I will grant you that, but that wasnt my point. You said that the COLB didn't show where he was born. IT DOES.
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.
“Let me ask you this, do you believe that Obama is hiding something? “
That’s an over-general question. Many of us hide ‘something’. Obama has clearly hidden many radical associations in his past, so ‘yes’ to that general question.
But Obama IMHO has not hidden the circumstances of his birth, which are mundane: He was born in Honolulu on Aug 4, 1961, and that fact was registered within days of birth; which his why his birth showed up in birth announcements in Honolulu papers 10 days later.
” Do you have any reason to doubt that Obama actually holds not only dual citizenship, but that he is a citizen of Indonesia, Great Britan, Kenya, and the United States.”
Yes, the very obvious and strong reason to doubt such speculation is that it is merely speculation by a small group making wild claims that contradict what *is* known and not an out-in-the-open known fact.
A good example is how the mistaken ‘you couldnt travel to Pakistan in 1981’ meme or the fable about how Indonesian citizenship would cause you to lose US citizenship (nope).
“Has Obama ever renounced his Indonesian or British or Kenyan citizenship?”
There is no evidence he ever held it or claimed it, despite the allegations/ suppositions contrary, so there was nothing to renounce.
“Does any of that concern you?”
Things based on fact concern me.
Things based on fallacy and fantasy only concern me in that they distort what should be the real focus of concern.
“Are you willing to DEMAND (as a subject of the “Ruler” in Chief) that he release his “vital records”? “
Will it matter? To Paraphrase Shakespeare’s Henry IV:
- “I can summon goblins from the vasty deep!”
- “Aye, you can call them, but WILL THEY COME?”
“Actually, yes, Arnold can run for president. There are no legal procedures in place at the state or federal level to require that a presidential candidate prove his/her eligibility.”
Hmmmm. Dunno about that. I was telling usmcobra that I saw an Obama filing for president that was posted on FR. It clearly had a statement that Obama signed attesting to his eligibility for President.
I would think it would be easy for someone to sue to throw Arnold off the ballot on the basis that his statement is false. OTOH, it requires someone to stand up and do that.
The primary author of the citizenship clause, Sen. Jacob M. Howard, said the “word jurisdiction, as here employed, ought to be construed so as to imply a full and complete jurisdiction on the part of the United States, coextensive in all respects with the constitutional power of the United States, whether exercised by Congress, by the executive, or by the judicial department; that is to say, the same jurisdiction in extent and quality as applies to every citizen of the United States now.”
United States Attorney General, George Williams, whom was a U.S. Senator aligned with Radical Republicans during the drafting of the Fourteenth Amendment in 1866, ruled in 1873 the word “jurisdiction” under the Fourteenth Amendment “must be understood to mean absolute and complete jurisdiction, such as the United States had over its citizens before the adoption of this amendment.” He added, “Political and military rights and duties” do not pertain to anyone else.
Essentially then, “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” means the same jurisdiction the United States exercises over its own citizens, i.e., only citizens of the United States come within its operation since citizens of the United States do not owe allegiance to some other nation at the same time they do the United States.
This makes a great deal of sense for the time because there was a great deal of controversy over conflicts arising from double allegiances.
In fact, Congress issued a joint congressional report on June 22, 1874 that said the “United States have not recognized a double allegiance.”
http://federalistblog.us/2008/11/natural-born_citizen_defined.html
No so. The COLB, Certificate of Live Birth, states where and when Obama was born, and to whom as parents.
According to the COLB his birth was on August 4, 1961, in Honolulu, Oahu, Hawaii, to Barack Hussein Obama and Stanley Ann Dunham.
http://www.factcheck.org/UploadedFiles/birth_certificate_2.jpg
"It does not mean he was born there" - If the COLB is valid, it means he *was* born in Honolulu. You need to look at the COLB photograph. The only thing you have correct about it is that it doesnt prove/assert 'natural-born citizen' directly, since it says nothing about citizenship on the form.
"He is constitutionally ineligible. By his own admission." Um, he's never said he was ineligible, and there is no constitutional ruling that forbids those with dual citizenship from being natural-born citizens. To the contrary, there are numerous cases/instances in law where that situation has been recognized (See eg Perkins v Elg).
Would you say that it is settled, definitively that anyone born on US soil is a Natural Born citizen or is there still something that needs to be done to settle it once and for all?
Sorry you are wrong. Hawaii routinely allowed the late filing of birth registrations. They also did not require any sort of proof other than a witness signature of a birth that took place in a “home” Because of that, you can not tell if Obama was born on the island with out releasing the records that prove it.
Those are the same records Obama refuses to release.
Your argument fails on the substance. All the COLB says is what someone told it to, which could have been changed with an Amended filing. That amended filing could have been done and filed as late as the day before Obama requested his 2007 COLB.
The only way to know is to see the Original and any subsequent Amendments in his full records.
http://hawaii.gov/health/vital-records/vital-records/newbirthcert.html
Who is Eligible to Apply for an Amended Certificate of Birth?
