Posted on 02/19/2011 7:18:52 AM PST by Zakeet
Oh really. From the hearings, and posted on Pat Leahy’s Senate Web site - before it was scubbed”
“My assumption and my understanding is that if you are born of American parents, you are naturally a natural-born American citizen,” Chertoff replied. “That is mine, too,” said Leahy.”/p>
And for any with the enthusiasm to read the Senate archives (Library of Congress, Thomas, JOHN S. McCAIN, III CITIZENSHIP — (Senate - April 30, 2008)
[Page: S3645]), that is also consistent with the testimony of Obama’s Harvard Constitutional Law professor, Larry Tribe, who, along with former Solicitor General Ted Olsen, confirmed that citizen parent definition, and in fact, used it as the foundation for their opinion that the framers always intended to include the foreign born children of citizens in the military, “citizens” being the operative word.
I can't say that their analysis is masterful, since I am not an attorney. It was certainly sneakily constructed to reflect statments not in evidence, such as implying that Wong Kim had said anything about natural born citizenship, when Tribe shortened a statement referring to English Common Law - natural born subject - to “natural born,” implying that the statement applied to citizens. It didn't, and they knew it.
In spite of their subterfuge, and the fact that every senator DID concur with the two citizen parent requirement, there may be a plausible path to making foreign born children of military citizens reputed natural born citizens. Mario Appuzo has outlined it in the comments to his article explaining the conformance of all 44 presidents with the natural born citizen constraint. It is persuasive, but I have not reconciled it with the many cases, The Venus, Minor, Perkins, WKA, in which the interpretation is jus soli and jus sanguinis.
But SR 511 makes no distinction which would address Obama’s insufficiency. In fact, it confirms that every senator knows that two parents are our common law. While SR 511 is a simple resolution, which is not actionable, confirming the understanding of all of our senators could hardly be more conclusive evidence that either our senators agreed to treat McCain and Obama differently under the law - an equal protections violation, as was sought by Mario Appuzo for Cmdr Kerchner - or that the wall of silence is intentional. Probably, they will claim that their silence was avoid the civil unrest which removing the illegitimate Obama would incur.
That legislators would make the choice to protect us from civil unrest while allowing a man whose allegiance was inherited from a father hostile to our Constitution, to our religions, and to capitalism, while putting the men defending our country at the whim of a known usurper is treason. How many have died so far, and how many will die in the future as the result of his designs for a Middle East free of “Zionism?” How many will we lose to the constraints he has put on those defending our borders? How many Kenyan Christians died from Barack’s active sponsorship of his Marxist Muslim Cousin Odinga, whose strong-arm backed by a Kenyan U.S. Senator forced a power sharing agreement with the Christian winner of the Kenyan Elections?
Our legislators have failed us, and our Supreme Court has failed us, but we can do something about that, and must, before Soro’s Secretary of State Project and Acorn render elections even less meaningful than they are.
There seems to be an inordinate number of stories warning Birthers that they are wasting their time. Sounds like the media is getting worried about something. So much for concept of investigative reporting.Your short post says it all. Why would they worry about us? If we're shooting ourselves in the foot, shouldn't they be happy?
And yes. Journalism is dead. Completely.
“My assumption and my understanding is that if you are born of American parents, you are naturally a natural-born American citizen,” Chertoff replied. “That is mine, too,” said Leahy.”
Neither Chertoff & Leahy's exchange nor S. Res. 511 nor S. 2678, which McKaskill introduced in February 2008 but which never passed, state that you must be born of American parents to be a natural born citizen. Rather they state that, if you are, that is sufficient to make you natural born, no matter where you were born. The intent was obviously to preclude Democrat birfirsm against their esteemed colleague John Sidney McCain, III, and any other military brats who might want to run for President.
NBC simply means citizen by birth. There is more than one way to be a citizen by birth. You are a citizen by birth if you were born here or if your parents were citizens. I predict that's what the Court will find, if they ever get around to it. And to change it will require amending the Constitution.
scrubbedis false and misleading. Just happening to encounter a broken link doesn't give you anything to shake a stick at.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/31679913/25337874-Sr511-Technically-a-Dfinition-of-Natural-Born-Citizen
I have always suspected that the information he wants hidden is that his bc says that he is white, like his mother.
Not likely. The Hawaiian long form of the time shows the races of the parents but not of the baby. You can see some samples here, starting with the Nordyke twins, who were born the same week as the Won. Not long after the advent of the Little Bastard (the Obama-Dunham marriage was bigamous; therefore little Barry was illegitimate), they apparently stopped recording even the parents' races.
Kooky birthers have made much of the fact that BHO, Sr., is listed as African
, not Negro
, as Jim Crow would have written when on his good behavior. My theory on that is, they asked him, and he answered African
, so that's what they put down. He was quite proud of his background. In 1961, Hawaii was the least Jim Crow of the fifty.
On this issue, birthers have never seemed to be able to grasp the difference between a necessary and sufficient condition. It's the problem with their interpretation of not only the Senate resolution but the Supreme Court "definitions" they're so fond of quoting.
Got any samples of a Kenyan bc?
