Emeritus posted a link to an article and asked me to address why the articles version of the laws are flawed. I am happy to do so.
Jamie Freeze, a law student, has called any of us who question Soetoro/Obama’s Citizenship status and Constitutional Eligibility to serve as U.S. President, a Constitutional Right of ours of course, incompetent idiots. However, Ms. Freeze may want to continue her education, part of being a lawyer, which is a very important part, is being able to comprehend what you read and to cite the correct law to collaborate it. Something Ms. Freeze has clearly failed to do. I will respond below to Ms. Freeze’s allegations, however, my responses are in bold. I also want to make very clear to all readers, none of the eligibility cases have been heard, litigated or dismissed based on the law pertaining to any of the issues raised. Instead, the eligibility cases have been dismissed on the basis of “STANDING” only.
This type of thing, by Ms. Freeze, is what gives folks the WRONG information and confuses them, it is a deception by Ms. Freeze (as a law student, I hope her professors teach her how to properly, honestly and with integrity, investigate, research the laws, properly cite the laws and argue issues before her). Otherwise, she will be unable to do her clients, when that time comes assuming she passes the bar, justice.
http://www.renewamerica.com/columns/freeze/091222
December 22, 2009
Facts are stubborn things: Obama is a natural-born citizen
By Jamie Freeze
I never will forget meeting former North Carolina State Senator Hugh Webster my senior year of high school. He came to my school and had lunch with the seniors. As he sat down beside me, I asked him to tell me what he most loved and hated about being in Raleigh. I don’t remember what he most loved, but I’ll never forget what he most hated. In the words of Mr. Webster, “I don’t deal well with incompetent people.”
Ms. Freeze, unfortunately, is showing her “INCOMPETENCE”, as Ms. Freeze would call it, but I feel “IGNORANCE” is the more appropriate word, as outlined below.
At that point, I knew Mr. Webster and I were kindred spirits. I too don’t deal well with incompetent people. As a matter of fact, I go out of my way to avoid them, but when dealing with them is inevitable, I can’t help but point out their incompetencies. As a law student, I am being trained to be meticulous, well-reasoned, and intelligent. After my final exam grades come back, we’ll see how well I’m doing. But that aside, I feel that I have been too longsuffering in letting the Birther Movement receive simply a few caustic remarks and jabs from me. It’s time for me to call a spade a spade. Here goes: If you believe that President Obama is NOT a natural-born citizen, then you are an incompetent idiot who is probably watching Glenn Beck while wearing a tin-foil hat. You probably think Obama’s a Muslim too.
Our lawsuits have nothing to do with Soetoro/Obama’s religion, they never have. Ms. Freeze seems to have lost a very important part of her education, we as people are entitle to redress, we as people are entitled to ask questions, especially of our elected officials. Incompetent Idiot? It appears that Ms. Freeze’s law school has taught her when you cannot counter something to call the opposing party names. That is not what I was taught in school. I do not see one shred of evidence that supports Ms. Freeze’s position. Ms. Freeze obviously forgot about Barry Soetoro’s name; Did she locate where he legally changed his name to Barack H. Obama? It is fraud to run for and serve as President under an “alias” name. What about Soetoro/Obama’s Indonesian citizenship? We have the School Record which Soetoro/Obama has admitted to.
If you are still reading (and not firing off angry emails), then allow me to offer you factual proof that Obama is a natural-born citizen who satisfies the constitutional requirements for Commander-in-Chief. My argument is two-fold: 1. Obama was born in Hawaii (a U.S. state for my incompetent readers). 2. Obama satisfies the requirements found in the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952, which defines natural-born citizens.\\
Where is the factual proof? Ms. Freeze apparently forgot to attach it. What does Ms. Freeze have to back up that Soetoro/Obama was born in Hawaii? We have been unable to obtain verification of that, no long form birth certificate, only an image that has been deemed a forgery. Despite this, what about his Indonesian Citizenship? Had Ms. Freeze read our briefs, and retained the information, she would have seen that all we do is talk about the Nationality Act of 1940 revised in 1952.
1. Obama was born in Hawaii. Hawaii joined the Union in 1959. Barack Obama was born in 1961. Do the math. It works. Ok, so perhaps that argument is a bit over-simplified, but that is because I find the birth certificate question so ridiculous. The President released his birth certificate (which was verified by the Hawaii Health Department) yet conspiracy theorists refuse to see logic. “Big bad Obama must be hiding something. That certificate isn’t the long form. What’s he hiding?” What the naysayers fail to realize is that in 1961 the standard Hawaiian birth certificate was…wait for it…exactly the same length as Obama’s! The Hawaiian Health Department has said this, but as conspiracy theorists point out, they must be covering for Obama. Despite the facts, folks say that even if he was born in Hawaii, he is not a natural born citizen because his father was Kenyan. However, even if Obama was born on the moon, he would still be a natural born citizen under the Immigration and Nationality Act.
First, the “long version” birth certificate we are asking for has nothing do to with the size of the document itself, instead it has to do with the information on the document. We have never claimed Hawaii was not a State or Union, so this has nothing to do with the questions we are seeking answers too. Soetoro/Obama released two (2) images of a Certification of Live Birth, claiming it to be his birth certificate, which have been deemed to be forged and altered documents. Hawaii Health Department has NEVER verified the images placed on the internet. Law 101, no agency or person can look at an online image and state the document came from their agency or location, unless, the person making such statement was the one who personally printed the document in question (Soetoro/Obama’s Certification of Live Birth in this case) and handed it to Soetoro/Obama and can prove it is in fact the same document. In Soetoro/Obama’s case, his campaign office stated they mailed the application for his Certification of Live Birth to Hawaii and received this supposed document back from Hawaii. However, the date that Soetoro/Obama would have signed it, Soetoro/Obama was traveling and campaigning for the U.S. Presidency position. We are not disputing the length of Soetoro/Obama’s Certification of Live Birth, we have copies of other individuals actual Certificate of Live births from Hawaii within the same time period, these are two (2) completely different documents. Soetoro/Obama has never released a hard copy of any type of Certification of Live Birth or Certificate of Live Birth to anyone other than Factcheck.org which is part of Annenberg and yes who Soetoro/Obama has close ties with. I am wondering what Ms. Freeze is basing her unsubstantiated statements on. Maybe she will enlighten us. We are not questioning the British Father, as we are well aware of the fact if Soetoro/Obama was born on U.S. soil, which we do not believe, he would in fact be a U.S. “natural born” citizen. However, in fairness to Ms. Freeze, others have questioned the British citizenship of the father and claimed that even if Soetoro/Obama was born on U.S. soil he would not be a “natural born” U.S. citizen due to his father’s foreign citizenship status. I’m going to ask again, what about Soetoro/Obama’s legal name and his Indonesian Citizenship status? Ms. Freeze fails to address these very important issues. We have been unable to locate any legal documentation legally changing Soetoro’s name back to Barack H. Obama; where Soetoro/Obama relinquished his Indonesian Citizenship; and/or where Soetoro/Obama reclaimed any U.S. Citizenship status he may have once held. Again, hopefully Ms. Freeze will enlighten us.
2. Obama is a natural born citizen. In Scales v. INS, 232 F.3d 1159 (2000), we have a clear definition of what natural born citizenship is. Scales’ father was an American serviceman stationed in the Philippines where he met Scales’ mother. They married despite the fact that Scales’ mother was pregnant with him at the time. In all probability, the court said, Scales was a product of his mother’s previous relationship. However, he was born after Mr. Scales married his mother, and he was treated as Scales’ son. Later, Scales was facing deportation because of an aggravated felony involving drugs. He challenged his deportation saying he was a natural born citizen. The court determined that natural born citizenship depends on the statute in effect at the time of the child’s birth. Since Scales was born in 1977, he was a natural born citizen because a “person shall be a national and citizen of the United States at birth who is born outside the geographical limits of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is an alien, and the other a citizen of the United States who, prior to the birth of such person, was physically present in the United States or its outlying possessions for a period or periods totaling not less than ten years, at least five of which were after attaining the age of fourteen years.” Id. at 1169; see 8 U.S.C. §1401(a)(7) (1976). Therefore, Scales was a natural born citizen despite the following: having been born in a foreign country, having been born to a non-citizen, having his American father later deny paternity (and prove non-paternity), and having claimed to be a citizen of the Philippines. Sounds like it is difficult to get rid of natural born citizenship. Let’s examine Barack Obama’s citizenship.
