Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

bama Hawaii born, insist Isle officials (Fukino says Obama is NBC)
Honolulu Advertiser | 7/27/09 | Danny Nikaso

Posted on 07/27/2009 5:54:29 PM PDT by pissant

Title and link only

http://www.honoluluadvertiser.com/article/20090727/BREAKING01/90727082/Obama+Hawaii+born++insist+Isle+officials


TOPICS: Crime/Corruption; US: Hawaii
KEYWORDS: birthcertificate; certifigate; larrysinclairslover; obama; obroma
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 261-280281-300301-320321-330 next last
To: bvw
More news reports this morning on it, one quote: Health Department spokeswoman Janice Okubo: "They just keep asking over and over and over again!" Well, Janice Okubo, that's perfectly understandable! Why? Because, Okubo, your people have not been forthcoming of the needed facts. Instead you and yours have been misdirecting and giving partial answers, claiming that part which is in reality too small, to be the equal of all answers.

Still nothing on the hawaii.gov website about a statement in the news releases section. Nothing. ALL stories on the internet are based on ONE (1) reporters story late last night.

301 posted on 07/28/2009 5:48:56 AM PDT by DouglasKC
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 298 | View Replies]

To: DouglasKC
It smells alright. This may be a bogus story. There is no official announcement on the web from Hawaii. All the blogs and web stories originate from ONE (1) story. No other news outlet in Hawaii had this story. One (1) reporter reported it's being reposted and quoted by (now) hundreds of others.

This would not surprise me. It is their modus operandi.

302 posted on 07/28/2009 5:51:09 AM PDT by Uncle Chip (TRUTH : Ignore it. Deride it. Allegorize it. Interpret it. But you can't ESCAPE it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 260 | View Replies]

To: DouglasKC

Thanks for the update. What a circus this is!

Hold to the rope of Truth!


303 posted on 07/28/2009 5:52:34 AM PDT by bvw
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 301 | View Replies]

To: Red Steel

And yet, you are willing to proclaim that something said in the middle of the opinion from the Slaughterhouses cases trumps Wong.

Whether you like it or not, the term , “subject to its jurisdiction” was decimated in Wong over and over again. It is the operative phrase when trying to answer many questions including Natural Born questions. Slaughterhouse used the word “citizen” in your quote. They were discussing “subject to it’s jurisdiction” and stated that the main purpose of that phrase was to establish citizenship of a Negro.

It is interesting to note what Justice Gray had to say about Chief Justice Waite and all the same lawyers on the bench except for one (Chase who died)when it came time for the Minor case. I am sure you understand that Chief Justice Waite was involved with the Slaughterhouse cases which makes his comments in Minor interesting when he decided to NOT RESOLVE THE ISSUE.

Also, the dissenting opinion in Wong also has an opinion about the Slaughterhouse cases in that he doesn’t insist that the point is definitely disposed of:

“I do not insist that, although what was said was deemed essential to the argument and a necessary part of it, the point was definitively disposed of in the Slaughterhouse Cases, particularly as Chief Justice Waite in Minor v. Happersett, 21 Wall. 162, 167, remarked that there were doubts which, for the purposes of the case then in hand, it was not necessary to solve. “

So you have all of the Supreme Court in Wong indicating that the Slaughterhouse cases essentially did not definitively answer the question.

It doesn’t matter what you think of Wong...THAT IS THE CASE UNDER THE SUPREMACY CLAUSE - NOT YOUR CASE YOU ARE QUOTING.


304 posted on 07/28/2009 6:06:15 AM PDT by RummyChick
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 279 | View Replies]

To: pissant
When lawmakers return home for recess in August, they can expect to hear tough questions from constituents on the economy, health care and government spending. But Republicans are preparing for something else: the birthers. As GOP Rep. Mike Castle learned the hard way back home in Delaware this month Rep. Pete Hoekstra (R-Mich.) is taking no chances. The trick: What do you say? Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0709/25444.html#ixzz0MSeZPEPT

Now the RINOS have an answer: "State Officials have verified Obozo is NB Citizen !! "

305 posted on 07/28/2009 6:25:22 AM PDT by urtax$@work (The best kind of memorial is a Burning Memorial.........)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DallasMike
I do care. I care a lot. I just happen to remember how the Dems and the media turned around American opinion against Clinton during the Lewinsky episode. I see it happening all over with this.

Your concern about our manipulative media has merit, but there are several differences that make obama's situation more difficult for the press.

Clinton had a decent, if not roaring economy and few wanted to screw that up by pushing for impeachment.

