Posted on 03/26/2013 7:02:12 PM PDT by Cold Case Posse Supporter
42-year-old Cruz was born in Calgary, Alberta, to an American mother and a Cuban father. By dint of his mother’s citizenship, Cruz was an American citizen at birth. Whether he meets the Constitution’s requirement that the president of the United States be a “natural-born citizen,” a term the Framers didn’t define and for which the nation’s courts have yet to offer an interpretation, has become the subject of considerable speculation.
Snip~
Legal scholars are firm about Cruz’s eligibility. “Of course he’s eligible,” Harvard law professor Alan Dershowitz tells National Review Online. “He’s a natural-born, not a naturalized, citizen.” Eugene Volokh, a professor at the UCLA School of Law and longtime friend of Cruz, agrees, saying the senator was “a citizen at birth, and thus a natural-born citizen — as opposed to a naturalized citizen, which I understand to mean someone who becomes a citizen after birth.”
Federal law extends citizenship beyond those granted it by the 14th Amendment: It confers the privilege on all those born outside of the United States whose parents are both citizens, provided one of them has been “physically present” in the United States for any period of time, as well as all those born outside of the United States to at least one citizen parent who, after the age of 14, has resided in the United States for at least five years. Cruz’s mother, who was born and raised in Delaware, meets the latter requirement, so Cruz himself is undoubtedly an American citizen. No court has ruled what makes a “natural-born citizen,” but there appears to be a consensus that the term refers to those who gain American citizenship by birth rather than by naturalization
(Excerpt) Read more at nationalreview.com ...
What do you think Odumbo's Venona File will be?
Happy Easter!
Happy Easter!
“Federal Rule of Evidence 1001 allows for copies of public documents to be entered into evidence.”
FRE 1001 merely defines what a duplicate copy is. It does not cover what qualifies as “best evidence” for a US birth certificate that can be subpoenaed in court-ordered discovery.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/fre/rule_1001
“Paragraph (4). The definition describes ‘copies’ produced by methods possessing an accuracy which virtually eliminates the possibility of error. Copies thus produced are given the status of originals in large measure by Rule 1003, infra. Copies subsequently produced manually, whether handwritten or typed, are not within the definition.”
It is actually FRE 803 that covers US birth certificates (but not Kenyan ones):
http://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/fre/rule_803
“Rule 803. Exceptions to the Rule Against Hearsay — Regardless of Whether the Declarant Is Available as a Witness”
“The following are not excluded by the rule against hearsay, regardless of whether the declarant is available as a witness:”
“(9) Public Records of Vital Statistics. A record of a birth, death, or marriage, if reported to a public office in accordance with a legal duty.”
What you have provided in #799 is a nice list of all of Barry’s legal team’s evasions against legally releasing or legally producing an original certified copy of Barry’s LFBC in any court, as would be required if any court ordered discovery.
Barry’s persistent failure to legally release his BC in so many court proceedings betrays consciousness of guilt that he is hiding something and the HI DOH complicity in enabling this evasion betrays their participation in a criminal conspiracy to obstruct public disclosure that the WH pdf has been forged, IMO.
Lt. Mike Zullo of the Arpaio Posse now claims that at least one forensic digital document laboratory, a laboratory that is certified to give evidence in federal court, has certified that Barry’s White House pdf is a forgery that never existed as a paper document prior to being created on a computer.
If true that the WH pdf is a forgery and if this is proved to a legal certainty in a criminal court of law, then under FRE 1001 the WH pdf would not be a “duplicate” and would not be admissible. Neither would the WH pdf qualify for a hearsay exception under FRE 803.
If the WH pdf is proved to be a forgery it will buttress the Arpaio Posse’s evidence that HI DOH is complicit in a conspiracy to foist a forged BC on all of the courts you list, on all of the states, and on the electors and on Congress.
Your insincerity is palpable.
Because
A) I don’t want to be sidetracked.
B) I want to know if there are ANY other sections in the Code where it defines what kind of citizen a person is, depending on his parents citizenship and his birth location .
If the section we are looking at is the only place its defined, then the question is settled.
Is it because in the normal course of registry events, the "Barack Hussein Obama, Jr. (or II) Birth Certificate would have been sealed upon the child's adoption by Soetoro?
Therefore, an original-looking Birth Certificate would have to be digitally re-created from bits and pieces of " data on file," which is what I believe was done. In that case, no matter the accuracy of the info contained in the document, it would still be a forgery ... i.e., not a copy of an original document, but a construct.
All the HDOH will commit to is that the BC the WH presented duplicates "data on file." In not one instance, IIRC, have they indicated that the WH BC is a true, certified, legal copy of an actual single document on file at the HDOH.