I would first like to note that Scales v. INS, 232 F.3d 1159 (2000) is not exactly on point as neither of Soetoro/Obama’s parents were in the U.S. Military, however, it does outline some of the issues we present. Some more appropriate cases are United States of America v. Cervantes-Nava, 281 F.3d 501 (2002), Drozd v. I.N.S., 155 F.3d 81, 85-88 (2d Cir.1998), Solis-Espinoza v. Gonzales, 401 F.3d 1090 (9th Cir. 2005). And, if Ms. Freeze would have read and retained what is in our briefs, she would have seen the laws we used. We believe Soetoro/Obama was born in Kenya, contrary to Ms. Freeze’s beliefs, Soetoro/Obama’s mother was not old enough to confer U.S. “natural born” citizenship status to Soetoro/Obama. Moreover, neither of Soetoro/Obama’s parents were in the U.S. Military at the time of Soetoro/Obama’s birth, her whole argument above, which was meant to mislead people and which is very ignorant for a law student, does not pertain. Ms. Freeze also forgets to mention the Nationality Act was revised in 1986 with a proviso regarding active Military, the only part of the code that was retroactive was the Proviso regarding the Military Status, nothing else. But again, neither of Seotoro/Obama’s parents were in the U.S. Military. Moreover, contrary to Scales, Soetoro/Obama’s father admitted paternity, the parents were married in Hawaii prior to Soetoro/Obama’s birth. Ms. Freeze has done nothing more than attempt to misapply the laws. And, once again Ms. Freeze also fails to address the legal name of Soetoro/Obama and Soetoro/Obama’s Indonesian citizenship.
Obama’s citizenship will be determined under the 1952 version of the Immigration and Nationality Act since he was born in 1961 and the Act wasn’t updated again until 1966. According to § 301(a)(5) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (66 Stat. 235), “a person born in an outlying possession of the United States of parents one of whom is a citizen of the United States who has been physically present in the United States or one of its outlying possessions for a continuous period of one year at any time prior to the birth of such person [is a natural born citizen].” According to § 305 of the same statute, any person born in Hawaii on or after April 30, 1900 was to be considered a natural born citizen. Obama’s mother was a citizen of the United States, and his father was a citizen of Kenya. They were married six months before Obama was born. There is no doubt that Obama’s mother resided in the United States or its possessions for at least one year prior to Obama’s birth. Therefore, Obama can’t be anything other than a natural born citizen. Combine this detail with his birth in an American State, you have a certified natural born citizen.
Ms. Freeze’s 1966 law fails and she completely contradicts herself. The law that is applied is the law in effect at the time of the birth, in Soetoro/Obama’s case, the Nationality Act of 1940 revised 1952. See Marquez-Marquez a/k/a Moreno v. Gonzales, 455 F. 3d 548 (5th Cir. 2006), Runnett v. Shultz, 901 F.2d 782, 783 (9th Cir.1990). Law in 1966 does not apply, unless Ms. Freeze can show me where it states it is retroactive, which she CANNOT. We are not disputing that Hawaii was a state, we are not disputing if in fact Soetoro/Obama was born in Hawaii he would be a U.S. “natural born” citizen. Further, Kenya is not an outlying possession of the U.S. The law used by Ms. Freeze once again does not pertain to the issues outlined in our cases; does not apply to Soetoro/Obama’s birth in Kenya; fails to address Soetoro/Obama’s legal name; and fails to address Soetoro/Obama’s Indonesian citizenship. Moreover, even if the 1966 version applied, which is does NOT, Soetoro/Obama’s mother was not present residing in the U.S. for a continuous year prior to Soetoro/Obama’s birth. We believe Soetoro/Obama’s mother was residing in Kenya and in fact gave birth to Soetoro/Obama in Kenya.
Important issues left out by Ms. Freeze in attempt to confuse the reader is the fact Soetoro/Obama became Barry Soetoro an Indonesian Citizenship. No records have been located legally changing Barry Soetoro’s name back to Barack H. Obama. No records have been located showing Soetoro/Obama relinquished his Indonesain citizenship, which was a requirement of Indonesia and outlined in their laws (Indonesia did not allow dual citizenship status) and reclaiming any U.S. citizenship status he may have once held. Thus, Soetoro/Obama is still Barry Soetoro an Indonesian Citizen.
One last question I have for Ms. Freeze, if in fact Soetoro/Obama was a U.S. “natural born” citizen and eligibile to serve as our United States President, why in the world would he spend in excess of a Million Dollars litigating these cases instead of just providing proof of his citizenship status? I’m curious to see how Ms. Freeze would respond. We know the answer, because Soetoro/Obama can’t.
Visa - MasterCard - Discover
Paralegal,
Dear friend. I thank you, and wish you a successful new year.
Be well, Paralegal, and, bless you, and the Berg legal team.
Emeritus
Emeritus, thank you. And thank you for sharing this pathetic article.
You and Yours have a very wonderful and safe Holiday and a very Happy and Prosperous New Year.
Paralegal,
I’ll be right here, (V) ….. its for victory! I’ll see you there, ok?
Emeritus
Hi Emeritus,
Thank you for the kind words, you are very sweet. I will be with you, we are due a Victory. I believe 2010 is going to be a very good year! Tip of the champagne glass to you.
Ann, Ann, Ann….”(especially after repeatedly confirming that the facts on the Certification reflect the facts in the file).”
Please, please post their comments repeatedly confirming this. Perhaps if you re-read those comments VERY carefully, read them for what they say and not what you WANT them to say. You’ll see that have NEVER confirmed anything.
Additionally, how many birth documents do you have? I have only 1, yet appears, according to the last Fukino comment that Obama has more than 1 – why? Why would he need document(s) – plural? Furthermore, her first statement did NOT say she had seen the document, rather she had seen the index record that was ON FILE in accordance with the law. The second statement, where she says she sees the document(s), suddenly these document(s) are merely MAINTAINED with the department and are not ON FILE in accordance with the law.
Her words, in both comments, were chosen VERY carefully. Stop trying to read between the lines (which is exactly what they want you to do) and read EXACTLY what she said.
“He released it to both Factcheck and Politifact. Whom did McCain or George Bush release their birth certificates to?”
And have you done research into exactly who these “professionals” at Factcheck are? What type of creditials do they possess in order to have any authority to proclaim whether the COLB was authentic? Do some research on exactly who you are purporting as experts before you state something as ‘fact’.
Additionally, who exactly did McCain and Bush release their BC to? Your right – we have no agency, administrative body, or committee that verifies eligibility. Senate members are automatically granted Security Clearances and Passports without a background check. How ridiculous this practice is! NO ONE IS CHECKING THESE PEOPLE!
“The original meaning of Natural Born was simply “born in the country,” and dual nationality has no effect on it. ” And where did you read this? Please post a link by some authoritative body as to the original meaning of NBC. You may not recognize dual-citizenship but the State Department most certainly does. You seem not to have any concerns with dual-allegiances – so let me ask you this since you don’t think it has any bearing. Obama freely admits to being born under the governance of both British and US Law – exactly which allegiance takes precedent? Obviously, Obama had some sort of connection to his father and to Britain or he wouldn’t have so proudly proclaimed the attachment and written a book about his father. How are we to know, as Americans, that his US allegiance trumps his British allegiance in his heart and mind?
Might want to check out Dual-citizenships over at the State Department website. They seen to have a differing opinion from yours. Also, I believe a foreign travel handbook published by the Obama administration disagrees with you also.
And he has not shown the Official BC of Hawaii – he has only produced a COLB of which the veracity is definitely in question. All he has to do is simply ask the Hawaii Dept. of Health for a certified copy of his long-form and it’s his for the sharing with the American People. He simply refuses to do so. Why? Is he thumbing his nose at us or is there some information on that long-form that he would rather us not see? Who knows! BTW – I just love his transparency in this issue – NOT!
One question for you – how can someone who is AT BIRTH governed by British Law be a Natural Born Citizen of the US?
I contacted and had a round of emails with Ms. Freeze.