Also, "it was all about sex" was easily applied making Republicans look like prudes or hypocrites for pursuing Presidential adultery.

While it is possible that there is nothing to the story, there is a lot more at stake with obama's citizenship status. I'm sure if you think about it, you'll come up with more than a few that are quite compelling. Moreover, the way he and others respond make me doubt even more the truth of his birth, biography, etc.

By their actions, I now see the birth certifi-gate as a loose thread where, once it is pulled, the entire fabricated garment that is Barrack obama comes apart.

306 posted on 07/28/2009 6:30:59 AM PDT by GBA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 133 | View Replies]

To: urtax$@work

I don’t believe he is natural born - still no tangible documents, long form BC, passport used for Pakistan which could have denounced his citizenship, Occidental scholarship records possibly using foreign aid, changing his name back to Obama from Soetoro, actually stating on his bar exam that he used no other name, dual citizenship? etc. etc. etc.

Too many unanswered questions - no answers!


307 posted on 07/28/2009 6:37:39 AM PDT by jcsjcm (Upholding the Constitution til my last breath)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 305 | View Replies]

To: rolling_stone
This is State Department policy based on existing US law, which would govern the status of John McCain:

Birth Abroad to Two U.S. Citizen Parents in Wedlock: A child born abroad to two U.S. citizen parents acquires U.S. citizenship at birth under section 301(c) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA). One of the parents MUST have resided in the U.S. prior to the child's birth. No specific period of time for such prior residence is required.

308 posted on 07/28/2009 6:43:22 AM PDT by kabar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 275 | View Replies]

To: shield

I would also ike to know what he is hiding, which is why I support the release of his long form birth certificate. Where is the prohibtion to being President and holding dual citizenship? And where is the proof that Obama holds dual citizenship now or when he was Senator? We can’t make this stuff up and being considered credible.


309 posted on 07/28/2009 6:46:33 AM PDT by kabar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 277 | View Replies]

To: Red Steel

That is not in the written majority opinion by Justice Gray.


310 posted on 07/28/2009 6:48:03 AM PDT by kabar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 281 | View Replies]

To: mojitojoe
her comment means that Obama SR IS NOT THE FATHER.

How interesting that would be if true. It would explain why obama doesn't lift a finger to help his brother in Kenya. What are we to make of the for public show of the family coming to see him in the WH? Who is obama's bio-dad? Is he an American? Then, what of Sotero, the various school admissions, his "auto"biography, etc?

Quite a lot of unanswered questions about the transparent candidate President.

311 posted on 07/28/2009 6:56:50 AM PDT by GBA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 220 | View Replies]

To: kabar

Nice try no sale see part d.
state department:

http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/86757.pdf
7 FAM 1131.6-2 Eligibility for Presidency
(TL:CON-68; 04-01-1998)
a. It has never been determined definitively by a court whether a person
who acquired U.S. citizenship by birth abroad to U.S. citizens is a natural born
citizen within the meaning of Article II of the Constitution and,
therefore, eligible for the Presidency.
b. Section 1, Article II, of the Constitution states, in relevant part that “No
Person except a natural born Citizen...shall be eligible for the Office of
President;”
c. The Constitution does not define “natural born”. The “Act to establish an
Uniform Rule of Naturalization”, enacted March 26, 1790, (1 Stat.
103,104) provided that, “...the children of citizens of the United States,
that may be born ... out of the limits of the United States, shall be
considered as natural born citizens: Provided that the right of citizenship
shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in
the United States.”
U.S. Department of State Foreign Affairs Manual Volume 7 - Consular Affairs
7 FAM 1130 Page 9 of 103
d. This statute is no longer operative, however, and its formula is not
included in modern nationality statutes. In any event, the fact that
someone is a natural born citizen pursuant to a statute does not
necessarily imply that he or she is such a citizen for Constitutional
purposes.
...................


312 posted on 07/28/2009 7:17:22 AM PDT by rolling_stone (no more bailouts, the taxpayers are out of money!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 308 | View Replies]

To: rolling_stone
It has never been determined definitively by a court whether a person who acquired U.S. citizenship by birth abroad to U.S. citizens is a natural born citizen within the meaning of Article II of the Constitution and, therefore, eligible for the Presidency.

That is just a statement of fact, which is why the Senate tried to weigh in on McCain by offering a resolution that he was eligible to run for President. However, in actual practice, under current US Code, citizenship is automatically conferred on people like McCain regardless of where they are born thru jus sanguinis. If it is ever taken up SCOTUS, then it will have been determined definitively. I presume that based on past precedent, they will come down on the side of McCain being a natural born citizen under the Constitution and millions like him, including my daughter.

