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.
I agree! See ‘ya!
I understood that. I disagree that this result has been conclusively established, and tend to side with the conclusion that Obama is not a natural born citizen under the meaning intended by the US Constitution.
As for the 14th amendment, it talks about citizenship, and makes no distinction between rights that attach by virtue of being born in, or being naturalized.
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.
It does not say:
1. All persons born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are natural-born citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside; and all persons 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 founders used two separate terms (citizen, and natural born citizen) for a reason. I would like to understand how it is sensible to completely discount the citizenship of parents when reaching a decision to confer "natural born citizen" status on (almost) all people born on US soil, without regard to the national loyalty of their parents.
What if the King of Saudi Arabia fathered a child, and had it born in the US? Natural-born US citizen? By creating a one-generation deep citizenship requirement, the founders aimed to protect US interests against foreign countries.
“United States Attorney General, George Williams, whom was a U.S. Senator aligned with Radical Republicans during the drafting of the Fourteenth Amendment in 1866, ruled in 1873 the word “jurisdiction” under the Fourteenth Amendment “must be understood to mean absolute and complete jurisdiction, such as the United States had over its citizens before the adoption of this amendment.” He added, “Political and military rights and duties” do not pertain to anyone else.”
http://federalistblog.us/2008/11/natural-born_citizen_defined.html
From what I’ve recently read the 14th was primarily for the benefit of freed slaves to unify citizenship across the board. In its broader application it was always considered that only children of citizens could be Natural Born while others could be Native Born.
Now is that the final word on it? I doubt it but does it merit further investigation and determination?
As someone else pointed out, since there is no way that NBC can be conclusively confirmed, there is no way that a Constitutional professor could positively affirm under oath that he was qualified for the office of US President.
Thank you for admitting what you really are, **a liar***LOL
You are too young to have gained any wisdom, and it shows...LOL
“Obama has never claimed to be a Natural Born Citizen”
Not exactly so, when he filed for President in the 50 states he had to attest to eligibility, and one of the ones that was posted on FR had the phrase ‘natural-born citizen’ in the filing form.
“By the way your whole argument about Obama’s birth announcement evades the fact that Obama never lived there, it was someone else’s house.” Actually, you dont know that the cottage out back wasnt rented to them. The statement that they didnt live there was merely based on neighbors not recollecting them 47 years ago. That’s not proof of anything except that maybe memories are fuzzy or they kept to themselves or were there only for a short while.
I don’t know if anyone has brought this up to you but minors cannot relinquish their US citizenship so it doesn’t matter if he had Indonesian citizenship or not.
And I was deeply saddened to discover this on the US Dpt of State website.
However, he can’t be automatically NBC if he was born with dual citizenship.
But if natural born citizenship is an artifact of location of birth, without regard to the citizenship of parents, how can this be? The above rule has citizenship, even "natural born citizenship," strictly following the citizenship of the parents!
The more I think about it, the more I become convinced that "natural born citizen" is a legal term of art that is intended to impose a one-generation deep pedigree of citizenship, but only for the president and VP.
since the other birthers wont answer the obvious questions, lets try you:
The Aug 13th 1961 Honolulu Advertiser birth announcement was based on filings to the Hawaii health records dept:
http://whatreallyhappened.com/IMAGES/obama-1961-birth-announcement-from-honolulu-advertiser0000.gif
1) Did Obama get a birth record in Aug 1961, yes or no?
2) Do you acknowledge that the newspaper announcement shows that Obama *DID* get a state of Hawaii birth records? He did, right?
3) And he got it between Aug 4, 1961 and Aug 13, 1961 and it shows him born on Aug 4, 1961, right?
I am now officially in the ‘Obama was definitely born in Honolulu Hawaii and is eligible to be President and needs to release the original birth cert to settle this once and for all’.
http://confederateyankee.mu.nu/archives/290351.php
Say’s Who?I haven’t seen a real Birth Certificate.As far as I’m concerned this guy in the Manchurian Candidate.A man with NO past.Everything about his past is hidden,We the American people have a right to Know who our President is.
Obama is Not it.
when he filed for President in the 50 states he had to attest to eligibility, and one of the ones that was posted on FR had the phrase ‘natural-born citizen’ in the filing form.
Prove it.
On the national level, I am strongly inclined to agree with you. As far as the public is concerned, all is well (as the formalities have been followed), and life will go on in the political realm.
But as for the individuals this resonates with, the failure on the part of Congress to even take up and resolve this issue will be meaningful.
