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 ...
It doesn’t create reasonable doubt at all. Obama and the Democrats managed to focus the eligiblity questions on place of birth, particularly by creating an unnecessary resolution for John McCain who admits he was born out of the country, but who can actually prove where he was born. Obama can’t prove where he was born. The focus on Obama’s inability to prove his place of birth kept most people from realizing that his parents’ citizenships mattered too. By the time it was brought up again, it was too late.
You can lead a horse to water, but you can’t make him read and understand. I even made it easy for you by citing the specific parts of sentences that prove the point, and instead you go back to looking at a forest in order to justify intentional blindness. Just admit you’ve been pwned and make it easy for yourself.
Yes I know. It was a typo. I meant to say that children of slaves WERE NOT citizens under common law. Hence the need for the 14th Amendment to declare ALL PERSONS, not just free persons, born in the USA as citizens.
That's why the 14th Amendemnt was not redundant.
I’m amused that you play stupid, but it’s typical when you can’t counter the argument that was presented. Here, try an exercise.
Obama is considered as white.
Obama is white.
Which of these statements is more declarative??
Then you agree with me. The 14th amendment wasn't redundant. Anyone who believes that it makes someone a natural born citizen HAS to believe that is redundant because the faither argument is that the 14th amendment was simply declarative of common law. Clearly it wasn't because common law didn't make illegal aliens, their children, persons in slavery or persons born into slavery to be natural subjects. There's hope for you yet.
As defined by Justice Waite (and Vattel), to be a native citizen, you have to be born in the country of citizens who are parents. Somehow in the last 100 years or so, people assume native citizen simply refers to jus soli birth, but that's not the legal definition as stated in the decision.
bump
If they have different meanings, then they mean different things. That's elementary.
No, actually it’s completely relevant because you think the existence of the book proves he didn’t commit fraud. The only way this is true is if he planned 14 years ago to run for president.
LOL. That's called ripping phrases out of context, something birthers tend to do a lot of when attempting to provide evidence for their claim that natural born status necessitates citizen parents.
Loren, I think we have another tactic for the list.
All it did was expand the common law definition to include as natural born citizens persons born into slavery.
Anyone who believes that it makes someone a natural born citizen HAS to believe that is redundant because the faither argument is that the 14th amendment was simply declarative of common law.
The 14th Amendement is redundant with respect to free persons, as it did not change the criteria necessary for free persons to be natural born citizens. That's why the court in Kim Wong Ark relied as much on common law precedent as it did on the 14th Amendment.
As you have been shown time and again, Justice Waite never said that, your attempts to rip his sentences out of context in order to change their meaning notwithstanding.
LOL! Talk about projection!
“Then why did they waste so much space discussing children of citizens living abroad? That, obviously, had nothing at all to do with WKA.”
First, they examined the NBC clause in light of the common law meaning of NBS. Since a NBS included those born within the realm regardless of alien parents (unless ambassadors), and NBS = NBC, thus WKA was a NBC and thus a citizen per the Constitution and not subject to any treaties to the contrary with China.
They cited a previous court, saying, “There is, however, one clear exception to the statement that there is no national common law. The interpretation of the Constitution of the United States is necessarily influenced by the fact that its provisions are framed in the language of the English common law, and are to be read in the light of its history.”
Thus they used common law to interpret what the Framers meant - not because common law ruled America, but because common law provided the legal phrases used by the Framers.
Next, they looked at the claim of citizenship of children born abroad. Why? Because, as they note [and the IV marks a change in thought]:
“IV. It was contended by one of the learned counsel for the United States that the rule of the Roman law, by which the citizenship of the child followed that of the parent, was the true rule of international law, as now recognized in most civilized countries, and had superseded the rule of the common law, depending on birth within the realm, originally founded on feudal considerations.”
To answer this objection, they wrote, as they changed from NBC to citizen born abroad:
“The later modifications of the rule in Europe rest upon the constitutions, laws or ordinances of the various countries, and have no important bearing upon the interpretation and effect o the Constitution of the United States. The English Naturalization Act of 33 Vict. (1870) c. 14, and the Commissioners’ Report of 1869, out of which it grew, both bear date since the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution; and, as observed by Mr. Dicey, that act has not affected the principle by which any person who, whatever the nationality of his parents, is born within the British dominions, acquires British nationality at birth and is a natural-born British subject. Dicey, Conflict of Laws 41...Both in England and in the United States, indeed, statutes have been passed at various times enacting that certain issue born abroad of English subjects or of American citizens, respectively, should inherit, to some extent at least, the rights of their parents. But those statutes applied only to cases coming within their purport, and they have never been considered in either country as affecting the citizenship of persons born within its dominion.”