As far as I know, McCain's candidacy was never challenged legally during the campaign. Perhaps if he had won, there may have been legal challenges. In the absence of a SCOTUS decision, we must rely on existing precedent.

313 posted on 07/28/2009 7:34:50 AM PDT by kabar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 312 | View Replies]

To: kabar

d. In any event, the fact that
someone is a natural born citizen pursuant to a statute does not
necessarily imply that he or she is such a citizen for Constitutional
purposes.

operative paragraph, there may be a difference in the meaning of citizen for constitutional and statutory purposes. Definitions in law change depending on the context and application all the time. Personally I think the USSC should decide this once and for all (now at least) and decide if children born to two illegal alien parents in the US are in fact citizens. Are the parents subject to US jurisdiction if they owe allegiance to another country?Not according to the history and intent of the 14th amendment.


314 posted on 07/28/2009 7:45:06 AM PDT by rolling_stone (no more bailouts, the taxpayers are out of money!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 313 | View Replies]

To: kabar
That is not in the written majority opinion by Justice Gray.

Hmmmmm.....

I've got a hardcopy of the case, U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649(1898) in my hands, 33 pages of about font size 6 print, but I have this statement below is highlighted on page 2.

Verbatim. "Mr Justice GRAY, after stating the facts in the foregoing language, delivered the opinion of the court."

Scratching head.... :-0)

315 posted on 07/28/2009 7:48:46 AM PDT by Red Steel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 310 | View Replies]

To: pissant

Fauxbama is not and cannot be a natural born citizen, even if he was born on US soil.

A natural born citizen is a child of 2 parents who are both US citizens.

Fauxbama’s father was not a US Citizen at his birth, therefore it doesn’t matter where he was born, he cannot be a natural born citizen. Unless of course the man he says is his father, isn’t really his father... h

Things that make you go hmmm...


316 posted on 07/28/2009 7:48:50 AM PDT by HamiltonJay
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rolling_stone
Personally I think the USSC should decide this once and for all (now at least) and decide if children born to two illegal alien parents in the US are in fact citizens.

Constitutional scholars are divided on this issue. Personally, I think we will need a Constitutional amendment similar to what was done in Ireland. I would rather not leave it up to SCOTUS. We have over 400,000 anchor babies born annually in this country who automatically become US citizens entitled to all the benefits and rights that imbues. They make up a substantial portion of the people on food stamps and Medicaid.

Re the natural born issue as it pertains to the Constitution, an actual case must be brought to SCOTUS and the court must be willing to accept it. So far, they have been reluctant to touch it because it is so politically charged, especially by the sitting President who just happens to be a minority. Removing Obama thru a SCOTUS ruling would have major consequences to the nation, including possible riots and civil disobedience. I don't see it happening.

Are the parents subject to US jurisdiction if they owe allegiance to another country?Not according to the history and intent of the 14th amendment.

It depends on whose alliegence you are talking about. A newly-born child has no alliegence so you would think would look to the parents to determine it. In the US vs Wong Kim Ark, Justice Gray invokes English common law judgments from the early years of the Republic, and implies that birth on American soil makes one a citizen regardless of the status of the parents [diplomats and enemy forces in hostile occupation of a portion of the country's territory excluded].

Here is a pretty good compendium of US court cases on dual citizenship It is a complex issue made even more so by the ability of people to travel much more easily around the globe. I favor, like Scalia and Thomas, that Congress and the people should decide who is and is not a citizen, including who is eligible for President, which is why I want a Constitutional amendment to be the vehicle.

317 posted on 07/28/2009 8:17:07 AM PDT by kabar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 314 | View Replies]

To: Red Steel

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

Wong Kim Ark was born in San Francisco to Chinese parents around 1870 (the exact date is uncertain due to discrepancies among the various sources). In 1895, upon his return from a visit to China, he was refused entry by US customs officials, who asserted that despite his having been born in the US, he was a subject of the Chinese emperor and not a US citizen.
At this time, US law (the “Chinese Exclusion Acts”) severely limited Chinese immigration and barred people of Chinese ancestry from becoming naturalized US citizens — and it was argued, on this basis, that Wong was ineligible to be considered a US citizen, in spite of his having been born in the US.