Ms. Freeze wrote the article as satire. I inquired as to that fact and she confirmed that it was satire, to poke fun at those who questioned Obama. So basically she is poking fun at fellow American’s who are exercising their right to free speech. Further, she felt her article of satire was successful – frankly, I felt her article was a failure. Not so much for the unsubstantiated ‘facts’ that she cites, but for the name calling and belittling of fellow Americans.
We may have differing opinions and ideas, but we are all Americans and we are all on the same side, and the Alinksy style of attacks on those that disagree with you is, in my opinion, harmful to our nation as a whole.
I asked her questions about Obama which she refused to answer – yeah, those facts are stubborn things. And when there is no way to explain away Obama’s actions – the Obama supporters get very quiet.
I respect Ms. Freeze for her opinion, for taking a stand and defending her opinion. However, my respect for her ends when she has no tolerance for opposing positions or opinions and when she feels threatened by those opposing opinions to the point she feels she must hurl insults and resorts to name calling.
My grandfather always told me, you know you’ve won an argument when the other side starts name calling, because they have run out of legitimate points to make.
I also, have a list bunch of corresponding emails to and from ms Freeze, and I assure you, she did NOT intend this to be “satire”.
She attacked my rebuttal of her facts, and basically told me I had a 3rd world education level after I had introduced myself and my interests.
She definatelty did NOT intend it as satire, and if you read other news articles and twitter posts by her, you will see a pattern of spite and hatefullness coming from this Christian legal sholar.
In closing, I will say this…everyone loves a joke, until someone gets hurt. How many jokes must be made at the expense of the constitution, before damages are irepairable?
Regards
Emeritus
Merry Christmas Emeritus and Sally,
Thank you for your defense on our questions into Soetoro/Obama. Unfortunately, Ann happens to be the same person as “Smrstrauss” who we have been sending his/her posts to spam. This person and/or group of people (although the IP numbers are the same) have completely differing opinions than ours. I do not mind differing opinions, however, in the case of this one individual posing as two (2) or more people who want to do nothing more than call names and fight, we have absolutely no patience for this type of behavior. When folks who do not agree with us resort to name calling and nasty posts, we will not tolerate it at all.
I apologize for not being home to catch this sooner. Again, thank you both for standing up for “we the people”.
Just so you know, Ms. Freeze is a first year law student. Ms. Freeze is not qualified or licensed to be asserting laws which she is unfamiliar. we will be sending her post and my response thereto, to her law school. It just so happens, one of the attorney’s on our team is very familiar with the founder of the school Ms. Freeze attends. It is not taught or the normal practice in law to call people names who you do not agree with and Ms. Freeze’s law was inaccurate, but again this is because she does not have the legal education yet and has absolutely no experience in litigating.
Is not who is a natural born citizen a constitutional issue and a constitutional issue only? Continued references to citizenship laws and their effect on Obama’s citizenship status muddle the issue for this layman. It’s as if Congress could pass a law to satisfy their own preferences about who is a natural born citizen. And Congress indeed has proposed laws to change the definition of natural born citizen. I would submit that such a law would be unconstitutional. Congress would have bypassed the Constitutional requirements for amending the constitution.
The constitution does make a distinction between citizen and natural born citizen. A member of Congress may be a citizen. To hold the office of President, one must be a natural born citizen. Note also that the framers allowed those who were citizens at the time of the adoption of the constitution to be eligible for the office of President. Thereafter they must be natural born citizens.
One must ask what is unique about the natural born citizen requirement that it only applies to the office of president. Since natural born citizen is not defined in the constitution, scholars must look at the historical record to ascertain why the framers placed this requirement on the office of President. What I have learned is that the framers were concerned that the President, who would also be Commander-in-Chief, be someone who is completely loyal to the United States and not be subject to any foreign influences.
So is mere birth on U.S. soil without regard for the citizenship of the parents sufficient to qualify someone as a natural born citizen? I don’t see how. Certainly, a person who is raised in a household where one or both parents are foreign born will be influenced by those parents. How can one argue as a general principle that such a child would not be so influenced? Is this a foolproof principle? Of course not. There is no foolproof principle that would assure that someone is completely loyal to the United States. The framers could work only with the tools that they had. If today we wish to change the definition of natural born citizen, then let us do so (I do not wish to do so.) by means of a constitutional amendment.
I close by recalling the extreme case of Yaser Hamdi. He was born in Louisiana of Saudi parents while they were here on visitors’ visas. They returned to Saudi Arabia while their son was still a young boy. Mr. Hamdi was later captured in Afghanistan fighting for the Taliban. He initially was going to be tried as an enemy combatant, but when authorities found out that he was born on U.S. soil, they then treated him as a U.S. citizen.
Surely, the Founding Fathers did not want someone like Yaser Hamdi to be eligible for the office of President. (Of course, with Hamdi’s background known, he could not get elected even if he satisfied the age [born in 1980] and residency requirements. But what about a charismatic candidate who is not constitutionally eligible and who has successfully concealed his background? Can anyone think of someone like that today?)
http://nobarack08.wordpress.com/2009/11/15/kenyan-historian-ali-mazrui-states-obama-kenyan-citizen/
Olara Otunnu (Harvard Law, 1978) relating the remark of Kenyan historian Ali Mazrui on the oddity that a member of Kenya’s Luo tribe (Barack Obama, a Kenyan citizen and Luo tribe member from birth)
http://nobarack08.wordpress.com/2009/06/03/obama-is-a-foreign-national-and-kenya-knows-it/
NATIONAL ASSEMBLY OFFICIAL REPORT
Wednesday, 5th November, 2008
The House met at 9.00 a.m.
Dr. Khalwale: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker, Sir. You have heard none other than the Leader of Government Business acknowledge that because of Obama’s win in the United States of America (USA), the House is crippled.
Could we allow him to move a Motion for Adjournment so that we could also continue the celebrations of having a Kenyan ruling the USA? I humbly request! *****[note - "having a Kenyan ruling the USA"!]
I’m a little perturbed by your repeated call to her legal education and “ignorance.” I think ignorance in this day and age is a given, even in standard legal education. By repeating insults against her training or intelligence, you actually weaken your argument. Don’t stoop to playing in sandboxes…it just makes you look less legitimate. Your response would have been much more effective by keeping her editorial intact and following with a bullet point of the substantive material. If we demanded that everyone abstain from free speech until they were “fully competent” on an issue…we risk a very high chilling effect. I’ve had to work with people like Ms. Freeze, they do best left to destroy themselves. Let her alleged “ignorance” shine naturally rather than the name calling.
I was honestly disappointed…I would hope you people have much more important things to do.
But then you don’t see me using words like “petty.”
I saw the name calling in Ms Freeze’s writings. I must have missed the references to the ones you are citing by Ms Paralegal’s. Can you cite please?
Re: “released two (2) forged images of a Certification of Live Birth….”
In order to see the Certification there has to be images, of course. The images were NOT forged. Only two guys, who will not give their real names and who will not give their training as forensic experts claim that it was forged. The officials have repeatedly confirmed the facts on the document. They have not confirmed the image, quite properly because they are not document experts and because an image can be manipulated. But they have not said that it is false either, and they have repeatedly confirmed the fact on it. What would be the point in forging a document if you can get one (and in fact did get one) that says the same thing simply by applying for it? NO official and no opponent of Obama ever said that the document was forged. The officials confirm the facts on it. That is what counts.
RE: “Soetoro/Obama has never released a hard copy of any type of Certification of Live Birth or Certificate of Live Birth to anyone other than Factcheck.org.”
He released it to both Factcheck and Politifact. Whom did McCain or George Bush release their birth certificates to?
Re: “others have questioned the British citizenship of the father and claimed that even if Soetoro/Obama was born on U.S. soil he would not be a “natural born” U.S. citizen due to his father’s foreign citizenship status.”
You are right and they are wrong. Since Obama was born in Hawaii, he is a Natural Born Citizen. The original meaning of Natural Born was simply “born in the country,” and dual nationality has no effect on it. No foreign law can affect the fact that someone was born in the USA, and no foreign law can take away the fact that under our law someone who is born in the USA legally must have sole allegiance to the USA. The other country naturally disagrees, but it is our law that we are discussing, and it is our law that applies. No foreign law can affect the US laws on allegiance and Natural Birth, so Dual Nationality does not affect.
