Posted on 03/14/2010 12:04:10 PM PDT by etraveler13
4 Cases have been decided by the Supreme Court of the United States that define the status of Natural Born Citizen.
(Excerpt) Read more at thepostemail.com ...
You don't need the long form to know that, so I'm not quite sure why you make such a big deal about it.
He can go to court and argue that he is NBC - the government can argue he is not. But, SCOTUS will have to affirm [or deny] once and for all with the words: "Obama is [or is not] a natural born citizen".
The justices on SCOTUS are already aware that his father wasn't a US citizen, and yet they refused to hear the case. I think that's pretty indicative of the fact 1that they believe the issue was already settled, long ago, in Obama's favor.
A person born with two allegiances cannot be a natural born subject [citizen] - which was the understanding of the Founding Fathers at the time the Constitution was written.
Unfortunately, the Wong precedent says you are wrong, and it doesn't appear likely that the current court would overturn it.
Let us all know when you get there --
You don't need the long form to know that, so I'm not quite sure why you make such a big deal about it.
You idiot - I have NEVER once asked to see the long form BC, it is NOT relevant. What IS relevant is whether he is NBC.
He can go to court and argue that he is NBC - the government can argue he is not. But, SCOTUS will have to affirm [or deny] once and for all with the words: "Obama is [or is not] a natural born citizen".
The justices on SCOTUS are already aware that his father wasn't a US citizen, and yet they refused to hear the case. I think that's pretty indicative of the fact 1that they believe the issue was already settled, long ago, in Obama's favor.
Wrong, Buffalo Breath ...
SCOTUS has refused to hear these cases without comment - and letting the lower courts' rulings of "lack of standing" stand. NO COURT HAS CITED ARK AS STARE DECISIS IN DISMISSING THESE CASES.
However, there is still one case that I know of outstanding - a petition for a writ quo warranto in the District of Columbia. If granted, Obama would have to show that he is eligible to the office - and that means proving he is NBC. He can argue Ark, as I have said before, but it will be up to the courts to decide.
A person born with two allegiances cannot be a natural born subject [citizen] - which was the understanding of the Founding Fathers at the time the Constitution was written.
Unfortunately, the Wong precedent says you are wrong, and it doesn't appear likely that the current court would overturn it.
You know, you don't have ANYTHING but Ark [which DID NOT declare Ark NBC] - so, you have to keep coming back to it, PLEADING for someone to see it your way.
Grow a pair of brass ones and find some documentation to support your proposition !!!
BTW: That must be MIGHTY FINE Kool-Aid yer drinkin' !!!
Good luck with that. However, let me save you a lot of time and tell you what will happen: SCOTUS, if it even gets that far, will simply refuse to hear it, as this has already been decided by Ark.
SCOTUS has refused to hear these cases without comment - and letting the lower courts' rulings of "lack of standing" stand. NO COURT HAS CITED ARK AS STARE DECISIS IN DISMISSING THESE CASES.
The Indiana court of appeals did. See Ankeny and Kruse v. Indiana:
http://www.in.gov/judiciary/opinions/pdf/11120903.ebb.pdf
Their discussion of Ark starts on page 13.
You know, you don't have ANYTHING but Ark
There are also the books and cases cited by Ark, which you were kind enough to reproduce on this thread. All of them support my position, not yours. Unfortuantely, your reading skills are so poor, you can't figure that out for yourself.
Instead you project and call me stupid. I feel sorry for you.
I've quoted the parts of the decisions that do.
Wong Kim Ark’s parents returned to China and neither was ever an American citizen.
Which is why I said they were permanent immigrants and residents (which were the court's words). This would make the child a citizen at birth, but not a natural born citizen, which is why they didn't call the plaintiff a natural born citizen.
Barack Obama’s mother was born and died an American citizen and Barack Obama was born in Honolulu, Hawaii at 7:24 p.m. on Friday, August 4, 1961, according to the state of Hawaii.
We don't know if Obama's mama remained a U.S. citizen or if she might have expatriated in Indonesia. The state of Hawaii has not shown any documentation proving that Obama was born in Hawaii on that time and date. I'm not taking it on blind faith.
