Posted on 08/22/2013 11:52:50 AM PDT by Cold Case Posse Supporter
TEAM OBAMA FLASHBACK:
“When Barack Obama Jr. was born on Aug. 4,1961, in Honolulu, Kenya was a British colony, still part of the United Kingdom’s dwindling empire. As a Kenyan native, Barack Obama Sr. was a British subject whose citizenship status was governed by The British Nationality Act of 1948. That same act governed the status of Obama Sr.‘s children. Since Sen. Obama has neither renounced his U.S. citizenship nor sworn an oath of allegiance to Kenya, his Kenyan citizenship automatically expired on Aug. 4, 1982.” - Obama's Fight the Smears and Factheck.org.
- See more at: http://obamareleaseyourrecords.blogspot.com/2013/08/bret-baier-reports-obama-cruz-not-eligible.html#idc-container
(Excerpt) Read more at youtube.com ...
My only point is that these are just that, opinions. The law is hardly settled. It seems to be a term that has a dozen definitions and I've a sinking feeling that FR will be consumed with bitter debate over it for the next three years.
Sigh.
The ‘doubt’ that did not need to be resolved was the doubt of 14th Amendment-based anchor baby status (when the parents are both aliens).
That was the ‘doubt’ they are referring.
Their RULING was based on the status of Virginia Minor as a natural born Citizen - she was born in county to two US citizen parents.
She did not need for and the 14th Amendment had no bearing on her citizenship status (or voting rights).
To provide complete context of the quote posted here is the rest of that paragraph:
“... It is sufficient for everything we have now to consider that all children born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction are themselves citizens. The words “all children” are certainly as comprehensive, when used in this connection, as “all persons,” and if females are included in the last they must be in the first. That they are included in the last is not denied. In fact the whole argument of the plaintiffs proceeds upon that idea.”
Further in the ruling.
“The fourteenth amendment did not affect the citizenship of women any more than it did of men. In this particular, therefore, the rights of Mrs. Minor do not depend upon the amendment. She has always been a citizen from her birth, and entitled to all the privileges and immunities of citizenship. The amendment prohibited the State, of which she is a citizen, from abridging any of her privileges and immunities as a citizen of the United States; but it did not confer citizenship on her. That she had before its adoption.”
The court found that Ms. Minor was a member of the ‘first’ class posted. That is the natural-born citizen class.
This was no “philoophical rationale” - it was the absolute core of the ruling.
Minor v. Happersett was a women’s suffrage appeal. Virginia Minor wanted to vote and she tested to see if the 14th Amendment gave her that right.
No court decision has ever successfully applied Minor v. Happersett to presidential eligibility.
For example:
Allen v Obama, Arizona Superior Court Judge Richard E. Gordon: “Arizona courts are bound by United States Supreme Court precedent in construing the United States Constitution, 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. Contrary to Plaintiff’s assertion, Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162 (1874), does not hold otherwise.”—Pima County Superior Court, Tuscon, Arizona, March 7, 2012
http://www.scribd.com/doc/84531299/AZ-2012-03-07-Allen-v-Obama-C20121317-ORDER-Dismissing-Complaint
OK looking at that secondary list, looks like ‘census’ and ‘someone older than applicant’ could work.
Problem with census is it comes out years later, Maybe not available when its needed.
Not sure what someone in o’s circumstances would do in order to get a passport.
No family bible, no baptism, school records fragmented...
Maybe he did have a Indo passport and used that.
Then when he would’ve needed a us passport, all the folks that were older than him had already passed on.
Hmmm, his granny on his moms side passed away conveniently around election time.
And the granny on the dads side said he was born in Kenya :0
Ooops.
Then if those two people (o SR and Stanley Anne) weren’t his real parents, then there’s a bigger problem in getting a passport.
What. A. Mess.
Impeach the @#$%, then put requirements in place so there can be no more usurpers.
They named a neurological disorder after him..."Waldheimer's Disease".
That's when you can't remember that you're a Nazi war criminal.