Re: “Soetoro/Obama’s legal name and his Indonesian Citizenship status? ”
Obama never legally changed his name, and he was never an Indonesian citizen.
Re: “We believe Soetoro/Obama was born in Kenya..”
If Obama were born in Kenya, I would agree that he is not Natural Born. But he wasn’t born in Kenya. HIs grandmother never said that he was born in Kenya. She said that he was born in Hawaii. Also, if he were born in Kenya, he would have needed a US travel document to get to the USA, such as a US visa on a foreign passport (in this case a British passport) or an amendment to his mother’s US passport while she was in Kenya to include him. Without either of those, how could his family take him from Kenya to the USA? We would not have allowed him to enter the country. If there had been such a document, the application for it would have been recorded and retained in the files of the US State Department, which was under the Republicans until last January. Nothing has been found.
In addition to the absence of proof that Obama was born in Kenya or traveled from Kenya to the USA in 1961 (or that his mother traveled to Kenya in 1961, which would have been unlikely because Yellow Fever was still endemic at the time), there is the official birth certificate of Hawaii, and the repeated confirmation of the two officials and the witness who was told of his birth in Hawaii, all of which show that he was born in Hawaii.
Re: “we are not disputing if in fact Soetoro/Obama was born in Hawaii he would be a U.S. “natural born” citizen.”
GOOD, because he was born in Hawaii.
Re: “We believe Soetoro/Obama’s mother was residing in Kenya.”
Absurd. Yellow fever was rampant. Travel to Kenya from Hawaii was expensive and there were no direct flights, and planes were poorly pressurized. How could he get from Kenya to the USA without a US travel document? His Kenyan grandmother says that he was born in Hawaii. So do the officials and the witness.
Re: “The fact Soetoro/Obama became Barry Soetoro an Indonesian Citizenship.”
He was never an Indonesian citizen, as both the US State Department and Indonesian government have said.
Re: ” No records have been located legally changing Barry Soetoro’s name back to Barack H. Obama. ”
No documents have been found legally changing Obama’s name to Soetoro.
Re: “No records have been located showing Soetoro/Obama relinquished his Indonesain citizenship, which was a requirement of Indonesia and outlined in their laws (Indonesia did not allow dual citizenship status).”
Since he was never an Indonesian citizen, he did not have to relinquish it.
Re: “why in the world would he spend in excess of a Million Dollars litigating these cases instead of just proving his citizenship status? ”
Because the cases were not to make him show facts, they were to prevent him from being president. All the cases before the election, and those were by far the bulk of all the cases, tried to stop the election. Most of the cases after the election were to stop the Electoral College from voting, stop Congress from certifying the election or stop the Inauguration. There has never been a case against Obama that simply asked for his birth certificate or for documents. He has, by the way, shown the official birth certificate of Hawaii.
A small point on fighting cases. If you are sued and do not fight, you lose the case. Thus if Obama did not fight a case that tried to stop the election, the election would have been stopped. That accounts for by far most of the million spent.
smrstrauss,
The Constitution recognizes two classes of citizens with regards to qualificactions for federal office.
To qualify for Congress, a person must be a citizen.
To qualify for President, a person must be a natural born citizen. An exception was made for those who were citizens at the time of the ratification of the Constitution.
Clearly, the founding fathers recognized a difference between citizen and natural born citizen, and this difference is codified in the Constitution. “Citizen” cannot equal “natural born citizen.”
What is your understanding of why the framers placed this special requirement on the citizenship of those who would be President?
How would you decide who could run for Congress and who could run for President? Any class of citizen could run for Congress, but only a natural born citizen could run for President.
Strauss is impossible to argue with. He can’t deal with facts or the lack there of. To quote the Indonesian Embassy and our current state department makes about as much sense as Strauss’ lame ignorant arguments. The man is incapable of using simple logic. J.C.
[...] that version of the birther point of view, has replied in kind in a December 24, 2009 article, JAMIE FREEZE CALLS ANYONE QUESTIONING SOETORO/OBAMA’S CITIZENSHIP STATUS “INCOMPETENT IDIOTS” at his ObamaCrimes.com [...]
Re: “founding fathers recognized a difference between citizen and natural born citizen, and this difference is codified in the Constitution. “Citizen” cannot equal “natural born citizen.”
We agree entirely. Some citizens are not natural born. They are naturalized citizens. Naturalized citizens are not natural born. No naturalized citizen is eligible to be president. No alien is eligible to be president. No one under the age of 35 or who has not resided in the USA for 14 years is eligible to be president.
ONLY a Natural Born citizen (both citizen and Natural Born) who is 35 or older and who has resided in the USA is eligible.
So, what does Natural Born mean? The original meaning, from the common law and the laws in the American colonies at the time of the Revolution was simply “born in the country” (with the exception of the children of foreign diplomats.
Natural Born was a synonym for Native Born, which is a popular term today but was not popular at the time of the writing of the Constitution. Natural Born was used all the time in legal writing, and it always referred to “born in the country.” There were no exceptions. A Natural Born person did not have to have citizen parents. Dual Nationality did not affect the status (and it still doesn’t. To think that it does means that you think that a foreign law can affect a fundamental condition of all US-born children under the Constitution.)
In short, the Constitution bars foreigners from being president, and it bars naturalized citizens from being president. But it does not bar the US-born children of foreigners from being president. They are both citizens and Natural Born.
If the framers had wanted to bar Dual Nationals or persons whose father was not a citizen, they would have said so.
smrstrauss said:
“If the framers had wanted to bar Dual Nationals or persons whose father was not a citizen, they would have said so.”
This is clear in light of the fact that where the founders definitions differed from the common law, they specifically said so (for instance the term ‘treason’). And the notion that President Obama is or was an Indonesian citizen is ludicrous on its face. The only evidence I’ve ever seen that this is the case is a record (from the catholic school that Barack Obama attended) stating that he is an Indonesian citizen – this seems to me to be evidence that his stepfather lied in order to allow his son to attend school (I wouldn’t hesitate to do the same). It is virtually impossible for a minor to give up their US citizenship and would necessarily include the minor personally convincing someone in the US embassy that they were fully aware of what they were doing and what it meant. Such a singular event would be remembered by many people – especially when the name cropped up 40 years later as a presidential candidate. Yet no one has claimed that they so much as heard about Barack Obama renouncing his citizenship and neither the State Department nor the Indonesian government have any record of it.
The problem with all of the arguments that President Obama is not a natural born citizen is that they all suffer from absurdity.
SEC. 305. [8 U.S.C. 1405] A person born in Hawaii on or after August 12, 1898, and before April 30, 1900, is declared to be a citizen of the United States as of April 30, 1900. A person born in Hawaii on or after April 30, 1900, is a citizen of the United States at birth. A person who was a citizen of the Republic of Hawaii on August 12, 1898, is declared to be a citizen of the United States as of April 30, 1900.
How many OTHER presidents in the history of the presidency, were proven to be born “Dual citizens”?
Answer, NONE.
Why?
Because, “Only a natural born citizen” may serve.
Why is a person born a dual citizen not elligible?
Because, they are NOT, and can NEVER BE, a NATURAL BORN CITIZEN, of ANY nation, REGARDLESS of country of birth, and especially if any of the parents had worked in foreign government.
Obamas father was a foreign diplomat while Barry was a KENYA/AMERICAN citizen. Obama lost his Kenyan Citizenship in 1983, AFTER his father had served the KENYAN government.
Seeing as how the KENYAN government was NEW, the LAWS of the new NATION must be adhered to. This makes Barry a KENYAN citizen, and the SON of a KENYAN NATIONAL/DIPLOMAT!
Every which way you look at it, obama can NEVER BE a Natural Born Citizen.. The 14th amendment states “persons born or naturalised” are the SAME TYPE of citizen, which is, only an ORDINARY citizen. NOT a NATIVE BORN, or NATURAL BORN, and those terms are determined by the laws PRIOR to the founding of the republic of AMERICA, and the united states.
At NO time does the 14th amendment classify ANY of those it references as NATURAL BORN CITIZENS, and stipulates in PLAIN ENGLISH, that these people are merely CITIZENS and therefore, under the jurisdiction of the STATE of that citizenship’s application and acceptance. NOTHING MORE!