Thus far, 64 courts including the US Supreme Court on eight separate occasions have ruled against every plaintiff that has attempted to sue Obama or sue others for not properly vetting Obama’s citizenship.
None have heard a full case on merits, so we don't know where any court stands on vetting Obama's citizenship, except Ankeny, which had an unsupported conclusion.
McCain and Palin are STILL as of today the only persons who might conceivably have legal standing to sue Obama and neither of them as filed suit.
Obama did McCain a favor, so he's not going to take this to court. Palin is choosing a different path. As to whether they're the only one's who have legal standing, the jury is out.
Not exactly. They said unknown vital records veryify his birth in Hawaii. The only official vital record that does this is a birth certificate, but the state official in question (there was only one), made it clear she was not citing obama's birth certificate as the source of this alleged verification.
No assumptions are required to know that the long form shows birth in Hawaii. We know this for two reasons: 1) state officials say his records show brith in Hawaii
Sorry, debunked.
and 2) his birth was announced in the Hawaii papers in 1961.
The birth anouncement didn't list a place of birth.
Hawaii did not register foreign births at the time, and the papers got the birth data for their announcements straight from the Health Bureau upon the registration of said births.
The state did register foreign births. It's why spokesbabe Okubo said that if the child was born in Bali, the COLB should say Bali as the place of birth (odd coincidence she picked a place in Indonesia).
First of all, Obama made unredacted photos of the COLB available.
No, what the amateur factcheckers photographed was not the same document that Obama originally presented as a jpg. Somehow the document paper grew in the photos. The pictures also fail to show that the signature block on the back clearly belongs to Obama's alleged COLB. Why won't they expose Obama's backside??
Second of all, there's corroborating evidence supporting the Hawaiian COLB: state officals confirm the state's record shows he was born in Hawaii, and there are birth announcements in the papers, and we know birth announcements were received directly from the department of health. Contrary to birther mythology, they were not phoned in.
State law allows ANYBODY to report a birth to the DOH. IOW, an unattended birth could have been 'phoned in' by anybody. Your other points were already debunked.
Furthermore, birth records in Kenya are open to the public, so if Bamabi was born there, birthers would be able to prove it. The fact that they haven't is very telling.
Feel free to prove this.
What you fail to grasp is that once a state registers a person's birth, even if it is a home birth, the law presumes the registration to be accurate and such registration is sufficient proof of birth in any court of law. The burden of proof the shifts to those who would dispute the birth's location written in the state's records.
No such proof has been presented in a court of law. You ever stop to wonder why??
Therefore, if his long form showed a home birth in Hawaii, and you wanted to dispute the location, you would have to prove someone committed fraud to register his birth in Hawaii.
Nice qualifier. Now you're saying IF Obama ws born in Hawaii ... we don't know, do we. We shouldn't have to guess what it says. Let's just see it.
Of course, you would never be able to do that. And then there's also the sticky point that there was no motive for anyone to have committed such a crime, even if he were really born in Kenaya.
Presenting a false birth certificate is a crime. The motive was to fool the American public into believing Obama was really born in Hawaii so he could be president. Funny how you call yourself 'curiosity,' yet show no curiosity.
I am sure you agree...there are none so blind, as those who will not see....
“I’ve quoted the parts of the decisions that do.”
“Which is why I said they were permanent immigrants and residents (which were the court’s words). This would make the child a citizen at birth, but not a natural born citizen, which is why they didn’t call the plaintiff a natural born citizen.”
We also don’t know whether there are people living on Mars. But there is no proof of Martians and there is no proof of Stanley Dunham’s expatriation (which would be legally irrelevant anyway concerning her son).
I could care less what you take or don’t take on blind faith. You are irrelevant. The courts that have read legal briefs on this issue have all accepted the statements of the Governor of Hawaii, the Attorney General of Hawaii, the Registrar of Vital Records in Hawaii and the Director of the Hawaii Department of Health that Barack Obama was born in that state on that date and at that time. As long as judges and lawmakers accept those public statements issued on the record, that’s all that matters.