“Impeach the @#$%, then put requirements in place so there can be no more usurpers.”
Do you think we can get 22 Democrats plus the RINOs in the Senate to go along with a guilty vote? It takes 67 Senators to vote guilty to remove a federal official from office via impeachment.
I think an easier route would be to have a court of law anywhere in America rule that the birth certificate is a forgery and then Obama would resign in order to accept a pardon from Biden so that he could stay out of jail.
The problem has been finding a prosecutor who will pursue an indictment.
There are the two Honolulu newspaper birth notices for Obama from August 13 & 14, 1961.
There is his father’s interview with the Immigration and Naturalization Service on August 31, 1961 in which his father told the INS Agent that he had a son, born in Honolulu on August 4, 1961. There is the testimony of Eleanor Nordyke and Monica Danielsson, mothers who gave birth at Kapiolani Hospital the same weekend as Obama was born. There is Obama’s 1967 application to attend St. Francis of Assisi School in Jakarta, Indonesia which lists his birth place as Honolulu, Hawaii.
And, as you note, he has primary evidence of citizenship and identity under US law, a U.S. Passport that lists Hawaii as the place of his birth.
His passport can be viewed on YouTube:
http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=UvqgyV_2pHg&desktop_uri=%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DUvqgyV_2pHg
Yeah, yeah. Its not about eligibility is the new argument. Lets move the goal post shall we. Its in black and white. SCOTUS has spoken. Like Roe V. Wade. Its settled law.
The ruling was that she was a natural born citizen. It had to be defined - it was. She was. Period. Its ruling, not dictum. Unanimous, never overturned and cited of other cases for its actual definition.
Simple stuff. Very simple.
But it is an inconvenient truth - for some.
So his 1969 Passport.
Is that on Youtube?
Nope, the brand new 2009 presidential passport. But that’s all he needed to prove citizenship and identity in order to run for reelection.
Passports are primary evidence of citizenship and identity. Birth certificates are secondary evidence.
Minor v. Happersett has been cited for the Supreme Court in Obama eligibility appeals. The Supreme Court hasn’t yet been convinced.
Because U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark came 24 years after Minor, Wong has been considered the definitive ruling on the citizenship clause of the 14th Amendment and not Minor. Wong has been cited more than 1,000 times; Minor, not so much.
The government asked the Supreme Court to rule in Wong: “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 so, then verily there has been a most degenerative departure from the patriotic ideals of our forefathers; and surely in that case American citizenship is not worth having.”
http://librarysource.uchastings.edu/library/research/special-collections/wong-kim-ark/AppellantsBrief.pdf The Government (Appellant) Brief: US v Wong Kim Ark (page 18 of 20 of the pdf) Page 34 of the original
The quote doesn't stop there and neither do the references to citizenship. Why does the court say there are doubts about children being citizens without reference to the citizenship of their parents?? The 14th amendment had already passed. Why are they saying anything about the parents being citizens??
EXCEPT by the Supreme Court itself that cited Minor in strict reference to presidential eligibility, but NOT Wong Kim Ark. The number of times Wong Kim Ark is cited by courts doesn't trump the Supreme Court's unanimous and direct reference to presidential eligibility.
Under our Constitution, a naturalized citizen stands on an equal footing with the native citizen in all respects save that of eligibility to the Presidency. Minor v. Happersett, 21 Wall. 162, 88 U. S. 165; Elk v. Wilkins, 112 U. S. 94, 112 U. S. 101; Osborn v. Bank of United States, 9 Wheat. 738, 22 U. S. 827.
This is fatal to any notion that Wong Kim Ark is the controlling decision since Ark makes the same distinction that is mentioned in this sentence. The reason is because Wong Kim Ark answered the question you quoted from the government by deferring to the Minor decision on its definition of natural-born citizen.
In Minor v. Happersett, Chief Justice Waite, when construing, in behalf of the court, the very provision of the Fourteenth Amendment now in question, said: "The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens."