Further more, I have read a “citizenship clause” which CLEARLY identifies children of foreign diplomats or members of foreign governments as NOT qualifying to claim the 14th amendment, which would also disqualify them from serving high office in the united states. That INCLUDES the senate.
It’s not rocket science. The laws were made for people like you, and me, to understand easily. The older the law, the plainer the language of the law, due to political correctness NOT being an issue when the majority of the penal code and governing law was written.
To suggest that Obama even remotely resembles a natural born citizen, is not only stupidity on a grand scale, but also a slap in the face to the citizenry of the world, when OUR citizens may be STOLEN via some imaginary legal right America claims via the 14th constitutional amendment.
Citizens may NOT be stolen, otherwise, war may be declared as far as I am aware!
Perhaps we tackle this issue the wrong way. Perhaps, we should be showing the Kenyan people, that America has STOLEN Obama’s KENYAN CITIZENSHIP and BIRTHRIGHT, which would mean he may NEVER be involved in the governance of Kenya.
Maybe, they love Obama more than America does, considering, he was Born a KENYAN, and they might be angered by Americans DENYING HIS TRUE citizenship!
Yes, maybe, the Kenyans should be told that Barrack Obama, son of KENYA, may NEVER LEAD THEM after he has served AMERICA, because AMERICA states that he is a NATURAL BORN CITIZEN of AMERICA, meaning, he could be arrested for treason against the unite states, if he was to rule Kenya at any time after his AMERICAN presidency.
Yes, perhaps, I inspire the WRONG people with the facts……..perhaps, they (KENYA) may want their citizen back?
Emeritus
“Based upon the language of Article II, Section 1, Clause 4 and the guidance provided by Wong Kim Ark, we conclude that persons born within the borders of the United States are “natural born Citizens” for Article II, Section 1 purposes, regardless of the citizenship of their parents.”
Indiana Court of Appeals, Ankeny v. Governor.
Doubtful says:
December 28, 2009 at 9:01 am“Based upon the language of Article II, Section 1, Clause 4 and the guidance provided by Wong Kim Ark, we conclude that persons born within the borders of the United States are “natural born Citizens” for Article II, Section 1 purposes, regardless of the citizenship of their parents.”
Indiana Court of Appeals, Ankeny v. Governor.
Reply
I don’t think so.. Your courts are in error if this is the ruling. YOUR courts grant the theft of another nations citizens, and deny the child the right to choice of heriatage………….just as MY AMERICAN CITIZENSHIP WAS DECIDED FOR ME, ie, I HAVE NONE, due to a LIE that my MOTHER was born in AUSTRIAN waters, and NOT USA waters.
MY citizenship, was determined for me………….I DON’T AGREE WITH THE THEFT, nor do I believe it is internationally LEGAL for American common law to STEAL CITIZENS form OTHER NATIONALITES and call them NATURAL BORN.
I CAN PROVE, that my MOTHER was born an AMERICAN, and thus prove MY CITIZENSHIP was altered WITHOUT my choice ever being considered.
YOU STEAL FROM THE CHILDREN, MORE THAN A COUNTRY when you do this.
Your 14th amendment, if this is how it is deemed to be viewed, SHOULD BE CHALLENGED in the INTERNATIONAL COURTS, if the basis of the law is based on international theft of citizenry.
Emeritus
rubbish
“they are AS much a citizen AS ” that is called a comparison , fool They are NOT the same thing
Dual Nationality has no effect on Natural Born status. The only exception in the common law and in the laws of the American colonies was for the children of foreign diplomats. All other children born in the country were considered Natural Born. ALL other children, EVERY child. That meant children of parents from jus soli countries and children of parents from jus sanguinis countries. The fact that a foreign country considered the children of its citizens to be also citizens of that country, has no effect.
And, why should it? If Mexico passed a law that held that all the children born in Texas were citizens of Mexico, would that take away the ability of children born in Texas to grow up and become president. Our law holds that if you are born in the USA, you are Natural Born. No foreign law can take that away.
Ann also known as Smrstrauss,
You are correct with what our laws state regarding born on U.S. Soil, and I have addressed this several times on other threads.
However, your twisted attempt to use “If Mexico passed a law that held that all the children born in Texas were citizens of Mexico, would that take away the ability of children born in Texas to grow up and become president.” fails and gives a false pretense.
You may wish to read the Hague Convention of 1930.
smrstrauss,
One of the keys to understanding what the framers meant by “natural born citizen” is to ascertain why they placed this requirement only on the office of President. You did not offer what your understanding is. I don’t think we can assume that if the framers meant to exclude persons of dual citizenship that they would have said so. If the meaning of “natural born citizen” was perfectly clear to them, then they would not have needed to expound on it at all. I wish the meaning were clear to us today.
You say a natural born citizen is acquired by birth in a country regardless of the citizenship status of the parents. This presents a number of problems for me.
Senator John McCain would not be a natural born citizen, since he was born in Colon, Panama. I understand that under Panamanian law, he was born a Panamanian citizen. You say foreign laws, in the case U.S. laws, could not change the citizenship status of someone born in Panama.
Children of diplomats are not granted U.S. citizenship because of their parent’s diplomatic status.
I see no logical or practical difference between a child of a diplomat, or a child of tourists or others who were here on visitors’ visas who happens to born while the parents were visiting the U.S., or most importantly a child of an illegal alien.
By your definition of natural born citizen, any of these children would be eligible to become President. Please read my previous post where I highlight the case of Yaser Hamdi who was born in Louisiana of Saudi parents who were here on visitors’ visa. Hamdi later was captured in Afghanistan fighting for the Taliban.
Are you sure that the founding fathers intended any of these children to be eligible to become President?
Finally there is the interpretation of the 14th amendment. In particular, what does it mean to be born in the United States and “subject to the jurisdiction thereof”? If there is no semantic difference between being merely born in the U.S. and being born in the U.S. and subject to its jurisdiction, why are the words there?
Begin quote:
In 1866, Senator Jacob Howard clearly spelled out the intent of the 14th Amendment by stating:
“Every person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States. This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons. It settles the great question of citizenship and removes all doubt as to what persons are or are not citizens of the United States. This has long been a great desideratum in the jurisprudence and legislation of this country.”
End quote
http://www.14thamendment.us/birthright_citizenship/original_intent.html
This is the great issue of today regarding the children of illegal aliens. According to the historical understanding of the 14th amendment, they would not be citizens. And apparently, neither would Barack Obama.
[...] http://obamacrimes.com/?p=340 [...]
Re: “Senator John McCain would not be a natural born citizen, since he was born in Colon, Panama.”
You are relying on the posted McCain “birth certificate,” which is apparently forged. McCain said in his book that he was born at the family hospital on the Naval Base.
In any case, I said that the original meaning of Natural Born was “born in the country.” Since then there have been additions to the meaning to include citizens of two parents even if they were born abroad. This has been done by legislation. Some say that legislation cannot change the meaning of “Natural Born” in the Constitution. If so, too bad for McCain.
But the original meaning was simply “born in the country” as the Wong Kim Ark case shows. It repeatedly says that EVERY child born in the country was Natural Born. And that is the way that it was used at the time. Having done repeated searches of the writings of Adams, Hamilton and Madison, I NEVER have found a use of the term “Natural Born” that could have meant “two citizen parents” or “excluding dual nationals.” There were simply two kinds of citizens, naturalized citizens who were born outside of the country, and Natural Born citizens who were born inside the country.
Moreover, the idea that a foreign law can affect the status of a child born in the USA diminishes the power and sovereignty of this country. IF such things were possible, countries would be passing laws that affect our children all the time. Mexico could pass a law, say, that all children born in Texas were Mexican citizens. That would make them dual nationals. But the idea that we would allow this to affect the ability of children born in Texas to become president is strange. It gives power to Mexico and takes away our power.
The usual way that we treat foreign laws under US law is to ignore them. IF we decide to give them weight, say in a dual taxation agreement, that is our decision. But if we have made no laws on the matter, then our law applies and the foreign law is ignored. Under our laws, someone who is born in the USA owes complete loyalty to the USA, and no foreign law can take that away.
