Posted on 05/30/2012 6:10:45 AM PDT by circumbendibus
Birtherism -- the belief that Barack Obama was born in Kenya, not in the United States -- pretty much died last year when the White House released a copy of the president's long-form birth certificate showing he was born in Honolulu on Aug. 4, 1961. After that, the number of Americans who doubted Obama's place of birth dropped dramatically.
But not to zero. In recent days, there has been a mini-resurgence of birther talk, from Arizona, where the secretary of state questioned Obama's eligibility to be on the ballot, to Iowa, where some Republicans want to require presidential candidates to prove their eligibility for office.
The talk has gone beyond Obama, with some buzz on the Internet suggesting Florida Sen. Marco Rubio, a leading Republican vice presidential contender, is not a natural-born American citizen.
(Excerpt) Read more at campaign2012.washingtonexaminer.com ...
The thread at the examiner has a lot of posters who will move mountains to prove Obama a NBC.
“Every decision to date on every birther lawsuit has concluded that Obama IS a natural born citizen.”
I have followed this closely and am not aware of ANY court decision determining Obama is a natural born citizen. Please give your citation. Thank you.
Is it that difficult to find a qualified candidate that was born on American soil to two American citizens?
I’d rather err on the side of caution. Heck, Rubio even admits a free Cuba would is his first loyalty. We don’t need a commander in chief with a personal agenda for another nation, even if it is in the guise of or in the name of freedom.
Should get interesting when official forgery charges are made.
And upon closer examination of the article, this statement stands out:
The law is really quite lenient, especially for those born outside the United States. If a child were born today in, say, Kenya, to a Kenyan father and an American citizen mother who had lived in the United States for at least five years, at least two of them over the age of 14 -- that child would be a "citizen of the United States by birth" and be eligible for the White House.
The founders intended the "natural born citizen" requirement to rule out eligibilty for that segment of the citizenry (as opposed to Natural Born citizenry) that had questionable loyalty to the United States -- the kind of questionable loyalty demonstrated by Obama. Obama has expressed loyalty to Indonesia and Kenya in ways that make his sworn oath to the US Constitution questionable at the very least. His dubious loyalty coincides with his expressions of affinity for Indonesia and Kenya, as told in both interviews and his biography "Dreams From My Father", especially considering his father's dreams were all anti-colonial in nature.
Not to mention his numerous acts of disrespect and contempt for the traditions, customs, and laws of the USA.
You are probably very sincere in your "belief" about court decisions. But you are 100% wrong.
While the lawsuits will not succeed we should not state false statements. I do not believe that even one let along all suits have concluded that Obama is a NBC. They have all just been thrown out as not having standing or other technical BS to keep zero in office.
Byron York is showing himself to be an idiot. By his standards the Constitution only means what legislators say it means and in this case they do not even have to know that they are changing the meaning of the Constitution when they do so by creating a law.
Legislation does not change the meaning of the Constitution Mr. York. You are proving yourself an idiot to make such an argument.
“SCOTUS should do its job”
It did. In 1898.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0169_0649_ZO.html
In the old days that would have been a red flag for the press - they would have looked into it... today it just means 'writing the pass' faster.
The article was posted before. It received over 300 comments before being pulled (or at least deleted).
“I have followed this closely and am not aware of ANY court decision determining Obama is a natural born citizen.”
The courts that have found Obama to be eligible for the ballot have thus also said he is a natural born citizen (Indiana & Georgia come to mind). Most courts have refused to waste their time on birther cases, since a private citizen does not have standing to file suit to overturn an election.
Imagine how convincing Obama’s birth certificate would have been had it not been an amateurish fake. I’m embarrassed for the media people who keep reflecting back on that photoshopped joke to finally put away the citizenship issue. When it comes to ID, there are three things Obama can’t do. Produce a real birth certificate. Explain his Connecticut SS#, and explain his bogus draft card. Of course, there are those hidden transcripts and college records, passports, name changes and so on, all serving to make Obama’s life a document nightmare. Like all frauds, his real past is his greatest enemy.
“SCOTUS should do its job”-----------------------------------------------It did. In 1898.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0169_0649_ZO.html
Wong Kim Ark was ruled a "citizen" of the U.S. only ...NOT a "natural born citizen."
Other than birthers, who supposed it was scanned? Is that what the Hawaii SoS said? Have you verified what scanning software was used? Did it have an OCR function to build searchable text documents? Was the BC generated from software that has the pertinent information and prints it on official background paper? If the Hawaii state government affirms the information on the paper is an accurate representation of the information they have on file, then they could write it on a napkin with a crayon.
Personally, I think there is something seriously wrong with the Obama history and he certainly lied about his origins at some point (probably for college admissions). I also think that the majority of birthers are completely off their hinge, regardless of where Obama was born.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
How about this:
"Most importantly, Arizona courts are bound by United States Supreme Court precedent in construing 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 Constitution and 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.
Source: http://www.scribd.com/doc/84531299/AZ-2012-03-07-Allen-v-Obama-C20121317-ORDER-Dismissing-Complaint
You are probably very sincere in your “belief” about court decisions. But you are 100% wrong.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Sorry, I replied to someone else before I saw your comment. Please see my previous comment (#36). A court DID say it!
The decision argued at great length that WKA met the qualification for both NBC & 14th Amendment. In fact, the court said that the NBC clause and the 14th were using the exact same criteria for citizenship.
“The real object of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution, in qualifying the words, “All persons born in the United States” by the addition “and subject to the jurisdiction thereof,” would appear to have been to exclude, by the fewest and fittest words (besides children of members of the Indian tribes, standing in a peculiar relation to the National Government, unknown to the common law), the two classes of cases — children born of alien enemies in hostile occupation and children of diplomatic representatives of a foreign State — both of which, as has already been shown, by the law of England and by our own law from the time of the first settlement of the English colonies in America, had been recognized exceptions to the fundamental rule of citizenship by birth within the country. Calvin’s Case, 7 Rep. 1, 18b; Cockburn on Nationality, 7; Dicey Conflict of Laws, 177; Inglis v. Sailors’ Snug Harbor, 3 Pet. 99, 155; 2 Kent Com. 39, 42.
The principles upon which each of those exceptions rests were long ago distinctly stated by this court. [p683]”
If the set of people who are NBC is the exact same as the set of people who are 14th Amendment citizens, then the terms are equivalent.
Yet, we're supposed to just believe that it was merely a coincidence that both presidential candidates had "issues" surrounding their eligibility.
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.