Posted on 07/03/2008 4:35:19 PM PDT by SE Mom
Jay McKinnon, a self-described Department of Homeland Security-trained document specialist, has implicated himself in the production of fraudulent Hawaii birth certificate images similar to the one endorsed as genuine by the Barack Obama campaign, and appearing on the same blog entry where the supposedly authentic document appears.
The evidence of forgery and manipulation of images of official documents, triggered by Israel Insider's revelation of the collection of Hawaii birth certificate images on the Photobucket site and the detective work of independent investigative journalists and imaging professionals in the three weeks since the publication of the images, implicate the Daily Kos, an extreme left blog site, and the Obama campaign, in misleading the public with official-looking but manipulated document images of doubtful provenance.
The perceived unreliability of the image has provoked petitions and widespread demands for Obama to submit for objective inspection the paper versions of the "birth certificate" he claimed in his book Dreams from My Father was in his possession, as well as the paper version of the Certificate of Live Birth for which the image on the Daily Kos and the Obama "Fight the Smears" website was supposedly generated.
Without a valid birth certificate, Obama cannot prove he fulfills the "natural born citizen" requirement of the Constitution, throwing into doubt his eligibility to run for President.
McKinnon, who says he is 25-30 years old, operates a website called OpenDNA.com and uses the OpenDNA screen name on various web sites and blogs, including his comments and diary on The Daily Kos. In recent years he has divided his time between Long Beach, California and Vancouver, British Columbia. He is a Democratic political activist, frequent contributor to the left wing Daily Kos blog, and a fervent Barack Obama supporter.
(Excerpt) Read more at web.israelinsider.com ...
Read the original Section 1245 (personal property depreciation recapture) and the effective date clause for a good example of a statute where the application date and the effective date are different.
Every single person here should write him and ask him that question.
The answer is that he is a strong Obama supporter but he is also news first and my guess is that at the point where this is clearly a hot topic, he will also be on it.
The real bottom line is that in my view, the Supreme Court is likely to come down on the proposition that "natural born" as used by the framers in the Constitution means born in the geographical United States. I think that continues to be the general view of most of the Constitutional lawyers who have looked at the question.
They separated in 1972. The divorced around 1980
Something is very fishy here. what is Obama hiding?
The Canal issue is irrelevant, as McCain was born of two US citizens and thus was born a citizen of the US. Somewhere there is probably a consular report of birth abroad for him, which is the equivalent of an American birth certificate for legal purposes. The problem with Obama is that we're not sure he was actually born in Hawaii. If he wasn't, and mommy was in Kenya at the time, then she as the lone US citizen wasn't enough to get him automatic citizenship upon birth due to her specific circumstances.
Just because he may have submitted a BC when he applied for a passport does not mean he was a citizen eligible for the presidency. He could have been born in another country for all that. Just because he has a passport doesn’t mean a thing UNLESS someone has seen his passport they don’t know where he was born or not.
I think you’d be interested in this law journal note (it’s only 18 pages long), which analyzes all of the precedents and interpretations surrounding the Natural-Born Citizen Clause: http://yalelawjournal.org/2008/03/03/citizenship.html The article concludes that a person with the right to U.S. citizenship at the time of his or her birth is a natural-born citizen for purposes of presidential eligibility.
Of course, reasonable minds may disagree, but I would be shocked if federal courts ruled that someone that is a citizen at birth but was not born within the geographic U.S. was not eligible to serve as president.
Passports list place of birth. If his says Honolulu we’re forced to one of two conclusions:
He was born in Honolulu and produced authentic documents to demonstrate that fact. (And is therefore Constitutionally qualified to be president).
He was NOT born in Honolulu and produced FALSE documents to demonstrate that he was. (And therefore is NOT Constitutionally qualified to be president, or perhaps even in the country legally).
Note that I do not say he lied, he may believe with every fiber of his being that he was born in Honolulu, it’s all he’s ever been told, and he has false documents he trusts.
Merely being a citizen is not a sufficient qualification to hold the office of the President.
The Canal issue is irrelevant, as McCain was born of two US citizens and thus was born a citizen of the US. Somewhere there is probably a consular report of birth abroad for him, which is the equivalent of an American birth certificate for legal purposes. The problem with Obama is that we're not sure he was actually born in Hawaii. If he wasn't, and mommy was in Kenya at the time, then she as the lone US citizen wasn't enough to get him automatic citizenship upon birth due to her specific circumstances.