Re: “see no logical or practical difference between a child of a diplomat, or a child of tourists or others who were here on visitors’ visas who happens to born while the parents were visiting the U.S., or most importantly a child of an illegal alien.
Under the rules of Strict Construction interpretation, which Conservatives favor, you are not allowed to read something into a term. If the term was used to mean “born in the country,” that is what it meant. You cannot say “but surely they would have worried about Dual Nationality” if there is nothing in the words that indicated that they worried to the extent of writing the words into the Constitution.
The Wong Kim Ark case said very clearly that even the children of visitors were covered.
It said: “By the common law of England, every person born within the dominions of the Crown, no matter whether of English or of foreign parents, and, in the latter case, whether the parents were settled or merely temporarily sojourning, in the country, was an English subject, save only the children of foreign ambassadors (who were excepted because their fathers carried their own nationality with them), or a child born to a foreigner during the hostile occupation of any part of the territories of England. No effect appears to have been given to descent as a source of nationality.”
EVEN TEMPORARILY SOJOURNING.
And it said: “therefore every child born in England of alien parents was a natural-born subject unless the child of an ambassador or other diplomatic agent of a foreign State or of an alien enemy in hostile occupation of the place where the child was born.
III. The same rule was in force in all the English Colonies upon this continent down to the time of the Declaration of Independence, and in the United States afterwards, and continued to prevail under the Constitution as originally established.”
So EVERY child was Natural Born.
And that is why Yale Law review wrote: “It is well settled that “native-born” citizens, those born in the United States, qualify as natural born. ”
And why such prominent conservative Senators who are also lawyers as Orren Hatch and Lindsay Graham say that a Natural Born Citizen is simply one who was born in the USA:
Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC), said:
“Every child born in the United States is a natural-born United States citizen except for the children of diplomats.” (December 11, 2008 letter to constituent)
Senator Orrin G. Hatch (R-UT), said:
“What is a natural born citizen? Clearly, someone born within the United States or one of its territories is a natural born citizen.” (Senate Judiciary Committee hearing hearing on OCTOBER 5, 2004)
Could someone please tell me the difference between Natural-born citizen and Native-born citizen? Regarding the President’s eligibility, it is my understanding that Natural-born pertains to someone who was born in the United States to parents who were BOTH Native-born Americans themselves. Am I correct in my thinking? Seems the Founding fathers would have thought this through in order to assure proper allegiance for our Commander in Chief.
Todd:
All native-born citizens are natural born citizens (this is what Wong Kim Ark says). Some natural-born citizens are not native-born (I believe that John McCain would be an example of this). The Constitution is to be interpreted in the light of the common law, which at the time the constitution was written was the same as the English common law. When the framers used definitions that were different from this common law, they were careful to explicitly state the definition that they were using – the Constitution’s definition of ‘treason’ is an example of this. The English common law definition of ‘natural born subject’ is anyone born in the country (‘natural born citizen is the correct analog in the US since we are not a monarchy). It is my understanding that the ‘natural born citizen’ clause is meant to prevent out-of-work foreign royalty from taking power in this country (a common practice of the time being to find some minor foreign royalty if you didn’t have any of your own). There is no evidence that the founders were concerned with the loyalty of children born in the country. The only children born in this country who are not natural born citizens are those born to diplomats (who carry their nationality with them), or occupying military (for obvious reasons), or Indians not taxed (not sure what the status of this is today, but it doesn’t pertain to Barack Obama). In the 1898 case US v. Wong Kim Ark, the supreme court said:
“[An alien parent's] allegiance to the United States is direct and immediate, and, although but local and temporary, continuing only so long as he remains within our territory, is yet, in the words of Lord Coke in Calvin’s Case, 7 Coke, 6a, ’strong enough to make a natural subject, for, if he hath issue here, that issue is a natural-born subject’”
Which seems pretty clear to me. I would assume that the founders considered the election process the proper place to vet the allegiance of our Commander-in-Chief (provided that he was a natural born citizen like Barack Obama).
Thank you Slartibartfast, although I completely disagree with you as for Soetoro/Obama being a “natural born” U.S. citizen. Dan Goodman explains it well also in the following text:
“A natural (native) born citizen is one who is born with the territory of a government (country) and subject to its jurisdiction. Under the Constitution of the United States; at Article II, Section 5, Clause 1; a natural born citizen is a person born in the United States of America; in a different state, before the adoption of the Constitution of the United States and under the Articles of Confederation or a person born in the United States of America, in an individual State, under the Constitution of the United States.” Dan Goodman
People,
All your citations of previous “case” law is all well and good.
But….what if THOSE cases, and their judg
People,
All your citations of previous “case” law is all well and good.
But….what if THOSE cases, and their judgements, were erroneous to begin with?
Has anyone bothered to check, that all the facts presented in these cases were in fact accurate and legally accepted?
It is NOT uncommon, for cases that have been judged erroneously to be retried………..even many years AFTER the involved parties are deceased.
DNA, for example, has been used to re-open cases where the original evidence used to judge the case has been found to be OBVIOUSLY flawed. Therefore, overturning ANY precedent that case may have set. See how the law works?
Just because a law was made, if that law is found to be in violation of the truth or the judgement based on incorrect interperetation of the existing law, then, that law can not apply, and should be challenged. Otherwise, the law will contradict itself in many areas, leading to the confusion you Americans seem to suffer regarding this citizenship issue.
Citizenships may NOT be stolen. This is against the laws of nations, as well as a clear form of racism. How would it be if another country started claiming your native indians as their natural born citizens, even against their own will? Would you allow such a law to stand?
Stupid laws lead to stupid rulings, which lead to stupid people. Thats a fact you can count on.
Emeritus
Paralegal,
In what way does your quote imply that President Obama is not a natural born citizen? Unless you have proof that he was not born in Hawaii that is more credible than the posted COLB and the statements issued by the Hawaii department of health. I would also note that by using the name ‘Soetoro’, you are asserting the veracity of the president’s school record which also asserts that he was born in Hawaii and is an Indonesian citizen, the first of which you say would make him a natural born citizen and the second of which is an impossibility as US law does not allow minors to renounce their citizenship or for their parents to do it for them and Indonesian law does not allow citizenship to be granted. (Did it ever occur to you that a step-father might lie so that his son could attend school?) Why do you continue to believe that President Obama is not a natural born citizen in light of all the evidence to the contrary?
emeritus,
Are you arguing that Wong Kim Ark is bad law and should be overturned? Seeing that the SCOTUS has declined to take up the issue at least three times, I don’t think that they agree with you. Furthermore, I don’t think that you (nor anyone else) can make any sort of credible legal argument that WKA is erroneous and should be overturned. In fact, there was precedent in support of your argument – unfortunately it was in the Dredd Scott decision, which is widely considered to be the worst SCOTUS decision ever and has been overturned. The supreme court does not overturn valid precedents because a few disgruntled people want to usurp the lawfully elected president of the United States.
Firstly,
the case you mention, also notes that children of diplomats may NOT claim natural born citizenship. So theres number ONE for you.
SECONDLY, none of it matters anymore anyway. Your now under BRITISH rule again, thanks to your USURPER.
The argument is moot now. You’re under BRITISH command now.
“the US Attorney General and all the State Attorneys General are now obliged to act vigorously on the basis of the mentioned POLICY CHANGE, or they themselves can be arrested for obstruction of justice by INTERPOL personnel and then extradited to a relevant jurisdiction such as the British jurisdiction for defying obligations imposed upon them by International Law, OR ELSE SUBJECTED TO THE FULL RIGOURS OF AMERICAN LAW, WHICH PRESCRIBES SUMMARY EXECUTION FOR TREASON IN TIME OF WAR. ECONOMIC TERRORISM IS TREASON.
“…….British jurisdiction for defying obligations imposed upon them by International Law……
I don’t know what else to tell you, except, LONG LIVE THE QUEEN, for YOUR sakes!
Emeritus.
