Posted on 08/30/2011 5:13:00 AM PDT by tutstar
Evidence continues to mount that President Obama was adopted by his Indonesian stepfather, Lolo Soetoro, raising concerns over his presidential eligibility.
Obama’s American mother, Ann Dunham, separated from her first husband, Barack Obama Sr., in 1963 when the president was 2 years old. Dunham and Obama Sr. are reported to have later divorced.
In Hawaii, Dunham married Lolo Soetoro, an Indonesian, in 1965 and moved to Indonesia in October 1967.
Divorce documents filed in Hawaii on Aug. 20, 1980, refer to Obama as the “child” of both Soetoro and Dunham, indicating a possible adoption in the U.S.
The divorce records state: “The parties have 1 child(ren) below age 18 and 1 child(ren) above 18 but still dependent on the parties for education.”
(Excerpt) Read more at kleinonline.wnd.com ...
If you have comments from these people who support your position, post them and I will add it to the "Con" category.
As for Madison, I already have him on that list. (even though he voted for the "naturalization act of 1790 which has no part of "jus soli" in it, and therefore completely contradicts his stated position in his speech.)
As for Justice Joseph Story in Inglis v. Trustees of Sailor's Snug Harbor, 28 U.S. 99 (1830), It regards the citizenship of a person born during the transition from English law to American law, so is proof of nothing. All of the founders were born British subjects in Accordance with English law. Also regarding Justice Story, he was a member of the Supreme court when the Venus Case was decided. During it, CHIEF JUSTICE MARSHALL Quotes the salient passage from Vattel:
"Vattel, who, though not very full to this point, is more explicit and more satisfactory on it than any other whose work has fallen into my hands, says"
"The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives or indigenes are those born in the country of parents who are citizens. Society not being able to subsist and to perpetuate itself but by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights."
See for yourself:
http://supreme.justia.com/us/12/253/case.html
As for St George Tucker, He said this:
That provision in the constitution which requires that the president shall be a native-born citizen (unless he were a citizen of the United States when the constitution was adopted,) is a happy means of security against foreign influence, which, wherever it is capable of being exerted, is to he dreaded more than the plague. The admission of foreigners into our councils, consequently, cannot be too much guarded against; their total exclusion from a station to which foreign nations have been accustomed to, attach ideas of sovereign power, sacredness of character, and hereditary right, is a measure of the most consummate policy and wisdom. … The title of king, prince, emperor, or czar, without the smallest addition to his powers, would have rendered him a member of the fraternity of crowned heads: their common cause has more than once threatened the desolation of Europe. To have added a member to this sacred family in America, would have invited and perpetuated among us all the evils of Pandora’s Box.
Something tells me that St. George Tucker would be none too quick to support your boy's claim for President. It seems that when you think you have men who support your side, they also seem to support the other side. At most, your references seem ambiguous and often contradictory, while the quotes I provide seem certain and absolute, with little question as to their meaning. The Chief Justice of the SUPREME COURT QUOTES VATTEL ON CITIZENSHIP! For crying out loud! You can't get any more direct than that.
I don’t think the Madison quote is worth squat. He was talking about the unique situation that arose following the Revolution, re: the children of the Loyalists who had themselves given no evidence at any time of divided loyalties. It was an ephemeral situation, besides which Obama has given no evidence of anything *other than* divided loyalties.
Don't take it up with me, I didn't write it. Did you miss the references as to who did?
(8 1 Willoughby, The Constitution §202 (1922); Flournoy and Hudson, Nationality Laws (1929); Harvard Research in International Law on Nationality, 23 AM. J. INT. L., Spec. Supp. 80 (1929).
Whether it be correct or not, it is the opinion expressed by those legal scholars in 1929, and it asserts that jus Sanguinius was the dominant requirement of natural born citizen status.
All the sources I've seen put it as March of 1965, when Obama was 4. And also state that while Soetoro was required to return to Indonesia in 1966, Obama and his mother didn't join him until October of 1967 when he would have been 6. Unless Soetoro started the adoption process before Obama joined him then there is no way to make the ages work. And there is no paper trail showing that he did. So there are just as many factors working against Obama being an Indonesian citizen as people claim there are for it.
I am not so intimately familiar with the applicable laws in such a situation in (1971) as to be able to say that an Indonesian Adoption is of no Consequence for an American Citizen later in their life.
I can't say it is of no consequence to the individual but I can say that in the case of international adoptions, adoption in a U.S. court does not impact records in the adopted child's country of birth. I see no reason to believe that the reverse would be true. Foreign courts can't seal U.S. records and U.S. courts can't seal foreign records.
Someone pointed out to me that the United States is a Signatory to the Hague Convention on International adoptions, so it may very well cause Legal complications in American law.