When lawsuits have no merit, they don’t get heard. Ankeny can be appealed. If it reached an incorrect conclusion, it will be overturned but again, your opinion of the decision is irrelevant. Until it is appealed and overturned, it stands as the only court decision to rule specfically on the Natural Born Citizen status of Barack Hussein Obama II.
There are a number of requirements that a plaintiff must establish to have standing before a federal court. Some are based on the case or controversy requirement of the judicial power of Article Three of the United States Constitution, § 2, cl.1. As stated there, “The Judicial Power shall extend to all Cases . . .[and] to Controversies . . .” The requirement that a plaintiff have standing to sue is a limit on the role of the judiciary and the law of Article III standing is built on the idea of separation of powers. Federal courts may exercise power only “in the last resort, and as a necessity”.
Perhaps you could tell us who MIGHT have standing to sue Obama other than the only other persons to receive electoral college votes?
The “jury is still out” for you and some others on the fringe but its been “in with a verdict” for most people for over a year now.
Justice Scalia has presented an Obama eligibility suit from Orly Taitz to the other justices (Wrotnowski v. Bysiewicz). It was rejected.
Chief Justice Roberts has presented an Obama eligiblity suit also from Orly Taitz (Lightfoot v Bowen) to the other Justices. It was rejected.
Justice Clarence Thomas has presented an Obama eligibility suit from Leo Donofrio to the other Justices, it was rejected.
Justice Anthony Kennedy has presented an Obama eligibility suit from Philip Berg to the other Justices, it was rejected.
BTW: Why don't you respond to my post to you showing that allegiance = obedience and that permanent [as opposed to temporary] allegiance is required of the parents in order for a child to be a natural born subject, per Calvin's Case [1608] ???
Calvin's case does not say permanent allegiance is required of the parents. It only requires actual obedience.
Actual obedience isn't the same thing as permanent allegiance, and none of the posts you cite say it is.
In point of fact, your posts prove it can't be the same thing.
Per your Dicey quotations, only British subjects had permanent allegiance to the King of England. So if permanent allegience were required of the parents, then children born of aliens could not be natural born British subjects. But that would contradict the finding in Calvin, in which the child of an alien was ruled a natural born subject.
Actual obedience just means that the person in question is under the protection and jurisdiction of the King in the time an place in question. That applies to all aliens, unless they are invaders, envoys, diplomats, etc.
In the US context, it also applies to Obama's father, who as a resident of Hawaii, was under actual obedience to Hawaii's and US Federal laws at the time of Bambi's birth.
I'm sorry, my friend, but your argument holds no water, and your "research" does not support it.
Here is what the director of public health says:
"I, Dr. Chiyome Fukino, director of the Hawaii State Department of Health, have seen the original vital records maintained on file by the Hawaii State Department of Health verifying Barack Hussein Obama was born in Hawaii."
You cannot get more clear or more explicit than that.
The only official vital record that does this is a birth certificate, but the state official in question (there was only one), made it clear she was not citing obama's birth certificate as the source of this alleged verification.
Where exactly did she "make clear" she was not citing his birth certificate? I don't see it in her statement. Do point it out.
Sorry, debunked.
Nope.
The birth anouncement didn't list a place of birth.
Doesn't matter, since the state did not register foreign births at the time.
The state did register foreign births. It's why spokesbabe Okubo said that if the child was born in Bali, the COLB should say Bali as the place of birth (odd coincidence she picked a place in Indonesia).
The law allowing the registration of foreign births was not passed until 1982. There was no such provision under the laws in effect in 1961.
No, what the amateur factcheckers photographed was not the same document that Obama originally presented as a jpg.
How do you know?
Somehow the document paper grew in the photos.
That's because the first image was a scan, not a photo.
The pictures also fail to show that the signature block on the back clearly belongs to Obama's alleged COLB.
They show photos of the front and the back. What else would you have them do?
Why won't they expose Obama's backside??
