Posted on 07/28/2009 6:20:25 PM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
Take that, "birthers," said Eric Kleefeld in Talking Points Memo. The House of Representatives has just passed a bill recognizing the 50th anniversary of Hawaii's statehood and noting the state as President Obama's birthplace. The 378-0 vote was a "none-too-subtle jab at the Birthers"—who claim Obama wasn't really born in the U.S. and therefore isn't eligible to be president. And the real insult came when Rep. Bill Posey, sponsor of the "infamous Birther Bill," and other Republican sympathizers cast their votes for the language recognizing Obama as a natural-born citizen.
It's true that "a few misguided souls among the Right" have indulged this birther "foolishness," said National Review in an editorial, but "the birth-certificate business is not a uniquely conservative phenomenon." The claim that Obama was born in Kenya appears to have originated with a pro-Hillary Clinton blog during the presidential primaries. "Barack Obama may prefer European-style socialized health care," but "he was born in the U.S.A."
Sympathetic House Republicans and the National Review aren't the only conservatives abandoning the nutty birthers, said Alex Koppelman in Salon. Fox News' Bill O'Reilly has slammed birthers (watch), and even the infamous rightwing pundit Ann Coulter has withheld her support (watch). When even "some of the conservative movement's most notorious and recognizable media personalities" are denouncing these loonies, it must be getting pretty lonely on "the Birther crazy train."
the resolution was about praising hawaii and the Obama stuff was incidental.
“Incoming flak getting heavier. Approaching target, over...”
lol, true.
But “natural born” is very vaguely defined.
The fact that he was born to a US Citizen mother and was never subsequently naturalized (as an immigrant has to be), would probably suffice to fit the definition if it were ever seriously contested.
I too would like to see his BC, because there is doubtless something of great interest there, of a rather different significance.
There is nothing in the bill about "natural born citizen" rather it states that Obama was born in Hawaii. While Congress was misguided to pass this bill I tire of people mixing these things up. Obama's birth location is not the same as status as a "natural born citizen".
Stay tuned for tomorrow's proclamation that the moon is indeed made of green cheese, and that babies do in fact come from the stork.
His mother did not qualify as an American citzen under those current laws. She was under age did not live in the USA for 5 years after her 18th birthday.
In 1961 if a 17 year old American girl gave birth in a foreign country to a child whose father was not an American citizen, that child had no right to any American citizenship, let alone the “natural born” citizenship that qualifies someone for the Presidency under Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution.
“ 7 FAM 1133.2-2 Original Provisions and Amendments to Section 301
(CT:CON-204; 11-01-2007)
“a. Section 301 as Effective on December 24, 1952: When enacted in 1952, section 301 required a U.S. citizen married to an alien to have been physically present in the United States for ten years, including five after reaching the age of fourteen, to transmit citizenship to foreign-born children. The ten-year transmission requirement remained in effect from 12:01 a.m. EDT December 24, 1952, through midnight November 13, 1986, and still is applicable to persons born during that period.
Under the case law prevailing at the time, for entirely different purposes.
A court in this day and age would be very unlikely to see it that way.
I might be going out on a limb here, but if that's their goal, how about releasing the actual long form birth certificate? Instead they just release a partly redacted certificate of live birth along with someone saying they've seen his actual birth certificate and everything is honky dory...uh...how about letting everyone see that instead of taking someone's word for it?
No. It was very well defined at the time of the Constitution.
Clearing the Smoke on Obama’s Eligibility: An Intelligence Investigator’s June 10 Report
William Blackstone, Commentaries 1:354, 357–58, 361–62 Year 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.. . .
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:
It will be a nice match for my “One Big Ass Mistake America” bumper sticker.
I always make a point of pulling in front of any Prius I drive by. The odds favor a negative reaction that I enjoy watching in my rear view mirror, especially at Red Lights.
You know, It’s funny.
My entire life has been lived in unpopularity.
I’m so used to it, that I’m not really sure that I could handle being popular.
That being said, where is the birth certificate?
Bring a case under that reasoning, and it would most likely be tossed out of court.
Subsequent legislation has made retroactive qualifications for citizenship that are broader than the law of 1952. Under present law he would without a doubt be considered a US citizenship without need for naturalization ( the most likely reading of “natural born”).
Now, one could argue that the definition of “natural born” has to be governed by the law prevailing at the time. I doubt any court will agree, and prefer the law prevailing at the time it was constitutionally relevant, i.e., 2008.
They are coming out of the woodwork and it gets curiouser and curiouser.
That one is easy to answer - they did not read the bill before the passed it.
No, it is still vaguely defined because the two-parents rule used in this statement was no longer current even in the days of George III. A child of an Englishman abroad was a subject of HM the King, no matter who was his mother.
Besides which there is no case law here vis the constitutional test. You could make this argument but I doubt a court would agree with your application of original intent.
Sure. The Constitution is now toilet paper, right?
Watch the left hand while the right hand stabs you! Be very alert - they are trying to pull a fast one because it’s the libs that are running the BC up the flagpole right now!
I know why its happening.
The One has seen his popularity falling and is trying to improve it (one effort anyway) by embarassing the opposition by making them out to be kooks of one sort or another. Hence the return of the birth controversy.
The bad guys work their evil by framing us, variously, as warmongers, greedheads, crooks, idiots, kooks, or just plain unfashionable. This birth business is just ammo for the other side.
Yep it was a sexist world back then, but Obozo’s daddy was a british subject and that makes him a british subject. You have to make a positive statement to reject British citizenship.
A country that won’t allow dual citizenship has no affect on British status if it grants its own citizenship unless that British citizenship is overtly denied in a manner that Britain recognizes.
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.