Or is as I have long suspected? I.E., IMNSVHO the original Obama Birth Document was probably one of those longhand "Home Birth" deals long abused in Hawaii to claim foreign-born children as American citizens. To refresh everyone's memory, all a witness had to do was attest to the unattended birth of a child at home and register the application at a neighborhood office.
Should, as rumor has it, such a document have ever existed for BHO, Jr (or II) it would be long gone ... and be somewhat suspicious upon its face, because Stanley Ann, from a wealthy family would be most unlikely to have had an un-attended delivery at home.
The fact that these are valid questions is the problem.
Thus those who resort to such statutory law only further emphasis the point that the person they're supporting with such usage isn't a natural born citizen and they only seek to confuse the issue.
If any judge wants to examine a hard copy of the Obama birth vital record, a judge can issue a court order for it. If a congressional investigative committee wanted to examine the Obama birth vital record, the committee could issue a congressional subpoena for it through a committee chairperson.
Didn’t you notice that Obama was not a defendant in most of the actions seeking release of his vital records? The defendants were primarily Hawaii state officials the Governor, the Attorney General, and various Health Department Directors.
I look forward to Mike Zullo turning over his evidence to a prosecuting attorney for a formal Grand Jury proceeding.
8 USC § 1401 - Nationals and citizens of United States at birth.
I love it when two of my favorite posters agree. Did KB not fairly accurately state your position, DL? I certainly agree w his interpretation. It explains everything—including the fact that two eyewitnesses to the original ‘birth records’ described them as “handwritten”.
My intent is to use the code section I posted
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1401
to show 0 fits into a STATUTORY category.
And therefore CANNOT be a natural born citizen.
See #813.
Also in no way do I support the Usurper-in-Thief; I’m supporting my position that he definitely is NOT a natural born citizen
Yes, that “home birth” doc is what I called a “loosey goosey Hawaii b.c.” also a “Sun Yat Sen style b.c.”.
They (his folks or his handlers) ran with that one -back whenever- to get what they wanted....
Then when it would be an embarrassment, deep sized it :0
Fraudsters, every last lot of em; 0, his family, Hawaii records dept, etc.
Agreed. There are so many discrepancies, contradictions & anomalies associated w Obama’s records, it’s a miracle even the Obots believe them. When the COLB came out the Obots told us that was all there was & all there would ever be.
When the LF came out they didn’t miss a beat; they just said ‘now THIS resolves everything’. The fact that it wasn’t handwritten [as it had been described beforehand], even in part, didn’t phase a single one of them. That proves it’s not about facts or evidence; for them, it’s believe anything Obama does or says instantly, fully & w’out question.
“If any judge wants to examine a hard copy of the Obama birth vital record, a judge can issue a court order for it.”
It would only be proper for a judge to allow evidence into a trial record AFTER a trial on the merits has begun and after discovery. Discovery allows both parties to examine the evidence and depose the custodians of the evidence and witnesses. This is done BEFORE an evidentiary hearing.
Once a trial begins the judge ensures the proper entry of the evidence into the court record (”proving up” the evidence) and qualification and cross-examination of experts. That is the only time that the “finder of fact” (either a judge or jury) can properly be exposed to the evidence and witnesses and preserve the record for appeal.
All of the cases that you, NG, have listed in #799 were pre-trail hearings for which no discovery was ordered, except for the defective Malihi Administrative law hearing. That hearing was botched by Dr. Taitz and there was no proper, complete pre-trail discovery ordered for that hearing.
As to congress, they just passed on Barry’s eligibility in January, so I would not expect them to request a full release of and access to the HI DOH records until Arpaio’s impending criminal forgery investigation gets underway.
“All the HDOH will commit to is that the BC the WH presented duplicates “data on file.” In not one instance, IIRC, have they indicated that the WH BC is a true, certified, legal copy of an actual single document on file at the HDOH.”
HI DOH give the appearance of scrupulously trying to maintain “plausible deniability” of having ever committed perjury.
This is very similar to Barry’s lawyer refusing to allow Barry to hold his own alleged LFBC “original” certified copy at the “release” event (to the media only). Nor were the media allowed to hold the “original” except for just one who “felt the raised seal.” I thought journalists were supposed to have TWO sources to validate a story, but only ONE felt the raised seal and the entire MSM bought it...and her grainy cellphone picture.
Persons "born in the United States" are born to parents who are either citizens or aliens.
Which citizens "born in the United States" are "natural born citizens", the children of citizens or the children of aliens?
The answer must be that "natural born citizen" means citizens born from citizen parents since it would be irrational to grant to the children of aliens, and deny to the children of citizens, the privilege of eligibility for the Office of President.
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.