They do show a photo of the back of the document.
State law allows ANYBODY to report a birth to the DOH. IOW, an unattended birth could have been 'phoned in' by anybody. Your other points were already debunked.
The above statement is simply untrue.
Feel free to prove this [birth records in Kenya being open the public).
Sure. Here you go:
No such proof has been presented in a court of law. You ever stop to wonder why??
Yes. It's because no court has asked for it.
Nice qualifier. Now you're saying IF Obama ws born in Hawaii ... we don't know, do we.
We know the state vital records say he was born in Hawaii. That is enough under the law to prove he was born there. The presumption is now on you to disprove it.
Presenting a false birth certificate is a crime.
True. However, there has yet to be uncovered as shred of evidence that the COLB he did present is false.
Edge919: Feel free to prove this.
Me: Gladly. See Cap 149, Section 26 of Kenyan Law. I quote the relevant passage below:
Cap 149: Births and Deaths Registration
Section 26: Inspection of Registers and Provisions of Copies and Certificates
(1) Any register, return or index in the custody of the Principal Registrar subject to the rules, shall be open to inspection on payment of the prescribed fee.
(2) The Principal Registrar shall, on payment of the prescribed fee, furnish a certified copy of any entry in any register or in any return in his custody.
(3) The Principal Registrar shall, on payment of the prescribed fee, furnish a certificate in the prescribed form of the birth of any person compiled in the prescribed manner from the records and registers in his custody.
(4) A certified copy of any entry in any register or return sealed or stamped with the seal of the Principal Registrar shall be received as evidence of the dates and facts therein contained without any or other proof of such entry.
If you don't believe I have faithfully cut and paste the appropriate text, you can look it up for yourself here:
http://www.kenyalaw.org/kenyalaw/klr_home/
Click on the "Cap Title" tab, and type in 149. Then scroll down to section 26.
Therefore, if Obama happens to have a birth certificate on file in Kenya, anyone will to pay a nominal fee has access to it.
Now why is it that no one has come up with one?
If his lack of transparency is because of criminal fraud, we shouldn’t have to wait till 2012 to get his criminal butt out office.
The 14th amendment doesn't change or impact the definition of natural born citizen. It didn't declare anyone to be a natural born citizen by virtue of the 14th amendment.
There is no distinction in the law between a citizen at birth and a natural born citizen. They are synomous terms.
Wrong. You can easily be a citizen at birth and NOT be a natural born citizen. I'm pretty sure we've already documented this.
I quote the following from the Wong Kim Ark decision:
What you quoted makes Obama a natural born subject, not a natural born citizen. You're not helping your own case.
I could care less what you take or don’t take on blind faith. You are irrelevant.
If this were true, you wouldn't post such lengthy replies trying vainly to disprove what I've posted.
The courts that have read legal briefs on this issue have all accepted the statements of the Governor of Hawaii, the Attorney General of Hawaii, the Registrar of Vital Records in Hawaii and the Director of the Hawaii Department of Health that Barack Obama was born in that state on that date and at that time.
Please post one of these alleged briefs. I have a feeling your making up things now or you're perhaps conflating 'legal briefs' with 'faither blogs.'
Here’s a definition of legal standing from Wikipedia:
Funny, but when I looked at the definition of legal standing at Wikipedia, it also says, "the term for the ability of a party to demonstrate to the court sufficient connection to and harm from the law or action challenged to support that party's participation in the case" and is followed by "the court ... will dismiss the case without considering the merits of the claim ..."
Perhaps you could tell us who MIGHT have standing to sue Obama other than the only other persons to receive electoral college votes?
The people who COULD have received electoral college votes, such as other candidates, not just McCain and his running mate.
The people who COULD have received electoral college votes, such as other candidates, not just McCain and his running mate.
