|
Unless there's other sealed documents in Hawaii that we don't know about (which is VERY likely) or a DNA test to prove otherwise, THIS would hold up as prima facie to prove who is Obama's "father":
|
Posted on 11/18/2009 8:42:02 PM PST by 2ndDivisionVet
It’s been a little while since a good confrontation between a birther and a member of Congress, but here’s one from last week: a constituent of Rep. Scott Garrett (R-N.J.) asking his congressman why Republicans won’t do anything about the “eligibility issue.” It makes for awkward viewing, as Garrett’s staff clearly wants a change of subject from an audience that seems to be fine with pushing the question. At around 4:40 in the video, the congressman finally engages.
“Obviously, there is no political solution to it,” says Garrett. “Even if the entire Republican Party was united on the issue–”
He’s cut off by another constituent. “Have him show his birth certificate! It’s as simple as that! None of this ‘talk about it, talk about it’ — just let’s see the birth certificate!”
“I agree,” says Garrett — who’s not one of the 12 sponsors of the “birther bill.”
Video after the jump:
Certainly a possibility. I'm sure all of them thought it would be the end of they're careers had they engaged the issue in the beginning (like they should have!).
These folks certainly must know by now that this is an issue that many people are concerned with. It's not going away like they had hoped it would.
Would appreciate the specific disqualifier in there. Thanks.
LOL.
“Do you have a good reference for this — was it before the
signing of the Constitution or when he was Chief Justice?”
BP2:
My recollection of what John Jay said was not as precise as I stated, but is still correct (reflects the Constitutional definition of NBC) if you accept John Bingham's definition, which I do.
According to John Bingham (see quote and link below) a person cannot be a natural born citizen if the parents are “owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty.” The clear point is that the child, if they became commander in chief, must not owe legal allegiance to more than one sovereignty. A bastard child does not owe allegiance to the country of his foreign father. This is not a question of the bastard child volunteering allegiance to the country of his father, but of whether another sovereignty claims that allegiance is owed by the child.
Legal citizenship of wives and children at the time of the founders and up until very recently followed the legal husband. Under the BNA of 1948, the UK did not claim that the children of bigamous marriages or bastard children owed it allegiance and did not recognize a claim of UK citizenship unless the child was subsequently “legitimated” (and we have no evidence of that for BHO II).
Bottom line: BHO II, if he is the the bastard child of a bigamous marriage, does not “owe allegiance to any foreign sovereignty” and owes allegiance only to the country with sovereignty over his mother, the US.
True, Jay only said he wanted to exclude “foreigners” from being Commander in Chief.
From Wiki on John Jay writing to Washington:
The origin of the natural-born citizen clause can be traced to a July 25, 1787, letter from John Jay to George Washington, presiding officer of the Constitutional Convention. John Jay wrote: “Permit me to hint, whether it would be wise and seasonable to provide a strong check to the admission of Foreigners into the administration of our national Government; and to declare expressly that the Commander in Chief of the American army shall not be given to nor devolve on, any but a natural born Citizen.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Hutcher/Natural-born_citizen
From Federalist Blog quoting Bingham on “not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty”:
Framer of the Fourteenth Amendments first section, John Bingham, said Sec. 1992 of U.S. Revised Statutes meant “every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen.”
http://federalistblog.us/2007/09/revisiting_subject_to_the_jurisdiction.html
The BNA of 1948 sets specific conditions under which “a person born out of wedlock” can be “legitimated” (be deemed or become a UK subject). Absent legitimation, the person born out of wedlock is not “subject to” the BNA of 1948 and in BHO II’s case, not a dual citizen.
A bigamous marriage by Kenya and HI standards doesn’t legally exist so the children of such a marriage (BHO II) would be “born out of wedlock”. A “subsequent” legal marriage (subsequent to birth) would have been required. A legal or subsequent legal Dunham-Obama marriage couldn’t have occurred unless Obama Sr obtained a divorce from his first Kezia in Kenya and then married Dunham. Kezia says she was never divorced from Obama Sr and considered him to be a bigamist.
BNA of 1948 Legitimation of persons born out of wedlock:
23.—(1) A person born out of wedlock and legitimated by the subsequent marriage of his parents shall, as from the date of the marriage or of the commencement of this Act, whichever is later, be treated, for the purpose of determining whether he is a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies, or was a British subject immediately before the commencement of this Act, as if he had been born legitimate.
(2) A person shall be deemed for the purposes of this section to have been legitimated by the subsequent marriage of his parents if by the law of the place in which his father was domiciled at the time of the marriage the marriage operated immediately or subsequently to legitimate him, and not otherwise.
http://www.uniset.ca/naty/BNA1948.htm
From Decalogos:
Obama’s father contracted a customary marriage in Kenya, perfectly legal there, several years before coming to study in Hawaii. Obama Sr then contracted (if he did) a second marriage with Ann Dunham in Hawaii in 1961. Polygamous customary marriage was legal for black Kenyans in British Kenya. PROBLEM: It was not legal under the British Kenya Marriage Act 1902 and Kenya Penal Code 1930 to mix the two types of marriage. American marriages were recognized foreign marriages and governed by statute, whereby “NO marriage in Kenya shall be valid…where either of the parties…is married by native law or custom to any person other than the person with whom such marriage is had”: ie for one customarily married any statutory spouse must be the customary spouse - thereby outlawing statutory polygamy. This means that Obama Sr’s Hawaiian marriage (if real) to Ann Dunham was BIGAMOUS AND ILLEGAL IN KENYA UNDER BRITISH LAW. While birth in Kenya would necessarily have entitled Obama Jr to British citizenship immediately, an Obama Jr birth in America to bigamous parents could never bestow British citizenship upon him, because at no time would Britain have regarded Obama Jr as the child of a marriage that was legitimate under British Kenyan law.
