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 ...
""This shows that there is no Constitutional issue or question. So, when there is no Constitutional issue at problem here with the Qualifications for office, why would the Supreme Court get involved? Which is why they didn’t get involved."
I'm sorry, but the "statement" you keep trotting out does no such thing. Politicians make "statements" all the time, most of which aren't worth the paper they're written on. The necessary missing piece is that the document in question be NOTARIZED, or that the official be placed under oath as to the validity of the information. Without either of those things, her statement does NOT constitute proof. And no court of law would accept such a statement.
I've said this to you repeatedly, and you choose to simply ignore the facts.
Why haven’t you shown us the Statute that defines Natural Born Citizen?
Btw, show me the statute or Amendment or case law that gives Fukino’s office the right to interpret the US Constitution.
OK..Mr know it all from the socialist state of Oregon...why would anyone spend the money that zero has spent to hide his background, including the long form BC. Seems pretty simple to me....release it and make all of us doubting “Toms” say uncle!
Excuse me. I love the U. S. Constitution; the Bill of Rights, and the Rule of Law.
“the State of Hawaii say that Obama was born in Hawaii and that he is a natural-born American citizen.”
How would the state of Hawaii know what natural born citizen means?
The last state which joined the Union, 200 years after the Constitution was written. They are still at the stage of suckling milk.
nope. but she can be gloriously wrong on occasion. Witmess her defense of Mitt Romney.
When anyone gets this issue in court, then they can get into all that with the lawyers on opposing sides and a judge will hear it and then decide. And that won’t be the end of it, because there will be an appeal. And that won’t be the end of it, because there will be another appeal and perhaps one more after that and then perhaps the Supreme Court. And then, everyone waits to see if the Supreme Court is going to *even* bother with the case in the first place, which they may not and then it’s *absolutely dead* and nowhere. But, it may take it up and then it’s another long period of time before a decision comes. And then it might not even be the decision that most here will like. And then again, it may be. And after all that, we will be electing the next President, because Obama is opening up his Presidential Library and is on to other things. That’s the way it will go — if — it ever gets into a court and goes anywhere — in the first place, which I seriously doubt.
BUT — the *other way* this is seen (outside of a court and legal arguments) is by way of the public, and what they see and what they go by is simple. The State of Hawaii has affirmed that Obama was born in Hawaii and that he is a natural-born American citizen.
So, there are your two ways and the American public has the statement of the State of Hawaii and there *are no court cases* going right now... and there you have it...
Again, trying to get in the heads of the founders, I think their idea of "probing allegiance" was to assume that if the father and mother were US citizens (pledged allegiance to the US), then they would raise their child the same way.
I take the notion that a US citizen "has allegiance" to a foreign country to mean that the person is a dual citizen, subject to follow the orders of both countries. The US recognizes the right of individuals to expatriate, and Bob should do so.
-- Isn't a natural born citizen defined at birth and not what he thinks at the age of 16 and then 20 and then 25, etc. --
That's how the statutory law works. I've been pondering this point a bit, this morning, and the thought crossed my mind that "natural born," as appearing in the constitution, has a quality similar to "high crimes and misdemeanors" and "advice and consent." That is, the term in the constitutional context has a unique substantive effect, in that it means whatever Congress says it means, as applied in an individual case.
Still, in that context, Congress will (or should - if it wasn't totally derelict) look to external law and history for guidance. If a person is born of US citizen parents, it seems clear that they are "natural born citizens." If born of the King of Saudi Arabia and a US mother, one might have concerns about the child's destiny and suitability for advancing US interests over all other countries. That concern shouldn't evaporate if the child is born in NYC or some other US locale - regardless of what statutory law might say.
-- What if the country of the father cannot be conferred on the child because he was a bastard (as in the case of Obama) --
Good question as to a child born to an unwed mother, and also if the father is literally unknown. In general, it's up to the person claiming citizenship status to prove it - they have the burden to produce evidence of parentage, location of birth, and so forth.
You guys exist in an echo chamber.
I pinged you because Chuckie’s reply was to you.
ROFLMAO.
Your reasoning is absurd.
You have to either be a complete IDIOT and/or an Obama operative.
You said — You’re certainly not a Freeper!
—
That sounds like some people who have said to Obama... “You are not the President!”... LOL...
Of course we all know (at least rational people know) that Obama is the President, whether that person likes it or not and voted against him. We have all opposed Presidents in the past who were in office and did not support their policies. But, we did *know* that they were the President.
And likewise... here I am replying to you on a post, which does seem to indicate that I am a FReeper... :-)
Start here:
Terms used in the constitution needed no further definition; they were defined by common usage.
“
I take the notion that a US citizen “has allegiance” to a foreign country to mean that the person is a dual citizen, subject to follow the orders of both countries. “
From the UK Border Agency:
I’m sorry to tell you that Karma has nothing to do with any Biblical doctrines... :-)
In fact Karma represents a false religion which the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob absolutely condemns and condemns all the practices therein. There’s no comparison.
Yes, and it would seem they would have some justification to do so.
It's not their job to put the horse back in the stable after congress has allowed it to room free.
The other great candidate for this is a soldier facing a court martial.
Well, we do have that officer:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2292842/posts
"U.S. Army Major Stefan Frederick Cook Filed a restraining order asking for legitimate confirmation that his Commander in Chief was legitimately in Office, giving him his orders to Deploy to Afghanistan with his unit.
Today in a stunning development, the Military RESCINDED THOSE ORDERS. This has set a precedent heretofore unknown. The entire US Military can now not only question it's orders, a requirement of their duty when they believe that an order is given illegitimately, but can expect that their orders will also be rescinded should they question the legitimacy of the CIC who is the ultimate Authority in Command. In other words, Obama."
More actions by Obama demonstrating that he will do anything in his power to keep the issue of his legitimacy to serve as president, out of court.
STE=Q
I’m busy on other threads. BBL, maybe
You said — I’ve said this to you repeatedly, and you choose to simply ignore the facts.
—
The problem here is that things don’t run on facts as you might see them and how you want to “string them together”. There is a thing such as “reality” in which everyone lives and that governs how things *work* — regardless of how you want to string together a certain group of facts you want to portray...
I posted this to another FReeper here, but it applies to what I’m saying here, too...
When anyone gets this issue in court, then they can get into all that with the lawyers on opposing sides and a judge will hear it and then decide. And that won’t be the end of it, because there will be an appeal. And that won’t be the end of it, because there will be another appeal and perhaps one more after that and then perhaps the Supreme Court. And then, everyone waits to see if the Supreme Court is going to *even* bother with the case in the first place, which they may not and then it’s *absolutely dead* and nowhere. But, it may take it up and then it’s another long period of time before a decision comes. And then it might not even be the decision that most here will like. And then again, it may be. And after all that, we will be electing the next President, because Obama is opening up his Presidential Library and is on to other things. That’s the way it will go — if — it ever gets into a court and goes anywhere — in the first place, which I seriously doubt.
BUT — the *other way* this is seen (outside of a court and legal arguments) is by way of the public, and what they see and what they go by is simple. The State of Hawaii has affirmed that Obama was born in Hawaii and that he is a natural-born American citizen.
So, there are your two ways and the American public has the statement of the State of Hawaii and there *are no court cases* going right now... and there you have it...
That’s the “reality” of it and when the State of Hawaii says that Obama was born in Hawaii and that he is a natural-born American citizen, that’s the reality that is going to govern the way the vast majority of the American people view this issue in their own minds.
And certainly, you can keep right on “stringing your facts” together in a fashion that portrays your thinking and I’m sure a lot of others will do so, likewise. But, it’s not going to change the reality of the situation.
Discussion in Wong.
“every child born in England of alien parents was a natural-born subject, unless the child of an ambassador or other diplomatic agent of a foreign state, or of an alien enemy in hostile occupation of the place where the child was born. III. The same rule was in force in all the English colonies upon this continent down to the time of the Declaration of Independence, and in the United States afterwards, and continued to prevail under the constitution as originally established.”
You said — Why haven’t you shown us the Statute that defines Natural Born Citizen?
—
Because I’m not the one who saw the evidence or made the pronouncement. You’ll have to contact the State of Hawaii and consult with their lawyers who went over the evidence and made the statement.
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
And then you said — Btw, show me the statute or Amendment or case law that gives Fukino’s office the right to interpret the US Constitution.
—
At least the same right that anyone here posting has, in saying what they said. The only difference is that the “institution” of the “State of Hawaii” has a lot more authority and credibility than a poster on Free Republic — when the American public views the situation....
And that’s even especially more true, considering the fact that it’s the State of Hawaii who received the original documents regarding the birth of Obama and is the one who has held the documents from the beginning and is the one who is the *very authority* who issue a “certified copy” of the birth certificate.
People tend to take that kind of “institution” of the State of Hawaii, who also actually issues that very “certified copy” of the birth certificate, more seriously than a poster on Free Republic.
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.