that case American citizenship is not worth having.
Birthers have taken to wasting the time and resources of the legal system with scores of frivolous lawsuits in Federal and state courts. Charles Gordon, in his paper “Who Can Be President of the United States: the Unresolved Enigma,” 28 Maryland Law Review, Number 1, Winter 1968, observed at page 29:
Since interpretation of the presidential qualification clause involves a federal constitutional question, such an issue would unquestionably wind up in the federal courts, by removal of actions commenced in state courts, or by Supreme Court review of a state court’s decision. [Footnotes omitted]
Several actions seeking an ancient writ of quo warranto to oust the sitting President have predictably failed. In his paper cited supra, at page 30, Charles Gordon observed,
In the first place, a person seeking to launch such a contest would have to overcome the seemingly insuperable hurdle of legal standing to sue. In the federal practice his lack of direct interest would seem fatal.
Nearly a half-century later, when courts found a lack of direct interest and a resultant lack of standing, birthers exclaimed that the judges were corrupt. The blackness of the President does not create standing.
First Nat. Bank and Trust Co. of Vinita v. Kissee, 1993 OK 96, 859 P.2d 502, paragraph 40, footnotes omitted:
“Simply put, subjective good faith no longer provides the safe harbor it once did.” “There is no room for a pure heart, empty head defense under Rule 11.”
In Wong Kim Ark, at 169 U.S. 649, 674-675, the U.S. Supreme Court said:
So far as we are informed, there is no authority, legislative, executive or judicial, in England or America, which maintains or intimates that the statutes (whether considered as declaratory or as merely prospective) conferring citizenship on foreign-born children of citizens have superseded or restricted, in any respect, the established rule of citizenship by birth within the dominion. Even those authorities in this country, which have gone the farthest towards holding such statutes to be but declaratory of the common law have distinctly recognized and emphatically asserted the citizenship of native-born children of foreign parents. 2 Kent Com. 39, 50, 53, 258 note; Lynch v. Clarke, 1 Sandf.Ch. 583, 659; Ludlam v. Ludlam, 26 N.Y. 356, 371.Passing by questions once earnestly controverted, but finally put at rest by the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution, it is beyond doubt that, before the enactment of the Civil Rights Act of 1866 or the adoption of the Constitutional Amendment, all white persons, at least, born within the sovereignty of the United States, whether children of citizens or of foreigners, excepting only children of ambassadors or public ministers of a foreign government, were native-born citizens of the United States.
In Schick v. United States, at page 69, the Court said:
“That,” said Mr. Justice Bradley in Moore v. United States, 91 U. S. 270, 91 U. S. 274, referring to the common law, “is the system from which our judicial ideas and legal definitions are derived. The language of the Constitution and of many acts of Congress could not be understood without reference to the common law.”Again, in Smith v. Alabama, 124 U. S. 465, 124 U. S. 478, is this declaration by Mr. Justice Matthews: “The interpretation of the Constitution of the United States is necessarily influenced by the fact that its provisions are framed in the language of the English common law, and are to be read in the light of its history.”
In United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U. S. 649, 169 U. S. 654, Mr. Justice Gray used this language: “In this as in other respects, it must be interpreted in the light of the common law, the principles and history of which were familiarly known to the framers of the Constitution. Minor v. Happersett, 21 Wall. 162; Ex Parte Wilson, 114 U. S. 417, 114 U. S. 422; Boyd v. United States, 116 U. S. 616, 116 U. S. 624-625; Smith v. Alabama, 124 U. S. 465.”
See also Kepner v. United States, post, p. 195 U. S. 100; 1 Kent, Com. 336.
Blackstone’s Commentaries are accepted as the most satisfactory exposition of the common law of England. At the time of the adoption of the federal Constitution, it had been published about twenty years, and it has been said that more copies of the work had been sold in this country than in England, so that undoubtedly the framers of the Constitution were familiar with it.
