Posted on 07/30/2009 8:35:25 PM PDT by Edward Watson
The entire birther argument, that Obama was actually born in Kenya instead of the US, making him ineligible for holding the office of the President of the US, is a spurious argument. It plays into Obama and the liberals hands - they want this to continue since it makes regular conservatives and opponents into fringe wackos.
Not one of us would've looked harder at his legitimacy than Hilary Clinton and the entire Clinton smear machine during the Democratic primaries. That magic bullet would've given Hilary the presidency - and yet nada, bupkis.
There are many valid reasons to oppose Obama and the liberals, but his birthplace isn't one of them.
that is why the million dollars has been paid to lawyers to make sure all of his past stays hidden from the American people.
If you haven’t seen this, you need to watch. about 1/2 way through, Orly speaks about the multiple social security cards. Why not ask her where her proof is? She could tell you because she has it.
Orly Taitz and Major Cook
Source: www.youtube.com
http://videos.ledger-enquirer.com/vmix_hosted_apps/p/media?id=5110066
Maj. Stefan Frederick Cook filed a suit July 8 in federal court asking for conscientious objector status and a preliminary injunction ...
Excellent point. Birthers have read that ruling statement to imply there are two types of 'citizens at birth' but the point of saying "just as much" is that it really means there is *no* distinction in law, and the court deliberately used natural-born as that comparison point. Either you are a citizen at birth or a naturalized citizen, those are the distinctions in law, none other.
“I don’t care what people say so much as what the facts or lack thereof are saying.”
That’s a healthy attitude. As long as you don’t stop caring altogether. Other people’s opinions can lead you in the right direction. And if the majority of people you normally agree with (if you happen to agree with anyone I named on a regular basis, that is) jump in the other direction, it might be a sign you’re wrong. Unless something beside the truth is motivating their judgment. I don’t know what that’d be. Maybe fear. But Libs already think they’re loonies, so why should they suddenly care?
Those announcements are generated when any one of 4 types of Hawaiian vital birth records are generated. They mean nothing as anyone can get a Hawaiian vital birth record.
You didnt answer my question:
What is your evidence for him being born anywhere other than Hawaii? Plane tickets, birth announcements, certificates ... anything???
Nothing of what you wrote speaks to that question. There are myriad other reasons why Obama wont share his college records etc.
Because you can't accept Obama's ties to Factcheck.
4. I believe based on #3 and based on 14th amendment Obama is eligible to be President.
Have you bothered to read anything about it? Like the John Binghams statements and WHY it was written?
“Those announcements are generated when any one of 4 types of Hawaiian vital birth records are generated. They mean nothing as anyone can get a Hawaiian vital birth record.”
So you acknowledge that the newspaper announcement shows that Obama *DID* get a state of Hawaii birth records, right?
And he got it between Aug 4, 1961 and Aug 13, 1961 and it shows him born on Aug 4, 1961, right?
Everybody has an opinion.
My answer is that I believe that the state of HI has been bought off or extorted. The obamanation already has a Body Count of 2 that we know about.
They have given multiple reasons/stories about this birth certificate. Obviously, they can’t all be true
They cannot/will not furnish the long form.
IMO Obamanation is a thug who is being supported by thugs who would make Capone look like a Sunday School teacher. Why would I not think that he could successfully hide the fact that he is not eligible to serve?
Well, the SC intimated this, but pure logic would tell you that a dual (with divided allegiances)would not be a “natural born” citizen...He might be a citizen but to ascend to the higher standard the framers felt was necessary for the president he could not have conflicts of interest. I am sure you can quibble with all kinds of legalese, but legalese does not equate to common sense.
“And what in your post proved that Obama isn’t a liar?”
Nothing. But I wasn’t seeking to prove Obama doesn’t lie half the time, or most of the time, or almost all of time. You said he never tells the truth, and that’s just ridiculous, unfair, and completely unhelpful.
Obama lies. He has to, being a politician. That doesn’t mean he’s lying about being born in Hawaii, because he, like other humans, does not lie all the time. It is a supremely unintellectual argument to put forth that we can’t believe Obama was born in Hawaii because nothing he says is true. Hence the burning heretics comment.
“3. I believe the evidence is clear that Obama was born in Honolulu”
“Because you can’t accept Obama’s ties to Factcheck.”
I can accept that factcheck may have their biases, but that by itself doesnt dismiss the evidence that they share. The COLB is only 1 of 7 points of evidence that justify Obama’s birth in Honolulu.
“4. I believe based on #3 and based on 14th amendment Obama is eligible to be President.
Have you bothered to read anything about it? Like the John Binghams statements and WHY it was written?”
Yes, I hashed this out on some other threads. My point is that #4 is precisely the difference/issue the ‘birthers’ raise, eligibility questions due to place of birth and eligibility questions due to definition of ‘natural born citizen’.
For my view on #4, I point to this briefing by Bush solicitor general Ted Olson as a good summation of the law of what “natural born citizen” means.
It clearly indicates Obama is eligible if he was born in Hawaii:
http://leahy.senate.gov/issues/Judiciary/McCainAnalysis.pdf
Again, getting on solid ground here.
The ‘birther’ vs ‘non-birther’ distinction has to do with views on #3 and #4, *NOT* on #1 and #2. So calling yourself “Constitutionalist” or saying that this is ‘just about asking for the birth certificate or more documentation’ is not true. Theories of Obama’s ineligibility are being asserted, that is the premise of the ‘birther’ position.