The Supreme Court disagreed, ruling on a 6-2 vote that Wong Kim Ark was in fact a US citizen. The court cited the “citizenship clause” of the 14th Amendment, which states that all persons born (or naturalized) in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens. Although the original motivation for this language in the 14th Amendment was to secure citizenship for the freed Negro slaves, the court held that the clause clearly applied to “all persons”, regardless of their race or national origin.

The court rejected outright the idea that the Chinese could be singled out for special treatment in this respect. “To hold that the fourteenth amendment of the constitution excludes from citizenship the children born in the United States of citizens or subjects of other countries,” the majority wrote, “would be to deny citizenship to thousands of persons of English, Scotch, Irish, German, or other European parentage, who have always been considered and treated as citizens of the United States.”

As for the question of being “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States — i.e., the relationship between a person and a government whereby one “owes obedience to the laws of that government, and may be punished for treason or other crimes” — the Supreme Court observed that English common law (legal tradition inherited from Britain by the US) had long recognized only two jurisdictional exceptions to the principle of ius soli (citizenship by birth on a country’s soil): namely, (a) foreign diplomats, and (b) enemy forces in hostile occupation of a portion of the country’s territory. Since neither of the above exceptions applied to Wong Kim Ark’s parents, the court held that he was unquestionably a US citizen by virtue of his having been born in the US.

The fact that, under the Chinese Exclusion Acts, Wong’s parents could not become US citizens — or even that Wong himself would not have been eligible for naturalization in the US on account of his race — was simply irrelevant in light of the 14th Amendment’s citizenship clause. The Constitution was superior to statutes such as the Chinese Exclusion Acts; these acts of Congress, according to the Supreme Court, “cannot control [the 14th Amendment’s] meaning, or impair its effect, but must be construed and executed in subordination to its provisions.”

It should be noted, however, that the Supreme Court did not question the validity of the Chinese Exclusion Acts as such.


318 posted on 07/28/2009 8:19:46 AM PDT by kabar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 315 | View Replies]

To: Red Steel
Excerpts from Justice Gray's majority opinion:

"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. 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 [169 U.S. 649, 703] 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."

"The power of naturalization, vested in congress by the constitution, is a power to confer citizenship, not a power to take it away. 'A naturalized citizen,' said Chief Justice Marshall, 'becomes a member of the society, possessing all the rights of a native citizen, and standing, in the view of the constitution, on the footing of a native. The constitution does not authorize congress to enlarge or abridge those rights. The simple power of the national legislature is to prescribe a uniform rule of naturalization, and the exercise of this power exhausts it, so far as respects the individual. The constitution then takes him up, and, among other rights, extends to him the capacity of suing in the courts of the United States, precisely under the same circumstances under which a native might sue.' Osborn v. Bank, 9 Wheat. 738, 827. Congress having no power to abridge the rights conferred by the constitution upon those who have become naturalized citizens by virtue of acts of congress, a fortiori no act or omission of congress, as to providing for the naturalization of parents or children of a particular race, can affect citizenship acquired as a birthright, by virtue of the constitution itself, without any aid of legislation. The fourteenth amendment, while it leaves the power, where it was before, in congress, to regulate naturalization, has conferred no authority upon congress to restrict the effect of birth, declared by the constitution to constitute a sufficient and complete right to citizenship.

No one doubts that the amendment, as soon as it was promulgated, applied to persons of African descent born in the United States, wherever the birthplace of their parents might have been; and yet, for two years afterwards, there was no statute authorizing persons of that race to be naturalized. If the omission or the refusal of congress to permit certain [169 U.S. 649, 704] classes of persons to be made citizens by naturalization could be allowed the effect of correspondingly restricting the classes of persons who should become citizens by birth, it would be in the power of congress, at any time, by striking negroes out of the naturalization laws, and limiting those laws, as they were formerly limited, to white persons only, to defeat the main purpose of the constitutional amendment.

The fact, therefore, that acts of congress or treaties have not permitted Chinese persons born out of this country to become citizens by naturalization, cannot exclude Chinese persons born in this country from the operation of the broad and clear words of the constitution: 'All persons born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States.

319 posted on 07/28/2009 8:32:41 AM PDT by kabar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 315 | View Replies]

To: pissant

Shut up and drag 0bama’s @$$ down there to show it to us. Stop the freakin’ games. We want to see his Oxy apps., grades and papers, too. Oh, and his purported Fulbright Scholarship.

Show it to America.


320 posted on 07/28/2009 8:44:04 AM PDT by getmeouttaPalmBeachCounty_FL (****************************Stop Continental Drift**)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 261-280281-300301-320321-330 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson