Posted on 07/30/2009 5:06:48 PM PDT by curiosity
Several readers have written over the past few days taking us to task for dismissing so-called birthers as lunatics without bothering to refute their claims. We reluctantly concede their point. The birthers have managed to sow confusion in the minds of some who are not lunatics, and for the latter group’s benefit it is worth clarifying matters.
(Excerpt) Read more at online.wsj.com ...
How so? I just want him to release the vault copy of his birth certificate. If he was born in Hawaii, that would end the question of his eligibility for me.
Yes, Andy McCarthy did point out in his article that there could be questions raised about the definition in the Constitution of natural born versus native born. However, for me, I want to just see the vault copy to ensure that Obama has met the Constitutional requirements and be done with it.
The real question that you and others like you should be asking is why doesn't Obama just allow the State of Hawaii to unseal the records and release them to the public? Until he does, the speculation will go on and Obama's legal costs will continue to rise. One would think that the person who has made "transparency" one of the pillars of his administration and who likes to think of himself as a uniter not a divider would put an end to all of this. If he did, then he would marginalize the conspiracy nuts to a very small group similar to those who still believe we never landed on the moon.
A very slight majority (51%) said they KNEW about the issue. So in fact a lot of the people who said they wanted to see the BC were probably in the group that had not even heard of the issue. Not surprising, since I want to see the BC. In fact, my guess is the way the question was worded, it undercounted the number of people who wanted to see the BC, because it sounds like it was a multi-answer question and some might have chosen just one other answer, even though it looks like you could give multiple answers.
Unfortunately, that survey didn't ask the question about how people felt about the GOP based on the issue, so the poll does NOTHING to assuage the fears that it is hurting conservatives.
The issue doesn't have to hurt conservatives, but to be helpful the focus has to be changed quickly and sharply to the issue of openness (releasing all his records for the public to see) and away from the insistance that Obama isn't a citizen and must removed from the Presidency.
(NOTE: If it was shown he was not born in this country, he SHOULD be disqualified and removed. The problem is that there isn't evidence of that, and those who assert certain knowledge of his disqualification overstep the evidence.)
But saying he should release his records is a different point than insisting he isn't a citizen, and it is again a different issue altogether than his father not being a citizen.
Even if you find some people smart enough to jump hoops through the dozen or more different issues that get raised whenever this comes up, the american people in general have neither the time nor inclination to follow that type of argument.
"Release the Records" is an easy to state, simple to communicate message that resonates. If we stick to that, and downplay the insistance that we know Obama is ineligible, it would be helpful. In my opinion, that was Mark Steyn's position, and several other conservatives who downplay the BC issue are still pushing the document release issue.
LOL. The "current law" took effect long before Obama was born. The 14th amendment and subsequent SCOTUS cases have reinforced jus solis as grounds for citizenship regardless of the nationality of the parents. The case of illegal aliens being able to have their children who are born here become American citizens is a matter of law under US Code. It needs to be challenged in the courts.
As I said in the post you refer to, you need to settle the "citizen" issue separately. Current law is that if you are born here, you are a citizen. We can disagree with that law, and even insist that it is unconstitutional, but that doesn't change the law, nor do the courts seem fit to overturn the entire anchor-baby movement.
But that is a distraction from this issue, because when Obama was born the law was different. At the time he was born, if his mother was a citizen, and he was born in the US, he would be a citizen. If he was born outside the US, his mother would have to be 19 and have lived in this country 10 years and 5 years after age 14, which she didn't, so he wouldn't be a citizen.
HOWEVER, if you do conclude that Obama is a CITIZEN, then he WILL be a natural-born citizen, because "natural-born" just means the citizenship was from birth and the person was born in this country.
So it's not that being born in this country makes him a citizen, although it is a necessary condition, along with his mother being a citizen; it's that, if he is a citizen at birth, he is also natural-born because he would be born in this country.