I know I said that the issue was pretty much pointless, regardless of facts anymore due to INTERPOL having unprecedented jurisdiction to arrest US nationals without the need to request extradition from the American courts……..but, then I read this guys post on Hannity’s thread;-
Quote:
Originally Posted by Keppler
There are plenty of authoritative legal references that dispute your opinion. Here is but a small sampling:
There are plenty of errant statements of what is a natural born citizen, even from the bench, and in lesser rulings, particularly those that provide no rationale and no historic reference. These facts and others flag them as not being authoritative.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Keppler
“It is an established maxim that birth is a criterion of allegiance. Birth however derives its force sometimes from place and sometimes from parentage, but in general place is the most certain criterion; it is what applies in the United States; it will therefore be unnecessary to investigate any other.” — James Madison, The Founders’ Constitution Volume 2, Article 1, Section 2, Clause 2, Document 6 (1789)
Birth always owes allegiance to the parentage and only sometimes to the place. The mere birth in a country does not estabish any sort of enduring allegiance except by law, and the history of Britain is replete with laws extending this allegiance. However natural born citizen is one whose allegiance and very identity is to nowhere else other than the country in which he was born and where his familial roots have established ties of citizenship.
You will note that even Madison recognizes both place and parentage. Context is everything. In this passage Madison is discussing the citizenship of the offspring and at a time only shortly after the founding of this nation. In context, Madison is arguing for the allegiance of those born here over any obligatory allegiance to the country of origin of the parents. What Madison was NOT arguing was the meaning of natural born citizen, but rather only citizenship.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Keppler
“It is an established maxim, received by all political writers, that every person owes a natural allegiance to the government of that country in which he is born. Allegiance is defined to be a tie, that binds the subject to the state, and in consequence of his obedience, he is entitled to protection… The children of aliens, born in this state, are considered as natural born subjects, and have the same rights with the rest of the citizens.” — Zephaniah Swift, A system of the laws of the state of Connecticut: in six books, Volumes 1-2 of A System of the Laws of the State of Connecticut: In Six Book, pg. 163,167 (1795)
Here Swift is arguing for those who are citizens of A STATE having allegiance to the country. This referenced context of ‘natural born citizen” is not in terms of the Constitutional reference but rather in terms of the State citizen and loyalty to the Country. This is appropriate as there was few laws of uniform citizenship in the country at that time, and most citizens became citizens of the state first, by state laws, as opposed to being made citizens of the country.
As an interesting sidebar: When the thirteen colonies gained their independence and became States, they were no longer bound by the jus soli principle of British Common Law. Each State was free to enact its own birthright citizenship laws. When a state enacted its own laws, such laws replaced the citizenship provisions of British Common Law in that particular state. For example, Virginia enacted a law, written by Thomas Jefferson in 1779, which made anyone born within the Commonwealth, and having resided there for two years before that Act, the right to swear an allegiance to the Commonwealth and become a citizen thereof. Virginia made the citizenship available to those persons, but not compelled upon them.
If the British Common Law principle of jus soli (citizenship by birthplace alone) had been adopted at the national level, what would have been the point of granting each state the right to enact its own birthright citizenship laws? After the Constitution was adopted, every State had the right to enact laws that deny citizenship at birth to some children born in that State, such as children of African or Native-American descent, and children whose parents were not U.S. citizens. How could the States have acquired or exercised such a right if the nation, as a whole, had embraced the doctrine that “everyone born in the U.S. is a U.S. citizen”?
A curious FACT is that all States were unanimous in granting citizenship at birth to children who met both the jus soli criterion (they were born in the United States) and the jus sanguinis criterion (their parents were U.S. citizens). Some states routinely denied citizenship at birth to children who met only one of these criteria but not both.
A more inclusive definition of “natural born citizen” — which required either jus soli or jus sanguinis but not necessarily both — is unlikely because it would have included people whom some states were denying citizenship to. It is improbable that the Founding Fathers would have permitted states to deny citizenship to natural born citizens. More likely, “natural born citizen” referred to a class of people that all states were already recognizing as undeniable U.S. citizens.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Keppler
“Two things usually concur to create citizenship: first, birth locally within the dominions of the sovereign, and secondly, birth within the protection and obedience, or, in other words, within the allegiance of the sovereign….That the father and mother of the demandant were British born subjects is admitted. If he was born before 4 July, 1776, it is as clear that he was born a British subject. If he was born after 4 July, 1776, and before 15 September, 1776 [the date the British occupied New York], he was born an American citizen, whether his parents were at the time of his birth British subjects or American citizens. Nothing is better settled at the common law than the doctrine that the children even of aliens born in a country while the parents are resident there under the protection of the government and owing a temporary allegiance thereto are subjects by birth.” — Justice Story, concurring opinion,Inglis v. Sailors’ Snug Harbor, 3 Pet. 99, 155,164. (1830)
This is a convoluted ruling which denies even the truth of this country. It ignores the fact that a predominant reason for the Revolutionary War and the War of 1812 was the British doctrine of “perpetual allegiance”.
We do not operate by the “common law” of Britain (beyond reference of terms and concepts), we had no established common law ourselves at the time , and to assert such is ludicrous. Furthermore the federal law, which the Constitution both frames and creates, has never been subject to British Common Law.
The above passage indicates the international considerations of citizenship, but not the national consideration of what constitutes a natural born citizen. Curiously the considerations of international citizenship does have bearing on how the definition of natural born citizen was derived.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Keppler
“The country where one is born, how accidental soever his birth in that place may have been, and although his parents belong to another country, is that to which he owes allegiance. Hence the expression natural born subject or citizen, & all the relations thereout growing. To this there are but few exceptions, and they are mostly introduced by statutes and treaty regulations, such as the children of seamen and ambassadors born abroad, and the like.” — Leake v. Gilchrist, 13 N.C. 73 (N.C. 1829)
Quite clearly this is not any sort of authoritative argument, being offered without any real, coherent rationale and is no sort of precedent, certainly not any sort of persuasive precedent, and barely qualifies as orbiter dictum. This argument is quite easily undermined by fact alone. There is notably no rationale for “natural born”, which it confuses with even “citizen” and “native born.”
Quote:
Originally Posted by Keppler
“It thus clearly appears that by the law of England for the last three centuries, beginning before the settlement of this country, and continuing to the present day, aliens, while residing in the dominions possessed by the crown of England, were within the allegiance, the obedience, the faith or loyalty, the protection, the power, and the jurisdiction of the English sovereign; and therefore every child born in England of alien parents was a natural-born subject, unless the child of an ambassador or other diplomatic agent of a foreign state, or of an alien enemy in hostile occupation of the place where the child was born. The same rule was in force in all the English colonies upon this continent down to the time of the Declaration of Independence, and in the United States afterwards, and continued to prevail under the constitution as originally established.” — U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark,169 U.S. 649,658 (1898)
The law of England was mutated by the dictate of the Crown, even as recorded and recognized by Blackstone. We fought two wars to reject this dictated perpetual allegiance.
However even the law of the Crown refererences back to coherent understandings of natural born:
In 1736, forty years before our declared independence, Matthew Bacon defined “natural-born Subject” as:
All those are natural-born Subjects whose Parents, at the Time of their Birth, were under the actual Obedience of our King, and whose Place of Birth was within his dominions. (Page 77 in this 724-page (48MB) PDF file: Matthew Bacon, A New Abridgement of the Law, Vol 1, 1736).
This would eliminate those who merely occupy british soil but owe allegiance elsewhere.
You’ll find the whole argument here;0-
http://forums.hannity.com/showthread.php?s=f09d5726d73585e7739c42a95c10e020&t=1216821&page=2127
Like I stated before………..not ALL case law is GOOD LAW, and some of it, no matter how old, should be reviewed, repealed, and adjusted appropriately. Too bad, it’s all too late for America though! Like a thief in the night, Obama came, and stole your freedom!
Emeritus
I recently received an interesting e-mail. Is this a legitimate legal argument that can be made?
Following is the text…
Subject: Interesting Solution to Obama’s Citizenship Question
While I’ve interest in getting in the middle of the Obama birth issue, Paul Hollrah over at FSM did so yesterday and believes the issue can be resolved by Obama answering one simple question:
What passport did he use when he was shuttling between New York , Jakarta , and Karachi ?
So how did a young man who arrived in New York in early June 1981, without the price of a hotel room in his pocket, suddenly come up with the price of a round-the-world trip just a month later?
And once he was on a plane, shuttling between New York , Jakarta , and Karachi , what passport was he offering when he passed through Customs and Immigration?
