Interesting 4 statements on the Birther Issue

Interesting. FOUR Simple questions from an attorney Here are 4 Simple questions from an attorney..... are there ANY logical answers? You be the judge...... Here's what I would like to know. If the TRUTH ever comes out and it is decided that Obama was never eligible to be president, what happens to all the laws he signed into being and all the executive orders? Should they all be null and void? Here are 4 Simple questions from a reputable attorney .... this should really get your "gray matter" to churning, even if you are an Obama fan. For all you "anti-Fox News" folks, none of this information came from Fox. All of it can be verified from legitimate sources (Wikipedia, the Kapiolani hospital website itself, and a good history book, as noted herein). It is very easy for someone to check out. 4 Simple Questions .... 1. Back in 1961 people of color were called 'Negroes.' So how can the Obama 'birth certificate' state he is "African-American" when the term wasn't even used at that time ? 2. The birth certificate that the White House released lists Obama's birth as August 4, 1961 and lists Barack Hussein Obama as his father. No big deal, right? At the time of Obama's birth, it also shows that his father is aged 25 years old, and that Obama's father was born in "Kenya, East Africa." This wouldn't seem like anything of concern, except the fact that Kenya did not even exist until 1963, two whole years after Obama's birth, and 27 years after his father's birth. How could Obama's father have been born in a country that did not yet exist? Up and until Kenya was formed in 1963, it was known as the "British East Africa Protectorate" (check it below) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kenya_%28http:/en.wikipedia..org/wiki/Kenya%29 3. On the Birth Certificate released by the White House, the listed place of birth is "Kapi'olani Maternity & Gynecological Hospital". This cannot be, because the hospital(s) in question in 1961 were called "KauiKeolani Children's Hospital" and "Kapi'olani Maternity Home," respectively. The name did not change to Kapi'olani Maternity & Gynecological Hospital until 1978, when these two hospitals merged. How can this particular name of the hospital be on a birth certificate dated 1961 if this name had not yet been applied to it until 1978? (CHECK IT BELOW) http://www.kapiolani.org/women-and-children/about-us/default.aspx Why hasn't this been discussed in the major media? 4. Perhaps a clue comes from Obama's book on his father. He states how proud he is of his father fighting in WW II. I'm not a math genius, so I may need some help from you. Barack Obama's "birth certificate" says his father was 25 years old in 1961 when Obama was born. That should have put his father's date of birth approximately 1936 - if my math holds (Honest! I did that without a calculator!). Now we need a non-revised history book - one that hasn't been altered to satisfy the author's goals - to verify that WW II was basically between 1939 and 1945. Just how many 3 year olds fight in Wars? Even in the latest stages of WW II his father wouldn't have been more than 9 years old. Does that mean that Mr. Obama is a liar, or simply chooses to alter the facts to satisfy his imagination or political purposes ? Very truly yours, RICHARD R. SILVERLIEB Attorney at Law 354 Eisenhower Parkway Livingston, NJ 07039 (https://www.linkedin.com/in/richard-silverlieb-3145502a)

"A pen in the hand of this president is far more dangerous than a gun in the hands of 200 million law-abiding citizens. Send this to as many Patriots as you can! Ask your Republican friends in Washington D.C. If they have a backbone ... why in the hell can't they use it and get media coverage to explode this across our country? Impeachment in itself is not justice! We are talking orange jumpsuit & long prison sentences.

Issue: Your argument is the Constitution gives Congress the power of naturalization which is true.

Right?

Rule: The Constitution distinguishes between a “naturalized” citizen (Art I, Sec 8, Cl 4) and a “natural born citizen” (NBC) (Art II, Sec I, Cl 5). A “naturalized citizen” is not the same thing as an NBC. By definition an NBC doesn’t have to be “naturalized” as a citizen because he is automatically a citizen upon birth.

So there’s some vagueness and ambiguity in the Constitution about this. Obviously Congress cannot “naturalize” an NBC. However, since the Constitution does not define NBC, Congress and/or the courts need to.

Right?

Argument: Nevertheless, Congress HAS legislated that an NBC MAY be in some cases born on foreign soil. Congress has NEVER legislated that an NBC may NOT be born on foreign soil. And for the above reasons, the naturalization statute in Bellei may not apply when the issue is NBC.

That still reasonably leaves open the issue whether an NBC may be born on foreign soil. And again, IMO, either Congress needs to expressly clarify whether an NBC may be born on foreign soil and/or the courts need to tackle individual NBC cases of this sort.

Additional about Bellei: Bellei did not specifically address the issue of his NBC but one can probably infer that he was not an NBC if he was ruled to not be a U.S. citizen.

> Your argument is the Constitution gives Congress the power of naturalization which is true.

No. My position is that the foreign born children of citizens require naturalization.

> The Constitution distinguishes between a “naturalized” citizen (Art I, Sec 8, Cl 4) and a “natural born citizen” (NBC) (Art II, Sec I, Cl 5). A “naturalized citizen” is not the same thing as an NBC. By definition an NBC doesn’t have to be “naturalized” as a citizen because he is automatically a citizen upon birth.
>
> So there’s some vagueness and ambiguity in the Constitution about this. Obviously Congress cannot “naturalize” an NBC. However, since the Constitution does not define NBC, Congress and/or the courts need to.