In Wong Kim Ark, Brief on Behalf of the losing Appellant [United States], page 22-23, the losing side argued:
“Subject to the jurisdiction thereof” is the language of the Constitution, and it is the most significant provision of the definition of citizenship there contained. Who are subject to the jurisdiction of the United States? Manifestly not those who are subject to the jurisdiction of any other nation, or who owe allegiance to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty. Such is the contemporaneous exposition of the Constitution’s definition by the very Congress that framed it, as is evidenced by what is now section 1902 of the Revised Statutes of the United States. It is there enacted: “All persons born in the United States and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed, are declared to be citizens of the United States.” Clearly, then, it was never intended that children born in the United States of alien parents should be considered citizens.Such children at the moment of birth would be subject to a “foreign power,” to wit, the country of the parent, for it is a principle of international law, and recognized by the United States (sec. 1993, Rev. Stat. U. S.), that the children born abroad of citizens or subjects are citizens or subjects of the country of the parent. So, in respect to this case, it is the law of the Chinese Empire that the children of subjects when born abroad are subjects of the Emperor, Therefore, when Wong Kim Ark was born in San Francisco of Chinese parents there domiciled he at the moment of birth became a subject of the Emperor of China, and for that reason could not have been born “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States.
At page 24, the losing Brief argues,
It is true, he was born in the United States; but he was not at the time of his birth, and certainly at no time afterwards, “subject to the jurisdiction thereof;” we mean, of course, the political jurisdiction of the nation; not the territorial jurisdiction, or which is the same thing, the jurisdiction, or more accurately, the operation of the laws. All the authorities agree that the provision of the Constitution's definition, “subject to the jurisdiction thereof,” has reference to the political jurisdiction of the United States in its international relation of a sovereign nation, and not to the operation of the laws. In other words, the sovereignty of the United States is of a dual nature—internal and external. The jurisdiction of the law pertains to the former; and the political power of the nation to the latter. All persons born in the United States and subject to the political power thereof are citizens—natural born citizens; it follows that persons born in the United States of aliens are not citizens.
At page 35, the losing side added,
It is said in the district court’s opinion that—The doctrine of the law of nations, that the child follows the nationality of the parents and that citizenship does not depend upon mere accidental place of birth, is undoubtedly more logical, reasonable, and satisfactory.
* * *
Here is a more complete version of that quote from the district court:
The doctrine of the law of nations, that the child follows the nationality of the parents, and that citizenship does not depend upon mere accidental place of birth, is undoubtedly more logical, reasonable, and satisfactory, but this consideration will not justify this court in declaring it to be the law against controlling judicial authority.
It is not like your really stupid arguments have not been tried before. Thay have. They lost.
The inconvenient existing and controlling judicial authority came from the Circuit Court for the 9th Circuit.
The existing judicial authority was from In re Look Tin Sing, Circuit Court, California, 21 Fed R 905 (1884), Opinion of the Court by U.S. Supreme Court Justice (1863-1887) Stephen Field, sitting as a Circuit Court justice.
At 21 Fed R 906:
The first section of the fourteenth amendment to the constitution declares that “all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States, and of the state wherein they reside.” This language would seem to be sufficiently broad to cover the case of the petitioner. He is a person born in the United States. Any doubt on the subject, if there can be any, must arise out of the words “subject to the jurisdiction thereof.” They alone are subject to the jurisdiction of the United States who are within their dominions and under the protection of their laws, and with the consequent obligation to obey them when obedience can be rendered; and only those thus subject by their birth or naturalization are within the terms of the amendment. The jurisdiction over these latter must, at the time, be both actual and exclusive. The words mentioned except from citizenship children born in the United States of persons engaged in the diplomatic service of foreign governments, such as ministers and ambassadors, whose residence, by a fiction of public law, is regarded as part of their own country. This ex-territoriality of their residence secures to their children born here all the rights and privileges which would inure to them had they been born in the country of their parents.
At 21 Fed R 908-909:
With this explanation of the meaning of the words in the fourteenth amendment, “subject to the jurisdiction thereof,” it is evident that they do not exclude the petitioner from being a citizen. He is not within any of the classes of persons excepted from citizenship, and the jurisdiction of the United States over him at the time of his birth was exclusive of that of any other country.
