Natural-born and Native-born Definitions

Oxford English Dictionary

[thecodont]

Monique Mocat has done a good job of listing a few on her blog. All were FOIA requests, I don't know if she submitted all herself.

Here are BO's candidate nomination papers for

Arizona: "I am a natural born citizen of the United States, am at least thirty-five years of age, and have been a resident within the United States for at least fourteen years."

New Hampshire: "I ... meet the qualifications of office for which I am a candidate...."

Illinois: "You should also note that Section 10-8 of our Election Code (10 ILCS 5/10-8) states that candidate petitions '***shall be deemed to be valid unless objection thereto is duly made ***'. No objection was made to Senator Obama's qualifications for office during the five business day objection period. Therefore, no further paperwork was submitted on the subject."

Rhode Island: "The undersigned [Barack Obama] hereby declares that he or she is eligible under the laws and Constitution of the United States to serve in the office of President of the United States if elected..." (Funny, but Rhode Island's form has check boxes only for the Democratic and Republican parties; no third party options are offered.)

Kentucky

[nominal]

Thanks. Rhode Island.. Every time I hear about that state I think of the movie Me, Myself, and Irene with Jim Carrey:

[nominal]

That reminded me to look up those laws and that lease program in Hawaii, thanks..

here’s a start mlo: http://hawaii.gov/dhhl/applicants/appforms/applyhhl

“In order to process your application, DHHL utilizes information that is found only on the original Certificate of Live Birth, which is either black or green. This is a more complete record of your birth than the Certification of Live Birth (a computer-generated printout). Submitting the original Certificate of Live Birth will save you time and money since the computer-generated Certification requires additional verification by DHHL.”

[mlo]

Good.

Now, what is it you believe this constitutes proof of? I believe the claim was that Hawaii doesn’t accept its own birth certificates. Is that it?

[nominal]

I meant for you start doing your own research... Find something and refute away as much as you like

[mlo]

Why don't you want to specify what it is I'm supposed to research or refute? Do you not want to say it, because you know it isn't true? OK, I'll let you off the hook.

The claim was, "...[the birth certificate] isn’t even enough to confirm Hawaiian Birth to the State that issued it."

To support this claim various people have cited one thing, and you've repeated it. It is a web page concerning applying for the "Hawaiian Home Lands" program.

I shouldn't need to, but obviously in this case I do have to point something out. Finding ONE thing for which Hawaii isn't satisfied with a birth certificate alone, is not the same thing as showing that Hawaii doesn't accept their own birth certificates at all. Finding the one thing out of a hundred doesn't dismiss the other 99.

But in fact, this doesn't even cover the one thing. Because it does NOT say they won't accept a birth certificate. What it says is, "Submitting the original Certificate of Live Birth will save you time and money...".

Why is this? Why the more stringent requirements for this one program? Simple. Because qualifying for the Hawaiian Home Lands program isn't just a matter of being born in Hawaii. That's not enough (unlike the requirements for being President).

Qualifying for the Hawaiian Home Lands program is a matter of genealogy. It is a program for "native Hawaiians". "Native Hawaiians" in this case is like "Native Americans" on the mainland. It doesn't mean people born in America, it means people descended from the indigenous population.

To qualify for this program you must be, "any descendant of not less than one-half part of the blood of the races inhabiting the Hawaiian Islands previous to 1778." This means, you must have a blood quantum of at least 50 percent Hawaiian."

So proving your own Hawaiian birth is not enough. The reason for the additional information is to prove your ancestor's birth.

Bottom line. The requirements of this program have to do with the specific needs of this one program. It has no bearing on whether Hawaii accepts its own birth certificates as proof of birth. It will in fact even accept those certificates, confirming that they are valid proof of Hawaiian birth, contrary to what the people who post this link are trying to claim.

[nominal]

Let’s get something straight...I’m not on any hook, I don’t owe you a damn thing, and if you don’t agree with something I or anyone else says, I don’t particularly care, as you are more a persecutor than you are an honest interlocutor.

