Posted on 07/29/2009 8:58:42 AM PDT by LS
What document would she have that says “natural born citizen” In absence of said document, she made a legal conclusion.
She actually didn’t state that. She said born in Hawaii..AND is a natural born citizen.
She didn’t state according to the laws of Hawaii he is a natural born citizen.
The issue has been whether he is a natural born citizen. That is the big blow up. that is the reason for the announcement. I think she is referencing that issue.
But for a moment let’s say you are right.
What is the law in Hawaii about natural born citizen?
My mistake. I think it is a telephone listing of some kind.
Stanley Ann took extension courses at the University of Washington and was staying with a friend of her mother’s in Seattle. We must be clear about this thing. This move to Seattle was right after the baby was born. It must have been a tough thing to do in 1961. I can imagine the plane trip for a mother who we know had trouble changing diapers. As for monetary assistance, “Toots” Dunham had the financial ability being one of the highest banking officials in Hawaii.
I doubt Stanley Ann and baby Barack flew on a prop job from Kenya. You have to realize that Kenya was a destination vacation for British men going on African safaris. They would have gone on a British Airways De Havilland Comet 4B, which was a jet aircraft complete with stewardesses in skimpy uniforms. I believe the return flight went from Kenya to London and on to Vancouver BC over a polar route. From Vancouver BC, Stanley Ann and Baby Barack took a ferry to the docks on Mercer Island.
Anyone know why she went to Washington instead of going to college in Hawaii. Does this have something to do with the commie part of the family. How strong with the commie pull and just exactly what was she doing ..to go to Washington by herself with a newborn!
I am not sure Toots was so rich. there seems to conflicting information about tough times.
It is possible that the backers of Obama SR paid for this as I believe there is more to this than just a black man knocking up a woman. It doesn’t seem they ever had a marital relationship.
I think he got pulled into a charade.
I do not think Barack Sr and Stanley Ann were together much after Baby Barack was born. In fact Stanley Ann was in Seattle, Washington two weeks after giving birth, getting enrolled in extension courses at the University of Washington. Meanwhile, Barack Sr finished up his degree in economics at the University of Hawaii. Stanley Ann did go back to Hawaii but not until Barack Sr left for Harvard. I doubt they ever saw each other again.
In some cases, then, the constitution must be looked into by the judges. And if they can open it at all, what part of it are they forbidden to read or to obey?
There are many other parts of the constitution which serve to illustrate this subject.
It is declared that "no tax or duty shall be laid on articles exported from any state." Suppose a duty on the export of cotton, of tobacco, or of flour; and a suit instituted to recover it. Ought judgment to be rendered in such a case? Ought the judges to close their eyes on the constitution, and only see the law?
The constitution declares that "no bill of attainder or ex post facto law shall be passed." If, however, such a bill should be passed, and a person should be prosecuted under it; must the court condemn to death those victims whom the constitution endeavors to preserve?
"No person," says the constitution, "shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court."
Here the language of the constitution is addressed especially to the courts. It prescribes, directly for them, a rule of evidence not to be departed from. If the legislature should change that rule, and declare one witness, or a confession out of court, sufficient for conviction, must the constitutional principle yield to the legislative act?
From these, and many other selections which might be made, it is apparent, that the framers of the constitution contemplated that instrument as a rule for the government of courts, as well as of the legislature. Why otherwise does it direct the judges to take an oath to support it? This oath certainly applies, in an especial manner, to their conduct in their official character. How immoral to impose it on them, if they were to be used as the instruments, and the knowing instruments, for violating what they swear to support!
The oath of office, too, imposed by the legislature, is completely demonstrative of the legislative opinion on this subject. It is in these words: "I do solemnly swear that I will administer justice without respect to persons, and do equal right to the poor and to the rich; and that I will faithfully and impartially discharge all the duties incumbent on me as _____, according to the best of my abilities and understanding, agreeably to the constitution, and laws of the United States." Why does a Judge swear to discharge his duties agreeably the constitution of the United States, if that constitution forms no rule for his government? If it is closed upon him, and cannot be inspected by him?
If such be the real state of things, this is worse than solemn mockery. To prescribe, or to take this oath, becomes equally a crime. It is also not entirely unworthy of observation that in declaring what shall be the supreme law of the land, the constitution itself is first mentioned; and not the laws of the United States generally, but those only which shall be made in pursuance of the constitution, have that rank.
Thus, the particular phraseology of the constitution of the United States confirms and strengthens the principle, supposed to be essential to all written constitutions, that a law repugnant to the constitution is void; and that courts, as well as other departments, are bound by that instrument.
This means nothing to me for the purpose of the question. The 16th amendment is related to that 4th clause you posted.
So obviously, if they can clarify and change the tax clause..Taxes being was one of the reasons for the revolt and the infamous Tea Party..then they can clarify the NBC clause.
You have shown me no legal basis to claim that they MUST have a Constitutional Convention to amend when they have NEVER had a constitutional convention for ANY amendment
nor have you shown me that they can’t enact a law like 1790. 1790 was SIGNED BY A MAN WHO SIGNED THE CONSTITUTION. You are saying he didn’t know what he was doing.