Furthermore, are you making the assumption (since there is no verifiable evidence) that the alleged marriage took place in HI? Do we know for a fact that the "marriage" did not take place in Kenya?
The US military, plus any cops/other LEOs/Nat’l Guard who have not gone lefist, PLUS all the millions of armed citizens who have not gone leftist.
The American people who are not leftist thugs can only take so much.
You can fight this all you want but it was the law.
JUST THINK FOR A MOMENT. Look at the law at the time in the US as it concerns the residency requirement of Ann. It did not state SPECIFICALLY that you had to be married...but there was an out of wedlock provision. There was a Supreme Court case upholding the inequity of the law as it applied to mothers versus fathers.
Now look at the 1948 law. There is a LEGITIMATED section. Why is that there?
All you need to do is really research and you will find that children born out of wedlock when the father was a British citizen ran into problems...long past Obama’s birth date.
http://www.ukcitizenshipequality.com/
I am past trying to show people the various laws. I have done it many times..you have to read the law IN THE TOTALITY.
Do it or don’t do it.
I don’t care.
PS. did you bother to read this:
“(2) Subject to the provisions of section twenty-three of this Act, any reference in this Act to a child shall be construed as a reference to a legitimate child; and the expressions “father”, “ancestor” and “descended” shall be construed accordingly.”
"PS. did you bother to read this: “(2) Subject to the provisions of section twenty-three of this Act, any reference in this Act to a child shall be construed as a reference to a legitimate child; and the expressions “father”, “ancestor” and “descended” shall be construed accordingly.”"
Yes, I read it. However, that only applies to section 23. Right? Section 23 deals with (in part) kids born out of wedlock who were later legitimatized. Right? So, that doesn't apply to Barry. Correct?
So I'm asking again, where in the 1948 BNA, does it state that a child born out of wedlock (and never later legitimized) does not receive their fathers British citizenship?
Is there something here more concrete than inference?
SIGH...A BIG OLE’ SIGH. You don’t even understand what you are reading. Go ask Apuzzo what that means. Maybe he will tell you the truth.
|
Unless there's other sealed documents in Hawaii that we don't know about (which is VERY likely) or a DNA test to prove otherwise, THIS would hold up as prima facie to prove who is Obama's "father":
|
He resembles his half-brother. that said, IT DOES NOT MAKE HIM LEGITIMATE for the purposes of British Citizenship.
> He resembles his half-brother.
That may be, but appearances do not count in court.
Prima facie does. Obama may be Malcolm’s long-lost son —
who knows. What matters is what you can PROVE in court.
> IT DOES NOT MAKE HIM LEGITIMATE for
> the purposes of British Citizenship.
They will always default to the documentation,
just like our INS does. They have no legal reason
to do otherwise.
What dose section 23 pertain to?
“PS. did you bother to read this: “(2) Subject to the provisions of section twenty-three of this Act, any reference in this Act to a child shall be construed as a reference to a legitimate child; and the expressions “father”, “ancestor” and “descended” shall be construed accordingly.””
Per rxsid:
“Yes, I read it. However, that only applies to section 23. Right? Section 23 deals with (in part) kids born out of wedlock who were later legitimatized. Right? So, that doesn't apply to Barry. Correct?
“So I'm asking again, where in the 1948 BNA, does it state that a child born out of wedlock (and never later legitimized) does not receive their fathers British citizenship?”
To rxsid:
The whole BNA of 1948 exhaustively defines by identified category who _is_ “governed by” it and is either a UK subject, or national. All others are excluded by failing to be specifically identified as included in “governed by”.
If Obama is the illegitimate child of a bigamous marriage he does not fit into any of the identified 1948 BNA categories when he was born because all listed categories of “child” that are “governed by” the act include _only_ legitimate children.
Only if an illegitimate child is subsequently “legitimated” as defined in the Act can illegitimacy be overcome.
Proof that a Dunham-Obama marriage was performed and filed has been provided by the HI dept of vital records when they disclosed the index of the marriage vital record under an FOIA request.
I HIGHLY doubt the Brits would accept something just because it was listed in a divorce decree when there is plenty of evidence Obama Sr was already married.
It was a VOID marriage. Never valid. He was illegitimate. He is NOT and was NOT a British citizen if born in the US. They MIGHT have granted him British citizenship under a review which means there would have had to be an application - no automatic status.
It is ludicrous to believe that a Court would throw out a sitting president just because a divorce decree said they were married...because that is all you have to base his UK citizenship on....a VOID MARRIAGE. By the time of the divorce, Ann knew that he was married. She probably knew before that..
And if the “marriage” is legally recognized (or even took place) in Kenya?
Can you provide the evidence that it was a “bigamous” marriage...and not a “polygamous” marriage? Was there a legal difference in 1961 (?) Hawaii?
there are all kinds of what ifs that could effect the situation. I am looking at the facts as we know them at this time.
Even a valid marriage in Kenya, assuming you could get one between a black man that is already married in a custom marriage and a white woman, at the time...is problematic given a later law passed in the UK.
That's an understatement re: 90+% of Barry's past. At least we can agree that we really don't know much about him.
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.
