Posted on 04/01/2010 9:08:40 AM PDT by Seizethecarp
The following discussion assumes President Obama was born in Hawaii and is a United States citizen.
The purpose of this article is to highlight judicial and historical evidence suggesting that a "natural born citizen" must be born in the United States to parents who are citizens. By that definition, Obama is not eligible to be president. Therefore, his presidency and official administrative acts remain subject to being rendered void by the Supreme Court.
(Excerpt) Read more at wnd.com ...
BTTT
Of course that's what it means. /s
I'm sure your "blog" has much more to offer them than their respective three years of law school (both from top 20 programs), and 20+ years (each) of practical legal experience, including Levin's own experience at the Department of Justice.
To anyone who's functionally literate, and who not certifiably crazy, there is no conspiracy because there's nothing to be conspiratorial about.
What I've been saying. He was not born in ANY Hawaiian hospital.
And for him to have to change/add to the medical portion it means that neither he nor his mom was seen by a Hawaii doctor within the first 30 days after the birth, because that’s all it would have taken to complete his birth certificate.
It would be bad enough to find that Madelyn Dunham (for instance) was the person who testified to the Hawaii birth, since there’s no reason that Ann couldn’t have done it herself. But to find that Ann wasn’t even around in Hawaii to see a doctor for the first 30 days after the delivery makes a person wonder exactly where Ann WAS at the time.
All excellent points.
I have no reason to believe that Hawaiian officials (many of whom are Republicans) are participating in a conspiracy to usurp the Presidency. To me, this sounds like nonsense.
That’s a good list of insults and strawmen, but nothing that actually discounts nor disputes the validity of what B has posted at her blog.
Nice evasion.
It’s like you don’t know what the answer to 2+2 is but you know it’s not “conspiracy”. Stop worrying about what the end result is. Do the math and go where it takes you.
IOW, it’s silly because Republicans have never participated in a conspiracy?? That’s a great point.
It does? Where here in sect. 1 of the 14th do those words appear?
Section. 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
I am sick of people quoting imaginary words in the amendment, when in fact hey were in the 1866 Act, which preceded the 14th:
The language of the 1866 Civil Rights Act, from which the Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment was derived, provides the key to its meaning. The 1866 Act provides: “All persons born in the United States, and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed, are hereby declared to be citizens of the United States.”
Senator Lyman Trumbull, a key figure in the drafting and adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment, responded that “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States meant subject to its “complete” jurisdiction, “[n]ot owing allegiance to anybody else.”[4] And Senator Jacob Howard, who introduced the language of the jurisdiction clause on the floor of the Senate, contended that it should be construed to mean “a full and complete jurisdiction,” “the same jurisdiction in extent and quality as applies to every citizen of the United States now”[5] (i.e., under the 1866 Act). That meant that the children of Indians who still “belong[ed] to a tribal relation” and hence owed allegiance to another sovereign (however dependent the sovereign was) would not qualify for citizenship under the clause. Because of this interpretative gloss, provided by the authors of the provision, an amendment offered by Senator James Doolittle of Wisconsin explicitly to exclude “Indians not taxed,” as the 1866 Act had done, was rejected as redundant.[6]
The interpretative gloss offered by Senators Trumbull and Howard was also accepted by the Supreme Court-by both the majority and the dissenting justices-in The Slaughter-House Cases.[7] The majority in that case correctly noted that the “main purpose” of the clause “was to establish the citizenship of the negro” and that “[t]he phrase, ‘subject to its jurisdiction’ was intended to exclude from its operation children of ministers, consuls, and citizens or subjects of foreign States born within the United States.”[8] Justice Steven Field, joined by Chief Justice Chase and Justices Swayne and Bradley in dissent from the principal holding of the case, likewise acknowledged that the clause was designed to remove any doubts about the constitutionality of the 1866 Civil Rights Act.
