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.
I agree. I just think they felt that naturalized citizen parents would not have divided allegiance, and so their child would be raised in a house with undivided allegiance for the US.
But the very citizenship of a child born to a non-citizen, no matter where the birth, opens up a question of allegiance. Obama, by operation of UK law, was born a dual-citizen.
Finally, we have it, the SC(not what I and the framers intended) has amended the Constitution without the benefit of an amendment. Perhaps, the birthers will expose that if nothing else. The Constitution is now and has been relegated to the whim of 9 political appointees who can ignore sections at will and make the document say whatever is convenient for them. We have no rule of law. I think that has been my argument for years. We have a living and breathing document. Three of kind beats two pair some days and some days not. It is Alice in Wonderland.
“The dissent in US v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898), has a slighty different take on that.
Some of the founders had been born on what was and became American soil. The ‘grandfather’ clause was literally to admit foreign-born people to obtain the presidency.”
If it was proposed that foreign-born people be explicitly included among those grandfathered in, I can understand that. I don’t however think it leads to a different take than what I said. I wasn’t speaking to who became a citizen or why. It could have been people born to people born on American soil, or people who fought in the revolution, or people who had established residency in America for a considerable period. None of that is directly relevant to the argument.
When we talk about who should have qualified as a citizen after the passage of the Constitution, we drift into territory not specifically outlined in the Constitution. The grandfather clause’s raison d’être was to open the presidency to anyone a citizen once the Constitution became law. Whoever those people were, none of them were born citizens. That’s the important point, to me.
When I said there was no America before there was an America, I really should have said there was no U.S. before there was. That’s more to the point. Before there was a U.S., there was no U.S. terrtiory, and thus no U.S. citizens by virtue of being born on U.S. territory. Just as there were no citizen parents to birth citizen children. Yet the blood-right Birthers somehow seem to believe the grandfather clause speaks only to the lack of citizen parents, and therefore a possibility of split-loyalty. There was a lack of U.S. soil, too. Which makes it impossible to say whether one or the other is more important by the clause itself.
“Finally, we have it, the SC(not what I and the framers intended) has amended the Constitution without the benefit of an amendment.”
Uh, I never said it was SCOTUS who changed the original intention of the natural born clause. It is my understanding that the 14th amendment did so, in perfect accordance with the rule of law.
Now, you may argue SCOTUS bastardized the meaning behind the 14th with Wong Kim Ark et. al. There some credence to that charge, I guess, because there’s confusion over what “under the jurisdiction thereof” means. But if I’m right in interpreting natural born to mean nothing more than born a citizen, than this is where the real argument is: at the footstep of the 14th amendment. Not who tyhe framers had in mind when they demanded only born citizens be allowed to be president.
I do. You maintain that the grandfather clause is necessary. I read the statement of the era as that the grandfather clause was NOT necessary, but was inserted to give some foreign-born people an opportunity to obtain the office of president.
“While their parents had to follow US law while here, they had to answer to a call from their mother country, and as such were ‘under the jurisdiction’ of the mother country, but in a different way.”
Here’s one thing I’ve wondered. If the framers of the 14th amendment truly intended to exclude those with divided loyalties from being citizens, why didn’t they specify “not under the jurisdiction of any other nation,” instead? To the other country, dual citizens would appear to be under the jurisdiction of the U.S., as much as we might say a kid with a German citizen father is under German jurisdiction. One jurisdiction doesn’t cancel out the other.
If the amendment said under the jurisdiction of the U.S. and only the U.S., I’d undertand. But for now, I don’t.
http://advanceindiana.blogspot.com/2008/08/bombshell-obama-sisters-colb-used-to.html
Now, Saquin, I've put out effort that you should have taken yourself to be even minimally educated about what you are talking about. Unless you are able to refute this cite or provide new relevant evidence with corroboration that discredits it, I will justifiably interpret further obtuseness on your part as intellectual dishonesty regarding the resolution of 0bama's origins.
“You maintain that the grandfather clause is necessary. I read the statement of the era as that the grandfather clause was NOT necessary, but was inserted to give some foreign-born people an opportunity to obtain the office of president.”
But of course it was necessary. Because it didn’t matter if you were born in America or born in England, no one around when the Constitution was ratified was born a U.S. citizen. They might have been born in America, but that’s before there was such a thing as a U.S. citizen. Therefore having any citizen become president, without the grandfather clause, would have violated the natural born clause.
If they had not grandfathered in someone, foreign or locally born, doesn’t matter, no one on earth would have been eligible.
Well, lets see, the 14th did not address the natural born clause for VP and Pres per se, it was the SC who said it addressed it (reading the minds of the drafters of the 14th). So, if the 14th had no wording repealing the natural born clause to admit any and every kind of citizen born on american soil, then the SC did amend the constitution by implying that the 14th repealed the intention of the natural born clause. The ARK decision (made by the SC) does in fact obliterate the meaning of the natural born clause if your interpretation of the decision is correct. I think the decision in ARK is not clear but that is a fight for another day. If the court, by shelving every case regarding the natural born clause, it does in fact lead one to believe that in ARK they did alter the Constitution by stretching the meaning of the 14th.