Clearing the Smoke on Obama’s Eligibility: An Intelligence Investigator’s June 10 Report
I asked the Dept of Health what they currently ask for (in 2008) to back up a parent’s claim that a child was born in Hawaii. I was told that all they required was a proof of residence in Hawaii (e.g. a driver’s license [We know from interviews with her friends on Mercer Island in Washington State that Ann Dunham had acquired a driver’s license by the summer of 1961 at the age of 17] or telephone bill) and pre-natal (statement or report that a woman was pregnant) and post-natal (statement or report that a new-born baby has been examined) certification by a physician. On further enquiry, the employee that I spoke to informed me that the pre-natal and post-natal certifications had probably not been in force in the ‘60s. Even if they had been, there is and was no requirement for a physician or midwife to witness, state or report that the baby was born in Hawaii.
Now enough of this. If you want to be fooled by the Liar in Chief, that's YOUR choice. But stop trying to deter others. You are NOT going to change anyone's opinion.
It isn't a matter of losing NBC it is a matter that it never existed.
The following passage is a quote from Minor as quoted by Justice Gray in Wong Kim Ark:
” ‘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 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. It is sufficient, for everything we have now to consider, that all children, born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction, are themselves citizens.’ Minor v. Happersett (1874) 21 Wall. 162, 166-168.”
You can't have it both ways, claim that court cases say something when they don't.
It is clear that Wong Kim Ark did not fully address NBC status and equally clear that Minor v. Happersett did NOT endorse the common idea that the 14th meant place of birth on US soil automaticlly conferred NBC status.
Nice save after an attack. Sell it to someone else.
Can we just stipulate that Obama is a lying SOB and then move on? :-)
Arguments about birthplace are arguments about facts and arguments about eligibility are arguments about Constitutional law. Neither relate to Obama’s (lack of) honesty, since nobody is taking Obama’s word on either point.
I may accept a notion. I won’t accept a ‘fact’, since a fact is verifiable by definition. Obama’s birthplace has not been verified through the release of official documentation. That is ALL I’m after.
I’m not goofy about it — I just want the President of the United States to do what I have to do if I want a Federal job.
By the way, how many Freepers who deride the birthers were among those screaming for John Kerry to release his military records?
Natural Born Citizen, Native Born Citizen, and Naturalized.
One can be born a citizen but not a Natural Born citizen.
Then also one can become a citizen via a statutory process.
That much is clear.
Stick it sucker! Ask your messiah where’s the evidence - like evidence that Gates’ arrest was stupid and racially motivated. BO is a proven manipulator of facts and in that you put your faith. Gullible=easily deceived. Using ‘lefty’ sites as fact when they were created to deceive. Propaganda at work. They rewrite history books to deceive, also.
Wong Kim Ark did no such thing. No legal or Constitutional scholar believes such is the case. There is no settled law on the definition of natural-born citizen. To imply that the law is settled is either intentionally misleading or ignorant.
Justice Gray, in the majority opinion on Wong Kim Ark, quoted a previous Supreme Court decision on Minor v. Happersett.
" '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 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. It is sufficient, for everything we have now to consider, that all children, born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction, are themselves citizens.' Minor v. Happersett (1874) 21 Wall. 162, 166-168."By citing Minor, which refers to the Law of Nations, Justice Gray reaffirms the notion that there is only once class of citizens who are without a doubt natural-born citizens. The Law of Nations defines a natural born citizen as a person born in the U.S. to citizen parents (plural). The natural-born status of all other citizens is in doubt and has been left unresolved by the SCOTUS.
In the Ark decision, Justice Gray also quotes English common law, which defines anyone born within the realm as a natural-born subject, not as support for the ruling in Wong Kim Ark but rather to compare and contrast the various internationally-recognized historical definitions of natural-born. He further refers to the historical concept of a person's political status versus civil status noting that the two are distinctly separate by definition but can overlap in practice.
Additionally, by using three different labels for citizenship (natural-born citizen, citizen, naturalized citizen) the language of the Constitution inherently identifies three entities, granted those entities may overlap in some cases. If there were no difference between a citizen and a natural-born citizen, why distinguish a different standard for President?
Furthermore, I would point out that the U.S. Foreign Affairs manual stipulates the following:
Ed. 7 FAM 1131.6-2 Eligibility for Presidency (TL:CON-68; 04-01-1998) a. It has never been determined definitively by a court whether a person who acquired U.S. citizenship by birth abroad to U.S. citizens is a natural born citizen within the meaning of Article II of the Constitution and, therefore, eligible for the Presidency.Since the U.S. State Department is unsure whether or not a group of citizens qualifies as natural-born, but acknowledges them as citizens who were not naturalized, then, by definition, that indicates that there are possibly three classes of citizens. (Two absolute classes: natural-born U.S. citizen and naturalized U.S. citizen; One vague class: U.S. citizen, possibly natural-born.)
Since there is no settled law, we need a Supreme Court decision to answer these questions.
Here's my analogy regarding the difference between a citizen and a natural-born citizen. All managers are employees of a company, but not all employees are managers. There's a higher requirement to become a manager and a greater assigned responsibility to hold that position. Both employees and managers are entitled to the benefits conferred upon employees by the company and are bound by the company's rules and policies. The designation of employee is equivalent to one's civil status - being bound by a set of rules and eligible to the benefits of employment. The designation of manager is equivalent to one's political status - owing a greater responsibility to the company's business objectives and goals.
So, in short, perhaps the founding fathers intended the label natural-born citizen to be more of a political distinction than a civil distinction. There really is no civil distinction between a natural-born citizen, a citizen, and a naturalized citizen because all are entitled to the same protection under the law. There is however a political distinction between a natural born citizen and every other citizen in that only the former can be president.
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.