Posted on 01/06/2010 5:41:28 PM PST by RobinMasters
Contrary to the claims of critics of citizens who demand Barack Obama produce evidence of his presidential eligibility, newspaper birth announcements in Hawaiian newspapers in 1961 did not necessarily indicate a baby was born in the state.
As WND reported, Glenn Beck ridiculed the so-called birther movement on his nationally syndicated radio show Monday, pointing to identical birth announcements published in the Honolulu Advertiser and the Honolulu Star-Bulletin as evidence Obama was born in Hawaii and, therefore, is a natural-born citizen as required by the Constitution.
Beck, and two colleagues, mocked "birthers" for purportedly believing a wild conspiracy in which Obama's parents, knowing he would someday be president, "preemptively" collaborated with two separate newspapers to publish phony announcements stating he was born in Hawaii.
(Excerpt) Read more at wnd.com ...
Please show me where in any case law between 1868 and 2006 (uncolored by any opinion of Obama’s citizenship) where any court draws a distinction between an “born citizen” and a natural born citizen”.
I had reason to look citizenship law back in 2000-2001 and the only categories of US citizen I ever encountered were:
Natural born citizen - has citizenship from birth
Naturalized citizen - has citizenship by naturalization
US national - all persons owing allegiance to the United States (Citizens of the United States and non-Citizen nationals (Citizens of American Samoa are the only people left in this category))
I’m calling BS on that one. AS the article says, “But the birth announcements offer no proof of citizenship, because they might reflect nothing more than information a family filed with the Hawaii Department of Health to obtain a state Certification of Live Birth for a baby born outside Hawaii.”
As grandparents, you don’t have to be conspiring to pull off a fast one on the government in hopes of one day stealing the presidency. It would simply be a matter of recognizing that life as American citizen for your grandson would be much better than as an African, Englishman or whatever.
The Constitution has the answer. Natural Born Citizen means exactly what it did when the founding fathers wrote it. The only definition of such a term at the time was from Vattel's Law of Nations, which I have shown the founders were well acquainted with.
The Indiana attorney general used flawed logic. He assumes wrongly that Natural Born Citizen = Natural Born Subject. The founding fathers meant what they wrote. They Specifically wrote Natural Born CITIZEN as defined by Vattel in The Law of Nations.
I’m calling BS on that one. AS the article says, “But the birth announcements offer no proof of citizenship, because they might reflect nothing more than information a family filed with the Hawaii Department of Health to obtain a state Certification of Live Birth for a baby born outside Hawaii.”
As grandparents, you don’t have to be conspiring to pull off a fast one on the government in hopes of one day stealing the presidency. It would simply be a matter of recognizing that life as American citizen for your grandson would be much better than as an African, Englishman or whatever.
BS. Whether or not another BC exists is irrelevant to my point. Hawai’i allowed residents out of state to register births. They did not check to see if other BCs existed.
Please stop pinging me. Thank you.
They discredited Vattel? More like they ignored him completely. How can he have no relevance to US law when the Law of Nations is specifically spelled out in Article I of the Constitution of the United States of America?
I don't recall seeing the "as defined by Vattel in The Law of Nations" following "Natural Born Citizen".
But can you show me where Vattel’s definition has ever been used in an actual case, particularly one since the 14th Amendment was adopted?
As I stated earlier....the 14th amendment has nothing to do with Natural Born Citizenship.
I'm not surprised. What do you recall following it?
I can name two
New London v Kelo
Lawrence v Texas
Well deserved bump! ;-)
It doesn't matter.
If she was 18, she had not lived five years past the age of majority and could not confer natural born citizenship upon her son by birth in the US alone if the father was a foreign citizen.
Actually, it is precisely that point which is in question. If not, then join us in demanding that that proof be presented, and the supporting documents which should confirm that your statement is correct so we can quit calling you an idiot troll.
Glenn Beck has pegged the birthers nicely. They are a waste of time.
LOL! WHAT ARE YOU DOING HERE, THEN???
We are the ones who put the first cracks of doubt in the grand and media-polished facade of "Hope and Change".
Why won't he produce the documents?
What does he have to hide if he isn't doing anything wrong?
And what in the Hell is the government doing taking over car companies, banks, and the healthcare system?
People want to know, by what Constitutional authority does this man have the arrogance to say "America is the greatest nation on Earth. Now join me as we set out to change it."?
And just what did he mean by that, anyway?
Where are we going to go from being the greatest?
Actually, it is precisely that point which is in question.
If you have proof (come on, now, not altered document images from the Daily Kos, but something real), please provide it.
If not, then join us in demanding that that proof be presented, and the supporting documents which should confirm that your statement is correct so we can quit calling you an idiot troll.
Glenn Beck has pegged the birthers nicely. They are a waste of time.
LOL! WHAT ARE YOU DOING HERE, THEN???
We are the ones who put the first cracks of doubt in the grand and media-polished facade of "Hope and Change".
Why won't he produce the documents?
What does he have to hide if he isn't doing anything wrong?
And what in the Hell is the government doing taking over car companies, banks, and the healthcare system?
People want to know, by what Constitutional authority does this man have the arrogance to say "America is the greatest nation on Earth. Now join me as we set out to change it."?
And just what did he mean by that, anyway?
Where are we going to go from being the greatest?
Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162. Decided: March 29, 1875, written by Chief Justice Waite:
“The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. 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 [p168] 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.”
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0088_0162_ZO.html
And the doubts remain today.
Chief Justice Waite, author of the opinion, it is safe to say, was familiar with the adoption of the 14th Amendment. He and the majority of the Court obviously didn’t see the ‘natural born citizen’ question resolved by that Amendment 7 years after its adoption.
But these threads are littered with Keyboard Kommandos who KNOW that the 14th Amendment resolved ‘natural born’ citizenship. Simply amazing.
I see 338-17.8 .. where are you seeing 338-18.8?
.Wong Kim Ark (1898), Justice Grey (quoting Binny from "Alienigenae of the United States", printed in pamphlet at Philadelphia, with a preface bearing his signature and the date of December 1, 1853):
The right of citizenship never descends in the legal sense, either by the common law or under the common naturalization acts. It is incident to birth in the country, or it is given personally by statute. The child of an alien, if born in the country, is as much a citizen as the natural born child of a citizen, and by operation of the same principle.
They have the same rights, but they are not the same. Becoming President is not a right, otherwise how could it be denied to those adults under 35, or those who had not lived 14 years in the US. They too are still citizens, just not eligible to the officer of President. But, eligibility for the office of President is the only time where the distinction matters.
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.