Those words you use are from congressional records & Supreme Court opinions. They have NEVER appeared in the 14th or the 1866 Act as you say. It also is just like the statist to dismiss the the later part of the record which I again reiterate:
“[t]he phrase, ‘subject to its jurisdiction’ was intended to exclude from its operation children of ministers, consuls, and citizens or subjects of foreign States born within the United States.”
HYPOCRITES! And I am also sick of their elitist know it all attitudes, so from now on, quote the entire phrase or face more of the constitutionalist wrath because we are not sitting silent anymore!
Please show us those corrections???
What's funny is you probably actually said that with a straight face. Let me know when something is published in what of the HUNDREDS of well-respected law journals.
You'll excuse me if I'm not swayed by someone's Wordpress blog. If you can blue book it, I'll read. If you can't. I'm not interested.
Law degrees don’t equal factual knowlege about a contemporary situation. I’m talking basic comprehension of the factual information.
You seem so afraid that the answer is going to come up “conspiracy”. Like I said to Drew, do the math. If you’re faithful in each step along the way, then whatever the end comes out to is just reality. You didn’t make it the reality and you’re not crazy for recognizing it as reality.
It’s the basic epistemology of science. You observe, you test, and you let the facts take you wherever they lead. If you have a preconceived notion of what answer is no way, no how acceptable, I guarantee that you will never come up with that answer - even if all the steps taken one at a time lead you there.
For not being interested, you’re going out of your way to toss insults at the blog and bring up non-sequitirs and/or strawmen. If you don’t understand the blog, just ask butter a few questions. She’ll probably be very happy to explain it.
Sorry for any confusion.
regarding post 148: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2484668/posts?page=148#148
Step back from it for a while and keep things in perspective.
On whose behalf are you speaking and trying to censoring???
BTW you were not here during the Clinton years, and they were also muzzled effectively by the RACE CARD that you evidently also are using!!!
I see. Get back to you when I’ve published something in the East Anglia, peer-reviewed, totally honest scholarly journal.
Do you trust NBA scores if they’re not analyzed in peer-reviewed scientific journals?
Heaven forbid that YOU would go to the work of peer-reviewing something put out by the unwashed masses rather than the educational elite.
I thought better of you than that.
No mention that Obama was also born in Kenya? Hmm... Looks like they dropped that angle.
From young ‘Barry’ to top American Senator
"...Mr Barack Obama was born in Hawaii on August 4, 1961, to a Kenyan father, Mr Barack Hussein Obama, and an American mother, Ms Shirley Ann Dunham of Wichita, Kansas..."
Well, look at that! The venerable Eastern Standard now refers to Obama as Hawaiian born.
Obama's henchmen must've flown down to Kenya to straighten them out! < /s>
Sure, if that "contemporary situation" is about cooking, or baseball, or horseshoes. But, when that situation deals with constitutional & statutory law and administrative regulation, then yes, law degrees matter a whole bunch.
I have seen not a single shred of evidence that supports a claim that Barack Obama was born ANYWHERE other than HI. The only thing people can offer is supposition, conjecture, hearsay and conspiracy.
If Barack Obama was born in HI, and we have no credible evidence that he wasn't, then he's a citizen at birth - a "natural-born citizen". That is the law as it exists today in this country.
They also said his mother is Ms Shirley Ann Dunham of Wichita, Kansas.
But hey, I guess that source is pretty reliable. Just because they got his mom’s name wrong and had her as being from a town she hadn’t lived in for quite some time by the time Obama was born.... I mean, 0 out of 2 ain’t bad.
I certainly do, and includes BOR, Glenn Book, Hannity, Rush and a whole bunch of other so called Conservative talking heads!
The reason for their absolutely total silence on this issue is otherwise they would NOT have a GIG or bread & butter on the table!!
You can educate yourself on that from the CFP!!!
Yet the "Kenyan-born Obama" article where Obama's first name is spelled "Barrack" is quoted here on birther threads as though it were gospel from the Lord Himself.
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.