Posted on 03/21/2011 5:05:27 AM PDT by aruanan
Don Wade and Roma will be relating the story at 7:20AM this morning about documents surfacing that show Barry Obama registered in college as a foreign student in order to get financial aid.
Listen live at LISTEN LIVE LINK.
Impossible. There are no Fullbright scholarships for foreigners to attend college as full time matriculated students in the United States.
There were over 50 years ago when I went.
Now that's funny, right there!
There's a very good reason: they are not necessary to prove his eligibility, and the conspiracy theories people spin as a result of him not releasing them divide his oppposition.
And the fact that he has specifically fought, and wasted taxpayer dollars fighting, against the release of those documents
That is fiction, not fact.
Obama did not go to college 50 years ago.
bttt
That is the other Obama that has the edibility issue....
“What I can’t figure is what is a real denial?”
“Well, when they start calling us g**amn liars we better start circling the wagons.”
No wagons here...
You must really be sooooooo DENSE and the winner of the FR "Cod Fish Award" plus just check out #236 again. 'Nuf said!!!
You are a Blondie, right???
You seem a reasonable fellow. I am a reasonable fellow, too.
Other reasonable fellows resident in Hawaii can absolutely tell you that it was common practice in Hawaii to register foreign born children as “born in Hawaii.”
All that was required was the statement of witnesses affirming “Home Birth.” It is well known that many children, particularly from the Philippines, China, and Japan were routinely issued Hawaiian Birth Certificates on the say-so of relatives claiming “Home Birth.” Google up some Hawaiian court clerks, attorneys, hospital officers, county registrars, etc. and ask them!
Whereas a Hawaiian car title, or dog license from the 1900s to the 60’s has an excellent chance of being genuine, a Birth Certificate from that long period can offer no iron-clad guarantees!
Furthermore, birth in Hawaii, which is possible, would only make Obama (if that’s his present legal name) a Native-Born Citizen, Not a Natural Born Citizen. It is the cases for clarification of this point (i.e., Does Native = Natural?) which the courts have refused to hear on the merits.
It is my feeling that this point will not be cleared up as long as Obama is in office. Of course, no matter what any court decided, the only way he could be removed is by Impeachment in the House and Conviction in the Senate.
Of course there is also something very wrong here. You, and the GOP, insist that those who are asking the questions should put their time and energy elsewhere. What you are saying is that it is not worth the trouble, because he will be in office for the next two years anyway.
The Constitution is worth the trouble. That really has little to do with Obama. These questions must be answered, not avoided.
The state of Hawaii disagrees with the statements above. Once the state of Hawaii was created in 1959, children who were foreign born could get a Hawaiian birth document stating ONLY that they were foreign born.
“It’s crazy,” said Janice Okubo, director of communications for the Hawaii Department of Health. “I don’t think anything is ever going to satisfy them.”
Okubo, who said that she gets weekly questions from Obama ‘Birthers’ that are “more like threats,” explained that the certificate of live birth reproduced by Obama’s campaign should have debunked the conspiracy theories. “If you were born in Bali, for example,” Okubo explained, “you could get a certificate from the state of Hawaii saying you were born in Bali. You could not get a certificate saying you were born in Honolulu. The state has to verify a fact like that for it to appear on the certificate. But it’s become very clear that it doesn’t matter what I say. The people who are questioning this bring up all these implausible scenarios. What if the physician lied? What if the state lied? It’s just become an urban legend at this point.”
http://washingtonindependent.com/51489/birther-movement-picks-up-steam
However there is an actual court case specifically looking at the eligibility of Barack Hussein Obama II to receive a state’s Electoral College votes due to his father not being an American citizen. That Court case is Ankeny et. al. v The Governor of Indiana, Mitch Daniels. The Indiana Court of Appeals ruled that “...a person born within the borders of the United States is a “natural born citizen” for Article II, Section 1 purposes.”
No higher court has reversed the decision in Ankeny with regard to the eligibility of Barack Hussein Obama II.
As you correctly point out and as a federal district court judge said in dismissing an Obama eligibility lawsuit: “The process for removal of a sitting president-REMOVAL FOR ANY REASON—is within the province of Congress, not the Courts.”
I always wondered if this was the plan all along. To allow this to happen to cause civil war/civil unrest.
BFL
You have no idea how often I see this tactic on the FB political battles. It just makes me laugh every time, it used to work for them now it doesn't.
---
Obama did not go to college 50 years ago.
---
You said it was,"Impossible".
.....According to Hawaii’s Chief Elections Official, Kevin Cronin, Brian Schatz DID sign off and his signature is clearly visible along with Nancy Pelosi’s.
Note that Hawaii’s Chief Elections Official states unequivocably that “this information qualifies Sen. Barack Obama’s and Sen. Joe Biden’s names to have appeared on the Hawaii ballot.”....
http://moniquemonicat.files.wordpress.com/2008/12/hawaii-response.pdf
What did Brian Schatz sign off to?
http://articles.superhunky.com/4/276
Student: Sister Mary, does God answer prayers?