Which means that the entire issue comes down to proving whether he was born in this country or not. Nothing else matters, because it is accepted fact that his father was not a citizen, and his mother WAS a citizen who was 18 at the time of Obama's birth.
I heard you the first time, and I still disagree.
Exactly! The big release was a jpeg image posted on a left wing web site. And that's supposed to be credible? That would be like posting an image of President Bush's Air National Guard credentials on FR.
What part are you arguing?
Do you disagree that if Obama was born in Hawaii to a U.S. citizen mother and a foreign father, he is a natural-born Citizen?
Or do you disagree that he is a citizen at all?
Or do you simply disagree that he was born in Hawaii?
It appeared to me that you were arguing against citizenship. Are you really arguing that a person that is a citizen by birth, and born in the country, is still not a “natural-born citizen”?
Countering claims of illegitimacy with 'my-accuser-is-a-slut' defense ....how impressive.
Further, "natural born" is a qualifier applied to citizenship, indicating not whether someone IS a citizen, but rather that they were born a citizen, and born within the borders of the country. If you are NOT a citizen, you can't be a natural-born citizen. If you were BORN a citizen, and you were born in this country, you are a natural born citizen.
No Charles, your statement that "if you were born a citizen" is still insufficiently clear and specific. The accurate and correct statement is that under the current regulatory interpretations (which are NOT mandated by the Constitution and could be easily changed if the will to do so were present), if you are born in this country you are a citizen, but under the Constitution (14th Amendment) AND in established case law, you are a natural born citizen "if and only if" you are born in this country to parents "who are subject to the jurisdiction" of the United States. Both conditions must be satisfied.
Yes. Assuming for the sake of argument that Obama was born in Hawaii, I find that there is a non-trivial legal argument that, while he is a citizen, he does not possess the parentage that the founders intended when they added the "natural born" qualifier in Article II of the US Constitution.
If the founders intended "citizen" as sufficient, which they did for Congressmen, they would have omitted the "natural born" term.
-- Are you really arguing that a person that is a citizen by birth, and born in the country, is still not a "natural-born citizen"? --
I am arguing that some (many) but not all people who are citizens by birth, and born in the country, are "natural born citizens." You are asserting that all such situated births result in natural born citizenship.
From a "plain English language" point of view, "born in the USA" in combination with "citizen if born in the USA" seem to naturally combine into "natural born citizen." But citizenship inquiries (mere citizenship inquiries, not inquiries into "natural born" which is clearly some sort of "exalted" status required only of the president) also involve the citizenship of the parents. See, e.g., a child born abroad, of US citizens.
I amend my previous post. Cboldt is correct. The key factor is the parents being subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. This was precisely the situation with John McCain's birth.
Good points FRiend, and I cannot help but wonder what kind of hue and cry we would be hearing from the lamestream media and their leftist mouthpieces if we were NOT talking about Barack Hussein 0bama, but about George W. Bush, if there had been ANY question regarding his own Constitutional bonafides regarding his eligibility to serve as President.
24/7 we would hear the roars and shrieking, all of the talking heads demanding “DUBYA RELEASE YOUR RECORDS!”
Effin’ hypocrites.
Have a good weekend FRiend.
MKJ
Yep. I think what the founders were aiming to do was limit the presidency to those people who were born to and would be raised by citizens. And in the day, families were "ruled" by the father, making citizenship and allegiance of the father most important.
The founders wanted the president to be born in this country, not just to be a citizen. They wanted them to be a citizen by birth.
The argument that a person can be a citizen by birth, and be born in this country, and still not be a “natural born citizen” doesn’t seem to have any rational basis.
As we have already had a case (Arthur) in which the mother was a citizen, but the father was not, there is even precedence.
Of course, since “natural born” has no real relevance except as regards the presidency, there isn’t a lot of case law on that aspect.
McCain was born outside the country, and therefore needed some different method for being ‘natural born’.
I totally agree with #353.
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.