Posted on 07/28/2009 5:29:21 AM PDT by reaganaut1
Pres. Barack Obama has a birthday coming up, a week from Tuesday. We hope he takes the day off—or even the whole week, the briefest of respites from his busy schedule of truncating our liberties while exhausting both the public coffers and our patience. The president’s birthday comes to mind because we recently spent some time looking at a photograph of his birth certificate, being held by Joe Miller of Factcheck.org, who took the time to examine it. President Obama was born on August 4, 1961, at 7:24 p.m, in Honolulu County, Hawaii, on the island of Oahu. The serial number on his birth certificate is 010641. Baby Barack’s birth was not heralded, as some of his partisans have suggested, by a star in the east, but it was heralded by the Honolulu Star, as well as the Honolulu Advertiser, each of which published birth announcements for young Mr. Obama.
Much foolishness has become attached to the question of President Obama’s place of birth, and a few misguided souls among the Right have indulged it. The myth that Barack Obama is ineligible to be president represents the hunt for a magic bullet that will make all the unpleasant complications of his election and presidency disappear. We are used to seeing conspiracy theories from the Left, for instance among the one in three Democrats who believe that 9/11 was an inside job conducted with the foreknowledge of the Bush administration. We’ve seen everything under the sun blamed on Dick Cheney and Halliburton, and Rosie O’Donnell has given us much mirth with her metallurgical expertise, while Andrew Sullivan has beclowned himself and tarnished the good name of The Atlantic with his investigation into the “real” parentage of Trig Palin. Most notable, the Iraq War summoned the craziness in a big way, and there are those who still shudder over their espressos at the mention of the Carlyle Group. And there is a fair amount of crossover between those fixated on Obama’s birth certificate and the 9/11 “truthers” — lawyer Phil Berg, for instance, is a player in both worlds. There is nothing that President Obama’s coterie would enjoy more than to see the responsible Right become a mirror image of the loopy Left circa 2003.
The birth-certificate business is not a uniquely conservative phenomenon; the allegation that Obama was born in Kenya seems to have originated with a Hillary Clinton supporter at a blog called The Blue State. Either way, this fantasy is not particularly widespread within the conservative movement, but it has attracted enough interest that it needs to be addressed.
The fundamental fiction is that Obama has refused to release his “real” birth certificate. This is untrue. The document that Obama has made available is the document that Hawaiian authorities issue when they are asked for a birth certificate. There is no secondary document cloaked in darkness, only the state records that are used to generate birth certificates when they are requested.
If one applies for a United States passport, the passport office will demand a birth certificate. It defines this as an official document bearing “your full name, the full name of your parent(s), date and place of birth, sex, date the birth record was filed, and the seal or other certification of the official custodian of such records.” The Hawaiian birth certificate President Obama has produced—the document is formally known as a “certificate of live birth”—bears that information. It has been inspected by reporters, and several state officials have confirmed that the information in permanent state records is identical to that on the president’s birth certificate—which is precisely what one expects, of course, since the state records are used to generate those documents when they are requested. In other words, what President Obama has produced is the “real” birth certificate of myth and lore. The director of Hawaii’s health department and the registrar of records each has personally verified that the information on Obama’s birth certificate is identical to that in the state’s records, the so-called vault copy. Given that fact, we are loath even to engage the fanciful notion that President Obama was born elsewhere, contrary to the information on his birth certificate, but we note for the record that his mother was a native of Kansas, whose residents have been citizens of the United States for a very long time, and whose children are citizens of the United States as well.
