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 ...
Evidently you don’t understand what he’s saying. The definition he cited is the ONLY ONE without doubts. That’s why he used it. He would have to try to resolve doubts about any other definition, which he never said was possible, but there was no need because there is a definition for which there is no doubt.
Sorry, but this is a very stupid argument. Vattel was giving a definition for natural citizenship at birth ... it takes no stretch to translate this as natural born citizenship. Second, he's still saying that in order to be a 'native,' you still have to born in the country to citizen parents.
Yikes. Is this silly faither arugment day?? You answered your own question. He didn't decide to commit fraud until well after the book was written ... and he did so by focusing on place of birth, not his parentage.
Now, Mr. Rogers, why would Surpreme Court Justices at the beginning of this nation’s founding make a declaration so clear, so concise, that anyone else can recognize it but you?
Please give me the case law where our founders purpose was shat upon by latter Supreme Court Justices.
Yikes. Is this silly faither arugment day?? You answered your own question. He didn’t decide to commit fraud until well after the book was written ... and he did so by focusing on place of birth, not his parentage.
“Focusing on place of birth, not parentage” bears no relationship to commiting the crime of fraud. Either a candidate qualifies for the ballot and a state’s electoral votes or they don’t and it is the responsibility of the chief election official in each state plus the District of Columbia to determine who is qualified and who isn’t. In most states, that chief election official is the Secretary of State. In some states, it’s the Lieutenant Governor who has the final say (short of a court of law deciding in the case of a disputed claim)in who qualifies for the ballot and who doesn’t.
I’ll let US District Court Judge Clay D. Land’s words speak for me: “The Court observes that the President defeated seven opponents in a grueling campaign for his party’s nomination that lasted more than eighteen months and cost those opponents well over $300 million. Then the President faced a formidible opponent in the general election who received $84 million to conduct his general election campaign against the President. It would appear that ample opportunity existed for discovery of evidence that would support any contention that the President was not eligible for the office he sought. Futhermore, Congress is apparently satisfied that the President is qualified to serve. Congress has not instituted impeachment proceedings, and in fact, the House of Representatives in a broad bipartisan manner has rejected the suggestion that the President is not eligible for office. See H.R.Res, 593, 111th Cong. (2009)(commemorating, by vote of 378-0, the 50th anniversary of Hawaii’s statehood and stating, “the 44th President of the United States, Barack Obama, was born in Hawaii on August 4, 1961.”—U.S. Federal District Court Judge for the Middle District of Georgia, Clay D. Land in dismissing Rhodes v MacDonald, September 14, 2009
Perhaps there was no need, but the court did so anyway.
What is STUPID is arguing that the phrase ‘natural born citizen’ is based on a poor translation that didn’t appear for years afterward.
You see, when someone bases B on A, A must come before B.
We're sure you know a lot of 6th graders, but not much else.
Sorry but this is nonsense. Minor and WKA cited this definition of natural born citizen and borrowed it nearly verbatim from that ‘poor translation.’ Since you’re an expert at French, you post your tranlsation and then explain why you think it ISN’T talking about natural citizenship at birth. Can’t wait for your next cranial explosion.
Contrary to those that believe otherwise, Obie isn’t smarter than a fifth grader....and arrogant pathological liars think they never will get caught. Did he plan on running for President 14 years ago or did he change his mind since then?
I don’t know about your ‘shat’, but the Founders did not give a solitary explanation of what NBC meant. They gave multiple explanations, and there was a very strong case made from the beginning that it meant any citizen born in the USA as opposed to a naturalized citizen.
So one or two Justices giving an explanation does not equate to the Supreme Court giving one in a ruling - which they DID in WKA. Clarence Thomas can say whatever he wants to say, but he does not speak for the Court unless he is writing the majority opinion.
You once again quote SR 511 without pointing out its relevance is ONLY to those born abroad. There was no resolution passed on Obama since no one thought it was needed - the Supreme Court had already ruled that two citizen parents were not a requirement for those born in the USA.
You dodged the question you were asked. Did Soebarkah plan on running for president 14 years ago??
The Supreme Court has never ruled that, and there’s no verifiable proof Soebarkah was born in the USA.
blah bla bla...etc...etc..same old garbage in garbage out...
"They gave *multiple explanations*, and there was a very *strong case made from the beginning that it meant any* citizen born in the USA as opposed to a naturalized citizen*."
Aside from being a contradictory sentence, you fools make assertions that you cannot substantiate. You liars are not very good at your 'profession'. of course you've read what the man who is accredited with authoring the fourteenth amendment. Bingham makes it plain that parents who are citizens and being born on U.S. soil is what it means to be a natural born citizen. Do I need to post the quote of him speaking on the floor of the Congress?
You're scum for tring to confuse and conflate daily at FR, missy rogers.
“Supreme Court Justice Wilson, in his 1st commentaries, blasts Blackstone’s theory by citing that the definition of ’subject’ per English common law according to Blackstone was not the definition of ‘citizen’ as adopted by the framers of the US Constitution. A ’subject’ is ruled by an all powerful central government/monarchy and the under the new Constitution of the United States, the central government’s power is derived from the people, the citizens.”
Hmmm...what did the Supreme Court say? They quoted the Court of North Carolina approvingly for writing:
“The term “citizen,” as understood in our law, is precisely analogous to the term “subject” in the common law, and the change of phrase has entirely resulted from the change of government. The sovereignty has been transferred from one man to the collective body of the people, and he who before as a “subject of the king” is now “a citizen of the State.””
I’ll repeat, “the change of phrase has entirely resulted from the change of government. The sovereignty has been transferred from one man to the collective body of the people”
They saw no difference between natural born subject and natural born citizen other than a change in phrase due to the change in form of government - the essence remained “precisely analogous”.
There is no ambiguity there, and it is part of the ruling made by the full court.
The Supreme Court used one definition of natural born citizen. It is the only definition for which there is no doubt. “all children, born in a country of parents who were its citizens.” Simple, elegant and absolute.
I can also provide quotes from the Congressional debate in the 1860s - so what? They do not define legal terms, since multiple people can say whatever they want on the floor.
The Supreme Court said NBS = NBC, and since a NBS could have 2 alien parents, so could a NBC. It is clear.
That is why you and your circle jerk friends cannot get anyone to agree with you - not McCain, not Palin, not a single state DA, not a single state SecState, not Congress, not a Court - NO ONE agrees with you. Anyone who reads can see what the Court ruled in WKA.
But as I’ve said before, if birthers could read, they wouldn’t be birthers.
No. You do not get your own set of facts. The Supreme Court went to lengths to discuss the meaning of NBS in order to show what the original intent was of the phrase NBC - and to argue that WKA was a citizen because A) he was a NBC, and B) the 14th amendment made him so.
Again, you can piss and moan all you want, but no one with any legal responsibility anywhere agrees with you. No one.
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.