Posted on 08/02/2009 1:35:53 AM PDT by rxsid
Edited on 08/06/2009 12:10:02 AM PDT by John Robinson. [history]
Attorney Taitz filed a NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION to Expedite authentication, MOTION for Issuance of Letters Rogatory for authenticity of Kenyan birth certificate filed by Plaintiff Alan Keyes PhD.
http://www.orlytaitzesq.com/blog1/ (site has been the target of hackers, proceed with caution — John)
Edwin Meese, Chairman of the Editorial Advisory Board, The Heritage Guide to the Constitution, 2005:
Under the longstanding English common-law principle of jus soli, persons born within the territory of the sovereign (other than the children of enemy aliens or foreign diplomats) are citizens from birth. Thus, those persons born within the United States are "natural born citizens from birth.
I'd like for you to explain, just how this Amendment magically altered a Constitutional eligibility requirement for the office of President.
Such a contention is especially curious, since the specific term "natural born citizen" nowhere appears in the relevant findings of Ark itself.
And, am I under a mistaken impression myself, that Minor v. Happersett confirmed the very understanding of the meaning of the term "natural born citizen" that you're contending was somehow altered by the 14th Amendment some years previously?
Irrelevant.
altair ~ Embassies and foreign military bases are considered US soil for purposes of law enforcement[1]. I've read that McCain was born in a military base hospital.
He was born in Colón. Colón is now and always has been in Panama. Like West Berlin, surrounded by East Germany, it was surrounded by the Canal Zone, but never part of it.
Meese is extrapolating a definition for a term that did not exist under English common law. The Founders would take issue with defining a natural born citizen as a subject, and I’m surprised you don’t take issue with it, yourself.
And that little factoid probably has more to do with all the open primary democrat crossover votes for McCain as anything else.
JMHO...
You asked me for a link and I gave it to you. Don't worry, won't make that mistake again.
No because he also was born an English subject which at best gave him dual citizenship at birth.
Possibly, but the real test is "US sovereign territory", while the Canal zone might or might not have been, the Coco Solo Naval base certainly was, as the US had sole jurisdiction there.
I think that at this point, Obama’s Kenyan birth certificate is as valid as his "Certification of Live Birth" – based upon other external and independently-verifiable “prima facie” facts known.
The Kenyan birth certificate's plausibility can be directly tied to the events surrounding prima facie facts, recorded in the 1964 Obama divorce, as outlined in Post 6,799 and Post 2,222 of the Free Republic thread "Is this really it? (re: possible Obama's Kenyan B.C.)".
As for Obama's "Certification of Live Birth," its plausibility is anecdotal at best. Nearly all of the accounts of his mother’s whereabouts in the months immediately before and after Obama JR's birth comes from personal accounts of one person: Susan Blake [Botkin].
You may recognize Blake as the former Mercer Island city councilwoman and high school friend of Obama’s mama, Ann Dunham. Blake said that Ann stopped by to visit with Obama Jr when Obama was just 3 weeks old in late-August 1961.
She was interviewed by the Seattle Times, the Chicago Tribune (video), and others. In August 2008, Michael Patrick Leahy spoke with Blake in doing research for his book, “What Does Barack Obama Believe?” In the book, Blake says that when she got married in 1964, Blake sent Dunham a wedding invitation to Dunham’s last known Hawaii address, but it was returned with no forwarding address.
Leahy brings up a couple of interesting questions that others have queried about Dunham’s visit with Blake:
“Why does an 18-year-old mother take her 3-week-old baby on a plane trip from Honolulu to Seattle if her parents and husband were in Honolulu?"
"What would be sufficient motivation for such an action?”
Therefore, to delve deeper into the rabbit hole of Obama’s birth, below are notes from a NEVER BEFORE RELEASED telephone interview conducted by a fellow investigator (from an adjacent "research team" who must remain anonymous) with Blake a week before the Inauguration.
It should be pointed out that the interviewer was very thorough and accurate in capturing highlights of the hour-plus telephone interview with Blake. However, he said that in interviewing her, at times it was difficult to discern what was truth, half-truth, embellishment, or misremembered from Dunham's brief and unexpected visit that took place nearly 50 years ago.
These raw notes show some new information and inconsistencies that seem to both AID while HINDERING Blake’s believability as a “witness” to Obama Jr and his mother’s whereabouts from 1960-1962.