The attention paid to President Obama’s place of birth is not unprecedented. In fact, it may be the only thing President Obama has in common with Pres. Chester Arthur, whose opponents whispered that he had been born in Canada. A number of unsuccessful presidential candidates—George Romney, Barry Goldwater, and Lowell Weicker among them—actually were born outside of the United States (in Mexico, the Arizona Territory, and Paris, respectively) to American parents and thereby into American citizenship. If the conspiracy theorists have evidence that President Obama went through the naturalization process, let them show it. But there is no such evidence, because this theory is based on unreality, as two minutes’ examining the claims of its proponents reveals. The hallmark of a conspiracy theory is that a lack of evidence for the theory is taken as yet more evidence for the theory. Indeed, the maddening thing about dealing with conspiracy hobbyists of this or any sort is the ever-shifting nature of their argument and their alleged evidence: Never mind the birth certificate, his step-grandmother said he was born in Kenya! (No, she didn’t.)
One of the unfortunate consequences of this red-herring discussion is that there are plenty of questions about Obama’s background and history that we would like to have answered. In spite of two books of memoirs, there remain murky areas in his biography. And when it comes to those college transcripts, count us among those who’d love to know whether Dr. Bailout ever took an advanced economics class and how he performed in it.
Barack Obama may prefer European-style socialized health care. He may consider himself a citizen of the Earth and sometimes address his audiences as “people of the world,” as though he were born not in another country but on another planet. Like Bruce Springsteen, he has a lot of bad political ideas; but he was born in the U.S.A.
Well, I only skimmed thru the lawyer legalese in the Prez order you linked to (thanx for that), but I was just thinking the effect was prolly to seal the records unless Zero gives permission for access to them.
But I’m not a freaking lawyer (thankfully) nor do I play one on the boob toob, so I couldn’t say for sure.
"That the first order of business Obama took care of on day one of his Presidency was to sign off on an Executive Order that states that only the records he chooses to be made public will be released?"
So if their analysis is correct, that is exactly what I was surmising.
It is only by examining the 18th century usage and definition of a term that we can ascertain its meaning in the Constitution. In the 18th century, and at the time of the framing and ratification of the Constitution by the states, the term “natural-born” subject or citizen was always used or defined in such a way as to exclude the child of a British or American girl or woman when that child was born in a foreign country and that child’s father was a foreign citizen. No 18th century jurist would have thought the term “natural-born” citizen or subject could have been extended to the child of a British or American girl or woman when that child was born in a foreign country and that child’s father was a foreign citizen.
Here is Blackstone’s classic exposition in 1765 of the legal meaning of the term from the Commentaries on the Laws of England.
William Blackstone, Commentaries 1:354, 357–58, 361–62
1765
“Natural-born subjects are such as are born within the dominions of the crown of England, that is, within the ligeance, or as it is generally called, the allegiance of the king; and aliens, such as are born out of it.. . .
“When I say, that an alien is one who is born out of the king’s dominions, or allegiance, this also must be understood with some restrictions. The common law indeed stood absolutely so; with only a very few exceptions: so that a particular act of parliament became necessary after the restoration, for the naturalization of children of his majesty’s English subjects, born in foreign countries during the late troubles. And this maxim of the law proceeded upon a general principle, that every man owes natural allegiance where he is born, and cannot owe two such allegiances, or serve two masters, at once. Yet the children of the king’s embassadors born abroad were always held to be natural subjects: for as the father, though in a foreign country, owes not even a local allegiance to the prince to whom he is sent; so, with regard to the son also, he was held (by a kind of postliminium) to be born under the king of England’s allegiance, represented by his father, the embassador. To encourage also foreign commerce, it was enacted by statute 25 Edw. III. st. 2. that all children born abroad, provided both their parents were at the time of the birth in allegiance to the king,…might inherit as if born in England: and accordingly it hath been so adjudged in behalf of merchants. But by several more modern statutes these restrictions are still farther taken off: so that all children, born out of the king’s ligeance, whose fathers were natural-born subjects, are now natural-born subjects themselves, to all intents and purposes, without any exception; unless their said fathers were attainted, or banished beyond sea, for high treason; or were then in the service of a prince at enmity with Great Britain.” [The italics are Blackstone’s]
I truly believe this is referring too "Presidential Material" records kept while a President. It has absolutely nothing to do with the BC or any college records.
These guys are blowing smoke up their own ass!
