Posted on 07/28/2009 11:09:59 AM PDT by ckilmer
Well kiddies we really shook them up yesterday with our post revealing the US Supreme Courts most on point decision regarding the definition of natural-born citizen in the case of Minor v. Happersett which was decided six years after the 14th Amendment was adopted. They were quick to respond werent they.
After building up the main stream media pressure for the last week for what was sure to be a long form BC in the face, they were confronted with a severe blow to the mantra that the 14th Amendment defines natural born citizen. It doesnt and SCOTUS confirms this in Minor. Their response was an emergency statement by Hawaiis Department of Health which seeks to stop the fire we started yesterday. Their response was literally concocted only hours after our last post.
To recap, yesterday we proved that the most on point and controlling decision in our entire history of SCOTUS jurisprudence with regard to the definition of the term natural-born citizen the Minor case unequivocally states that the definition of natural-born citizen is not defined in the Constitution. This analysis destroys the Obama eligibility supporter mantra that 14th Amendment native born citizenship is equal to natural-born citizenship.
SCOTUS clearly states in Minor, six years after the adoption of the 14th Amendment, that the definition of natural-born citizen is not found in the Constitution:
The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their [88 U.S. 162, 168] parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case it is not necessary to solve these doubts.
That passage establishes two important legal facts which cannot be overturned by any Birth Certificate.:
1. it establishes as precedent that the definition of natural-born citizen is not contained in the body of the Constitution and that we must look elsewhere for the definition
2. it establishes doubt that persons born in the US to foreign parents can be President
This is the most on point decision in our legal history as a nation regarding the definition of the Article 2 Section 1 Clause 5 requirement that the President be a natural-born citizen. As such, it not only deserves respect it demands it.
Yet, apparently Yahoo news and every other main stream news source in the country would have you believe that Hawaii Department of Health Director Dr. Chiyome Fukino is a better Constitutional scholar and source of law than our own Supreme Court precedent.
Only hours after I posted my analysis of the Minor case, Fukino issued the following statement:
I have seen the original vital records maintained on file by the Hawaii State Department of Health verifying Barack Hussein Obama was born in Hawaii and is a natural-born American citizen
Wow! Fukino has transmogrified the Constitution. She, and she alone is the sole arbiter of who is and who isnt a natural-born citizen. Incredible. Where did she get her law degree? Or is she simply the great legal oracle of our generation. Have we discovered, as the monks discover the new Dalai Llama, the legendary great legal oracle of our generation?
Since the Supreme Court has stated in Minor that the definition of natural-born citizen is not found in the Constitution, then 14th Amendment citizenship does not establish that any of us are natural-born citizens eligible to be President. The Supreme Court makes it clear as the sun that we have to look beyond the Document for such a determination. Not just for Obama, but for any of us seeking to be President. The natural born citizen requirement was meant to protect the nation from foreign invasion and influence.
The Minor case also tells us that doubts exist as to whether native born persons of foreign parents can be natural-born citizens. And with that SCOTUS decision is supposed to come legal precedent and respect. But apparently the great legal oracle Fukino thinks because she maintains a database of birth records, she is now an authority on Constitutional law.
And this is where our main stream media goes for Constitutional law advice to Hawaiis Department of Health Director.
Well Fukino, since the Supreme Court states you must look outside the Constitution to determine the meaning of natural-born citizen, please tell us where you went to make this monumental announcement that Obama is a natural-born citizen. Please do tell. Because as weve said all along at this blog, we believe Obama was born in Hawaii.
Weve also said that when push comes to shove Hawaii is going to verify that Obama was born in Hawaii.
Now Hawaii is going even further than we anticipated. Not only is Hawaii saying Obama was born in Hawaii, Hawaii is also now defining natural-born citizen for the rest of United States history.
Yes, its true, Fukino mandates from her little cubicle at the Department of Health in Hawaii that she has overruled the US Supreme Court in Minor v. Happersett and she has seen the light of legal truth and all doubts mentioned by SCOTUS in Minor can now be discarded. The great legal oracle of Hawaii has spoken.
What a load of crap this is. Thanks to all the BC fringe for giving such power to the BC. Ive told you a million times that the BC does not matter at all. If Obama were born on the mall in DC in a manger rocked by Ronald Reagan sipping a Martini while reading a masonic Bible with a million man march full of witnesses, Obama would still not be eligible to be President.
The Supreme Court has unequivocally expressed such doubts in Minor. And that being said, I will admit that while SCOTUS has expressed such doubts, they have never defined natural-born citizen either. While I believe the great weight of evidence proves he is not eligible, I will not be as low down filthy as the opposition and tell you that the law has been determined. It has not. But it should be. And thats what Ive been saying all along.
SCOTUS expressed their doubts about Obamas eligibility in Minor. The current court should have clarified the issue with a decision. Obama should have asked them to clarify such an important doubt by bringing the Arizona sworn affirmation to them and asking whether he could sign it without committing perjury.