The Hague Convention on International Adoption was signed in 1995.
My understanding is that that claim hasn't been nailed down. I recall seeing information which contradicts it. That's one major problem with any discussion about Obama, stuff has to be verified repeatedly before it can be accepted as true.
His mother was enrolled in the University of Washington just three weeks after Obama was “born” in August, 1961. In 1962, she lives in Seattle. It makes more sense to me that she was living in Washington, had the baby across the border, and came back to live and finish her studies.She could not have done that living in Hawaii and having a three week old baby.Grandma Dunham, working in Hawaii, took care of the documentation for her daughter, including getting a SS number when Obama needed one, since she was working at the time in probate court in Honolulu, whee she knew the SS numbers of those who died, especially those who died intestate.
That is currently my favored theory regarding him, but there is a teeny bit of evidence which contradicts it. Among Barack Obama sr.'s immigration papers, there is a reference Stanley Ann getting ready to leave Hawaii to go to Seattle, and I think it was around the Summer of 1961. It doesn't PROVE she was there in Hawaii, but it certainly indicates it.
Anything “official” about Obama is suspect as a fact.
Absolutely. Anything asserted as a "fact" needs to be double and triple checked.
Which means we have a very dangerous situation in DC since January 20, 2009 at noon.
And the Danger is ongoing, probably long after the "precedent" is gone.
There is no doubt that Obama recited the Indonesian pledge of allegiance on a daily basis while we recited the American pledge and put our hands over our hearts.
On its face, his presidency is an assault on the constitution. There's no way around it.
DL, thanks for your reasoned reply, and for taking the time to address all those who have posted to you.
I learn a lot from your posts on these threads.
I have also pointed out that the very next thing Madison says is:
"Mr. Smith founds his claim upon his birthright; his ancestors were among the first settlers of that colony."
A appeal to Jus Sanguinus! :)
Madison also mentions that:
It is an established maxim that birth is a criterion of allegiance. Birth however derives its force sometimes from place and sometimes from parentage..."
Another reference to Jus Sanguinius!
Furthermore, he voted to regard the Children born abroad of Americans parents as "natural born citizens" which is Jus Sanguinius completely!
Even with all that, I will give the other side his quote as a freebie, but I note that it is rendered ambiguous by his actions, and his other references to Jus Sanguinius.
Thank you for the additional information and the excellent commentary. I learn so much from reading your posts. You are more of a scholar than I’ll ever be—but I can and do benefit from your research.
Thank you
You got exactly what you wanted: your interpretation of NBC is sitting in the Oval Office.
Nowhere did I say this is what I wanted - fallacy on your part, and attempted smear as well. If you read my posts carefully, you'll note that and more besides about what I want for the next election. As Steel Wolf said, "I get that there's a lot of anti-American sentiment in Obama's past associations, but it's home grown American anti-Americanism."
you never did say what you thought about Obama’s rush to gayify the military. This is what you get with the son of a foreign enemy of the USA—the destruction of everything good about the country.) You should be pleased.
Garbage. Another attempted smear based on nothing. ("You didn't denounce X even though it had nothing to do with the main discussion point! therefore you support and love X!") Anything that diminishes the effectiveness of the military, negatively affects unit cohesion and morale is obviously a stupid idea and undermines the US. I am far from "pleased." Now cut the sideshow BS.
I disagree with your interpretation of the Constitution.
Fine. Go refute the list in post #170 for a start. Because that's the real issue here, that the Courts, various legislators, legal scholars, etc. have interpreted the Constitution that way, not your way.
Why are you in such a bad, angry mood?
I think that's you. I'm not the one wandering off the point, looking to pick fights and smear other posters about unrelated issues. The main issue is whether or not 0bama is ineligible (and if he is, so are Marco Rubio and Bobby Jindal) because of your definition of NBC. The courts have not agreed with your definition. One point on this thread was whether Indonesian citizenship as a child means loss of US citizenship. The State Department clearly says "no." Now can you stick to the main issues, or does your screen name describe your posting style?
Not at all. Using your numbers, the documents in evidence still indicate him being under 5. Lolo needed take no action at all. Should Barry's citizenship in Indonesia be questioned, (such as by the school to which he was admitted) Ann need only trot over there with Barry's birth certificate (indicating his age) and her Marriage license (indicating when Lolo married her) and a copy of that Indonesian law, and Ouala! He is admitted to the school.
I can't say it is of no consequence to the individual but I can say that in the case of international adoptions, adoption in a U.S. court does not impact records in the adopted child's country of birth. I see no reason to believe that the reverse would be true. Foreign courts can't seal U.S. records and U.S. courts can't seal foreign records.
I'm not suggesting they would. Only an Adoption under Hawaiian law would do that. We seem to be conflating one aspect of this with another. They are related, but not necessarily interdependent.
1. Was Barry adopted under Indonesian law. (The evidence to my mind clearly indicates "yes.")
2. Was Barry adopted under Hawaiian law. (Less clear cut, but again, circumstantial evidence indicates that he was.)
Another piece of evidence regarding Barry being adopted by Soetoro is the statement made by his sister (Maya Soetoro) where she said this:
"you were suggesting that because my father, his stepfather, had adopted him, that my brother was no longer American"
Yeah, it's a little ambiguous, but if Lolo had NOT adopted Obama, It would be reasonable to think she would have just said so.
Yes, you did get what you want. You got a man who is the offspring of a foreigner. You are arguing that the right of foreigners—even America’s most virulent enemies—to father our presidents is what the NBC requirement is there to protect. Otherwise, it would exclude them by limiting that one office to the children of American citizens.
You’ve turned very nasty today. Change your tone; there is no justification for it. I posit that it is absurd on its face that the Founders put in the NBC requirement to protect King George’s right to father a future POTUS. You defend that position. When I point that out, you attack me. That is truly nasty and repugnant behavior; knock it off.
he was born an American citizen, whether his parents were at the time of his birth British subjects or American citizens. Nothing is better settled at the common law than the doctrine that the children even of aliens born in a country, while the parents are resident there under the protection of the government, and owing a temporary allegiance thereto, are subjects by birth.The Constitution only mentions two types of citizens - natural born and naturalized. There is no third category. Many sources use "natural born" and "native born" interchangeably.
Don't mention it. I enjoy doing it and regard it as a civic responsibility.
I learn a lot from your posts on these threads.
I do what I can to make sure I am posting accurate information. Occasionally I get something wrong, and when it is pointed out I make every effort to own up to it. Recently I posted a quote which I believed to be from the Supreme court, but it was pointed out to me by Kleon that it was actually a quote from the plaintiff's attorney, so I admitted fault for not checking it out more thoroughly. (Too many people post stuff and Assert that it means this or that without actually proving it.)
In any case, much of what I post is friendly plagerizations of what other people have researched and found. Bushpilot1, Spaulding, rxsid, Little Jeremiah, Butterzillion, Red Steel, Mario Apuzzo, Leo Donofrio, and countless others have done excellent work in digging up this information, and they deserve credit for it. Here's to you folks! You are doing a great service in educating our nation.
Anytime, I enjoy doing it.
That is a good point. The positions in the Article of each requirement can be regarded as in order of importance.
" he was born an American citizen, whether his parents were at the time of his birth British subjects or American citizens. Nothing is better settled at the common law than the doctrine that the children even of aliens born in a country, while the parents are resident there under the protection of the government, and owing a temporary allegiance thereto, are subjects by birth. "
That Britain grabs anyone for any reason is not proof in support of your claim. The man in question was born during the transition period, so his birth was governed by the laws in effect THEN, not those placed into affect after 1789 with the Adoption of the New American Constitution. I do not understand why you bother citing this case. Here is a better one.
THE VENUS, 12 U. S. 253 (1814)
Chief Justice John Marshall: "Vattel, who, though not very full to this point, is more explicit and more satisfactory on it than any other whose work has fallen into my hands, says"
"The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives or indigenes are those born in the country of parents who are citizens. Society not being able to subsist and to perpetuate itself but by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights."
The Constitution only mentions two types of citizens - natural born and naturalized. There is no third category.
It mentions "natural born citizen" and those who are not. The term "citizen" can be broken into several categories.
1. Born abroad of American Parents. (plural)
2. Born abroad of an American parent (singular)
3. Native born of Foreign parents. (14th amendment citizenship only, and THAT wrongly applied.)
4. Native born of a Foreign parent and an American. (Born with one foreign allegiance.)
5. Native born to American parents (Natural born citizen.)
6. Born abroad of Foreign parents and naturalized.
Of the above, only one can claim no foreign allegiances whatsoever, and that is the standard defined by Vattel and cited many times by name and/or by definition subsequently throughout our history.
Many sources use "natural born" and "native born" interchangeably.
There was a time when they meant virtually the same thing, but the Cable act and the Women's citizenship act changed that. (Native born dual citizens)
This is why your argument is so stupid. Ponder that for a bit.
They can’t be shamed into seeing the absurdity of their position. I explained it to one this way. Mr. and Ms. Communist Red China come to the US in the woman’s ninth month, drop child and head straight back to China. They raise the kid to love communism and hate the USA. They get him back in the US in time to qualify for POTUS. If he wins, the ‘soil only’ crowd is getting exactly what they want: a system that doesn’t discriminate, even against foreign enemies.
To suggest that’s what the Founders intended is insane. Still the soil-only crowd will do it. Go figure.
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.