I've considered the federal courts to be corrupt and illegitimate as to 2nd amendment jurisprudence for some years; and Congress as inept and useless. So, this "new knowledge" doesn't change my impression of Congress. But now that I see the president as illegitimate in fact, I feel totally justified in seriously holding the United States of America as a banana republic.
This country is dead to me.
That was a quote from Ted Olson. It's clear in the wider quote context that he is including all 14th amendment birthright citizenship cases in the 'natural-born citizen' category. You can be a natural-born citizen based on either blood (child of citizens) or soil (born in USA).
Yikes....That is a bummer..So his parents had to lie to the Indonesians to get him citizenship there in order for him to be in school. But, he was able to keep his citizenship here in whatever form.
The public’s acceptance of an idea doesn’t validate that idea and certainly doesn’t make it constitutional.
If the SCOTUS cannot be depended upon to rule objectively regardless of the consequences, then we are no longer a Constitutional Republic.
The issue I mentioned was brought before the SCOTUS before the election, before Obama became the President-Elect, before he was inaugurated. SCOTUS had plenty of time to act to prevent the scenarios that you suggested. They chose not to do so.
The line of argument I presented is not quixotic, it’s grounded in Constitutional tradition and fact.
As I said, I saw someone post it on a ‘birther’ thread on FR in the past week. Sorry, but I cant track it down. It’s on FR.
“That was a quote from Ted Olson. It’s clear in the wider quote context that he is including all 14th amendment birthright citizenship cases in the ‘natural-born citizen’ category. You can be a natural-born citizen based on either blood (child of citizens) or soil (born in USA).”
Ted Olson was known for munching on dirt. If this statement is a true statement, the founders were just blowing smoke. O’Zero’s mom can say she had him in some potting soil in Kenya that she brought from Hawaii. The whole thing is meaningless, which is exactly what the libs are saying. I feel really dirty now. The Constitution is in shreds.
Without a legal judgement all we have to go by is the public’s acceptance. Its not as trivial as it sounds; the root of the concept of legitimacy is consensus.
If you intend this line of argument to produce any political effect, then it is indeed quixotic.
You can certainly come to any personal conclusion regarding the state of the nation, thats your right, but it has no effect beyond yourself. I find that this is a very difficult concept to put across in this forum actually.
I understand why you argue so vociferously in defense of Obama’s eligibility. You honestly don’t know the definition of the word “evidence”.
Proceeding from that basic mis-understood, it’s easy to see why you feel that this case is closed.
Obama’s original long form birth certificate is the root document that will prove, or disprove his claim of US citizenship. Statements by government bureaucrats attesting to having seen that document are not in themselves, evidence. Only the document itself is actual evidence.
You can argue all you like that the jpeg image of his alleged COLB is “evidence” of his US citizenship, but it is only a short form abstract that doesn’t measure up to the legal requirements for hard evidence.
First of all, if it’s so real and indisputable, he should have had it inspected by competent, expert document examiners from the moment he produced it. Instead, what we have is the “word” of a select few individuals from a proven Obama ally organization who “swear” that what they inspected and photographed is the real thing.
If you accept that, then your standard for evidence is sub-standard. FactCheck.org is in no way qualified to make judgments on what they saw, and the photographs they took only add to the suspicion of fraud because they clearly don’t match the jpeg image of the COLB that is reported to be one and the same document.
Everything presented by the anti-birther side thus far has failed to meet the legal standard of solid evidence, yet they persist in trying to convince the rest of the public that it does.
Understand this. Whether you accept this sub-standard “evidence” or not, is immaterial to the controversy at large. It will not go away because some people are easily duped, and are willing to go on the warpath to defend Obama.
The number of people who are seeing the obvious inconsistencies and transparent obfuscation from the Obama camp is growing. This thing is gaining traction and getting bigger and bigger because of everything I’ve told you.
Whether you like it or not, a growing number of Americans will continue to demand that Obama put an end to this by releasing his personal documents. He will eventually either come clean with the public, or he will resign because of the pressure against him to do so. That is the ultimate outcome of this controversy, and nothing can stop it.
As I said, I saw someone post it on a ‘birther’ thread on FR in the past week. Sorry, but I cant track it down. It’s on FR.
For someone that demands that everything be proved to you, you sure took the cowards way out on this.
Even Gibbs won't call Obama a Natural born Citizen, and its his job to deflect such criticism.
I dont know about that, I’m sure that the Indonesian citizenshit is legit but simply that it did not eliminate his US citizenship.....which I still think would be native born and not natural born.
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.
