Arizona House OKs Birther Bill

You must not allow facts to get in the way of a birther argument. They will call you names...

That single statement outs you as the dumbestsonbitch ever to come down the pike.

Ya can’t please ‘em all.

You must not allow facts to get in the way of a birther argument. They will call you names...

That’s because they are mental children and when children don’t have facts, they call people names.
For me it’s kind of fun, it takes me back to my primary school playground days.

The plaintiff wasn't suing in order to run for president. He was merely trying to establish that he was a citizen. Therefore, there was no need for the court to directly rule on whether he was natural born or not.

Nothing in the definition of natural born subject or citizen was predicated upon a requirement to run for president. In the Shanks v. Dupont case, its plaintiff was acknowledged to be a natural born citizen of South Carolina. She wasn't running for president. Such a declaration is contingent simply on the person's citizenship, not his political aspirations. Sorry, silly argument.

Nevertheless, the passage I cited, as well as the rest of the opinion, makes it very clear the court regarded him as a natural born citizen.

Clear to a faither or sand head, but not to anyone who reads what you cited. Nothing in it said anything about natural born citizens.

The 14th Amendment was needed in order to have freed slaves made citizens, as common law precedent was insufficient in their case. However, common law precedent is crystal clear that the child of free resident aliens, so long as he is born under US jurisdiction, is a natural born citizen.

No. Common law precedent may establish native-born citizenship, but it certainly doesn't say anything about natural born citizenship.

I don't follow your argument.

Or you choose to ignore it. They cited Minor's definition of natural born citizen. If they felt it wasn't applicable, they wouldn't have cited it.

Yes, someone can be both a natural born citizen of the United States as well as a natural born subject of the UK. What's your point?

Wrong. It's an either/or proposition. You can't have allegiance to two countries and assume you're natural born to both. That's anything but natural born.

Since it’s so explicit, what are these vital records that were cited and when are they dated?

The birth announcements prove beyond reasonable doubt that there was a vital record generated some time during the week of August 11, 1961. Since that was within a short time frame of Bambi's birth, the only possible source of that record could have been a standard birth certificate.

We know it couldn't be a certificate of Hawaiian birth, since those weren't generated unless the child was over a year old. We know it couldn't be a certificate of delayed birth, since those were generated only if the birth was registered some months after the fact, whereas Obama's was registered within days.

So we know he must have a standard birth certificate on file. Since Hawaii did not register foriegn births in 1982, we also know it must list Hawaii as the birth place.

In the face of this evidence, the only possible way to dispute a Hawaiian birth is to argue that his birth was registered fraudulantly. Unfortuantely for birthers, there is exactly zero evidence for such fraud.

Even worse for the birther case, there was no motive to for his mother to fraudulantly register his brith in Hawaii, even if he were born outside the US.

Clear to a faither or sand head, but not to anyone who reads what you cited. Nothing in it said anything about natural born citizens.

Well, then we either must be reading a different opinion, or one of us can't comprehend what he reads. I'm confident that anyone who looks at the opinion for himself will say I am right and you are wrong.

No. Common law precedent may establish native-born citizenship, but it certainly doesn't say anything about natural born citizenship.

Are you kidding? The Ark case alone cites at least 2 (and probably more, I haven't counted) cases in common law that deal with natural born citizenship!

They cited Minor's definition of natural born citizen. If they felt it wasn't applicable, they wouldn't have cited it.

So?

Wrong. It's an either/or proposition. You can't have allegiance to two countries and assume you're natural born to both.

I don't believe you. Do you have a SCOTUS opinion to back up that assertion?

Woops: I discovered a typo in a post. The sentence read:

"Since Hawaii did not register foriegn births in 1982, we also know it must list Hawaii as the birth place."

It should read:

"Since Hawaii did not register foriegn births until 1982, we also know it must list Hawaii as the birth place."

Here’s another one — they’re like roaches.

*Snicker* They do like to bunch up.