Let’s examine that more closely.

Your recitation of Art I, and Art II is correct.

Your claim that “By definition an NBC doesn’t have to be “naturalized” as a citizen because he is automatically a citizen upon birth” introduces the notion
that NBC means “automatically a citizen upon birth”, which is not accurate. NBC means one who is a citizen without operation of law.

> So there’s some vagueness and ambiguity in the Constitution about this.

There is no vagueness or ambiguity.

> Bellei did not specifically address the issue of his NBC but one can probably infer that he was not an NBC if he was ruled to not be a U.S. citizen.

It is a certainty that Bellei is not NBC. Suggesting that there is any possibility whatsoever that a person who is not a citizen is a natural born citizen is absurd.

The consequence of asserting that the foreign born child of a citizen is a natural born citizen for Article II purposes is absurd, for that child - as in Bellei’s case - may not be a citizen.

OK, so your issue restated is because the Constitution gives Congress the power of naturalization, foreign born children of citizens require naturalization.

There is no vagueness or ambiguity [in the Constitution about "naturalized" versus NBC].

the notion that NBC means “automatically a citizen upon birth”, which is not accurate. NBC means one who is a citizen without operation of law..

The consequence of asserting that the foreign born child of a citizen is a natural born citizen for Article II purposes is absurd

These are unsupported conslusory assertions without supporting evidence and rationale.

You continue to fail to address the difference between a "naturalized citizen" and an "NBC" other than the fantastic notion and unsupported assertion that "natural born citizen" does not mean what it is called: a citizen who is naturalized upon birth.

Waving Bellie around is not a rationale. You must explain yourself to make this a coherent discussion.

To support my position I’ve referenced several Supreme Court cases, laws, and history.

To support your position you have referenced nothing.

I’m not going to waste time with a person who “restates” my position and turns it into hash, who claims that NBC is a “citizen who is naturalized upon birth”, or who brings no facts to support their opinion.

When you’re willing to take my stated position as is, when you’re willing to reference Supreme Court cases, laws, and history to support your claims, when you’re willing to answer simple questions directly and without evasion, perhaps then discussion can resume.

Barring that however, you’re not worth my time.

Sorry you’ve decided to start being nasty here.

When you decide to put together a REAL argument that is supported by more than just conslusory assertions and off-point case names that never address the issue of NBC, maybe we can talk.

In the meantime you have utterly failed to rationally address the difference in the Constitution between “naturalized citizen” and “NBC” which seems to be the core of your problem. Rather, you continue to talk past me and this issue. You seem to think there is no difference between “naturalized citizen and “NBC”. You certainly do a lot of bobbing and weaving to get around it.

Anyway, I’m done, especially if you decide to be nasty instead of rational.

Examples of your distortions and evasions

Example 1:

Me:
the foreign born children of citizens required naturalization. This is underscored by Burke’s statement. It is doubly underscored by Madison’s statement. (82)
Without that act they would not be citizens. A framer of that act said so. So does Madison. Rogers v. Bellei explains that the foreign born Bellei starts from a position of non-citizenship, that statute permits him the possibility to gain citizenship. (85)
My position is that the foreign born children of citizens require naturalization. (103)
You:
OK, so your issue restated is because the Constitution gives Congress the power of naturalization, foreign born children of citizens require naturalization. (104)
I repeatedly stated (82, 85, 103) that the reason the foreign born children of citizens require naturalization is because they are alien. To support my position I referenced statements of the framers of the 1790 & 1795 Acts and a Supreme Court opinion. NEVER did I state that the reason the foreign born children of citizens require naturalization is because Congress has that power. Yet that is the hash you've made of my clearly and repeatedly stated position.

Example 2:

I asked you several times if your position is that Bellei is NBC (97, 99)
Rather than answer you accused me of not wanting to have "a good-faith discussion" (98).
I asked you to please clarify your position regarding Bellie by responding with a simple "yes" or "no". (99)
You refused. Rather than tell me what your position is you said "the court didn’t address that issue".

Example 3:

I asked "If the foreign born child of a citizen is a natural born citizen then by what power was Bellei’s citizenship stripped?" (91)
Rather than answer you told me I need to "address the difference between a “naturalized citizen” and a 'natural born citizen'" (93)

You distort my position. You avoid answering questions.

When you are willing to behave honestly then perhaps we could have a discussion.

“Negro” was certainly preferred over some other racial epithets in 1961,

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

It was not an epithet. It was an accurate descriptive term in 1961.

As a comparative example, “Asian” was not used either.

“African” and “Asian” are decriptions of continents in 1961, not race.

I repeat: until I see a pre-1964 Hawaiian birth certificate with “African” as a racial designation, I deem Obama’s 2007 birth certificate to be fake, fabricated by someone like yourself who has no idea about 1961 American culture.

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.