Are you freakin’ serious? You’re calling a completely unproven blog posting a “source”? Show me something real, not a blog theory by someone called “techdude”.
The argument of the dissent is that this is exactly what the composers of the 14th amendment said, that the two phrases are synonymous in meaning and function.
I haven't studied the debate of the period, but these snippets are provided by the dissent in Wong Kim Ark:
The jurists and statesmen referred to in the majority opinion, notably Senators Trumbull and Reverdy Johnson, concurred in that view, Senator Trumbull saying: 'What do we mean by 'subject to the jurisdiction of the United States'? Not owing allegiance to anybodyelse; that is what it means.' And Senator Johnson: 'Now, all that this amendment provides is that all persons born within the United States, and not subject to some foreign power (for that, no doubt, is the meaning of the committee who have brought the matter before us), shall be considered as citizens of the United States.' Cong. Globe, 1st Sess. 39th Cong. 2893 et seq.
Cong. Globe is the title for the equivalent of what is now the Congressional Record.
Here it is:
http://newsbusters.org/static/2009/08/Obama%20Joker%20Poster%20Popping%20Up%20In%20Los%20Angeles.jpg
“The ARK decision (made by the SC) does in fact obliterate the meaning of the natural born clause if your interpretation of the decision is correct”
No, it would not obliterate the meaning. It would obliterate the original intended effect. The meaning would remain intact. That is, if I’m correct in thinking “natural born citizen” meant citizen from birth.
If the 14th amendment changed what constituted a citizen from birth, then the effect of the natural born clause would automatically be different than it was in 1789. Not through the suspension of the rule of law, but through the legal process of amending the Constitution to have it say things it previously didn’t, e.g. defining what is a citizen from birth for the first time.
Think of it in terms of the interstate commerce clause. The Constitution grants the federal government power to regulate interstate commerce. The intended effect may have been to prevent interstate tariffs, but the real effect has been for the government to pass laws governing every human activity that crosses state lines. You may argue that they’ve overstepped their bounds by seeking to control actions that have nothing to do with commerce, but involve something that passed between states at some time in the distant past. There’s a point to be made there. As for the argument that commerce is no longer being “made regular” (which is what the term regulate means, in my understanding) because the government does more than block trade wars, as the framers wanted them to, I don’t see a clear Constitutional issue.
“it does in fact lead one to believe that in ARK they did alter the Constitution by stretching the meaning of the 14th.”
They might have. It all depends on what you take “under the jurisdiction thereof” to mean. But not, again, the intended effect the framers had in mind but did not bother to achieve by writing down explicitly what they wanted.
I understood that to be your point of view, from your previous. In fact, that's the only reason I posted the blockquote that, the way I read it, says differently.
It's irrelevant, I think, to the debate over the meaning of NBC as stated in the constitution, and perhaps modified by the 14th and/or Wong Kim Ark. I just thought it was interesting, as I'd been under the same impression you stated as to the grandfather clause. But some of the founders were citizens of the various states before the revolution, and they probably saw that as "carrying through" on the soil. Born and raised in PA, of PA parents - once a part of the Confederation, now a part of the Union.
More serious than you are, obviously. His assertions deserve to be followed up, not dismissed out of hand. You don't disagree regarding 0bama's half sister, apparently, so you don't have any reason to object to the blog I cited. IAC, you are so far are exhibiting exactly the same type of attitude of the 90% of Germans who supported Hitler in the mid-30's based on governmental promises and hype.
Until you open that closed mind of yours a little, I will consider any further similar protests by you as that of a probable LW troll. So don't even try any more of your 'attack the messenger' tactics on me until you've presented some actual research to back it up.
I see Godwin’s Law has been invoked.
Listen, pal.
Citing as your supposed “source” something described even by the blogger making the allegation as a “theory” is insanity. It’s not up to me to disprove that theory. It’s up to you to prove it. I could blog my own theory that monkeys have been known to fly out of your butt.
Go ahead. Disprove it.
To prove this theory that someone born elsewhere could get an official Hawaii COLB that basically lies and states that their place of birth was, in fact, Hawaii (and that such a thing was done for Obama’s sister Maya and used as the basis for a “forged” Obama COLB), you’d need to, at minimum, show me one of two things:
1) an official Hawaii COLB (and a statement from Hawaii officials that it is accurate and not a forgery) for Maya that has her place of birth listed as Hawaii AND evidence that she was not born in Hawaii (I believe she was not but you’d need that along with the Hawaii COLB to prove your point)
OR
2) a link to an official Hawaii document that states that one born elsewhere could get a Hawaii COLB that erroneously lists Hawaii as their birthplace.
Come back when you’ve got either one of those two things and we’ll talk.
Otherwise, if you refuse to do your own homework - don't come whining to FR about it - take your totalitarian BS to share with LW asswipes who appreciate it.
You’re the one who obviously hasn’t done your homework and you seem quite defensive about it. Have you studied the psychological phenomenom of “projection”? You should.