I only provided that quote to point towards the ambiguities involved, hoping you’d see it. Nice of me, wasn’t it? Here’s another site:

http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/11/why_the_barack_obama_birth_cer.html

Also, it really doesn’t matter to me if it turns out the certification is accurate and he was born in hawaii. have fun

[mlo]

"I only provided that quote to point towards the ambiguities involved, hoping you’d see it. Nice of me, wasn’t it? Here’s another site:"

There were no ambiguities there. The program explains what it requires very well.

So you have no point to make by posting links? OK. I suppose there's no purpose in anyone reading them then.

[nominal]

Ambiguities with hawaii certifications mlo, the certifications.

[mlo]

Still no ambiguities. The site defined its terms.

That link wasn't posted to highlight any "ambiguities". It was used to "prove" that a Hawaii birth certificate isn't accepted by Hawaii as proof of Hawaiian birth. But now we know that's not true, don't we?

[nominal]

lol what’s wrong with you? The certifications mlo, the certifications.

[mlo]

"It was used to "prove" that a Hawaii birth certificate isn't accepted by Hawaii as proof of Hawaiian birth. But now we know that's not true, don't we?"

You didn't answer the question. We are interested in the truth aren't we? Whatever it is? We don't get to the truth by ignoring facts we don't like, or misrepresenting them. I'm sure you'll agree. So it's important to acknowledge the facts we can agree on.

That Hawaiian land program does not demonstrate that Hawaii doesn't accept its own birth certificates, does it?

[MHGinTN]

You have no doubt noticed that this stinker keeps conflating certificte with certification, as in a certification of live birth is a certification that a berth certificate is on file but is not itself the birth certificate. It is typical of an agitprop to play these agmes with words. Try to ignore the obamanoids hereafter. They are enjoying their deceit far too much at your expense.

[mlo]

You don’t know what you are talking about. Your comment doesn’t relate to anything I said. You just can’t argue the issue on the facts so you have to resort to attacking people. That’s what happens when you have a losing argument.

[MHGinTN]

Stop whining for attention.

[nominal]

No worries, I know what he's doing. I doubt he's enjoying his hypocrisy, and if he is, his being an a** is certainly not at my expense.

Notice what he said earlier to avoid being honest when I gave him this link to read
www.americanthinker.com :

OK. I suppose there's no purpose in anyone reading them then.

Like the little b***h bully he's trying to be, he won't take 10 minutes to read a web site, and runs away like a baby from actually doing any research. I tell him the problem is with possible ambiguities the certification presents, he twists it to say I'm saying there are ambiguities with a lease program, and even more stupidly brings in some 'hawaii accepts it's own birth certificates' statement as if it actually applied. He is actually stupid enough to want me to acknowledge something I didn't even say as a way to somehow convince himself he's right about something...Simple strawmen for simple minds. This is what I get for trying to help him understand. ;)

Now mlo, this is funny:

"You don’t know what you are talking about. Your comment doesn’t relate to anything I said. You just can’t argue the issue on the facts so you have to resort to attacking people. That’s what happens when you have a losing argument." and:

"We are interested in the truth aren't we? Whatever it is? We don't get to the truth by ignoring facts we don't like, or misrepresenting them. I'm sure you'll agree. So it's important to acknowledge the facts we can agree on."

Hint of hypocrisy creeping in yet? You should be aware of it by now...

[nominal]

Found some more on natural born and SCOTUS for those of us interested:

ye olde ‘Supreme Court Reporter’ By Robert Desty, United States Supreme Court, West Publishing Company

http://books.google.com/books?id=q-8GAAAAYAAJ&printsec=titlepage

search for the phrase natural born, and/or download the pdf. Wong Kim Ark is in there among other relevant stuff. Google books is a good project!

[nbhunt]

Ok, I’m going to start a war here, I know, but since I live in Texas, I think it is high time for us Texans to really suceed from the union, enough of this crap. We will elect our own president that is a NATURAL - NATIVE BORN TEXAN that will follow the constitution.

[bert]

Your method was tried and failed.

A new and better course would be to purge the northeast. That is kick them out.

[Uncle Chip]

To be remembered from the court itself:

“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 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. It is sufficient, for everything we have now to consider, that all children, born of citizen parents [PLURAL, 'parents'] within the jurisdiction, are themselves citizens.’ Minor v. Happersett (1874) 21 Wall. 162, 166-168.”