Update on Barack Obama's Birth Certificate Issue

Right Side News ^ | November 30, 2008

[Red Steel]

Citizenship Issue on MSNBC Hawaii Revised Statute 338-17.8 allows registration of birth in Hawaii for a child that was born outside of Hawaii to parents who, for a year preceding the childs birth, claimed Hawaii as their place of residence. The parents would be issued a Certification of Live Birth.

This is not proof of where the child was born. It only proves that the parents claimed Hawaii as their main place of residence for the prior year.

British Nationality Act of 1948 (Part II, Section 5): Subject to the provisions of this section, a person born after the commencement of this Act shall be a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies by descent if his father is a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies at the time of the birth.

A natural born citizen, would not be a citizen of any other nation than the United States. That is what "natural born" means. By nature, the child, would be only a US citizen, because both of his parents were US citizens, and NO OTHER NATION, can by law claim him to be under their jurisdiction, at the moment of his birth. That was not the case with Obama. He was, by law, a Citizen of the United Kingdom, the moment he was born, and then, by law, he became a citizen of Kenya on Dec. 12, 1963.

For a more detailed explaination of natural born citizen, see my other related video here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bp2kKN...

[dcwusmc]

See post 238 for the law on this. You are wrong, wrong as two left shoes.

[Citizen Blade]

Post 238 did not include all of the relevant Statute, such as:

The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth:

(d) a person born outside of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is a citizen of the United States who has been physically present in the United States or one of its outlying possessions for a continuous period of one year prior to the birth of such person, and the other of whom is a national, but not a citizen of the United States;

(g) a person born outside the geographical limits of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is an alien, and the other a citizen of the United States who, prior to the birth of such person, was physically present in the United States or its outlying possessions for a period or periods totaling not less than five years

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode08/usc_sec_08_00001401——000-.html

(g) would cover a situation where a child was born abroad to one citizen and one non-citizen.

[Red Steel]

Again I disagree with you. The Fourteenth Amendment does not address the issue of natural born citizen. It does however provide for a general and broad definition of US citizenship and to provide equal protection under the law.

From your excerpt: The fourteenth amendment of the constitution, in the declaration that 'all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside,' contemplates two sources of citizenship, and two only,-birth and naturalization.

Incomplete. Using a single source to define US citizenship ensues confusion. Generally speaking, US citizenship can happen in 3 ways; place of birth, by blood, and naturalization. Any one of these can bestow US citizenship, but it may not make one a natural born citizen.

The Constitutional framers were obviously worried of loyalty to the country. Natural born in the strictest sense is being born within the United States to US citizens is what the framers had in mind. Being born to foreigners or overseas may produce a person who has split his loyalty among nations, and clearly the Framers wanted to avoid that person from becoming president. However, the question of natural born citizen has not been addressed by the Supreme Court.

[Diggity]

His mother was not of Majority age at the time which is an additional problem for Obama.

[Sherman Logan]

Natural born in the strictest sense is being born within the United States to US citizens is what the framers had in mind.

Nope. What you are missing is that "natural-born citizen" had a specific meaning in common law. Most of the Founders were lawyers. They knew exactly what it meant. There was no need to define it in the Constitution, as it already had a specific meaning.

Don't take my word for it. Read the Wong Kim Supreme Court decision. The Court explains what these terms mean and their history in tens of pages of detail.

Don't argue with me. Argue with the Supreme Court.

[Knitting A Conundrum]

For easy reference, there’s a wiki article about that ruling with links:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Wong_Kim_Ark

[Red Steel]

The question before the court in that case was whether Wong was a citizen of the US or not. The case had nothing to do with whether or not he qualified to serve as President.

I agree with you LoL!

You cannot rely on that case for any questions dealing with the definition of natural-born citizen, as that is not an issue dealt with by the court.

Again, I agree with you.

[bvw]

Mid-day bump

[bvw]

Mid-day bump

[kitchen]

Thanks for the ping.

[RobRoy]

>>Just my guess. No judge will overturn the election no matter how this turns out.<<

I concur. It reminds me of tax protesters going to court. Judges do not even want to hear their evidence and basically say “everybody has to pay taxes” and throw their case out, even if it may have merit.

A good reason is that a win by one of them could collapse the economy and the country.

Likewise here. Think Watts times 10,000. It would be HUGE. It would make the “Bush stole Florida” croud look like pikers.

That is not an option.

[Shady Ray]

>>I concur. It reminds me of tax protesters going to court. Judges do not even want to hear their evidence and basically say “everybody has to pay taxes” and throw their case out, even if it may have merit.

>>A good reason is that a win by one of them could collapse the economy and the country.

>>Likewise here. Think Watts times 10,000. It would be HUGE. It would make the “Bush stole Florida” croud look like pikers.

But here is the thing that everyone is forgetting: this issue goes to the very heart of the power of the Judiciary. By allowing this to slide by, they would be instantly ceding ground in the eternal struggle between the Executive and Judicial branches.

The Court is the most powerful branch of government. It has not always been that way. They aren’t going to kneel before the Executive branch just so some hoodlums won’t riot.

We should all take a few minutes to read the bios of the Justices on Wikipedia... these people aren’t nearly the wimps that people on this board make them out to be. They may not always rule the way we want, but they have worked very hard to rise to the top of a very competitive profession and are more jealous of power than anyone else in Washington.

This isn’t about Birth Certs, Natural Born Citizenship, Riots or Race... It is about power.

[omniscient]

First of all, you have to assume that (a) any of them are still alive; and (b) any of them remember one specific birth 47 years ago.

(a) I don't assume any are alive. I assume they never existed. That is far more believable.

(b) Anyone connected with any major medical facility in Oahu in 1961 would not be oblivious to the Obama/Hawaii connection and would have searched his memory and any accessible hospital records to see if he hadn't been present at the blessed event of the messiah's birth. So everybody in this category has amnesia or doesn't follow the news?

(c) Oh yes, the medical confidentiality canard. If there was a genuine witness, Obama would be begging this witness to come forward and vouch for him, not trying to keep him quiet for no explicable reason.

[nufsed]

you’re B & C are xlnt points. They would be bragging that he was born in their hospital.

[Sherman Logan]

Thanks so much for the link. Here's a highly relevant section:

In the view of the minority, excessive reliance on birthplace as the principal determiner of citizenship would lead to an untenable state of affairs in which "...the children of foreigners, happening to be born to them while passing through the country, whether of royal parentage or not, or whether of the Mongolian, Malay or other race, were eligible to the presidency, while children of our citizens, born abroad, were not".

They were, however, outvoted, and it seems the misgivings of the dissenters have come true. Personally, I don't have a bit of problem with this result.

[Sherman Logan]

If there was a genuine witness, Obama would be begging this witness to come forward and vouch for him, not trying to keep him quiet for no explicable reason.

Not unless and until this issue gets some traction with the MSM and the public. Otherwise, he has every incentive to ignore it.

[Sparko]

Thanks for the ping.

[Iowan]

Thanks, LucyT

Ping

[hoosiermama]

bump

[RobRoy]

>>It is about power.<<

I agree, but disagree with your conclusions. I learned when I sold commercial real estate in the early 1980’s that the more money that was involved in a transaction/deal, the more likely people were to hang their ethics at the door.

I was not talking about a few tugs. I meant it when I said Watts times 10,000. This sort of thing must NEVER reach critical mass, and if it means stopping the courts from deciding a case such as this one, I firmly believe the judges will be “individually incented”, one way or the other.

Maybe I’ve seen too many movies. We’ll see.