I’m done discussing your theory until you produce something, anything, to back it up. Have a nice weekend. :-)
It will say what we already know, and I’ve offered 10 to 1 odds to any ‘birther’ that it will say Honolulu as BHO’s birthplace. Why? BHO’s birthplace revealed here:
http://travismonitor.blogspot.com/2009/08/birther-madness-ii-bhos-birthplace.html
calculated plot?
Osama Barakat was one of the names of the ss#s that
Orly Taitz says that obama is associated with.
This info is past all the ss#’s
here is an excerpt
The Oddities of Plumbers and Land Deals
In September of 2006, Kelly J. McCrum sold 1525 S Sangamon St. Unit 707, Chicago IL to a person named Osama Barakat.
Kelly J. McCrum is the wife of Craig M. Robinson. Craig Robinson is Michelle Obama’s brother.
The part of the transaction that I found odd was the creditor. Burlew Plumbing & Heating of New Jersey issued credit for the transaction.
Burlew also owns Magic Touch Construction Company Inc. This contractor does nonresidential construction, plumbing, heating, and air-conditioning.
Knowing how New York and New Jersey share contracts for Port Authority work, I can’t help but wonder if this is the same Magic Plumbing and Heating that had contract work at the World Trade Center on September 5th, 2001.
Excerpts of stories:
Magic Plumbing and Heating who messed up the sprinkler systems in the WTC that failed on 9/11.
SEPTEMBER 5, 2001 : (WTC : HAMMAD DOES WORK ON WTC SPRINKLER SYSTEM — See MAGIC PLUMBING & HEATING, 9/11 INVESTIGATION, TN LICENSE CASE — BROOKLYN CELL) Sakher “Rocky” Hammad, who works for Magic Plumbing and Heating on 93rd Street in Brooklyn, is known to have done work on the sprinkler system in the World Trade Center, and when arrested he has a photo ID WTC visitor’s pass for this date. The identity of the tenant who hired him is not known. On 2/5/02, Hammad is one of five Arab men arrested in connection with the fiery murder of Tennessee drivers’ license examiner Katherine Smith several days earlier. Hammad also spent time in the Bay Ridge section of Brooklyn in 2000. ——Link: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/629113/posts
SEPTEMBER 11, 2001 : (WTC CENTER —– See SAKHER “ROCKY” HAMMAD , MAGIC PLUMBING & HEATING, BROOKLYN CELL) “The sprinkler system had turned on and had started to do something, but it wasn’t doing its job as it should, so there was water sloshing down the stairways.” ——— http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/674846/posts 132 posted on 01/26/2007 4:39:14 PM PST by Calpernia | To 128
SEPTEMBER 11, 2001 : ( NY TO MEMPHIS, TN - See : TN LICENSE FRAUD CASE, ?MAGIC PLUMBING?, 9/11 SCOUTS) One of the men, authorities say, drove from New York to Memphis on September 11 — the day of the terrorist attack on the World Trade Center. And one of them, at the time of his [Sakher A Hammad’s] arrest, was carrying in his wallet a pass to the trade center dated September 5. ——-? http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/655625/posts?page=61
FEBRUARY 5, 2002 : (SAKHER “ROCKY” HAMMAD IS ARRESTED– See MAGIC PLUMBING & HEATING, TN DMV CASE, BROOKLYN CELL) On 2/5/02, Hammad is one of five Arab men arrested in connection with the fiery murder of Tennessee drivers’ license examiner Katherine Smith several days earlier. Hammad also spent time in the Bay Ridge section of Brooklyn in 2000. ——Link: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/629113/posts
I have often wondered if that was the Brooklyn terror cell that was being tracked in Able Danger.
The Congressional Record:
77 . ABLE DANGER FAILURE — (House of Representatives - October 19, 2005)
Excerpt of Curt Weldon:
What I did not know, Mr. Speaker, up until June of this year, was that that secret program called Able Danger actually identified the Brooklyn cell of al Qaeda in January and February of 2000, over 1 year before 9/11 every happened. In addition, I learned that not only did we identify the Brooklyn cell of al Qaeda, but we identified Mohamed Atta as one of the members of that Brooklyn cell along with three other terrorists who were the leadership of the 9/11 attack.
I have also learned, Mr. Speaker, that in September of 2000, again, over 1 year before 9/11, that Able Danger team attempted on three separate occasions to provide information to the FBI about the Brooklyn cell of al Qaeda, and on three separate occasions they were denied by lawyers in the previous administration to transfer that information.
Mr. Speaker, this past Sunday on “Meet the Press,” Louis Freeh, FBI Director at the time, was interviewed by Tim Russert. The first question to Louis Freeh was in regard to the FBI’s ability to ferret out the terrorists. Louis Freeh’s response, which can be obtained by anyone in this country as a part of the official record, was, Well, Tim, we are now finding out that a top-secret program of the military called Able Danger actually identified the Brooklyn cell of al Qaeda and Mohammed Atta over a year before 9/11.
And what Louis Freeh said, Mr. Speaker, is that that kind of actionable data could have allowed us to prevent the hijackings that occurred on September 11.
too many connections to obama for me
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.