That is correct as to Obama but not exactly correct as to McCain.
A reference to an article published Saturday night which includes McCain's birth document is posted on this thread. The Birth Document confirms that he was born in a hospital off the US Base and not subject even to the fiction that he was born in the territorial United States.
Thus his two citizen parents make him a citizen; but in my opinion, there is a good Constitutional argument that he does not meet the Natural Born Constitutional test under Article II, Sec. 1, par. 4.
While this might appear to some to be a minor issue, it should be followed up. Any presidential candidate should be questions on everything on their patriotism, their health, tax returns, and even their their birth certificates. A copy of the original as filed at time of birth should be available for all candidates.
Either there is something to hide or this is simply to divert attention from more serious issues facing Obama.
Or I suppose, we could argue that he’s traveling on a forged passport.
The simplest explanations are he filed with a valid BC, or he filed with a valid certificate of no record and a DS-10A with the mother asserting he was born in Honolulu.
Of course, reasonable minds may disagree, but I would be shocked if federal courts ruled that someone that is a citizen at birth but was not born within the geographic U.S. was not eligible to serve as president.
Excellent find.
Note the publication date places the article squarely in the political debate time frame. Like the Olson legal opinion, the political origin of the views set forth influence the conclusion.
But, as you suggest, reasonable lawyers differ on this kind of issue on a regular basis. There is a law review article that reaches a semi-contrary conclusion in the Boston University Law Journal last year; together with a national publication article by John Dean (Nixon's White House counsel) to the same end; both suggesting that the issue presents a serious problem which should be corrected by Constitutional Amendment.
I would feel comfortable making the argument to the Supreme Court that the Natural Born test means born in the geographical territory of the states of the United States. Observe that if the citizenship statutes control, Congress can effectively amend the Constitution by statute. I don't think the Court will reach that decision.
When I start a job I have to prove I’m legally capable of working in the US.
I see no reason why politicians should be exempt from proving they meet the legal requirements to hold their jobs.
#2114 is poorly written—by publication date, I mean the current reference to the article is politically motivated because the article reaches their conclusion. Sorry.
I agree BUT who has seen his BC? Who knows what place of birth is on it? It could say the moon. If someone has seen it (the passport) and posted, I must have missed it.
Not to butt in but I dont’ know who she is either and went and did a “google” on her. She has apparently passed away and the link below is to a genealogy site for the Oahu high school she attended. Her birth certificate is posted there (by her child)
Hope this helps why the statute appears to contradict itself:
Under the 1940 Act, if the mother of the child born abroad out of wedlock held United States citizenship and previously had resided in the country or in a United States possession, the child gained the mother’s nationality from birth, provided the child’s paternity was not established by legitimation or a court order.2 But if the father and not the mother held United States citizenship, then the child would qualify for United States citizenship only upon legitimation or adjudication of paternity during the child’s minority. Furthermore, the child generally had to live in the United States for five years before the age of 21. The same residency requirement applied to children born abroad to married couples with only one United States citizen parent, whether that parent was the mother or the father. Nationality Act of 1940, §§201, 205, 54 Stat. 1138—1140.3
Subsequent legislation retained the gender lines drawn in the 1940 Act. The Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 made only one significant change regarding the citizenship of children born abroad out of wedlock. It removed the provision that a mother could pass on her nationality to her child only if the paternity of the child had not been established.4 Immigration and Nationality Act, §309, 66 Stat. 238—239. In 1986, however, Congress added further gender-based differentials. The Legislature that year permitted substitution of a written acknowledgment under oath or adjudication of paternity prior to age 18 in place of formal legitimation. To that extent, Congress eased access to citizenship by a child born abroad out of wedlock to a United States citizen father. At the same time, however, Congress imposed on such a child two further requirements: production of clear and convincing evidence of paternity, also a written statement from the father promising support until the child turned 18. The requirements for a child of a United States citizen mother remained the same; such a child obtained the mother’s nationality if the mother had resided in the United States or its territorial possessions for at least a year before the child’s birth. Act of Nov. 14, 1986, §13, 100 Stat. 3657, codified as amended at 8 U.S. C. §1409. No substantive change has been made since 1986 in the law governing citizenship of children born abroad out of wedlock.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/96-1060.ZD.html
Exactly.
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.