SORRY. No Hussein Obama Birth certificate has EVER been posted. That is an urban myth. The “CERTIFICATION of Live Birth” is a PSEUDO-DOCUMENT that even the State of Hawaii rejected for internal identification purposes untill late June 2009!
Actually - unless I am mistaken - i’ve only tried to address it on this one. Yes - I have put a lot of effort into it - some of the people I have continued to correspond with over private messages, and I’ve learned a lot - I’ve enjoyed the exercise.
My whole point was to raise awareness we are probably being suckered. I’ve stated it - and I’ll probably leave it where it lies.
Have a good day, Windflier. I’ve enjoyed talking to you.
Yep - I tracked it down, read it, and appreciated that information. It didn't change anything, but was good information and useful helping other people understand the whole picture.
Have a good one.
Please provide some kind of cite for those opinions by Arthur’s cronies in New York.
Sure thing... Theres a great book you are looking for called “How a British Subject became President of the United States” by A.P. Hinton. It is the saga of a man on our side of the argument - and it contains numerous quotes and correspondence between himself and officials in new york and washington on the subject.
Here is another - but not on Arthur particularly:
Attorney General Edward Bates, Opinion on Citizenship (1862)
The Constitution itself does not make the citizens, (it is. in fact,made by them.) It only intends and recognizes such of them as are natural—home-born—and provides for the naturalization of such of them as were alien—foreign-born—making the latter, as far as nature will allow, like the former. …
And our Constitution, in speaking of natural born citizens, uses no affirmative language to make them such, but only recognizes and reaffirms the universal principle, common to all nations, and as old as political society, that the people born in a country do constitute the nation, and, as individuals, are natural members of the body politic.
If this be a true principle, and I do not doubt it, it follows that every person born in the country is, at the moment of birth, prima facie a citizen; and he who would deny it must take upon himself the burden of proving some great disfranchisement strong enough to override the “natural born” right as recognized by the Constitution in terms the most simple and comprehensive …
And so strongly was Congress impressed with the great legal fact that the child takes its political status in the nation where it is born, that it was found necessary to pass a law to prevent the alienage of children of our known fellow-citizens who happen to be born in foreign countries. The act of February 10, 1855, 10 Statutes, 604, provides that “persons,” (not white persons,) ” persons heretofore born, or hereafter to be born, out of the limits and jurisdiction of the United States, shall be deemed and considered and are hereby declared to be citizens of the United States: Provided, however, That the rights of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers never resided in the United States.”
Attorney General Edward Bates, Opinion of Attorney General Bates on Citizenship
But, you know, Plumz - while this was interesting for a bit - I am kinda wore out. I’ve got a 142KB text file of this junk gathered up during my research, have discussed the issue on two threads - and really don’t see a point. When it is all said and done, it’ll take a court case in front of the supreme court to decide what truly is or is not a Natural Born Citizen. All of our arguing on the message board ain’t gonna make any difference. My fear - my original reason for posting anything about this was that I felt we were about to be suckered big time and painted as a bunch of nutcases - and it is looking like that fear was really well founded.
It is my understanding that book concerned Arthur’s birthplace, not his father’s naturalization. When I get a copy, I will see if your claim holds up or if it as bogus as your claims concerning Calhoun.
I found the book in my documents folder - I have in scanned in pdf. If you give me your email address, I’ll send it on over to you.
Your characterization of the book is correct - he felt that Arthur was Canadian - but the content of the book has numerous sections that support my point.
As to hiding it - I am not sure where you are getting that from. A.P. Hinton was a contemporary who wrote numerous letters to numerous officials on this issue - they are published in the book.
Since the book is a scan - I can’t cut and paste text. But just searching on the books titles includes these excerpts:
PRESIDENT ARTHUR’S MESSAGE SEVERELY CRITICIZED BY
A ST. PETERSBURG JOURNAL-EXCEPTION TAKEN TO
THE CONDITION OF THE JEWS IN RUSSIA.
(By cable to the Herald.)