The Supreme Court rejected the pig slop that was offered up and ruled the direct opposite, affirming the District Court which had ruled according to the existing binding precedent set in the Circuit Court, extending that binding precedent to all state and Federal courts. That was in the 19th century. It is binding precedent today.
Ludlam v. Ludlam, 84 Am. Dec. 193, 26 New York 356 (1863), first Headnote at 193,
Common Law at Time of Adoption of Federal Constitution Determines Question of Citizenship, in the absence of any other law upon the subject.
Munro v. Merchant, 26 Barb. 383 at 384 (1858) headnote states,
“A child born in this state of alien parents, during its mother’s temporary sojourn here, is a native born citizen.”
When will the birthers produce a court opinion stating that John Doe, born in the United States of one or two alien parents, is, or is not, a citizen based on the controlling authority of Emer de Vattel? They have over two centuries of Federal and state court opinions to work with.
At 400-401, Opinion of the Court
It is further contended, on the part of the defendant, that the plaintiff himself is an alien. He was born in Ballston Spa, in this state, while his father was a resident of Canada, and returned to his father's domicil, with his mother, within a year after his birth. His mother was temporarily there—without any actual change of residence, either on her part or that of his father. It is argued that, at common law, a natural born subject was one whose birth was within the allegiance of the king. (Bac. Ab. tit. Alien, A. Com. Dig. A. and B. 7 to 18. Bl. Com: 336, 74.) The cases of children of ambassadors, born abroad, and of children born on English seas were considered exceptions. Chancellor Kent, in his commentaries, defines a native born citizen to be- a person born within, and an alien one born out of, the jurisdiction of the United States. (2 Kent's Com. 37—50.) In Lynch v. Clarke, (1 Sand. Ch. B. 583,) the question was precisely as here, whether a child born in the city of New York of alien parents, during their temporary sojourn there, was a native born citizen or an alien; and the conclusion was, that being born within the dominion and allegiance of the United States, he was a native born citizen, whatever was the situation of the parents at the time of the birth.
(Kenyan birth certificate)
Bingo! As self proclaimed in the forward to his first book.
Not to mention a father who was never a citizen of this Country.
Yet despite everything, sailed into the Presidency like he stole it.
Hello butter I didn’t know you were back at FreeRepublic. How have you been?
The three letters of verification are certainly legal (butter has a hyper-technical opinion about why they are invalid) and are legal proof that Obama was born in Hawaii. Two of the verifications were sent to secretaries of state in Arizona (Bennett) and Kansas (Kobach). The last one was submitted to the federal district court in Mississippi.
You can view that last one by scrolling to the end of this document.
https://www.scribd.com/document/96289285/Mississippi-Democratic-Party-Motion-v-Taitz
Nobody is questioning a record from Hawaii that actually proves birth in Hawaii. They just haven't submitted such a record, nor are they required by law to create one.
Their document is not the equivalent of similar documents created in other states. It does not serve the purpose of proving birth in the state.
And they haven't even shown us an original document.
Hawaii proved and published documentation of Obama's birth
They showed documentation of his birth, but they haven't proven it occurred in Hawaii.
Their document is not the equivalent of similar documents created in other states. It does not serve the purpose of proving birth in the state.
As already shown to you in my #49:
When a State "proves" a State record, that record must, pursuant to the Constitution, be accepted in every court in the United States. That has been going on since 1789.
U.S. Constitution
Article IVSection 1.
Full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state. And the Congress may by general laws prescribe the manner in which such acts, records, and proceedings shall be proved, and the effect thereof.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcp/rule_44
Rule 44. Proving an Official Record(a) Means of Proving.
(1) Domestic Record. Each of the following evidences an official record—or an entry in it—that is otherwise admissible and is kept within the United States, any state, district, or commonwealth, or any territory subject to the administrative or judicial jurisdiction of the United States:
(A) an official publication of the record; or
(B) a copy attested by the officer with legal custody of the record—or by the officer's deputy—and accompanied by a certificate that the officer has custody. The certificate must be made under seal:
(i) by a judge of a court of record in the district or political subdivision where the record is kept; or
(ii) by any public officer with a seal of office and with official duties in the district or political subdivision where the record is kept.
(2) Foreign Record.
[...]
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.