As provided by law (HRS §§338-17.7, 338-20.5), the following persons may apply for an amended certificate of birth:
* A person born in the State of Hawaii who already has a birth certificate filed with the Department of Health and
1. has become legally adopted, or
2. has undergone a sex change operation, or
3. a legal determination of the nonexistence of a parent and child relationship for a person identified as a parent on the birth certificate on file has been made, or
4. previously recorded information in relation to the person’s surname and/or the father’s personal particulars has been altered pursuant to law.
* A person born in a foreign country who has been legally adopted in the State of Hawaii.
How to Apply for an Amended Certificate of Birth
For a person born in the State of Hawaii who already has a birth certificate filed with the Department of Health and has become legally adopted
* An amended birth certificate will be prepared upon receipt of a certified copy of a final adoption decree or an abstract of the decree, and after payment of any fees.
For a person born in the State of Hawaii who already has a birth certificate filed with the Department of Health and has undergone a sex change operation:
* An amended birth certificate will be prepared upon receipt of an affidavit of a physician that the physician has examined the individual and determined that the individual has had a sex change operation and the sex designation on the individual’s birth certificate is no longer correct, subject to further investigation and submission of additional information if deemed necessary, and payment of fees.
For a person born in the State of Hawaii who already has a birth certificate filed with the Department of Health and a legal determination of the nonexistence of a parent and child relationship for a person identified as a parent on the birth certificate on file has been made:
* An amended birth certificate will be prepared upon receipt of a final order, judgment, or decree of a court of competent jurisdiction that determined the nonexistence of a parent and child relationship for a person identified as a parent on the birth certificate on file and the person, and payment of any fees.
For a person born in the State of Hawaii who already has a birth certificate filed with the Department of Health and previously recorded information in relation to the person’s surname and/or the father’s personal particulars has been altered pursuant to law:
* An amended birth certificate will be prepared upon receipt of an affidavit of paternity, a court order establishing paternity, or a certificate of marriage establishing the marriage of the natural parents to each other, and payment of any fees.
For a person born in a foreign country who has been legally adopted in the State of Hawaii:
* An amended birth certificate will be prepared upon receipt of a certified copy of the adoption decree or the certificate of adoption, and payment of fees.
Note: Any additional application forms that may be required will be provided by the Department of Health after receipt of the necessary documents in support of the establishment of an amended certificate of birth.
Further Information and Assistance
To obtain more information about applying for an amended certificate of birth, you may:
1. Send a written letter of inquiry to:
State Department of Health
Office of Health Status Monitoring
Registration/Vital Statistics Section
P.O. Box 3378
Honolulu, HI 96801
- or -
2. For information on an amended certificate of birth, call (808) 586-4541 during regular business hours (7:45 a.m. - 4:30 p.m. HST).
Well I'm sure the SCOTUS will hop right on this. Why don't you send them an email? That would save a lot of time.
I saw this and many other suspicious things right here on FR a few months ago. Things like: his grandmother said he was born in Kenya, and when she was ill and dying in a hospital, he brought a bunch of lawyers (instead of, say, family). That a certain hospital in Kenya has sealed its records. That Hawaii itself issues two kinds of documents, and claims that it itself doesn’t accept one of them for certain purposes, etc. There are just too many things that don’t add up, beside the pile of non-released documents and the appearance of concealing them.
Its your idea, you run with it Mr. Sarcasm. Or don’t you know how SCOTUS works?
Where to begin?
First, I object to Obama on the basis that the Constitutional law is unsettled with regard to NBC and I believe a SCOTUS ruling is necessary. Although my personal opinion is that Obama is ineligible, I would absolutely, whole-heartedly accept a decision by the SCOTUS that is contrary to my opinion.
Secondly, I do not hold Obama to a standard different from any other candidate. Unlike most birthers, I also believed McCain was ineligible and wanted a SCOTUS ruling in his case too. (For the record, it would be a travesty of justice if McCain were not eligible given his service and dedication to this country, but justice should be blind.) For me this is about upholding the Constitution, it’s not about finding a way to remove Obama from office. I will stipulate that that is not necessarily true for other birthers.
Third, this controversy has never been an issue before because no other president besides Chester Arthur had a non-citizen parent. Demanding a distinction from the SCOTUS is appropriate, not politically motivated - at least in my case. Other presidents had foreign-born parents, but in every case, the parents became citizens prior to said president’s birth. So the fact that Obama’s eligibility is being challenged has to do with the circumstances of his birth and not his or my political agenda.
Fourth, if the SCOTUS had ruled against Bush in favor of Gore in 2000, the country wouldn’t have been concerned about the potential “disastrous consequences.” They would have expected the rule of law to be followed. Let’s face it, the only reason people don’t want to see Obama removed on a technicality is because they fear riots and retribution from Obama voters. That’s no reason to avoid seeking a ruling on the definition of NBC by the SCOTUS.
No, not wrong. You missed my point, entirely. Everyone knows that Arnold is a naturalized citizen and not natural-born and therefore ineligible to hold the office of president. But there is nothing stopping him from running for that office.