But the great legal oracle Fukino manages to save the day only hours after the Supreme Courts Minor decision was finally decoded to reveal beyond any doubt that
native born does not = natural born
Not according to the US Supreme Court not for Obama and not for any of us.
If you want to be President, you have to prove more than just the fact that you are a citizen of this country. You must prove you are a natural-born citizen and Fukino cant prove that by showing a long form Obama BC. And neither can Obama. And neither can you.
Thats right. None of us have a long form BC which can prove we are eligible to be President because, as far as I can tell, while our long form birth certificates contain the names and residences of our parents, they do not contain citizenship information. Since 14th Amendment citizenship, according to SCOTUS in Minor, does not define natural-born citizen, the court states that we must look elsewhere to make that decision.
The court unequivocally stated in Minor that we should look at the nationality of the parents and if the parents are US citizens, and the child is born in the US, then the child is a natural-born citizen of the US. If the child is subject to a foreign nationality through a parent then there are doubts which were clearly expressed by SCOTUS in Minor. Obamas father was NEVER a US citizen. Obama also admits that his birth status was governed by Great Britain. Obama chose the word governed, not me.
But Fukino has overruled the United States Supreme Court today in a direct assault on the legal truths exposed by this blog yesterday. What an amazing turn of events. At least weve discovered who the great legal oracle of our generation is. Its not Obama and its not me. Its Fukino. She is the greatest legal mind of our generation. All hail the great legal oracle form Hawaii.
If you people haven’t already joined, please consider joining Orly’s Facebook site. (I am not a big Facebook person, but this is worth it) I am receiving such good information and one on one interaction with others who believe that the obamanation is counterfeit. The site is:
Do you have an official source for Fukino’s statement???
I had to think about that for a second, I was born in the USA to two US citizens, but that does not show on my birth certificate, so yes I must present proof that not only was I born in the US but that both my parents were US citizens at the time of my birth. Lacking that the USSC will have to decide if one or no USC parents is sufficient to be a natural born citizen. This has been my argument all along, but the case puts it more clearly.
“Obamas father was NEVER a US citizen.”
I agree with your analysis of the situation.
Except, if the father listed on Obozo’s REAL birth certificate is someone other than Barrack H. Obama, Sr. then it is possible that he might meet the requirements of the law as being a “Natural Born U.S. Citizen”
My birth certificate ( and that of my daughter) shows very distinctly what nationality ( ie where born) my parents (and her parents) were. Now I don’t know what info your state required but at least in Colorado and in California that infor is required.
“Except, if the father listed on Obozos REAL birth certificate is someone other than Barrack H. Obama, Sr. then it is possible that he might meet the requirements of the law as being a Natural Born U.S. Citizen.”
What if the entry for father said, “UNKNOWN” ?
My BC long form has (place of birth )for both parents,further delineated as (state or foreign country). Despite the document showing them to be born in the usa, that is not evidence of them being US citizens as it is self supplied. To be sure of that, their birth certificates or other information would be necessary IMO. See Sun Yat Sen hawaiian BC, its a lie.
That would be a tough one to answer. Protracted litigation would be involved. Possibly it could never be determined.
There has been some “speculation” that it could have been Frank Marshall Davis, although I see no evident to suggest that.
yeah I know. that would be the communist family friend. but you would think that this news would not be particularly embarrassing. ie no biggie. so why not show it.
To date, Obama has obscured the issue, paid to cover it up and done all possible to silence the opposition. If we need evidence of his nationality, I believe he has given it to us in full dose. He’s not an American and the argument is vapor rather than substitive. It is his job to evidence his citizenship and it is our job to make him do it.
can you put that up on its own webpage side by side with the obama COLB so people can understand this a little more clearly.
Prophets heralded his coming and reserved a certificate for him, maybe?
/s
Referencing the 1961 HI BC example, there is no entry for the babies race, implying that any designation of race came from the parents.
If the father is listed as “UNKNOWN” then, the clerk/attending could not enter the father’s race. Only the mother’s race would be entered.
When he was enrolled in kindergarten and presented his BC, what would the child’s race be officially designated as?
August 1961
S M Tu W Th F S
1 2 3 4 5
6 7 8 9 10 11 12
13 14 15 16 17 18 19
20 21 22 23 24 25 26
27 28 29 30 31
Interesting on the numbers/dates not too far off. Could the Nordyke Twins birth announcement be in the week after Obamas in the Honolulu newspapers? It looks like those copies were certified 5/5/66 maybe for school admission/shots? The attendant signatures look like 8/11/61. who were they? Thanks to the twins for putting their BC’s out there!
How come the statement is not on the Hawaii website??? Hawaii information director Okubo says that the issuance of such statement would have been against Hawaiian law???
Interesting.
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.