Posted on 07/03/2008 4:35:19 PM PDT by SE Mom
“The 1790 law has changed a number of times and doesn’t resemble the original when Obama or McCann was born.”
“WOSG’s point wasn’t the current validity of the 1790 law, it was that the 1790 law provided a fairly accurate snapshot of the Founder’s intent.”
Yes, correct, but my broader point was arguing against the (false IMHO) claim that Congress couldn’t regulate the meaning of the term ‘natural-born’. Congress can and has done that throughout our history.
While the law has changed in details, the basic parameters are: You are a natural-born citizen if you are born in the U.S. or if your parents (used to both both, or father, now either parent) are U.S. citizens.
Raycpa, thanks for citing the relevant laws from 1934, 1952, etc.
For you to be the most helpful in this investigation, the rest of us need to know how your BC was produced. To my eyes the Obama BC was produced electronically, not by printing letters on top of a "blank". The difference is critical, many places use a blank from a printer with the background, put it in the printer and print the text on top. The Obama BC was produced electronically (not photoshop) by writing the letters onto an electronic blank. If that's what yours looks like, it would clear up the origin of his.
The difference between the two should be very clear with a magnifying glass.
“It isn’t clear to me what happened to him. “
Barck Sr continued in school at Univ of Hawaii until 1962.
I believe he got his undergrad degree there and then went on to Harvard (leaving Dunham and Barack Jr behind).
“But as to the Sec. 1409 issue, there is a clear record of the divorce, together with a recital of the pleadings of the grounds for divorce (a statutory version of the burdensome marriage). So there is a divorce case file somewhere and typically counsel recites the location of the marriage in the file. So we need to get the divorce file and read the papers there which may shed some light on the place of marriage.”
Yes. See previous posts. The divorce was filed in Honolulu and state the date and place of marriage as Feb 2, 1961 in Maui.
Since this was a secretive weeding with no guests invited (think, shotgun wedding as she was 3 months pregnant).
“Under the circumstances, they were not going to spend the money on hiring counsel to complete a divorce proceeding unless they were married.” Correct. So this closes the door definitively on the ‘there was no marriage’ theory.
“Thus his citizenship still would need to come, either under Sec. 1401 which would require his citizen parent to have resided in the U S for five years prior to his birth and after such citizen parent reached age 14 or 16 which Ms. Dunham-Obama by definition did not, or because he was born in Hawaii of which as yet we have seen no real indication that he was.”
You are misreading the 1952 law imho, there is a residency requirement for the parent, which is more than fully met by the fact that Stanley Ann Dunham lived her whole life in the United States up until the birth of Barack Obama Jr.
Raycpa quote the law in a previous post, and it required 3 of the 5 years to be after age 14. She met the requirement.
The 1934 and 1952 laws give citizenship at birth to children of U.S. citizen mothers.
As I said earlier, it is 100% certain that both Barack Obama and John McCain meet the eligibility requirements to be President.
“We have had a lot of people on this thread ask sarcastically Why would she go to Kenya to give birth?
Barack Obama Sr. was a Muslim and it is a Muslim tradition ...”
His mother was an iconoclast, an atheist and a progressive. She would have no reason to follow such traditions.
“It makes not a lick of difference. McCain is a natural born citizen no matter where he was born, via 1790 law.”
“The law had been changed by the time McCain was born.
That said, the 1790 law does give insight into what the authors of the Constitution meant by “natural born citizen”. However, IIRC, that law only provided for the case of the father being a US citizen, as was common in the laws of other countries at the time (1790)”
OK. My point being that throughout US history, you could be a natural born US citizen if your father was a US citizen and had sufficient history of US residence. John McCain fit
the bill.
As for argument that Congress can’t ‘define the meaning of terms’, I’m sorry but you are playing a bit too much of armchair lawyer here and a law prof would correct you vigorously. This “So that law, if it applied, which it can’t directly because Congress cannot define the meaning of terms in the Constitution” is almost certainly incorrect, as Congress legislates many matters and terms in the Constitution and it is well-permitted. Meaning of ‘interstate commerce’, and “patents” and “letters of marque” and “elections” and the power to declare war, etc. The issue is when Congress goes outside the plain intent (”Which part ‘shall make NO law’ do they not understand?”) that SCOTUS gets involved.
I find the claim of failed residency test on the part of Barack’s mother to be a ‘fail’ too. An interpretation of a findlaw statement (not the law itself) is being used. But Raycpa stated the law itself and there are multiple provisions at issue, any one of them which gives you ability to be natural born citizen. One of them has a 5 year test with 3 years after 14 years of age. Barack passes.
“What I’d like is for both Obama and McCain to be declared ineligible, and then we’d get a really weird “do over” of a really weird primary election season. But I don’t expect to get that. “
If wishes were horses, beggars would ride.
There is 100% certainty that both Obama and McCain are eligible to be President. SOL on that score.
It contains a link to a website that translates official documents from one language to another. It contains a link to a Hawaii marriage certificate that looks like it's printed on the same paper stock as the COLB, but with a different top banner heading. The computer fills in the form labels and data. Note also the top space is used for form information, so the location of folds makes sense. Also, the site has a slightly larger image on it -- just replace the word small with big in the filename.
-PJ
So, the question is just what kind of women did your "typical white person" have in Kenya in 1960/61 when marrying a Luo tribe member?
“So what you’re saying here is that there are only two ways to be a citizen (natural born/naturalized)?”
Yes. Its fairly simple. Either you are a US citizen at birth, or you become one at some point in your life (naturalization).
“I thought one could be a citizen at birth but still not be eligible for the presidency. “
No, that’s an inherent contradiction. A “natural-born US citizen” is someone who is a US citizen at birth, and that is the eligibility reqt to be President.
And yet she twice married Muslim immigrant men.
Why would such a left wing atheist do such a thing....??
To have her son grow up in the world's largest Muslim society where he would personally attend Koranic studies.
His school records in Indonesia have Barack Jr. listed as a Muslim.
I doubt anything in Family Law is that straight forward.
My ex married a guy who turned out to be a pathological liar.
While they were married she got pregnant.
She discovered her husband's pathological lies shortly thereafter.
She retained council and had the marriage annulled.
Note that an annulment means that the marriage never actually happened, yet she still needed an attorney to sort out something that legally never happened.
Then her daughter was born.
Years later we met and married.
I adopted the daughter.
Now consider my daughter's case, although her parents were married when she was conceived, she was retroactively a bastard at birth, as her parents had never been married, even though they had. When I adopted her, she became retroactively born in wedlock, and I retroactively was added to her birth certificate, making me the birth father of record by immaculate conception 3 years before her mom and I ever met.
I come by my skepticism of the reality of official records naturally...
Imagine the confusion this will create if, God forbid!, she runs for president!
Bad enough if her mom and I are still around and still have an appreciable fraction of our marbles left. (We'll be well into our 70's before this could ever be an issue).
Now imaging the difficulties having me listed as her male genetic source could cause an geneticist in a hundred years.
Yet there I am, big as life, on her official birth certificate, and he is no where to be found. Not even on the hospital record of birth as she refused to name him.
“The Democrats opened the debate with a question about John McCain’s right to be President since he was born in/near the Canal Zone”
Let them be idiots, not us. I have no desire to join in their diversion, and the lets-be-lemmings argument is weak at best. This is not about ‘fairness’. If you want to be as UNFAIR as possible, focus laser-like on those things that will get Obama defeated. This aint it.
“BTW, a clear understanding of the hurdles Obama has faced to make him what he is today requires that we examine the nether reaches of his mother’s lifestyle choices.”
You are better off focusing on the CANDIDATE. Every minute spent on this, is a minute LESS spent on Rezko, Ayers, his 130 present votes, his tax hike, his 20 years in front of Rev Wright, his endorsements by far-left parties, his fatally wrong views on immigration, his extremism on abortion and gay marriage, his failure to hold a single hearing on afghanistan when chairing that subcommittee, his naive treatment of Iran, his $800 billion in spending pandering promises, his opposition to drilling, etc.
“And yet she twice married Muslim immigrant men.
Why would such a left wing atheist do such a thing....??”
I havent read David Horowitz “Unholy Alliance” but if anyone knows the psychology of such people, it would be him.
Multiculturalism is what it is, it leads you in such directions.
Assuming, of course, that she didn't spend the last few months of her pregnancy on a honeymoon in Kenya. And further assuming that this teenaged girl's actions were driven by as good a grasp of the finer points of immigration, naturalization, and constitutional laws that is at least as good as yours.
If you'll let me assume the conclusion is part of the evidence, I can prove my side of the debate to...
As I said earlier, it is 100% certain that both Barack Obama and John McCain meet the eligibility requirements to be President.
To you. The rest of us still have some lingering questions about the facts of the matter.
Why are you bringing in an irrelevant/different situation?
When she filed for divorce in Honolulu in 1964, and stated that a marriage took place on Feb 2 1961 in Maui, there is one LIKELY reason for it:
That a marriage took place on Feb 2 1961 in Maui, and she wanted to end it in 1964.
On the other hand, most Democrat politicians had parents who were firm believers in abortion for other people's kids. Obama's momma appears to have not had firm beliefs in that regard. I'd kind of like to keep his own situation with regard to his mother's lifestyle choices out there front and center since it's such an afront to core Democrat beliefs (or "hates").
Think about it, Obama's momma didn't abort him so why does he want to abort other women's babies? Certainly a campaign quickie can be worked up around that concept.
Big question here is why Sidney's second husband got kicked out of the country. Think about it, he had a student visa, he married Sidney, then he lost his student visa(their story) and he had to return to Indonesia.
Doesn't make sense at all because his marriage to Sidney changed his status such that he could have continued going to school while seeking a visa as her husband (although he'd probably have to visit Canada a few months to file for the visa).
I know people who were considered bukenasli (not native/authentic) living in Indonesia at that very same time. They were being rounded up and shipped out. Our church sponsored a couple of them as refugees. Another fellow I knew was, in fact, a CIA undercover employee inside the government. He returned in the open working at the American embassy. There were yet others I've met over the years who got kicked out because they had a slight percentage of European ancestry, or, horror of horrors, African ancestry.
Here we have Sidney bounding off to Indonesia with her husband without a worry, and you talk about a problem for the government, she was totally bukenasli, as was her son Obama.
What I'd like to know is why they had no problem with the government's bukenasli expulsion program? What was their tie with the top dogs?
Thank you. I had thought there was another classification. One of being a citizen at birth but not eligible for the presidency.
Because it goes right to the heart of both matters.
You assert that Official Government Documents, even if badly forged, are always a true accurate reflection of reality, and that their mere existence compels any conflicting data (such as personal reports of being at Barak, Jr.'s birth by relatives in Kenya, and the notable lack of any similar eyewitness accounts from people claiming to have been at the same event in Honolulu) to magically cease to exist.
I presented you with a truthful direct example of the official documents being at total odds with the actual events. I know it is truthful as I have direct personal experience with many of the events. Off hand I'd say that's completely relevant.
You assert that she must have been married in Maui, simply because she said she was, and therefore she needed legal council to end the marriage.
I have shown that even when legally a marriage NEVER HAPPENED, you still need an attorney to make it go away.
I'm puzzled as to why you would trust the uncollaborated word of a communist and avowed atheist?
Were you there when she swore on a stack of Bibles or something?
Bump.
One thing you left off your list is the fact that Obama’s official web site has posted a forgery and certified it as real. Whatever the reason for this its still fraud. Why shouldn’t we pursue him for this demonstrable crime which is occurring now and can be laid directly at Obama’s door, as well as wonder what it is he has to hide that would drive him to take such risks to keep out of the public eye.
It is only the compliance and bias of the press which has, so far, prevented this from blowing up into the major scandal it should, and still might, be.
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.