Posted on 04/27/2011 6:09:26 AM PDT by DCBryan1
Edited on 04/27/2011 6:22:09 AM PDT by Admin Moderator. [history]
(CNN) The White House released President Obama’s original birth certificate Wednesday.
The surprise release follows recent and sustained remarks by businessman Donald Trump, among others, that raised doubts as to whether the president was born in the United States.
Maybe it was something as simple as someone choosing to break out a brand new stamp with out looking at it, thinking, oh hey this is really important, lets pull out that new stamp. They do wear out with use and time.
I don’t have any explanation for it. That “the” doesn’t look anything like mine. It looks to me like a different stamp. That’s all I can say with any certainty.
Well it is clear there is an X where an H should be. There is no logical explanation that I can see. So how did that get there? As I suggested, the forger had a Jesus moment!
One can argue that Obama has waived his right to privacy by releasing this information. If so, then we should do the following:
1) Publicly ask Obama to waive access to the information, since he has already publicly released it.
2) People can now request uncertified copies from the Hawaii Department of Health, now that the document has been made public (let's see if the office can reproduce the document).
3) The hospital no longer can hide behind the excuse of privacy because hospital information (including the doctor) has been released by Obama. They should now release corroborating information, such as shift reports or billing records.
If the document is real, the Hawaii Dept. of Health should have no problem turning out additional copies to those who pay the fee for one, now that it is public domain knowledge.
-PJ
Since you've confirmed that it wasn't the editor who stated natural born citizen...Just where did the state of New York circuit court mention natural born citizen?
Was it in the finding of the court?
Or, perhaps it was in the dicta of the Lynch v Clarke state court case?
I can think of no other options but those remaining two.
When you’ve been citing cases, have you been citing the actual decision, or the dicta of the case?
“There are multiple subtypes of dicta, although due to their overlapping nature, legal practitioners in the U.S. colloquially use dicta to refer to any statement by a court that extends beyond the issue before the court. Dicta in this sense are not binding under the principle of stare decisis, but tend to have a strong persuasive effect, either by being in an authoritative decision, stated by an authoritative judge, or both. These subtypes include:
* dictum proprium: A personal or individual dictum that is given by the judge who delivers an opinion but that is not necessarily concurred in by the whole court and is not essential to the disposition.
* gratis dictum: an assertion that a person makes without being obligated to do so, or also a court’s discussion of points or questions not raised by the record or its suggestion of rules not applicable in the case at bar.
* judicial dictum: an opinion by a court on a question that is directly involved, briefed, and argued by counsel, and even passed on by the court, but that is not essential to the decision.
* obiter dictum in Latin means “something said in passing” and is a comment made while delivering a judicial opinion, but it is unnecessary to the decision in the case and therefore not precedential (although it may be considered persuasive).”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dictum
The Lynch case involved judicial dictum: an opinion by a court on a question that is directly involved, briefed, and argued by counsel, and even passed on by the court, but that is not essential to the decision. The essential for the decision was citizen, but the court arrived at that decision by recognizing she met the qualifications of a NBC. And that issue - NBC - was argued by counsel before the court, and a critical part of the final decision.
The only court cases directly involving a Presidential candidate’s eligibility have been Obama’s. Only one was heard on the merits, and they determined Obama was eligible. The Supreme Court has refused to hear any of the birther cases submitted to them.
In the dicta, which BOTH of us have cited, numerous cases have dealt with the issue of who is a NBC. In Lynch’s case, the interpretation of who is a NBC was the deciding factor in declaring her a citizen. And the US Supreme Court followed the example of the Lynch dicta in arguing that WKA met the qualifications for a NBC and thus was a citizen.
The dictum in these cases has proven so influential that both democrat and republican opponents of Obama refused to raise the issue in court during the election. It was so influential that no state denied him a place on the ballot, and no Congressman of either party objected to his taking office. To date, no state has passed any objection to someone with non-citizen parents running for President. And none will. The dicta you wish to read selectively has established itself so securely that the US Supreme Court, offered a serious chance to issue a formal ruling in Dec 2008, refused to take the case.
In Lynch, the judge showed that the meaning of NBS carried over universally to NBC. He showed the states that ratified the Constitution had already endorsed the idea that NBS = NBC. His reasoning was so powerful that it has been followed by the courts for 160+ years.
Against his arguments, you claim that the word “indigenes” in Vattel inspired the Founders to write “natural born citizen”, because they didn’t know how to write “indigenous”. THAT claim is so breath-taking stupid that no one has ever argued it in court.
NBC was NOT a phrase invented for the first time in the US Constitution. It was already being used by the states as a substitute in their laws for NBS. So did the delegates from the states continue in national law what they had already done in state law, or did they see the word “indigenes” and think, “Wow! That means NBC...even though it is also an English word, and still in common use as the descriptive indigenous.
And every court that looks at it will always conclude the Judge in Lynch was right, and you are wrong. Why? Because Lynch made sense, and you do not.
Shoot the HDOH could likely make a million bucks by charging the 10$ fee for it.
You asked, and I answered. The ‘08 COLB would not have been behind the page in the records book. Lets step through it, shall we? Records book is placed on a photocopier, copy is made, printed on an 8.5 x 11 sheet of paper. So far so good, right? That piece of paper is stamped, dated, embossed with the seal and sent to Obama. He puts it with his ‘08 COLB. Why? I don’t know. Ask him. He then puts those documents on a scanner to scan the image into a computer. The ‘08 COLB bleeds through. Not so difficult to understand how. Sorry, but I cannot tell you why he put the one document behind the other, but its obvious he did.
And thanks for the personal attack. I guess if you don’t have anything of substance to add, you lash out with name calling instead. Nice.
It means the final PDF was produced on a Mac. Basically, if you open any document on the system and select “Print,” you get a menu that lets you send the file to your favorite printer or select “Preview” that generates a PDF that opens in the “Preview” application. One can save this PDF as a file. I do this a lot on my MacBook... I have NO IDEA what was used to produce the original document...
Any thought as to why the watermark was added? I can't think of a reason myself.
----
Send treats to the troops...
Great because you did it!
www.AnySoldier.com
Oh, I’ve seen that, but unfortunately most of our country hasn’t.
and people say that you can’t see a raised seal on a computer copy?
What personal attack?
Seriously? Well, I would tell you to go back and read it again, but the mods have already deleted it.
Well I don’t usually attack people like that, so if was offensive I apologize.
When the Founders put NBC in the Constitution, were they thinking of how they had changed their state laws from NBS to NBC, or were they thinking of Vattel’s “indigene” - and merely couldn’t remember the English word “indigenous”?
I agree that native born and natural born are the same. It is birthers who try to make a distinction. Why?
“As the President is required to be a native citizen of the United States…. Natives are all persons born within the jurisdiction and allegiance of the United States.”
and “Natives are all persons born within the jurisdiction and allegiance of the United States. This is the rule of the common law, without any regard or reference to the political condition or allegiance of their parents, with the exception of the children of ambassadors, who are in theory born within the allegiance of the foreign power they represent. . . .”
James Kent, COMMENTARIES ON AMERICAN LAW (1826)
“That provision in the constitution which requires that the president shall be a native-born citizen (unless he were a citizen of the United States when the constitution was adopted) is a happy means of security against foreign influence,…A very respectable political writer makes the following pertinent remarks upon this subject. “Prior to the adoption of the constitution, the people inhabiting the different states might be divided into two classes: natural born citizens, or those born within the state, and aliens, or such as were born out of it.”
St. George Tucker, BLACKSTONE’S COMMENTARIES (1803)
The facts of the WKA case include: “he departed for China on a temporary visit and with the intention of returning to the United States, and did return thereto by sea in the same year, and was permitted by the collector of customs to enter the United States upon the sole ground that he was a native-born citizen of the United States.”
“But at the time of the adoption of the Constitution of the United States in 1789, and long before, it would seem to have been the rule in Europe generally, as it certainly was in France, that, as said by Pothier, “citizens, true and native-born citizens, are those who are born within the extent of the dominion of France,” and
mere birth within the realm gives the rights of a native-born citizen, independently of the origin of the father or mother, and of their domicil...” WKA
“Passing by questions once earnestly controverted, but finally put at rest by the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution, it is beyond doubt that, before the enactment of the Civil Rights Act of 1866 or the adoption of the Constitutional [p675] Amendment, all white persons, at least, born within the sovereignty of the United States, whether children of citizens or of foreigners, excepting only children of ambassadors or public ministers of a foreign government, were native-born citizens of the United States.” WKA
Please note that here, as elsewhere, US law differs from Vattel - a native born citizen of the US does NOT require two citizen parents, although Vattel would have required it.
In like manner, a NBC does not require two citizen parents. The men who wrote the Constitution and the states that ratified it had recently changed their own laws to reflect the universal switch of natural born subjects into natural born citizens. Were they thinking of NBC in the same sense in which they had just used it in state laws, or were they thinking of “indigene” and forgot about the english word “indigenous”?
Alexander Morse confirms naturels is natural born..it is right in front of you how can you deny it..les naturels ou indigenes...parents citoyens.
Natural born citizens are born to citizen parents.
You lost this battle but you refuse to admit it. Read the highlight in yellow ...there is a number 4..drop down to the 4. What does it say..
If you cannot accept this..this means you refuse to accept the truth.
You need to come to grips with reality. Look at what rxsid posted..we are not making this stuff up..
Obama is illegal. He knows it. Don’t be like Obama.
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.