A couple of years ago, somebody slipped a nice fake one into the hands of attorney Orly Taitz, who proceeded to embarrass herself (to the extent that's possible) by introducing it into evidence in court. It turned out to be a modified version of a genuine birth certificate belonging to David Jeffrey Bomford, of South Australia, who had posted it to his family genealogy site. It was popcorn time watching it suck 'em in.
http://washingtonindependent.com/53658/is-this-the-source-of-the-forged-kenyan-birth-certificate
You miss the bigger issue. Obama had his chief forger produce a fake to discredit the Lucas BC. The question is why??
In McCain case, he was born to American citizen's parents and on American territory - Canal Zone, strip of land that was (owned?) administered by USA.
That's easy. For the same reason he won't release his real one. The controversy only makes the birthers look like a bunch of kooks, so why kill it?
Lucas, by the way, is a man with a history. A criminal history.
Not relevant. If the Zone had been American territory, then any kid born there would be an American. Including a child born to Panamanian parents. Since that's not the case, it's clear the Zone was not American territory, at least not for the purpose in question.
I disprove this notion in post no. 161
NBC simply means citizen by birth. There is more than one way to be a citizen by birth. You are a citizen by birth if you were born here or if your parents were citizens. I predict that’s what the Court will find, if they ever get around to it. And to change it will require amending the Constitution.
__________________________________________________________________________________________
This statement, assuming it applies to Article II, is simply an lie and false.
First, are you talking about Article II of the US Constitution? If so, it is not NBC. It is “natural born Citizen”.
Second it means gaining citizen from natural law, hence the word natural (not capitalized!) and having that status from birth, hence the word born (not capitalized!).
Described above is a “born Citizen” but it lacks the fact that it is from natural law and not positive (man-made law). Both types of law recognized in the U.S Constitution.
To be a natural citizen your father must have been a citizen (obots hate this fact). Some take the meaning to also mean born on US soil. But this seems to be applied at times and at times it is not considered.
But the need for your father to be citizen is universal in nations as part of natural law.
As for changing the Consitution. There is nothing to change. The framers had it 100% correct. It is perversions such as stated here that are allowed to perpetuate that create the problem.
I am old now, so stuff does not come to me as quickly as it used to.
Wasn’t Chester Arthur some guy who made a living off of the Customs Division of the state of New York?
Raking in the dough from people who were actually engaged in real Commerce?
I am sure that is correct.
Now I have to go look it up because I left my American History 1860 to the Present text somewhere too close to the furnace.
Allegedly Arthur was born in a place now known as Vermont which used to be considered as American before all of those wealthy New Yorkers started moving in and taking over.
They all knew in 2008 that Obama and McCain were not NBC. McCain was not born on US soil and Obama was not born to two US citizen parents.
Our political parties, legislators and courts committed the equivalent of a jury nullification by nullifying the Constitution in broad daylight. They calculated that they could get away with that and they did.
When a jury overrules the law the verdict stands and when the citizens, legislators and courts of the USA overruled the Constitution in 2008, that “verdict” will also stand.
But that nullification of the US Constitution in 2008 was based of an assumption that Obama was telling the truth when he claimed he was born in HI to a US citizen mom.
But after the election it became clear that Obama could not prove his birth on US soil with 1961 original records or witnesses and was deliberately withholding a legal release of his original 1961 vital records. No evidence of an HI birth has been entered in any case. The famous COLB has never been entered into evidence in any eligibility case.
Only discovery of proof that Obama was not born in HI or release of 1961 vital records revealing facts that open the possibility that he was not born in HI can result in removal of Obama at this point, IMO.
That is why the only eligibility evidence that matters at this point is the 1961 and subsequent HI vital record file for Obama. Trying to re-litigate whether NBC status requires two citizen parents is water over the dam due to the nullification. The nullification of the two citizen parent eligibiliity requirement is precedent, sadly.
Wasn't Chester Arthur some guy who made a living off of the Customs Division of the state of New York?
Sure sure Radix. I would appreciate a reference to your text. I'm just learning American history, though currently occupied with Law of Nations and The Ascent of Money (current history).
What little I know about Arthur confirms what you explained. I don't know if the Hinman book is available? Of course, he was born in Vermont, but never released his birth certificate. (Chester's father was born in Ireland, a British subject, like Obama's father - for anyone who hasn't followed this dialog} I assume (thanks Leo Donofrio) that were a difficult question to be asked, Barry would whip out his Hawaiian birth certificate. It is a setup. And while our 99.4% correct pundit (Limbaugh) won't get too close to specifics, he has warned that he sees a setup too. (His resources are puny compared to Obama's cadre, and Obama controls the justice department; who doubts that Holder would find some reason to bring charges as enemies did with Scooter Libby).
Have you ever wondered why no legal experts raised these questions when Obama announced his candidacy? Does it seem strange that no law school in the country teaches this as true? How come none of Obama's opponents made this an issue, including Sarah Palin, who didn't hold back any criticism of Obama during the campaign?
It's not because Obama hid the identity of his father; in fact, he wrote a bestseller on the subject.
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.