Donate Just One Monthly
And Become a FR Hero
Sponsors will contribute $10
For each new monthly sign-up
Posted on 05/22/2012 7:56:20 AM PDT by Brown Deer
Two men who identified themselves as being from the Maricopa County Sheriff's Office in Phoenix went to the Hawaii Department of Health Monday morning requesting verification of President Barack Obama's birth certificate, said a state spokeswoman.
A Hawaii deputy attorney general gave the men information concerning the legal requirements to obtain such a document; the requirements are posted on the Health Department's website. The two men then left the office, Health Department spokeswoman Janice Okubo said.
The two men showed Maricopa County Sheriff's Office badges and identified themselves as Michael Zullo and Brian Mackiewcz, Okubo said. They are "authorized by the Sheriff of Maricopa County, who is conducting an official investigation," a spokesman for the sheriff's office said in an email.
Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio has been researching Obama's residency status using a volunteer cold-case "posse," but now has employed a taxpayer-funded deputy, The Arizona Republic reported Monday.
Zullo is a volunteer, the Republic reported, but Okubo said that Mackiewicz presented a business card showing he is with the Threats Management Unit of the sheriff's office.
Arapaio's birth certificate investigation comes as the U.S. Justice Department is suing his office for alleged civil rights violations, including discrimination against Hispanics.
Separately, Arizona Secretary of State Ken Bennett, who says he is not a "birther," said in a radio interview Thursday that Obama's Arizona ballot status is in question unless Hawaii responds positively to his request under a Hawaii law regarding confirmation of birth certificates.
Hawaii Department of Attorney General spokesman Josh Wisch said Monday the department has been in touch with Bennett since Friday and that he would need to provide legal authority showing his office is "a governmental agency or organization who for a legitimate government purpose maintains and needs to update official lists of persons in the ordinary course of the agency's or organization's activities."
Obama was born in Honolulu on Aug. 4, 1961. Birthers contend Obama was not born in the United States and thus not eligible to be president. The state released a copy of Obama's long-form birth certificate last year, but the release did not satisfy many birthers.
Bennett, a Republican who is reportedly considering a run for governor in Arizona, said Friday he assumes he'll get the confirmation he requested in March from Hawaii officials.
I have never asserted otherwise.
In Post #17, atc23 posited that in order to be NBC, the parents must be born in the USA. Ne was challenged on this by New Jersey Realist in Post 57, whereupon NJR was attacked by MHGinTN in Post 61. In Post 77, I supported NJR’s contention that it is NOT required that the parents be born in the USA, a position to which I still adhere. Buckeye Texan and Jeff Vader understood my post, however, as others (unnamed) could not, they chose to insult me and try out some creative name calling.
I’ve been here a while, understand clearly the issue, and agree that Zippy is not NBC. Would that others on this thread could read and think before shooting from the hip.
And yet at least nine times the US supreme Court has defined “natural born” as born of two citizen parents
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
References please.
Then answer this question. If Vattel wrote: “The natives, or indigenes, are those born in the country of parents who are citizens” then why didn’t the framers do likewise if they meant it to be that way?
“Natural Born” means a status that exists as a result the of nature of one’s birth - no act of man or government can change that.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Exactly correct!!!!! A naturalized citizen cannot be president; that is what that means. Born of the soil = natural. There are TWO categories of citizens spelled out in the Constitution: Natural and Naturalized.
Tell me ONE authority that will declare obummer not to be NBC and make it stick UNLESS they prove he was not born in HI. Who are you people preaching to, the wind? No one believes you. Give up the insanity!
Believe me, Hell will freeze over before he is declared not to be eligible and removed from office unless it can be proven that he was not born in America. IT WILL NEVER HAPPEN. It will not happen because the framers didn’t require two parent citizens if born in the USA.
The common law of England has not been declared by the Constitution to be a part of the law of the United States.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Of course what you say in the above sentence is true. We rebelled against England after all, BUT
Where is the proof that the framers relied upon Vattel for their definition of NBC?
Vattel wrote: “The natives, or indigenes, are those born in the country of parents who are citizens.” If Vattel coined the phrase as such, then why didn’t the framers do likewise if they meant it to be that way? Why instead did they use a phrase understood in common law? Were they stupid?
Yes, that's Sunnny Boy's proof he's a NBC just like the squatter in the WH.
Aliens do not produce citizens, “natural born” or otherwise. Aliens produce aliens. See the Naturalization Acts of 1790, et. seq.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Are you serious? Unless a baby born on US soil belongs to ambassadors or foreign representative, he/she received an American birth certificate. A certificate of birth attesting to the fact that it was born on U.S. soil. A natural citizen. JUS SOLI.
A baby born overseas to American citizens is issued an American birth certificate by the American Consul in that country. A natural citizen. JUS SANGUINE.
EVERYONE else is a foreigner and requires a court to declare him or her a U.S. citizen. Naturalized citizen.
If the framers wanted a citizen parent rule for those born on U.S. soil, they would have mentioned it, don’t you think?
The Supreme Court (PERKINS v. ELG, 307 U.S. 325 (1939)
307 U.S. 325) quoted the following from a lower-court ruling in their findings:
“Young Steinkauler is a native-born American citizen. There is no law of the United States under which his father or any other person can deprive him of his birthright. He can return to America at the age of twenty-one, and in due time, if the people elect, he can become President of the United States;”
Young Steinkauler had alien parents! If this doesn’t define NBC I don’t know what else does?
Despite all the verbiage, Minor v. Happersett basically stated that it was the English common law rule that was incorporated into the NBC clause. The court never made a ruling on NBC - just instructed us to look elsewhere (English common law) to define NBC. Common law at the time for people born in the U.S. (except for children of ambassadors, etc) were JUS SOLI - Natural Born Citizens. If the framers had meant otherwise, they would have written it down.
Try to digest this quickie:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/84531299/AZ-2012-03-07-Allen-v-Obama-C20121317-ORDER-Dismissing-Complaint:
Preliminarily, the Court notes that Plaintiff’s ballot challenge does not fit neatly, if at all, within A.R.S.§ 16-351. Although Arizona courts have addressed challenges dealing with federal offices,
see, e.g., Harless v. Lockwood,
85 Ariz. 97, 100, 332 P.2d 887, 888 (1958), the current controversy over the President’s qualification under the United States Constitution to hold the office of the President of the United States is uniquely federal in character and better suited for the federal courts to handle following the upcomingPresidential election.
See Markham Robinson v. Bowen
, 567 F.Supp.2d 1144, 1147 (N.D.Cal. 2008);
see alsoKeyes v. Bowen
, 117 Cal.Rptr.3d 207, 216-17 (Cal. Ct. App.),
cert. denied
, U.S. , 132 S.Ct. 199 (2011).But even assuming that the current challenge falls within this Court’s purview to decide, there are indispensible parties, most notably Arizona’s Secretary of State, who has not been named in the lawsuit.
See
A.R.S.§ 16-344(A), (B). Most importantly, Arizona courts are bound by United States Supreme Court precedent inconstruing the United States Constitution,
Arizona v. Jay J. Garfield Bldg. Co.
, 39 Ariz. 45, 54, 3 P.2d 983, 986(1931), and this precedent fully supports that President Obama is a natural born citizen under the Constitutionand thus qualified to hold the office of President.
See United States v. Wong Kim Ark
, 169 U.S. 649, 702-03(1898) (addressing U. S. Const. amend. XIV);
Ankeny v. Governor of the State of Indiana
, 916 N.E.2d 678,684-88 (Ind. App. 2010) (addressing the precise issue). Contrary to Plaintiff’s assertion,
Minor v. Happersett
,88 U.S. 162 (1874), does not hold otherwise. Finally, Plaintiff has filed a Motion to Stay Proceedings to Gather Important Information for Court’sDeliberations. Plaintiff argues that he would like more time to present evidence and case law and, given his
prose
status, leniency is proper. The absence of an attorney, however, does not entitle Plaintiff to favorableconsideration,
Copper State Bank v. Saggio
, 139 Ariz. 438, 442, 679 P.2d 84, 88 (App. 1984), and – in anyevent – the matters which Plaintiff seeks to present would not, in the Court’s opinion, change the outcome of the decision in this case.
Cf.
Ariz. R. Civ. P. 56(f). The Court will not grant a stay under these circumstances.
C.
Conclusion
Accordingly, and upon careful consideration,
IT IS ORDERED GRANTING
the Arizona Democratic Party’s Motion to Dismiss for the reasonsstated herein and
DENYING
all relief requested.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED DISMISSING
with prejudice Plaintiff’s “Ballot Challenge Pursuant toA.R.S. § 16-351(B) and Article II Section 1 Clause 5 of the United States Constitution and Rule 8.”
Your kneepads give you away, drone.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
You have your opinions. I have mind so I am the drone. Nice logic.
Yes I have read all the NBC of 2 parent crap and it is just that, CRAP. There is no proof. There is no court in this land that will take your side. That tells me you are a bunch of fanatics undeserving of calling anyone a drone.
I’ll repeat this again:
Vattel wrote: “The natives, or indigenes, are those born in the country of parents who are citizens.” If Vattel coined the phrase as such, then why didn’t the framers do likewise if they meant it to be that way?
That is the $64,000 question you people cannot answer and it is a total fail on your part.
Resorting to insults instead of proof is the bain of ignorant people.
You can climb atop the Empire State Building and shout out throughout all eternity that the moon is made out of cheese you would be wrong. A lie repeated 50 million times does not make it the truth.
You lie about NBC and 2 parents. You can scream it out all you want you cannot prove your assertion. Quote all the text you want; there is no proof. You cannot prove an omission. You worship people like Leo Donofrio and Mario Apuzzo. They are no different than the Rev Jackson and Al Sharpton. They all lie for a reason. Think about that.
How can you swear much less know that the framers of our Constitution relied upon Vattel and not the common law of the time? Secondary authorities DO NOT COUNT. Bring on the proof. Just because YOU say 2 citizen parents are required doesn’t make it true. The framers didn’t say it. Just because there are a million like minded of you living under a delusion doesn’t make it true.
FACT IS: Justice Roberts, upholder of the Constitution, swore in the idiot in question (twice as a matter of fact)as our President. I don’t like it but that is the FACT. You are not going to change it UNLESS you can prove Obama was not born in this country....then we have a chance at justice. In the meantime, quit the insanity.
Vattel wrote: “The natives, or indigenes, are those born in the country of parents who are citizens.” If Vattel coined the phrase as such, then why didn’t the framers do likewise if they meant it to be that way? Did they forget? Are they stupid?
Second; the phrase “natural born” as used at that time was clearly understood by all to mean “ born on US soil of parents who are US citizens”.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Understood by whom? The only person that understood it that way was Vattel. You know that is the truth because you go on to say: “Third; there was no ambiguity then (during the writing of the constitution).”
English common law was practiced in the colonies since day one. That was the CONTEXT of the time. That is what was common to the people. Vattel was just some recent philosopher born in 1714 and totally unheard of by the common populace. The framers used him for his ideas on international trade - nothing more. If they subscribed to his views on your 2 citizen parent rule, they would have written it that way because it was precisely AGAINST what was common knowledge.
English common law was used until the adoption of the constitution. English common law was avoided as much as possible for two reasons, one we where at war with england and two the common law was oriented towards subjects, sovereignty and royalty making it a difficult fit for a free people in a brand new republic.
English common law is not a part of our constitution nor our laws per say. Out of necessity some definitions have been carried over. Natural born was not one of them.