Sister Mary: Yes, my child. But often the answer is "NO!"
I feel the same way about the courts in regard to the eligibility controversy. Now, as far as this interesting question, "How was he registered at Occidental?":
Occidental says he was registered the whole time as Barack Hussein Obama, Jr. I know. I asked. The citizenship he claimed is private, as are his records, and financial aid details. End of that trail. I do know that he was mentored there by a queer communist who passed him along to "Bomber" Bill Ayers. End of that trail, too.
The reliability of Hawaiian Birth Certificates, was definitely of course an open question for many years. One trusts that as time has gone by, they are at least as reliable as Hawaiian Automobile and Boat Titles, or Honolulu Dog Licenses and Rabies Certificates. But as far as these things go, if an Hawaiian person of my vintage, of Japanese, Chinese, or Philippino ancestry were to present his Hawaiian birth certificate of the type claiming a "home birth," witnessed by Uncle Wan Hoong Low, it would at least merit an ironic smile and a raised eyebrow from this cynical New Englander, who takes all people from "away," with a dose of salts anyway, as long as their checks don't bounce.
Now about this, "Province of the Congress, not the Courts." Poor answer. Of course the damned courts can't remove the President, your Honor. But the courts can damn well establish what the hell a Natural Born Citizen is and tell the Congress if someone complies with the Constitution or not. The Congress of course, may choose to act upon the ruling or not. Surprisingly, Jamese, the courts do not agree with me.
Besides, By saying that the removal of the President is "not the province of the courts," to be deconstructionally logical, the Judge is intimating that the guy is ineligible but that he can't do anything about it. That's not helpful to the POTUS or the peasants who shall soon gather on the WH Lawn with pitchforks and scythes.
It's OK. I'll wait. Tricky business doing this with a particular SOB in mind. Sounder legally to wait until he leaves.
Jamese777, our questions about Obama will be answered. But as Sister Mary was wont to say,
Catechism Class:,
Student: Sister Mary, does God answer prayers?
Sister Mary: Yes, my child. But often the answer is “NO!”
I feel the same way about the courts in regard to the eligibility controversy. Now, as far as this interesting question, “How was he registered at Occidental?”:
Occidental says he was registered the whole time as Barack Hussein Obama, Jr. I know. I asked. The citizenship he claimed is private, as are his records, and financial aid details. End of that trail. I do know that he was mentored there by a queer communist who passed him along to “Bomber” Bill Ayers. End of that trail, too.
The reliability of Hawaiian Birth Certificates, was definitely of course an open question for many years. One trusts that as time has gone by, they are at least as reliable as Hawaiian Automobile and Boat Titles, or Honolulu Dog Licenses and Rabies Certificates. But as far as these things go, if an Hawaiian person of my vintage, of Japanese, Chinese, or Philippino ancestry were to present his Hawaiian birth certificate of the type claiming a “home birth,” witnessed by Uncle Wan Hoong Low, it would at least merit an ironic smile and a raised eyebrow from this cynical New Englander, who takes all people from “away,” with a dose of salts anyway, as long as their checks don’t bounce.
Now about this, “Province of the Congress, not the Courts.” Poor answer. Of course the damned courts can’t remove the President, your Honor. But the courts can damn well establish what the hell a Natural Born Citizen is and tell the Congress if someone complies with the Constitution or not. The Congress of course, may choose to act upon the ruling or not. Surprisingly, Jamese, the courts do not agree with me.
Besides, By saying that the removal of the President is “not the province of the courts,” to be deconstructionally logical, the Judge is intimating that the guy is ineligible but that he can’t do anything about it. That’s not helpful to the POTUS or the peasants who shall soon gather on the WH Lawn with pitchforks and scythes.
It’s OK. I’ll wait. Tricky business doing this with a particular SOB in mind. Sounder legally to wait until he leaves.
Jamese777, our questions about Obama will be answered. But as Sister Mary was wont to say,
“Perhaps not in this lifetime, my child.”
The Supreme Court of the United States established what a natural born citizen is back in 1898. The case was US v Wong Kim Ark. It is “stare decisis” and has been used as a precedent in more than 1,000 subsequent cases over the 113 years.
The lawyers representing the United States before the Supreme Court were very explicit in their briefs as to what the issues were in Wong Kim Ark. They wrote (and I quote)
“The question presented by this appeal may be thus stated: Is a person born within the United States of alien parents domiciled therein a citizen thereof by the fact of his birth? The appellant maintains the negative, and in that behalf assigns as error the ruling of the district court that the respondent is a natural-born citizen.”
The attorneys representiting United States government went on to ask: “Are Chinese children born in this country to share with the descendants of the patriots of the American Revolution the exalted qualification of being eligible to the Presidency of the nation, conferred by the Constitution in recognition of the importance and dignity of citizenship by birth?”
If Justice Horace Gray, who wrote the majority opinion in Wong Kim Ark could be brought back to life and could be interviewed on Fox News Sunday with Chris Wallace, here is what he would say, using verbatim quotations from his opinion, in which he was joined by five other Justices:
Here are pertinent excerpts from Justice Gray’s opinion in Q&A form for those who have not read it:
Question: Justice Gray, tell us, what does the citizenship clause of the 14th Amendment mean?