"“I, Dr. Chiyome Fukino, director of the Hawai’i State Department of Health, have seen the original vital records maintained on file by the Hawai’i State Department of Health verifying Barrack Hussein Obama was born in Hawai’i and is a natural-born American citizen. "

As you know, the 'vital birth records' in Hawaii can be erronous since the source can be from the word of person(s) who claimed to have witnessed a birth in the state of Hawaii. And "verifying" the unknown type of 'vital records' is a misleading statement. 2nd, Fukino lack of knowledge on the subject of who is a 'natural born American citizen' or is not one is an irrelevant statement that can be totally ignored.

The typo doesn’t matter. The only thing the 1982 law did was create a residency requirement for registering foreign births. They were registered prior to that without the requirement.

The birth announcements prove beyond reasonable doubt that there was a vital record generated some time during the week of August 11, 1961. Since that was within a short time frame of Bambi's birth, the only possible source of that record could have been a standard birth certificate.

Which can be reported by anybody to the local registrar, not just a hospital. This says nothing about whether the child was born in or outside of Hawaii.

We know it couldn't be a certificate of Hawaiian birth, since those weren't generated unless the child was over a year old. We know it couldn't be a certificate of delayed birth, since those were generated only if the birth was registered some months after the fact, whereas Obama's was registered within days.

Not seeing where anyone has claimed either of these ... but whatever ...

In the face of this evidence, the only possible way to dispute a Hawaiian birth is to argue that his birth was registered fraudulantly. Unfortuantely for birthers, there is exactly zero evidence for such fraud.

Nonsense. You haven't disproven that a foreign birth can be registered within a week's time frame.

Even worse for the birther case, there was no motive to for his mother to fraudulantly register his brith in Hawaii, even if he were born outside the US.

More nonsense. The motive was to ensure that the child would be a U.S. citizen. We already know SAD was too young to pass on U.S. citizenship to her child if born abroad. So far you've proved a whole lot of nothing.

Well, then we either must be reading a different opinion, or one of us can't comprehend what he reads. I'm confident that anyone who looks at the opinion for himself will say I am right and you are wrong.

Right. What I cited specifically mentioned criteria and the words 'natural born citizen' in it. What you cited didn't. Where do you get your confidence that you are right?? You need to demand a refund.

Are you kidding? The Ark case alone cites at least 2 (and probably more, I haven't counted) cases in common law that deal with natural born citizenship!

Feel free to cite whatever you think those were. I'll shoot it down.

I don't believe you. Do you have a SCOTUS opinion to back up that assertion?

I already quoted it from Wong Kim Ark. But there are others too. Shanks v. Dupont says: "All those, whether natives or otherwise, who then adhered to the American states were virtually absolved from all allegiance to the British Crown; all those who then adhered to the British Crown were deemed and held subjects of that Crown." Being native meant you were either an American citizen or a British subject. It doesn't say all those who were native or otherwise were citizens AND subjects. Shanks goes on to deny double allegiance: "Such, I think, is the natural and indeed almost necessary meaning of the treaty; it would otherwise follow that there would continue a double allegiance of many persons -- an inconvenience which must have been foreseen and would cause the most injurious effects to both nations."

Thank you for confirming my facetious remark about McLame..........

:}

As you know, the ‘vital birth records’ in Hawaii can be erronous since the source can be from the word of person(s) who claimed to have witnessed a birth in the state of Hawaii. And “verifying” the unknown type of ‘vital records’ is a misleading statement. 2nd, Fukino lack of knowledge on the subject of who is a ‘natural born American citizen’ or is not one is an irrelevant statement that can be totally ignored.

What’s your explanation as to why no one has subpoenaed Obama’s birth records? Hawaii statutes allow birth records to be released to “A person whose right to inspect or obtain a certified copy of the record is established by an order of a court of competent jurisdiction.”

Obama’s permission to release his records is not required under Hawaii Revised Statutes 338-18(b)(9).
http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/hrs2006/Vol06_Ch0321-0344/HRS0338/HRS_0338-0018.HTM

I already quoted it from Wong Kim Ark. But there are others too. Shanks v. Dupont says: “All those, whether natives or otherwise, who then adhered to the American states were virtually absolved from all allegiance to the British Crown; all those who then adhered to the British Crown were deemed and held subjects of that Crown.” Being native meant you were either an American citizen or a British subject. It doesn’t say all those who were native or otherwise were citizens AND subjects. Shanks goes on to deny double allegiance: “Such, I think, is the natural and indeed almost necessary meaning of the treaty; it would otherwise follow that there would continue a double allegiance of many persons — an inconvenience which must have been foreseen and would cause the most injurious effects to both nations.”