- - -
all children born in the United States of citizens or subjects of foreign States were excluded from the operation of the first sentence of the Fourteenth Amendment is manifest from a unanimous judgment of the Court ...
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 [p680] 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.
IOW, the Wong Kim Ark decision categorically excluded any and all persons from being natural-born citizens if not born in the country to citizen parents. Those who rely on the 14th amendment for citizenship had to satisfy the subject clause by being born to parents with permanent residence and domicil. Cruz doesn't meet these conditions nor does Obama.
As if they wouldn't do this at their first opportunity anyway.
I cherish the Constitution as much as anyone ever has. But the sad fact is, the U.S. Constitution is NO LONGER RELEVANT! It matters only to people like us -- a small faction of the populace that votes overwhelming for a political party (GOP) that doesn't give a rat's ass about the Constitution either.
At this juncture in history, our adherence to the Constitution only guarantees the death of the Republic -- we play the game under the constraints of the rule book (Constitution), and the opposing team doesn't even consult the rule book, knowing full well that the referees (courts) won't do a damn thing about it.
Yes, I know how this sounds: Ignore the Constitution in order to save the Constitution. Just explain to me how we can possibly ever win when we're the only ones playing by the rules.
You make lots of sense, but I’d rather use the constitution to resist tyranny.
Just in my nature I guess.
So showing Obama’s passport records from the 1960s to 2009 would not be a problem?
Problem with the birth notices is that neither hospital verified later in that he was born there. One of those Hawaii home birth forms could be filled out by the relatives (Madelyn or stanley Anne in 0’s case) eve tho the kid was born outside the us to (see Sun Yat Sen Hawaii doc ) and then the county upon receiving it files it. Also the papers put the birth notice in there based on that home birth doc. And there you have it.
The interview with ins doesn’t name the kid.
I recall the kids name was in a memo/handwritten draft, and looks like it was filled in later.
Thing is, o SR was a notorious “embellisher” and at the time was trying to stay in the us and not get thrown out.
0 SR probably wasn’t there for 0’s birth either.
Nordyke b.c. number has been messed with, and also there are no corroborating interviews with hospital doctors and nurses as to 0 having been born at kapiolani. There is confusion as to in which hospital- kapiolani or the other one- 0 was born.
The school record in Indonesia- if filled out by lolo- is based on what someone else told him and Lolo wasn’t there for 0’s birth. If filled out by Stanley Ann, then she was just continuing the fib started by the “home birth” filing.
We have no official lfbc or home birth doc for that matter.
Neither do we have any of the supporting docs used for his first passport application.
All the docs (birth cert, social security #, draft registration form) we have seen for this guy have been shown to be bogus.
That’s the reason the posse has gone to congress, they couldn’t find anybody judicial to handle it.
Now folks in Congress are talking impeachment.
“Problem with the birth notices is that neither hospital verified later in that he was born there. One of those Hawaii home birth forms could be filled out by the relatives (Madelyn or stanley Anne in 0’s case) eve tho the kid was born outside the us to (see Sun Yat Sen Hawaii doc ) and then the county upon receiving it files it. Also the papers put the birth notice in there based on that home birth doc. And there you have it.”
Not according to this;
In November 2008, The Advertiser reported that the first published mention of the future president appeared in a Sunday Advertiser birth announcement that ran on Aug. 13, 1961:
“Mr. and Mrs. Barack H. Obama, 6085 Kalanianaole Hwy., son, Aug. 4.”
The identical announce- ment ran the following day in the Honolulu Star-Bulletin.
Birthers wave off those birth announcements, saying that Obama family members 48 years ago could have phoned in false information to both newspapers.
Such vital statistics, however, were not sent to the newspapers by the general public but by the Health Department, which received the information directly from hospitals, Okubo said.
Birth announcements from the public ran elsewhere in both papers and usually included information such as the newborn’s name, weight and time of birth.
http://the.honoluluadvertiser.com/article/2009/Jul/28/ln/hawaii907280345.html
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.