From the Court’s judgement:
“IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED:
1. That the First Amended Petition for Writ of Mandate is dismissed;
2. That respondent Secretary of State Debra Bowen shall recover costs in the amount of $350.00 pursuant to Government Code section 6103.5;
3. That respondent President Barack Obama shall recover costs in the amount of $520.00;
4. That respondent Vice-President Joe Biden shall recover costs in the amount of $520.00;”
“Funny, but when I looked at the definition of legal standing at Wikipedia, it also says, “the term for the ability of a party to demonstrate to the court sufficient connection to and harm from the law or action challenged to support that party’s participation in the case” and is followed by “the court ... will dismiss the case without considering the merits of the claim ...”
Nonsense. She didn't name specific documents. You can't be much more vague, but she certainly was not clear nor specific.
Where exactly did she "make clear" she was not citing his birth certificate? I don't see it in her statement. Do point it out.
By not citing the birth certificate by name. The ONLY vital record under her authority that authenticates birth claims is a birth certificate. There would be no other records to cite, especially if Obama's birth certificate indeed proves his place of birth. Instead, she says, she has nothing to add to her statement from October 2008 ... which was THE statement about the original birth certificate. If she wanted to prove his place of birth, all she had to do was cite that same document. She didn't and for obvious reasons.
The law allowing the registration of foreign births was not passed until 1982. There was no such provision under the laws in effect in 1961.
The law you're talking about didn't allow the registration of foreign births. The state already did that (hence Okubo's statement, the Hawaiian Certificate of Live Birth program and adoption laws). The 1982 law was about adding a Hawaiian residency requirement which did not exist prior.
They do show a photo of the back of the document.
It shows a photo of what looks like the back of a birth document, but there's nothing that visibly ties it directly to Obama's alleged COLB. They carefully avoided not photograhing the full back side of the document. It's time for Obama to expose his backside to the public.
That's because the first image was a scan, not a photo.
The first scan shows the edge of the document. The documents in the photos have a wider margin outside the imprinted area than the scans. Paper can't grow. Ouch.
The above statement is simply untrue.
It's true. HRS 388-6, "If neither parent of the newborn child whose birth is unattended as provided in section 338-5 is able to prepare a birth certificate, the local agent of the department of health shall secure the necessary information from any person having knowledge of the birth ..." Ouch ... again. Granny could have phoned it in ... by law.
Yes. It's because no court has asked for it.
Why wait for a court to ask for it and why let other people keep brining lawsuits when the presentation of a simple document could answer 90 percent of the questions??
True. However, there has yet to be uncovered as shred of evidence that the COLB he did present is false.
The state of Hawaii won't say it's authentic. The document comes in at least two different sizes. Some versions are stamped. Some aren't. The certificate number is out of sequence with known certificate numbers. The DOH has responded that the certificate was altered, yet the COLB fails to contain the required statement that it was altered. It contains a typo in one of the date fields that inconsistent with computer-generated forms. There's more than just a shred of evidence that it's false.
Your citations keep saying that the inspection of registers is ‘subject to the rules.’ I believe Orly tried to get one of the courts to send an official letter to Kenya Principal Registrar to verify one of the Kenyan BCs. Seems like she would have done this herself if it was open to the public. Or on the converse, why hasn’t any Obot faither cited a note from the Principal Registrar to confirm that Obama does NOT have a certificate on file there?? It swings both ways, if they’re truly open to the public.
Keyes v. Bowen wasn’t ruled on the merits of Obama’s citizenship but whether it was the job of the Secretary of State to check the eligibility of federal candidates. This says nothing about Obama being eligible.
To get a subpoena, you have to go through a court. You make it sound like somebody can do this on a whim. Hopefully you know better.
There is no "subject tot he rules" clause in the section of the law that instructs the registrar to provide a certified copy of a birth or death record.
I believe Orly tried to get one of the courts to send an official letter to Kenya Principal Registrar to verify one of the Kenyan BCs. Seems like she would have done this herself if it was open to the public.
LOL. Given her obvious irrationality and stupidty, I wouldn't try to infer anything from Orly's actions.
Or on the converse, why hasn’t any Obot faither cited a note from the Principal Registrar to confirm that Obama does NOT have a certificate on file there??
Generally, the burden of proof is on those who are making a positive statement, not on those denying it.
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.