1. Susan has been contacted now by many individuals especially in the last 2 days. One of her first contacts was back in August or so of 2008 by Michael Patrick Leahy, writer of the book "What Does Barack Obama Believe" available from Amazon. Much of what Susan has heard about her other interviews she feels has been distorted.2. She was friend and confidante of Stanley Ann during her High School years, knew Stanley (she went by STANLEY not Ann) and that she was a very forward, articulate woman who shared much of her thoughts with her friends.
3. Stanley left in spring of 1960 and wrote cards and letters from Hawaii over a year or so that she was there. She sent a Christmas card to Susan stating she was dating a Kenyan student and was 'in love'. In spring of 1961 Stanley sent another letter stating she had been married and was expecting a baby.
4. Susan had gone on vacation to Santa Cruz in summer of '61, had returned mid August because she remembered the fires around Santa Cruz at that time which caused her to return home. Soon after she was back, her mother told her that Stanley was coming to visit. Stanley had the newborn Barack Obama, roughly 3 weeks old. To Susan's best recollection it was sometime around Aug. 25th to Aug 30th.
5. Stanley told Susan she was only in Seattle for a short visit, going on to Boston to find residence and a job, because she intended to go there for BO Srs. graduated studies. She was to fly to Boston shortly after their visit.
6. Her understanding was that Stanley had waited until the baby was old enough to fly according to what Stanley said of the doctor. She was very much "in love" with Barack Obama Sr, happy to have the newborn, although not proficient at changing a diaper, which Susan did. "My claim to fame is that I changed Barack Obama's diaper".
7. She thought that Stanley was going to fly to Boston, establish her domicile etc., then return thru Seattle to Hawaii. She said SHE NEVER SAW HER AGAIN, although she knew through another mutual friend John, and Maxine Box, that she was again in Seattle in spring 1962. She said from what she's read that Stanley was a correspondence student at the UW in fall 1961, but that she didn't necessarily have to be there to be a correspondence student. However she knew Stanley was there in spring 1962.
8. Susan didn't understand why all the distortions or "mystery" that is being purported, she thinks it’s all very straight forward, that Stanley had BO in Honolulu, married BO prior to that, they were in love. She also mentioned that she's received calls from bewildered teachers/other students from interviewers asking about communist activity and other strange behaviors which she personally knows nothing of.
9. She states that while Stanley was there she stayed with a friend of Stanley Ann's mother, even borrowed a car to come see Susan. Didn't know who that was or where they lived.
10. Sadly, Susan hung up on me after the conversation deviated to why all the controversy surrounding his birth, his citizenship. Her understanding is that BO was a Natural Born Citizen by virtue of Stanley being a US citizen at time of birth IN HONOLULU. She did know that BO SR. was a KENYAN national, that according to Stanley "he was being groomed for political office" and that Barack Obama was a dual citizen but it didn’t matter, he was an NBC. When I stated what I firmly believe, that BOTH parents must be US citizens the phone clicked and she wasn’t on the other end.
Personal experience tells us that conversation between friends can be fickle, and memories can change over time. For example, Blake says Dunham was only passing through the Seattle area on her way to look for a job and residence in Boston in August 1961 to join her husband in graduate school. However, it wasn't until Spring 1962 that Obama Sr received two fellowships: one to pursue a doctorate in economics at the New York School for Social Research in New York City; the other for Harvard. As Obama SR did not graduate from Hawaii University until June 1962, and makes no mention of his bride and infant child in a June 22, 1962, interview with the Star-Bulletin the day he left Hawaii , one must wonder if other memories of Blake's meeting with Dunham match relatively-established, critical statements of dates and locations.
Personal memories fade, but prima facie facts, such as that from the 1964 Obama divorce decree, are STATIC – well, for the most part, anyway. Pages can be removed from divorce decrees, to protect privacy, leaving the remaining information intact. In stark contrast, abbreviated details and questionable accuracy are the very watermark of weaker documents, such as Obama’s Hawaiian-issued “Certification of Live Birth”.
Clearly, not all prima facie is created equally.
For example, Hawaiian birth certificate law, codified in HRS §338, can allow for a:
“Certificate of Hawaiian Birth”, terminated in 1972 after Obama’s 1961 birth, to be substituted for a ...
“Certificate of Late Birth”, thence a ...
“Certificate of Live Birth”, thence a shortened, abstracted ...