With specific regard to Barack Hussein Obama, two courts have ruled on his eligibility, the Marion County, Indiana Superior Court and the Indiana Court of Appeals. The Supreme Court of the State of Indiana refused to take up an appeal of these decisions and the Republican Attorney General of Indiana Gary F. Zoeller represented the Republican Governor of Indiana and Barack Obama and John McCain in this lawsuit.
The Indiana Court of Appeals concluded: “Based upon the language of Article II, Section 1, Clause 4 and the guidance provided by Wong Kim Ark, we conclude that persons born within the borders of the United States are “natural born Citizens” for Article II, Section 1 purposes, regardless of the citizenship of their parents. Just as a person “born within the British dominions [was] a natural-born British subject” at the time of the framing of the U.S. Constitution, so too were those “born in the allegiance of the United States natural-born citizens.”

What’s your explanation as to why no one has subpoenaed Obama’s birth records? Hawaii statutes allow birth records to be released to “A person whose right to inspect or obtain a certified copy of the record is established by an order of a court of competent jurisdiction.”

That day may come when a court subpoenas all of Obama's records. When the twin issues of standing and political question are overcome for whatever reason. The case against Obama will go forward where the State of Hawaii will be compelled by law to give up all and any Obama 'vital records' they may have.

That day may come when a court subpoenas all of Obama’s records. When the twin issues of standing and political question are overcome for whatever reason. The case against Obama will go forward where the State of Hawaii will be compelled by law to give up all and any Obama ‘vital records’ they may have.

In other words you have no explanation as to why in the two plus years that this issue has been around and through the 70-plus lawsuits that already have been filed, no subpoena has been issued. ANY prosecuting attorney in the nation could seek a subpoena as a part of a Grand Jury investigation. Prosecutors do not have standing issues or “political questions” (whatever that’s supposed to mean). Prosecutors go to a judge and get a subpoena. Some prosecutors have independent subpoena power and don’t even need a judge. Prosecuting attorneys include District Attorneys, state Attorneys General, special prosecutors, independent counsels, and US Attorneys.
Even a committee or subcommittee of Congress could subpoena Obama’s birth records.

Your personal speculations on what will happen in the future are irrelevant to the question asked.

Uh, let me get this straight. You think Onada does not have a large staff (1) tracking the court and internet callenges to his presidential eligibility, 2) devising defenses to these challenges and (3) is not paying them.

There can be no doubt that considerable sums of money are being spent to protect The Marxist Onada’s usurping the American Presidency.

It is explanation. You putting out a false premise that because Hawaii has not been subpoenaed for Obama birth records means that it won't happen in the future is just erronous.

ANY prosecuting attorneys in the nation could seek a subpoena as a part of a Grand Jury investigation. Prosecutors do not have standing issues or “political questions” (whatever that’s supposed to mean). Prosecutors go to a judge and get a subpoena.

NO prosecuting attorneys are needed in a civil suit. Although, a finding of Obama being an usurper of office from a civil suit may bring those prosecuting attorneys after Obama and turn those suits into criminal ones.

Even a committee or subcommittee of Congress could subpoena Obama’s birth records.

Another false assumption by you. You take the lack of actions by Congress to mean that there was no wrong doing by Obama. Those people in Congress either lack the political courage to do the right thing because they are afraid of the redicule by the overwhelming leftist press or for other reasons of preservation. Or, they are part of the same party of enablers, Democrats, who will not act because they lack integrity.

NO prosecuting attorneys are needed in a civil suit. Although, a finding of Obama being an usurper of office from a civil suit may bring those prosecuting attorneys after Obama and turn those suits into criminal ones.

Interesting!
So you don’t believe that Obama is guilty of forgery and fraud which are criminal offenses and would therefore be prosecuted with indictments handed down by Grand Juries.