Posted on 08/24/2010 6:37:15 PM PDT by RobinMasters
The State Department is maintaining a "counter-misinformation" page on an America.gov blog that attempts to "debunk a conspiracy theory" that President Obama was not born in the United States, as if the topic were equivalent to believing space aliens visit Earth in flying saucers.
However, in the attempt to debunk the Obama birth-certificate controversy, the State Department author confirmed Obama was a dual citizen of the U.K. and the U.S. from 1961 to 1963 and a dual citizen of Kenya and the U.S. from 1963 to 1982, because his father was a Kenyan citizen when Obama was born in 1961.
In a number of court cases challenging Obama's eligibility, dual citizenship has been raised as a factor that could compromise his "natural born" status under Article 2, Section 1 of the Constitution. The cases argue dual citizenship would make Obama ineligible even if documentary evidence were shown the public, such as the hospital-issued long-form birth certificate that indicates the place of his birth and the name of the attending physician.
The entry "The Obama Birth Controversy" was written by Todd Leventhal, identified as the chief of the Counter-Misinformation Team for the U.S. Department of State. The office appears to have been established "to provide information about false and misleading stories in the Middle East," as described in a biography of Leventhal published on the U.S. Public Diplomacy website.
(Excerpt) Read more at wnd.com ...
And you believe simply being born within a geographical location would have been more important to the founders than whether children are born to foreign national citizens who don't become U.S. citizens and have no intention of becoming citizens nor even permanent residents?? How does the former ensure loyalty to the U.S.??
"Allegiance, both express and implied, is however distinguished by the law into two sorts or species, the one natural, the other local; the former being also perpetual, the latter temporary. Natural allegiance is such as is due from all men born within the king's dominions immediately upon their birth. For, immediately upon their birth, they are under the king's protection; at a time too, when (during their infancy) they are incapable of protecting themselves. Natural allegiance is therefore a debt of gratitude; which cannot be forfeited, canceled, or altered, by any change of time, place, or circumstance, nor by any thing but the united concurrence of the legislature. An Englishman who removes to France, or to China, owes the same allegiance to the king of England there as at home, and twenty years hence as well as now. For it is a principle of universal law, that the natural-born subject of one prince cannot by any act of his own, no, not by swearing allegiance to another, put off or discharge his natural allegiance to the former: for this natural allegiance was intrinsic, and primitive, and antecedent to the other; and cannot be devested without the concurrent act of that prince to whom it was first due. Indeed the natural-born subject of one prince, to whom he owes allegiance, may be entangled by subjecting himself absolutely to another; but it is his own act that brings him into these straits and difficulties, of owing service to two masters; and it is unreasonable that, by such voluntary act of his own, he should be able at pleasure to unloose those bands, by which he is connected to his natural prince." - William Blackstone, 1765
There is no reason for them to bring up NBC unless it has bearing on the case. In their decision, they used NBS as the key to understanding NBC...and since WKA qualified as a NBS, and NBC was “precisely analogous”, that made him a NBC and thus a citizen.
WKA was NOT decided based on just the 14th. They used BOTH, as is clear to anyone reading the decision. To deny it is to allow one’s biases to blind one to a simple legal argument.
I didn’t ask you about British law or what allegiance a subject owes to a monarach or ‘natural prince.’ Last I recall, we don’t have any of those in the United States.
Do we have a definition of natural-born citizen?
Whether it has bearing on the case doesn't make the plaintiff a natural born citizen. The case also brings up Indians, Roman law and a French father. Applying your logic would mean that WKA was French-Roman Indian father and lawyer.
In their decision, they used NBS as the key to understanding NBC...and since WKA qualified as a NBS, and NBC was “precisely analogous”, that made him a NBC and thus a citizen.
This is fantasy. They said the term 'citizen' is precisely analogous to 'subject,' which it may be, but it doesn't mean NBS is = to NBC, especially when they've defined the latter clearly as being born in the country to citizen parents. Nothing in the decision contradicts that definition.
WKA was NOT decided based on just the 14th. They used BOTH, as is clear to anyone reading the decision.
There's no 'both.' They used English common law to support the idea that WKA would qualify as a citizen of the United States, under the 14th amendment, because his parents were permanent residents and had permanent domicile in the United States. Nothing in the decision declares the plaintiff to be an NBC.
Thanks to Minor V. Happersett, we do, “all children, born in a country of parents who were its citizens, became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners.”
Thanks justiceseeker93. By 2013, after he’s sworn in for his second term, it’ll be okay for the whole story to come out. All his straight-ticket-voter supporters who are calling anyone who disagrees with them (about this, or anything else) stupid will just say, so what?
And Justice Waite continued: "Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case it is not necessary to solve these doubts."
And Justice Waite continued: "Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case it is not necessary to solve these doubts."
Humor me.
I'm aware of Vattel, and you are correct on this point.
Actually, not quite. Vattel did not use the word "two." You'd think if it were that important, he would have put it in; but, in fact, he didn't. I believe him to be using the same construction as when one says "boys whose fathers played football are more likely to take up the sport;" or, as in Blackstone, "all children, born out of the king’s ligeance, whose fathers were natural-born subjects, are now natural-born subjects themselves." I don't think either of those statements means they only apply to children with two fathers, so I don't see why Vattel's statement has to mean two citizens. Like I said, if he meant two, he could have said two.
He is listed Barack Hussein Obama and has dual citizenship, based on the British Nationalisation Act of 1948. Constitution prohibits dualies from the office of President. It’s the dual aspect that indicates fraud to me as he ran for office.
If the argument is ‘Wait, I really am natural born ‘cause Daddy-o was Davis,’ then your point about mamma and dad dead is quite pertinent. How did he just find out about this now? If he knew before, he was running for office under false pretenses and stating his father was someone who wasn’t.
If one want’s to parse ‘Obama was my father due to the wedding.’ I would still say there was an intent to deceive and suspect a good attorney could ferret about and put together a fraud case.
Do we have a definition of natural-born citizen?
yes
Believe what you want. No state or court agrees with you. Nor does Congress, nor the voters.
If you cannot convince the legislature or DA in a place like Utah of your case, then you are not going to go ANYWHERE with it.
Vattel didn’t even use the phrase “natural born citizen”. He used natives, or indigenous...not NBC. It wasn’t until 1797 that a translation of Vattel was made that substituted NBC...
He is listed Barack Hussein Obama and has dual citizenship, based on the British Nationalisation Act of 1948. Constitution prohibits dualies from the office of President. It’s the dual aspect that indicates fraud to me as he ran for office.
If the argument is ‘Wait, I really am natural born ‘cause Daddy-o was Davis,’ then your point about mamma and dad dead is quite pertinent. How did he just find out about this now? If he knew before, he was running for office under false pretenses and stating his father was someone who wasn’t.
If one want’s to parse ‘Obama was my father due to the wedding.’ I would still say there was an intent to deceive and suspect a good attorney could ferret about and put together a fraud case.
If Obama was attempting to commit election fraud, why did he write a book about his father’s birth in Kenya called “Dreams From My Father?” He described his father’s nationality and ethnic background in great detail and he wrote that book 12 years before he ran for president.
People trying to commit fraud don’t publish books about the fradulent activity twelve years in advance of the so-called “fraud.”
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.