Posted on 02/03/2010 5:06:21 PM PST by Kevin in California
No, I take that back. I take issue with you on your second statement.
I think being born ANYWHERE to U.S. citizens makes you a “natural born” citizen. If the place where you are born also recognizes you as a citizen because you were born there, so be it. But the citizenship that was given to you by nature, not law, is that which comes from your parents.
Yes! Thanks for asking. Had another doctor's appointment today and more lab tests tomorrow. It seems neverending. My spirits are up today. The concept of keeping off the broken leg when there's so much to do is going to be a gigantic challenge for me.
I think I meant "now" not "then", but marriage license were not issued by the Department of Health, IIRC. Thus it's possible that marriage "announcements" were initiated by the couple or their family, not by a list from the county courthouse. But then again they may have been.
No, since the citizenship of those born out of the country is by statute. In the 1790 naturalization act they even said such persons were to be considered "natural born", but that implies that they were not considered so in the original/Constitutional meaning of Natural Born. Plus the 1795 act replaced the 1790 act and no act or statute since has so much as used the words "natural born". However if the US Citizens were out of the country on the country's business, basically military or diplomatic, then Vattel's "Law of Nations", Book I section 217 indicates that they are considered "born in the country" because the parents were still subject to it's jurisdiction and had not really "quit" the country.
I don't have the time right now to go into it, but I disagree that this is all there is to being "natural born."
Also I don't agree that a subsequent legislative mention necessarily implies that the mention changed previous law, when it just as easily could have been recognizing and articulating previous law.
Recent National Review Online editorial devastated birthers. Born in the USA.
It is **AMAZING** but Americans are aware and the poll statistics are showing the number of people who do not believe or have questions about Obama’s eligibility is now approaching critical mass.
Since you seem to be so against the birther movement it's best that you have the correct information if you going to have any success countering it.
In some states ( Virginia for instance) the numbers are hovering at the 50% mark for those who do not believe Obama was born here or who have serious questions about his natural born status. ( Do a search on “poll Virginia Obama born”). Joseph Farah reported in his speech to the TEA Party that California it is 30%.
What is **AMAZING** to me is that this many people not only know about the eligibility issue but have formed an opinion. Also...There has been a near blackout in coverage of the issue. This proves the power of the Internet, the pajama warriors, and word of mouth.
I am just as curious as any "Birther" about the long form BC. It's just that the "Birthers" have been severely jerked about by inept or worse counsel, and IMHO, have screwed this up to the point that there will be no legal resolution until Obama is long gone..
In the first place, the Hawaiian documentation is of course, linked to the Natural Born Citizen criteria demanded by the Constitution. But it is a secondary consideration. By making it part of their "apples AND oranges" briefs, inept (Orly), or worse, (Gary Kreep) and presenting it in precisely the wrong courts, the Birther legal movement has handed Team Obama a string of easy victories and severely compromised those working on the much more fundamental Constitutional question.
Had the "Birthers" and their attorneys concentrated their quest for the documents in the State Courts of Hawaii, and written clean pleadings, I probably would be congratulating them now.
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.