Notice it has been by acts of Parliament or Congress that citizenship is given to children born abroad of citizen parents, not the Constitution. This is to counter the claim that China could call WKA a citizen and negate his birthplace. And while some countries did so, the claim of citizenship based on parentage doesn’t negate what the Constitution gives to those born within our borders. Thus China could not claim WKA as their citizen, and the US accept it by treaty, since it would be based on laws and treaties rather than the Constitution.
They are discussing those born abroad because it would affect WKA - as the child of Chinese citizens, does the claim of China overrule the citizenship by birth? And the Supreme Court answers no, because the Constitution NBC overrides acts of Parliament, Congress, treaties, Chinese law, etc - and it is only by those that WKA could be considered a Chinese citizen.
Further, they point out:
“Moreover, under those statutes, as is stated in the Report in 1869 of the Commissioners for inquiring into the Laws of Naturalization and Allegiance, no attempt has ever been made on the part of the British Government, (unless in Eastern countries where special jurisdiction is conceded by treaty) to enforce claims upon, or to assert rights in respect of, persons born abroad, as against the country of their birth whilst they were resident therein, and when by its law they were invested with its nationality.”
I.e., the claim of parentage is weaker than the claim of location. The UK can claim Obama if they wish, but he remains a NBC because of his birth here, and the Court pointed out the British have never tried to enforce their act against the will of the individual.
The Court concluded:
“Here is nothing to countenance the theory that a general rule of citizenship by blood or descent has displaced in this country the fundamental rule of citizenship by birth within its sovereignty.
So far as we are informed, there is no authority, legislative, executive or judicial, in England or America, which maintains or intimates that the statutes (whether considered as declaratory or as merely prospective) conferring citizenship on foreign-born children of citizens have superseded or restricted, in any respect, the established rule of citizenship by birth within the dominion. “
Also, this answers your objection about the 1790 naturalization act, which mimics the acts of Parliament in declaring the child of two citizens born abroad a NBC/S.
At some point, it helps to read their decision, paying attention to formatting - the latter helps one understand when they are changing from one concern to another. Look for the III, IV, V etc - they indicate a major change in argument.
Especially if it's not there.
It doesn’t create reasonable doubt at all. Obama and the Democrats managed to focus the eligiblity questions on place of birth, particularly by creating an unnecessary resolution for John McCain who admits he was born out of the country, but who can actually prove where he was born. Obama can’t prove where he was born. The focus on Obama’s inability to prove his place of birth kept most people from realizing that his parents’ citizenships mattered too. By the time it was brought up again, it was too late.
The earliest Obama eligibility lawsuits (from Wikipedia):
Berg v. Obama
On August 21, 2008, Pennsylvania attorney Philip J. Berg, a Democrat and former deputy state attorney general, filed a complaint alleging that Obama was born in Kenya, not Hawaii, and was therefore a citizen of Kenya or possibly Indonesia, where he lived as a child. He alleged that the “Certification of Live Birth” on Obama’s website is a forgery. U.S. District Judge R. Barclay Surrick dismissed the complaint in October 2008, finding that Berg lacked standing to bring the case and that his attempts to gain standing to pursue his claim were “frivolous and not worthy of discussion.”
Martin’s lawsuit sought to order the state to release a copy of Sen. Obama’s long-form birth certificate. The short-form birth certificate that the Obama campaign posted online states his place of birth as Honolulu, Hawaii.
Donofrio was not among those who claimed Obama might have been born outside Hawaii. Also, Donofrio did not challenge the fact that Obama is a U.S. citizen and instead challenged only whether Obama is a natural-born citizen.
The case was referred to the Supreme Court by Justice Clarence Thomas. When the case reached the United States Supreme Court on December 8, 2008, the Court declined without comment to hear the case.
Priceless
Power play for the dem party is coming. The old guard can either fight now even if it destroys the party for a little while or they can give up the ghost to the communist which are quickly destroying the party themselves so hurting the party right now does not really matter if they want their party back...
Next question is what happened to his citizenship when he was adopted....in a country that does not allow duel citizenship supposedly.
James you are completely ignorant about when 0bama decided to run for president. It was at least 30 years ago!
http://nygoe.wordpress.com/2009/11/17/barack-obama-sighting-hawaii-1980/
Why do you waste so much of your life defending that POS fraud? Get a life Jimmy boy!
Regardless of where he was born or about his citizenship, Obama doesn’t think or act like a patriotic American.
LOL...Hillary
Priceless
Power play for the dem party is coming. The old guard can either fight now even if it destroys the party for a little while or they can give up the ghost to the communist which are quickly destroying the party themselves so hurting the party right now does not really matter if they want their party back...
Next question is what happened to his citizenship when he was adopted....in a country that does not allow duel citizenship supposedly.
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.