Nice comment. I mistakenly said parents born in the US as well. Simple mistake but these people, misguided as they are, know what is meant. The fact that they can’t prove what they say drives them crazy.
I think we both agree that Obozo has to be removed from office. That will never happen if these idiots pursue it their way. It will happen when it is proven that he was not born in the US. That is the key. Evidence is showing up that it could be true. If only the authorities really looked into the Social Security Number situation and the draft registration, that would also uncover Bummer for the fraud he is.
Failing that, the electorate must remove him CONSTITUTIONALLY by voting him the hell out.
“Understood by whom? The only person that understood it that way was Vattel.”
Wrong the writers of the constitution clearly understood the meaning of the phrase Natural Born.
“You know that is the truth because you go on to say: “Third; there was no ambiguity then (during the writing of the constitution).””
That was a comma not a period, include the entire sentence.
and the interjected ambiguity now is an attempt to hide treason and the fact that we have no current president.
Ambiguity.. doubtfulness or uncertainty in meaning.
There was no ambiguity then during the writing and adoption of the constitution. There is no ambiguity now as to the meaning. The attempted interjection of ambiguity now is an attempt to hide treason and Obama being ineligible for the office.
I agree with punchamullah. I have not found one piece of evidence in the mountain of crap posted here and anywhere else including apuzzo and donofrio that prove the framers meant NBC = 2 citizen parents. It cannot be found. All I see are people's opinions and court dicta that goes both ways, but not one FACT that proves that the framers FORGOT to add the phrase "2 citizen parents" but MEANT to include it. It is not written therefore it does not exist. The context of the time (English common law) tells me the framers forgot nothing.
It is you people who believe in this non-existant phrase that are screwed up. The rest of us want proof. If there is proof then I will come aboard with pleasure,
If you truly believe a NBC should have citizen parents, and you have every right to that opinion, write your congressman and try to have him get it enacted into law. That's the only way it will be done - but then again the Supremes will strike it down, 9 to 0, won't they?
Things that are self-evident do not require a definition - otherwise, we'd have ended up with a 100-page monstrosity like the EU "Constitution." The basic fact is that anything that relies on "natural law" relies on the "Law of Nations."
You should particularly pay attention to John Jay's letter to Washington suggesting the restriction to Natural Born Citizens as a way to bar someone with divided loyalties from becoming Commander-in-Chief.
The definition is also implicit in the exception made for "a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution." Everyone alive at the time had parents who were not citizens at the time of their birth, even though they had been born in one of the colonies that became states. It was felt that, having participated in the Revolution that brought us independence, they could be trusted not to betray us.
Finally, whether or not the Founders defined the term explicitly, the US Supreme Court definitely did in Minor vs. Happersett - which remains binding precedent to this day. To quote from that decision, “The Constitution does not in words say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that 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. 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."
Note that they say that there are doubts as to whether "children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents" are even citizens at all - not whether they qualify as NBC. Since the case they were considering involved a woman who was a NBC (born in the US of parents who were both citizens), they had no need to resolve the doubts as to the status of second group of potential, plain (i.e. not natural born) citizens
For a great part of our history, even being born here did not make you a citizen, unless your parents were citizens. This was changed with the 14th Amendment, to ensure that freed slaves were accorded citizenship. It was made clear by its framers, at the time of its adoption, that this Amendment only accorded "birthright citizenship" and would not, indeed, could not alter the requirements for NBC. Note also, the language of the 14th - "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States..." Who is not "subject to the jurisdiction?" Foreign diplomats and agents, those in the country illegally and transients who have been admitted for a short period. This leads to the question as to whether Obama is even a citizen (which might explain why his Social Security No. fails E-Verify.)
English common law is not a part of our constitution nor our laws per say. Out of necessity some definitions have been carried over. Natural born was not one of them.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
PROVE IT!!!!!!!
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.