The bottom line is there is nothing that you have posted the precludes Congress from making a law - be it an Act or an Amendment..or the Supreme Court interpreting the definition of Natural Born Citizen.
You are talking Scholarly debate..it means nothing to me.
This is for the court to decide and they will decide which Scholar is right.
Ping to #76.
.
Clarification and complete adulteration of meaning are two entirely different things, RummyChick. They’re opposite, in fact. You continue to cite the 1790 law extending natural-born citizen status to those born abroad, but oddly enough, you also continue to ignore that this was rescinded in 1795. Clearly, and regardless of who signed it into law, there were Constitutional problems with the 1790 law, this was recognized, and rescinded.
The decision stands that the US Supreme Court is inferior to the Constitution, in Constitutional matters that pertain to the judicial. That includes the natural-born citizen requirement for the office of President. It is an evidentiary requirement. Congress is restricted from making any pertinent law regarding citizenship beyond immigration and naturalization. So, barring a Constitutional Convention, there can be no alteration, legally, of the natural-born citizen requirement, by any of the three branches of government.
The importance is Article 2 and the 14th amendment. You know the qualifiers for NBC so let's move to a better definition which is further qualified under the 14th.
Section. 1. 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.
The operative word here is “jurisdiction”. If you are born with dual citizenship your jurisdiction is not necessarily whole under the Constitution. In other words, If I may be so bold as to put forth some examples.
Elian Gonzales was returned to his father because international law recognizes the father's rights over the mother's intention or wishes.
The same happens to children who are dual citizens of Middle Eastern Countries and the USA. When the father takes the children to his home country the USA basically shrugs their shoulders and offers condolences to the mother in the USA. It doesn't matter what her plea is.
The United States recognizes dual citizens in that case as having jurisdictional rights and responsibilities as far as guardian and guardianship, of foreign nationals are concerned, as relates to the foreign state.
Basically our hands are tied and we can only make requests but cannot demand anything of a citizen, who having broken no law, in their country, wants their children to live in the country of jurisdiction of the foreign national.
I don't think the argument above is all that elegant but it should be a strong enough example of how dual citizenship works and how the US respects jurisdiction even in dual citizenship.
It is for this that a divided citizenship is not whole. “If” Barry was born here and did not have foreign citizenship, at birth, his citizenship would be whole and therefor natural. However, that is not the case.
It could be further complicated by the lack of proof that he is no longer a citizen of any country or that he has not provided deficient and genuine documents ascertaining his citizenship and identity.
There simply is no proof - at all.
Thanks for that
Pakistan was great in 1981 to visit. You didn’t have the crazy MQM running around Karachi :)
No Taliban either in Swat :)
Now, not so much :(
If it is of any interest to you my dads (Texas 1949) Says Certificate of Birth, it was issued in 1955 so he could move to Canada.
Mine (Texas 1983) also says Certificate of Birth. I am adopted and it has all my adoptive parents info on it and the only way to tell I was adopted is that the Hospital field is left blank.
I also note the 1949 one has a MD name on it and the 1983 has no place for one.
Surely you will admit that the easiest way in court to knock out Obama is to show he isn’t a US citizen. Just about everything else is subject to interpretation. There is no doubt that SCOTUS could decide all you need is one US citizen parent no matter where you are born. They have that power. People might not agree with them if they decide that..but they have that power.
Don’t believe just about everything else is subject to interpretation if you don’t knock out his US citizenship? Watch what happens next..... in my post.
Many don’t agree with your interpretation of natural born status...but let us assume this is the version SCOTUS picks....there are many options...but they pick yours.
““If” Barry was born here and did not have foreign citizenship, at birth, his citizenship would be whole and therefor natural. However, that is not the case.”
that is EXACTLY what happened if born of a VOID marriage. I have already posted the link to the UK border agency discussion on this topic. Their marriage in the US was a VOID marriage. Kenya did not allow a mix of customary and statutory marriage and Hawaii didn’t allow a bigamist marriage. Did Ann go to Kenya to have customary marriage...even that is problematic under a later law.
So in essence, you have just said Obama is a natural born citizen under the facts as we know them at this time.
You just admitted Obama is a natural born citizen.
forgot..IF born in the US.
Off your meds again I see. I really am sorry no president will ever nominate you for the SCOTUS because you seem to believe you are their equal.
Everything is here http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2303258/posts
You agreed with Vendome. If no UK citizenship..born in the US...he is natural born.
Perhaps you should take some meds and read the UK law again.
You do not know it was rescinded because of Constitutional problems. All you know is that it was rescinded. They changed their mind about the definition. Are you Mario?
Really don’t understand how you can see that the 16th amendment effects the clause you cited but then claim that Congress needs a Constitutional Convention to define Natural Born.
Taxes were one of the primary reasons for the revolt and why we became the US. Taxes can be changed without a Constitutional Convention but NBC can’t???
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.