Posted on 07/27/2009 7:03:39 PM PDT by pissant
HONOLULU -- State officials again are confirming that President Barack Obama was born in Hawaii.
Health Director Dr. Chiyome Fukino said Monday she has seen the original birth records that verify Obama was born in Hawaii, and is a "natural-born American citizen."
Fukino made the announcement in hopes of ending any lingering rumors about Obama's citizenship. She issued a similar press release Oct. 31.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
Were there any black students in Mercer Island High in the '57-60 time frame? Maybe a kid from "across the tracks? That would be her style, at least until she married Lolo, who actually seems to have been a responsible sort of dude. But then again, she divorced him.
They've also stated he was born at Queen's Medical Center, as long ago as November 2004. Some have called that a "typo", but you have to be seriously messed up to intend to type "Kapiolani" and come out with "Queen's".
It says no such thing, any more than it states that "the parents having to both be citizens of the united states". That's your interpretation of the meaning of "natural born citizen". The Constitution merely states:
No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President;
In those days, a foreign woman marrying a US citizen became a citizen automatically. But the not the other way around. Thus anyone born with a US Citizen father, assuming the parents were married, would be born of "two US Citizens". Early laws explicitly stated that no one whose father had never lived in the US, was not a citizen, even if the father himself was a US Citizen.
As a I later said, judges and courts in general, aren't too interested in press releases. They would at minimum require a notarized statement, but in this case would likely require a certified copy of the "original vital records". They might even require a separate notary to "sign off" on the copy, one who could certify that it was a true copy.
Usually the hospital administrative staff would standardize the terms. They are the ones who fill out the Certificate, for the parent, doctor and hospital registrar (one of them) to sign. I think that is required today, but may have only been a "standard" in '61.
You are conflating "Citizen" and "Natural born citizen". Since your parents were citizens, and you were born here, you are natural born. Sounds like your parents were as well. But somewhere back in the past, you had ancestors who were naturalized citizens, their offspring would have been natural born citizens. (If you have ancestors going back to before the revolution, it's a bit different, but they became citizens upon independence, and their offspring were then natural born citizens.
thats the problem with our party,
Our party? Which one would that be?
First of all FR is not about the Republican party, but about the Free republic, as in "and to the the republic for which it stands". not, directly, as in "Republican Party".
Secondly: Welcome to Free Republic. If we can keep it.
somedude210
Since Jul 26, 2009
The Courts have not yet weighed in, except to throw cases out, based not on evidence or facts, but on "Standing".
The Legislative branch is controlled by Obama's party. The "security agencies" are, at least nominally, controlled by Obama.
She was 18, but from 1952, when the residency requirement as it now reads was passed, and 1986, when the requirements were changed to their present values, it was 10 years of residency, 5 of which had to be after the 14th birthday of the US citizen parent. You have to look at the "notes" which are linked on the right hand side of the page I provided the link to.
And you should know that none of those laws, nor the 14th amendment say anything about "natural born citizenship". Well except for the 1790 law, which was replaced in 1795, with pretty the same language, but without the part about children born abroad of citizen parents being considered Natural Born Citizens. It's speculation, but I suspect someone pointed out that they had no power to create or define natural born citizens. They did leave in the part about citizenship not being handed down to someone whose father, though a citizen had never lived in the US. They were really serious about keeping out foreign influence, except as controlled through the immigrantation and naturalization process. That of course produces natural born citizens only in the first generation born in the US, after the parents were naturalized.
It's not made up, you can find it on the Department of State website. It's just part of the "U.S. Department of State Foreign Affairs Manual Volume 7 - Consular Affairs" It is just their opinion of course, but you can imagine they run stuff like that past their internal lawyers. As they point out, no court has adjudicated the matter. Hopefully that will change, and soon.
So you'd be happy with the Congress changing the definition of "the press", "freedom of speech". "arms", "keep", "bear" or any number of other Constitutional terms, including "the people"?
You might, but I sure as heck would not.
The notion that "birthright or 14th amendment citizenship is the same as "natural born" is your opinion, others have theirs. The courts have not defined, except in dicta which doesn't count, "natural born" and even then, not for purposes of the Constitutional eligibility to the office of President.
The COLB/abstracts are not images, they are generated when requested from information, characters, stored in a database. Characters take many few bits than an image of that character would take. The stuff on Free republic, except the images, is stored as characters, probably something called ASCI characters, although another similar encoding, UTF-8, is also possible. Here is an image of the printable ACSI (American Standard Code for Information Interchange) characters (ASCI-II)
But each character only takes 1 byte to store (actually 7/8th of a byte) so the all the characters could be stored in 83 1/8 bytes, the image takes 22,338 bytes. Storing small amounts of bytes, per record, has been possible for lots of years. Storing images for lots of records, and having them on-line, is only just becoming possible.
Not true. Google stores whole books online for free. Scanned, OCR'ed, fully indexed and searchable.
Storing images has been possible for close to two decades now, I'd estimate. Electronic document processing was hot technology in the mid nineties among law firms and insurance companies and anybody else needing to store and search large amounts of relatively unstructured paper. Image storage been cheap for at least a decade now. So, why is the birth certificate technology trend towards what would have been possible in the seventies instead of what's easy and cheap now?
Over a million dollars to fight showing a piece of paper. Stories that don’t match. Why have the conservative media want now to kill this story?
You are absolutely right. I had 10 and 4 in my head, but upon review it was 10 and 5. My apologies.
(From post 605) It still would not be irrelevant. Because, if he is a citizen *only* because of act of Congress, he can't be natural born. This is because Congress only has the power to define a uniform rule of naturalization, per Art. I Sec. 8 of the Constitution. They do not have to power to change the definition of "natural born citizen".
Well, I would submit that, if they didn't have the power to do so previously, we gave them that power in the 14th Amendment:
Section 1: 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.
Section 5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.
Now, frankly, Congress, themselves, thought that they had the power to define who was and who was not a natural born citizen, long before that point.
The Naturalization Act of 1790, passed by the 1st Congress and signed by George Washington, said, in part:
...And the children of citizens of the United States, that may be born beyond sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born citizens...
Now maybe the First Congress didn't have the authority to do that (and that would not be an unrealistic statement, as both Congress and SCOTUS have tried to usurp additional power from each other and from the people since the beginning of the Republic) but you can't say that the current Immigration and Nationality Act is diametrically opposed to what was originally established, considering the above-quoted verbiage from the Naturalization Act of 1790.
The other point is does "citizen at birth" = "natural born citizen"?
I think that any court would say "yes." I'm sure you could find plenty of citations from extralegal sources that would question that, but the bottom line is that you've got to convince a court of that position, else all the extralegal sources in the world don't matter.
In light of your correction, though, had he been born overseas, there is, in fact, no way that Stanley Ann could have passed on citizenship to him, as she hadn't met the residency requirements (as she was not yet 19 when he was born). Nationality: yes (§1409c). Citizenship: no.
Now look at your post 287. And look at what you wrote in post 599. If the issue isn't parentage, then why add the clause as they were born here but their parents were not. And don't try handing me the "this country didn't exist" as it did. They were Colonials and tied to this land, born on this soil. Not one was born in England. But their parents were.
It does no such thing.
That said, I don't know what else to tell you aside that you're seriously misinformed.
Everyone is entitled to their opinion.
I'm not trying to be contentious with you, I'm just trying to be helpful. Ask other members of FR, or do a little research on the net, and don't ever let your pride stand in the way of corrective information. I'm not perfect, and I certainly make mistakes like everyone else, although, on this issue, it's pretty plain to see what the framers intended.
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.