Justice Gray: It “affirms the ancient and fundamental rule of citizenship by birth within the territory, in the allegiance and under the protection of the country, including all children here born of resident aliens, with the exceptions or qualifications (as old as the rule itself) of children of foreign sovereigns or their ministers, or born on foreign public ships, or of enemies within and during a hostile occupation of part of our territory, and with the single additional exception of children of members of the Indian tribes owing direct allegiance to their several tribes.”
Question: How do you know that?
Justice Gray: Well, “the face of the amendment, as well as from the history of the times, this was not intended to impose any new restrictions upon citizenship, or to prevent any persons from becoming citizens by the fact of birth within the United States who would thereby have become citizens according to the law existing before its adoption.” Hence it is “declaratory of existing rights and affirmative of existing law as to each of the qualifications therein expressed.”
Question: Why would they adopt an Amendment that meant the same thing as existing law under the original Constitution?
Justice Gray: “Its main purpose doubtless was, as has been often recognized by this court, to establish the citizenship of free negroes, which had been denied in the opinion delivered by Chief Justice Taney in Dred Scott v. Sandford, (1857) 19 How. 393, and to put it beyond doubt that all blacks, as well as whites, born or naturalized within the jurisdiction of the United States are citizens of the United States.”
Question: So in order to define the meaning of the 14th Amendment, we need to first define the existing law under the original Constitution?
Justice Gray: Yes, that is what “declaratory” means.
Question: So what was existing law under the original Constitution?
Justice Gray: Well, “[t]he Constitution of the United States, as originally adopted, uses the words ‘citizen of the United States,’ and ‘natural-born citizen of the United States.” However,”[t]he Constitution nowhere defines the meaning of these words.” Hence, “[i]t must be interpreted in the light of the common law, the principles and history of which were familiarly known to the framers of the constitution….” as “[t]he 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.”
Question: So how were these terms defined under the English common law?
Justice Gray: The English common law rule was “any person who (whatever the nationality of his parents) is born within the British dominions is a natural-born British subject.” Such rule was “in force in all the English colonies upon this continent down to the time of the Declaration of Independence, and in the United States afterwards, and continued to prevail under the constitution as originally established.”
Question: But doesn’t the Constitution use the term “citizen” rather than “subject?”
Justice Gray: “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 governments” hence “subject and citizen are, in a degree, convertible terms as applied to natives.” Accordingly, “[a]ll persons born in the allegiance of the King are natural-born subjects, and all persons born in the allegiance of the United States are natural-born citizens. Birth and allegiance go together. Such is the rule of the common law, and it is the common law of this country, as well as of England. . . . We find no warrant for the opinion that this great principle of the common law has ever been changed in the United States. It has always obtained here with the same vigor, and subject only to the same exceptions, since as before the Revolution.”
Question: So generally, anyone born in the United States is a natural born citizen?
Justice Gray: Yes, the natural born citizenship clause “assumes that citizenship may be acquired by birth. Undoubtedly, this language of the Constitution was used in reference to that principle of public law, well understood in this country at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, which referred citizenship to the place of birth.”
Question: So the natural born citizenship clause and the 14th Amendment mean the same thing?
Justice Gray: Not sure how much clearer I can make it.
In my humble opinion, there is just no way that the Supreme Court is going to undo the electoral will of 69,456,897 voters.
Voici l'impasse. IMHO, there is no way the Supreme Court should not or cannot answer a question posed by 20 million voters, particularly if they can do so without undoing the electoral will of that 69,456,897.
In other words, Wong Kim Ark, et al will be revisited for needed clarification after the fool wished upon us by the aforementioned 69.5 Million voters leaves office.
Voici l’impasse. IMHO, there is no way the Supreme Court should not or cannot answer a question posed by 20 million voters, particularly if they can do so without undoing the electoral will of that 69,456,897.
In other words, Wong Kim Ark, et al will be revisited for needed clarification after the fool wished upon us by the aforementioned 69.5 Million voters leaves office.
In my humble opinion, if ever an issue falls under the “political question” category of Article III standing, this is it. Nowhere in the Constitution is the judiciary granted the power to remove a sitting president from office whether it is Obama or someone else. That power is reserved for Congress via impeachment, trial in the Senate and conviction for high crimes and misdemeanors. And nowhere in the Constitution does the word “parents” appear.
It is the responsibility of the Chief Elections Official (usually an elected Secretary of State) in the 50 states plus the District of Columbia to determine whether a candidate is eligible or not to be on a state’s ballot.
Also it is the responsiblity of the Congress meeting in joint session as required by the Twelfth Amendment to submit written challenges to the certification of the electoral college votes of any candidate who might be ineligible. Two such written challenges triggers an immediate investigation by each House of Congress into the validity of the challenge.
It is possible that a judicial ruling on the issue of whether a president-elect has not “qualified” for the office of the presidency under the provisions of the 20th Amendment might reach the Supreme Court.
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.