London, December 12, 1881.
…Arthur even refrains from making comments
on English home affairs–the Irish rebellion, for instance,
which is agitating millions of American citizens, who are
also born Irishmen like the President.
Senate of the United States
City of Washington, January 10th, 1881.
A. P. HINMAN, E sq., New York.
DEAR SIR :-In response to your letter of the 7th instant-
the term” natural-born citizen,” as used in the Constitution
and Statutes of the U. S., is held to be a native of
the U. S.
The naturalization by law of a father before his child
attains the age of twenty-one, would be naturalization of
such minor.
Yours respectfully,
T. F. BAYARD.
I can’t find references on any credible site that talks about Arthur hiding that his father was naturilized - except on sites bent on hiding that precedent to strengthen the argument that Obama is not natural born. Hinton’s book provides all the details you need to see that it was talked about, on a pretty constant basis, at the time.
While some people might think that simply means born in the USA, that is in doubt as was pointed out in a Supreme Court case, which then declined to resolve the issue as it was not germain to that particular case.
It is agreed that children born in the USA, and subject to USA jurisdiction, whose parents are both citizens are natural born citizens as described in Article 1 section2 of the constitution and eligible to be president at age 35.
Beyond that, it is murky. In 1790 Congress attempted to define persons born abroad to parents who are both citizens as “natural born” citizens (unless the father had never been a resident of the US).
Another law in 1795 used only the word citizen. Several US supreme court decisions known as Insular cases apparently mucked things up again.
The state department foreign affairs manual simply states that the 1790 statute is non operational, and that it has never been definitively determined by court.
They further state that “the fact that someone is a natural born citizen pursuant to a statute does not necessarily imply that he or she is such a person for constitutional purposes.”
So as I said murky from a legal standpoint. The fact that Obama’s father was never a citizen of the United States is more of a dis-qualifier as far as I can tell. Not to mention his early childhood socialization in other countries.
It would be nice to have the definition of “natural born” determined, but it is not a settled issue apparently.
I stop reading when the author can’t distinguish between a birth certificate and a certification of live birth.
If his mother was thus unwed, she would only have to have been in the US for 12 consecutive months prior to his birth.
She wasn’t in the country 12 consecutive months before his birth if you mean that literally.
I do mean it literally. However, be careful. They did not say immediately prior to the birth. So, it could be that any time during her childhood would count, but so far I have not found further clarification.
We need Sarah Palin to challenge BOzo and say to him “ I will show you mine if you show me yours.” That will get national attention.
Both of those quotes from the Hinman (not Hinton) book need more context. Here is a full copy of the book — http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/01/HinmanWeb.pdf
The first quote is a translation from a Russian newspaper from a Russian newspaper article from Dec 1881 which refers to Arthur as a “American citizen” and “born Irishm[a]n.” This is hardly proof that Arthur was widely understood in 1880 America to be born to an un-naturalized father.
The second quote might tend to support your argument, but it appears the Hinman letter the Senator is responding to may be abridged (***). We don’t know if the Senator was responding to a hypothetical with that second statement, or what.
I can’t find references from any credible source that claims Arthur did not hide that his father was un-naturalized — except from sources bent on fabricating that precedent to strengthen the argument that Obama is natural-born. Hinman’s book provides none of the details you need to back up your un-credible claim that it was talked about, on a pretty constant basis, at the time.
Plummz - did you read the book? Besides the earlier cites - here are a few more.
On page 51 - Letter to the editor on the subject, starting with “As much has been writtten and said lately regarding the birth-place and parentage of President Arthur, I thought I would write you...”
New York Times - same book - death notice for Arthur’s father. Read that. No confusion on the place of birth now, is there?
Senators letter - page 89 - you see the complete context. Read the entire Herald article, too.
The problem seems to be that you either aren’t really reading - and don’t intend to read - the 90 page book - and already have your mind made up. If that is the case, why even discuss it with me?
Now - where is your evidence that this was hidden at all?
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.