My point was that there is no defined legal vetting procedure at the state or federal level that requires a presidential candidate to present paperwork to prove he is eligible to hold the office of president. That’s how Obama got on the ballot, won the election, and was inaugurated. He wasn’t required to prove his eligibility. He was only required to swear that he is eligible. The question of eligibility was left to his discretion. He wasn’t subjected to a legally-mandated vetting process.
So anybody can run for president if he swears he is eligible. NJ allowed a known foreign-born candidate on the 2008 presidential ballot. He ran for president.
We depend upon the common sense of the respective Secretaries of State to reject candidates that they personally know to be ineligible. After that, we depend upon the common sense of the electoral college and then the Congress. No where do we depend upon the law to prevent an ineligible candidate.
Exactly, Arnold can run if he swears he is eligible to hold the office of president and that is left to his discretion alone. We depend only upon the common sense of state officials, electors, and Congress to disqualify an ineligible candidate. We have no legally-mandated vetting process in which a presidential candidate is required to submit proof of his eligiblity for approval or rejection by a governing entity. We need to put that process in place to ensure that the Constitutional requirements are upheld. (And we need a ruling from the SCOTUS on exactly who is natural-born and who isn’t so that governing entity can apply rules uniformly regardless of party/race. There is no good reason to leave the law unsettled.)
Since it well-known that Arnold is not a natural-born citizen, he probably wouldn’t make it through the electoral college vote, but there is nothing stopping him from trying and that’s my point.
“If I understand your point here, it’s that the 14th amendment worked a change to the definition of natural born citizen as expressed in the constitution.”
That is the nub of the issue wrt the eligibility arguments.
Did the 14th amendment change things?
If the 14th amendment changed the conditions for citizenship at birth, and it did, and if ‘natural-born citizen’ is just a term of art referring to those who acquire citizenship at birth, then it follows that those born as US citizens under the 14th amendment birthright citizenship clause are indeed ‘natural-born citizens’.
That line of reasoning is the reasoning the SCOTUS would likely hold, since it lines up with the reasoning in Wong Kim Ark.
OTOH, it never has been specifically and explicitly held, so it gives some space for various theories.
I will grant you that, but that wasnt my point. You said that the COLB didn't show where he was born. IT DOES.
Not necessarily. And I don’t think his birth PLACE is the problem.
One more point: Why would an amended certificate of birth be of ANY use to Obama, who did not go through as sex change to the best of my knowledge?
One would think so. However, there were two such cases in the 2008 presidential election and both cases were unsuccessful in forcing the Secretary of State to take any action. I believe the state supreme courts ruled that they lacked subject matter jurisdiction. The SCOTUS denied cert. in both cases without comment. Other eligibility cases have been denied lack of standing in the lower courts and cert. denied without comment by SCOTUS.
Leo Donofrio sued the NJ Secretary of State to prevent Obama, McCain, and a third candidate from being included on the 2008 presidential ballot as he believed none of them was a natural-born citizen.
Cort Wrotnowski did the same in Connecticut.
Sarah Obama in the full interview with McRae did NOT say that Obama was born in Kenya. that is a birther myth. In relaying the story that Sarah Obama claimed that Obama was born in Kenya, you are the victim and/or purveyor of a case of bad translation and an over eager bishop McRae, who in the middle of an interview thought she said that, but then got corrected.
http://www.salon.com/politics/war_room/2008/12/05/birth_certificate/
“During the interview, which was conducted through a translator by a street preacher named Ron McRae, Sarah Obama does in fact say she was present. But it’s clear that there was a mistranslation, because as soon as McRae very excitedly starts to try to get additional details, the people on the other end of the line realize what’s happened and say, over and over again, that Obama was born in the U.S. “
Here is the FULL audio - 16 MINUTES not 5 minutes:
http://s16v.com/americasright/8167169.wma
Extended transcript is linked here:
http://www.salon.com/politics/war_room/2009/07/23/liddy/
MCRAE: Could I ask her about his actual birthplace? I would like to see his birthplace when I come to Kenya in December. Was she present when he was born in Kenya?
OGOMBE: Yes. She says, yes, she was, she was present when Obama was born.
MCRAE: When I come in December. I would like to come by the place, the hospital, where he was born. Could you tell me where he was born? Was he born in Mombasa?
OGOMBE: No, Obama was not born in Mombasa. He was born in America.
MCRAE: Whereabouts was he born? I thought he was born in Kenya.
OGOMBE: No, he was born in America, not in Mombasa.
MCRAE: Do you know where he was born? I thought he was born in Kenya. I was going to go by and see where he was born.
OGOMBE: Hawaii. Hawaii. Sir, she says he was born in Hawaii. In the state of Hawaii, where his father was also learning, there. The state of Hawaii.
LOL You don’t get that there is a difference between a long form and a short form. His current COLB will show what ever is on the latest Amended form. The original may say it was filed late, or he was adopted, or a couple of other things.
The point is, we don’t know. You don’t know. No one knows but Barry and he isn’t atlkin.
The COLB only shows what was the latest amended filing, or as with mine, the only document filed.
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.