“Certification of Live Birth”, which wasn't first issued until Nov 2001
By 11th grade, I had finished all the required credit classes and instead of bugging out early, I spent my senior year in the art/photography department.
I had no need of typing but mom insisted in case I became a secretary. [no way]
That wasn’t the weirdest class I ever had.
In my freshman year, I didn’t get all of my picks and wound up in the Engines & Motors class with 20+ guys.
I spent 3 months rebuilding carbs, seating valves and disassembling/reassembling motors, etc.
They all snickered at me for even being there...until I got the highest final grade in the class.
The next semester, I wound up in Home Ec...and quickly became “partners in crime” with the unfortunate lone guy in the class.
We burned a lot of food and neither of us could sew worth squat...:))
The first part is correct, the second is your assumption.
Do you have any evidence to back up that assertion? It seems clear that the former United States Attorney General Edwin Meese is stating the meaning given to the term by the Founding Fathers.
The Founders would take issue with defining a natural born citizen as a subject, and I’m surprised you don’t take issue with it, yourself.
Where does the term "subject" appear in my post?
So I went to Britannica and came across a more general definition of common law (since we are all on the path to becoming lawyers). Common law:
Body of law based on custom and general principles and that, embodied in case law, serves as precedent or is applied to situations not covered by statute. Under the common-law system, when a court decides and reports its decision concerning a particular case, the case becomes part of the body of law and can be used in later cases involving similar matters. This use of precedents is known as stare decisis. Common law has been administered in the courts of England since the Middle Ages; it is also found in the U.S. and in most of the British Commonwealth. It is distinguished from civil law.
So common law is what the supreme court uses when they decide cases. The difference between citizen of the US, native born, naturalized and natural born citizen has been repeated here literally hundreds of times. It is our common law. That's my point.
The DMZFrank summary of natural born citizen should be placed in a FR book of common law. There is much more, of course, but he has said what is essential.
The Constitutional requirement is: No Person shall be a Senator who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty Years "be a Senator", not "run for the Senate. Biden was born November 20, 1942, so he would be 30 before he could possibly "be a Senator". The Sec State of Delaware was correct, regrettably.
BTTT
Meese was expressing the assumption that English common law, governing how to determine status for royal subjects, ie natural born subjects, was the origin of and therefore the root from which to derive meaning of, the term natural born citizen under a constitutional republic.
So, the English had natural born subjects in the relevant period. Not natural born citizens.
Do you really think Edwin Meese could have successfully defined terms within the Constitution all on his own, in any capacity? Assuming he could, would there be any controversy today, if he had?
The statute that tells you who is a citizen at birth, which is the same as natural born citizen,
**
The first part is correct, the second is your assumption.
**
Yes, because there is no undisputed authority to state what “natural born” means, I am forced to just read the English words. “At birth” means at the moment of birth. “Natural born” to me means “born a citizen” — and I see an equivalency between those two. What else could “born a citizen” mean than “a citizen at birth”?
It is a scandal that there is no undisputed legal authority to tell Americans who can and who cannot be president.
This is outrageous. I was annoyed at the start of my awareness of this problem, but now I am becoming increasingly angry. It’s scandalous. Do you realize that nobody knows for sure who can be president of the United States of America?
There is no undisputed legal authority to tell us. It’s outrageous. It’s sick and perverted. It really is. It’s a very bad joke.
Tech Ed has been around for quite a few years. I find it hard to believe someone bent on misdirection would hang around for so long. I haven't counted how many times he/she comes back with the same misunderstanding, which does suggest that it isn't misunderstanding. Whatever the case, thanks for the excellent summation of Wong Kim Ark, a case which, as you know, is often used to claim just the opposite conclusion about natural born citizen.
I’d like for you to explain, just how this Amendment magically altered a Constitutional eligibility requirement for the office of President.
**The 14th Amendment says there are TWO types of citizens: born and naturalized.
Such a contention is especially curious, since the specific term “natural born citizen” nowhere appears in the relevant findings of Ark itself.
** How can you say that? Natural-born appears 33 (that’s thirty-three) times in the MAJORITY decision.
And, am I under a mistaken impression myself, that Minor v. Happersett confirmed the very understanding of the meaning of the term “natural born citizen” that you’re contending was somehow altered by the 14th Amendment some years previously?
** Wong (1898) supersedes Minor.
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.