Posted on 07/30/2009 8:35:25 PM PDT by Edward Watson
The entire birther argument, that Obama was actually born in Kenya instead of the US, making him ineligible for holding the office of the President of the US, is a spurious argument. It plays into Obama and the liberals hands - they want this to continue since it makes regular conservatives and opponents into fringe wackos.
Not one of us would've looked harder at his legitimacy than Hilary Clinton and the entire Clinton smear machine during the Democratic primaries. That magic bullet would've given Hilary the presidency - and yet nada, bupkis.
There are many valid reasons to oppose Obama and the liberals, but his birthplace isn't one of them.
“but pure logic would tell you that a dual (with divided allegiances)would not be a ‘natural born’ citizen”
No, it wouldn’t. First of all because being a dual citizen is not the only way to have divided loyalties. This is something blood righters confuse all the time. Yes, the purpose of the natural born clause was to prevent people with foreign loyalties from being commander-in-chief. But it does not follow that natural born must necessarily mean no possibility of divided loyalties.
They chose to limit the presidency to citizens at birth, because they thought that’d do the trick. If I were to say that somehow we must interpret natural born as something more than citizen at birth simply because the framers were really, really worried about loyalty, why not insist the loyalty has to go back to previous generations? Why not four citizen grandparents? Foreign grandparents can have a large impact on their grandchildren, doncha know.
At this point, I’m sure, you’ll back away from “logic” and rest on historical understanding, saying the evidence shows the founders knew natural born to mean by right of blood. Per Vattel, or whoever. That’s when I swoop in and remind you the Constitution is a living document, and that it has been amended, and that since the 14th amendment soil babies are citizens at birth, and therefore are natural born citizens.
Secondly, because nowehere in U.S. law are dual citizens recognize as a special class. They are in every way the legal equivalent of the children of two citizens. It is as if the other loyalty doesn’t even exist in the eyes of our government.
Nice post. I really could care less about his birth place but what I want to see is the adoption papers. Indonesians cannot be dual citizens. In order for him to go to school he would have had to surrender his citizenship (regular or Natural in the USA and become an Indonesian citizen)..I suspect (but we have nothing) is that he applied to school as a foreign national and traveled on an Indonesian passport signifying the adoption was completed. He would then have to re-elect citizenship (at majority) through naturalization. I doubt he did that. What we really have in the White House is a blank. He will not permit us to know who he is.
“My answer is that I believe that the state of HI has been bought off or extorted. “
Sorry, but that’s not evidence that he was born elsewhere. Let’s stipulate that Obama is a liar and Chicago-style political operator.
What evidence *at all* do you have for your assertion that Obama was not born in Hawaii?
“They have given multiple reasons/stories about this birth certificate. Obviously, they can’t all be true”
Ok, but how does that make Obama not born in Hawaii?
“They cannot/will not furnish the long form.”
There is no ‘long form’ per se - there is the original birth certificate that was filed and in state of Hawaii records, and there is the Certification of Live Birth (COLB) that was already issued and which Obama’s camp has gotten photographed by factcheck.
“IMO Obamanation is a thug who is being supported by thugs who would make Capone look like a Sunday School teacher. Why would I not think that he could successfully hide the fact that he is not eligible to serve?”
Yeah, he *COULD* be lying about his age and only be 34, but you look to independent facts to see if that is true.
To go from “Obama is a liar and thug” to “therefore he wasnt born in Hawaii” is a logical leap wider than the grand Canynon.
I keep asking for evidence to justify that jump, but keep getting bupkis.
“Nice save after an attack. Sell it to someone else.”
Save? B.S. I restated the same thing. You deserved an “attack”. You were out of line.
Ping to comment #720.
Why di you knee-jerk response and fail to answer the question!
Lets try again:
So you acknowledge that the newspaper announcement shows that Obama *DID* get a state of Hawaii birth records, right?
And he got it between Aug 4, 1961 and Aug 13, 1961 and it shows him born on Aug 4, 1961, right?
Again ... this “fooled by the Liar in Chief” is BS. None of this is based on what Obama said. We are talking about drawing conclusions from a Honolulu Advertiser birth announcement from Aug 13, 1961. I assure, 10 day old BHO did *not* put this announcement in there.
The Wong Kim Ark case is about citizenship, and this is the decision:
The evident intention, and the necessary effect, of the submission of this case to the decision of the court upon the facts agreed by the parties, were to present for determination the single question, stated at the beginning of this opinion, namely, whether a child born in the United States, of parents of Chinese descent, who, at the time of his birth, are subjects of the emperor of China, but have a permanent domicile and residence in the United States, and are there carrying on business, and are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under the emperor of China, becomes at the time of his birth a citizen of the United States. For the reasons above stated, this court is of opinion that the question must be answered in the affirmative.
The cited passage "The child of an alien, if born in the country, is as much a citizen as the natural-born child of a citizen, and by operation of the same principle." is from a law review article by a Mr. Binney. It is a point of argument, not a decision of the Court, and not necessary to find "natural born" status in order to find "citizen." Binney asserted there are only two classes of citizen under the common law, born on the soil, and naturalized.
For what it's worth in a debate about what constitutes "natural born citizen," the naturalized citizen is also every bit as much a citizen as the child of an alien, if born in the country; and is also every bit as much a citizen as the child of citizens.
fellow, you wouldn’t know or accept the truth if it blew you up..
I’ve had enough of this correspondance... you can’t really get the truth out of a rock.
fellow, you wouldn’t know or accept the truth if it blew you up..
I’ve had enough of this correspondance... you can’t really argue with a fool without making both you us fools. No more.
fellow, you wouldn’t know or accept the truth if it blew you up..
I’ve had enough of this correspondance... you can’t really argue with a fool without making both you fools. No more. I’m no fool.
“Minor v. Happersett did NOT endorse the common idea that the 14th meant place of birth on US soil automaticlly conferred NBC status.”
From the quote you posted, it’s clear that far from not endorsing it, they didn’t even address it. They talked about what natural born might have meant at the time of ratification, and not at all what it means in light of the 14th amendment. Did it occur to them, or you, that natural born meant two citizen parents to them because only two citizen children were born citizens at the time? And that once you introduce birthright citizenship to soil babies, they become natural born citizens?
For calling Obama a liar?! Outrageous!
*
Well, if legalese tells you that the children of fence jumpers are “natural born” under the Presidential stipulation clause then the Constitution is meaningless and we live in a legal tyranny. Enjoy.
Btw, you better watch attacking others for their opinion as it’s frowned on.
Yup. And we have “freepers” attacking because others want the truth. There’s more going on than a BC.
:O) some people are a little dense, good reply, maybe you’ll have better luck than me..
“The cited passage’...is from a law review article by a Mr. Binney.”
If I’ve been confusing the quote all along, I’m sorry. The Birther site led me astray. Anyway, it doesn’t change much. I always knew Wong Kim Ark wasn’t about defining natural born status. That has never been clearly defined. The reason I find Wong Kim Ark persuasive is that it establishes the children of aliens born on U.S. soil are citizens from birth. And since I can see no difference between citizens from birth and natural born citizens, I believe the 14th amendment qualifies Obama to be president (if he was born in Hawaii).
“the naturalized citizen is also every bit as much a citizen as the child of an alien, if born in the country; and is also every bit as much a citizen as the child of citizens.”
Yes, except insofar as the presidency is concerned. The natural born clause is the only thing that seperates citizens into different classes.
You got your answer. ANYONE can get a Hawaiian vital birth record. It proves nothing.
Not legalese. Common sense.
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.