The American people not only deserve to have answers to these questions, they must have answers.
It makes the debate over Obama’s citizenship a rather short and simple one.
Q: Did he travel to Pakistan in 1981, at age 20?
A : Yes, by his own admission.
Q: What passport did he travel under?
A: There are only three possibilities.
1) He traveled with a U.S. Passport,
2) He traveled with a British passport, or
3) He traveled with an Indonesia passport.
Q: Is it possible that Obama traveled with a U.S. Passport in 1981?
A: No. It is not possible.
Pakistan was on the U.S. State Department’s “no travel” list in 1981.
Conclusion:
When Obama went to Pakistan in 1981 he was traveling either with a British passport or an Indonesian passport.
If he were traveling with a British passport that would provide proof that he was born in Kenya on August 4, 1961, not in Hawaii as he claims. And if he were traveling with an Indonesian passport that would tend to prove that he relinquished whatever previous citizenship he held, British or American, prior to being adopted by his Indonesian step-father in 1967.
Whatever the truth of the matter, the American people need to know how he managed to become a “natural born” American citizen between 1981 and 2008..
Given the destructive nature of his plans for America, as illustrated by his speech before Congress
and the disastrous spending plan he has presented to Congress, the sooner we learn the truth of all this, the better.
If you Don’t care that Your President is not a natural born Citizen and in Violation of the Constitution, then Delete this and go into your cocoon.
If you do care then Forward this!
Re: “Q: Is it possible that Obama traveled with a U.S. Passport in 1981?
A: No. It is not possible.
Pakistan was on the U.S. State Department’s “no travel” list in 1981.”
This is the kind of posting that gives birthers a bad name. It is not true that Pakistan was on a no-travel list in 1981. And Pakistan did not keep US citizens from visiting. It was eager to have tourists visit. So any US citizen could visit using a US passport, and Obama was one of them. He never had either a British passport or an Indonesian passport. He was never an Indonesian citizen, as both the US State Department and Indonesia have said.
He did, however, have a US passport, which he used to travel from the USA to Indonesia when his mother moved there, and then to return from Indonesia to Hawaii to attend school. If he had not used a US passport on these trips, he would have required a US visa on a foreign passport, and there would be a record of the application for that visa, which would have been found by now.
So, it is NOT true that Pakistan was on a no-travel list. It is not true that US citizens could not travel to Pakistan using US passports. And, Obama had a US passport. This answers the question based on the false claim that Pakistan was on a no-travel list.
Re: “were under the actual Obedience of our King.”
Anyone in England other than a foreign diplomat or a foreign soldier occupying the country was under the actual Obedience of the King. If you were in England and not a diplomat or soldier you had to obey the king. That is much like saying “under the jurisdiction” of the USA. If you are in the USA (other than a diplomat) you have to obey all the laws, so you are under the jurisdiction.
The Wong Kimg Ark case says repeatedly that EVERY child born in Britain, or the USA, is Natural Born (with the exception of the children of foreign diplomats). EVERY child.
Emeritus,
Barack Obama Sr. was a student at the University of Hawaii, not a diplomat, when President Obama was born. Good luck at getting 200 years of precedent overturned (as well as the 14th amendment). While you’re at it, you might as well try to get the Dredd Scott decision reinstated and the Emancipation Proclamation recinded – I’m sure that the SCOUTS wouldn’t allow a slave to be president. Your efforts to delegitimize the legally elected POTUS are truly un-american. You are admitting that Barack Obama is a natural born citizen under the laws in force at the time of his election – therefore any attempt to rewrite the law to usurp him is treasonous.
Todd,
You’ve got a couple of problems in your post.
You said:
“Q: Is it possible that Obama traveled with a U.S. Passport in 1981?
A: No. It is not possible.
Pakistan was on the U.S. State Department’s “no travel” list in 1981.”
This is false. Ask the State Department – there was no ban on travel to Pakistan in 1981. Since this invalidates your entire argument, there is no need to go on, but I’ll also point out that Barack Obama could not have renounced (or had a parent renounce) his US citizenship or been granted Indonesian citizenship by both US and Indonesian law. If you care about the Constitution, you should support the constitutionally elected President of the United States and show him the respect that he is due. You don’t have to support his policies, but you should realize that the campaign to usurp the legal President is unconstitutional and treasonous.
Sorry, my post should have been addressed to Tommy, not Todd.
I was not making an argument nor statement; just posting an e-mail I received in order to get an opinion of it from this forum. Thanks to all whom have replied and cleared up the matter.
Nevertheless, I care deeply about the Constitution and you certainly should not label me nor anyone else as “treasonous” for asking questions about whether President Obama has fulfilled the constitutional requirements to be such. It is our duty as citizens to ensure the Constitution is being upheld!
Tommy,
I said that the campaign to usurp the legal President of the United States is unconstitutional and treasonous. Having found out that the email that you posted contained a factual error which invalidated its argument, I’m sure you looked at the state department website and verified the error and that you no longer believe that the email has merit. It is perfectly okay to ask if the president fulfills the requirements of his office, but it is another thing entirely to continue to argue that the president is illegitimate in the face of strong evidence (the COLB with the Hawaii DOH backing it up) that Barack Obama was born in Hawaii and over 200 years of precedent and legal understanding that says Barack Obama, if born in Hawaii, is in fact a natural born citizen. To do this in an attempt to usurp the votes of 68 million Americans and remove a Constitutionally elected president from office is, in my opinion, treasonous.
I agree; if he is, in fact, a natural born citizen.
President Obama has answered his burden of proof – any suggestion that he is not a natural born citizen is frivolous unless it includes proof that he was born outside the US that is more credible than the Hawaii department of health.
Emeritus,
Barack Obama Sr. was a student at the University of Hawaii, not a diplomat, when President Obama was born.
Not so fast buddy. BEFORE Obama JR’s KENYAN CITIZENSHIP EXPIRED, His Father worked in a foreign Government. THAT EXCLUDES HIM FROM BEING ELIGIBLE, FULL STOP.
The children of foreign diplomats and foreign nationals may NOT be classified as NATURAL BORN CITIZENS of AMERICA…YOUR LAW, NOT MY INTERPERETATION OF IT!
Obama’s father MAY HAVE BEEN a student when Obama was born. But the year Kenya became a sovereign nation of it’s own, Obama became a kenyan citizen.
Obama’s father is a member of that ORIGINAL foreign government, set up AFTER england handed back sovereignty to that nations people. Obama sr being one of those people.
Obama father, being the proven foreign diplomat that he is, transfers hereditory birth right to obama jr, just as the law states, and not natural born citizenship to the united states, as you would have us believe.
The time of his service is also irrelevent. At the time of his (OBama sr) service to the kenyan government, Obama jr was still under the citizenship jurisdiction of his fathers citizenship, meaning, he was never born a natural born citizen of america at all.
That is why he won’t show you his records…….. the occupation of the father will not say “student”………..it will say “DIPLOMAT”.
You forgot about that part of the birth certificate, didn’t you Obats?
Emeritus
Emeritus,
Diplomatic status is not retroactive. What is relevant is that Barack Obama Sr. was not a diplomat when Barack Obama Jr. was born (even if he was, I believe that Barack Jr. would have (natural born) citizen status transmitted via his mother). Natural born status derives from birth – one cannot ‘become’ a natural born citizen if they were not born one and one cannot lose natural born citizen status (except by renouncing their citizenship) that one has from birth. The only things that the ‘long form’ birth certificate would reveal are mundane details that you wouldn’t accept anyway. So feel free to keep banging your head against the wall – I’ll rest easy knowing that you and everyone like you are wrong on the facts, wrong on the law, and wrong on the Constitution. The only thing that you have to look forward to is the supreme court taking judicial notice of President Obama’s birth in Hawaii and verifying the common law definition of ‘natural born’ if someone actually manages to find a plaintiff with standing.
Sorry mate, but you’re wrong.
I’ve looked at your “title 8″ and 14th amendment (which you cling to I might add to form your agument) and they definately disqualify the children of ANY foreign serving diplomats, bar NONE!. In NO way do the laws state, in any way, that children born prior to a parents foreign service may claim the amendments inferred rights.
I reapeat, NO WHERE AT ALL does the 14th amendment or title 8 qualify a child of a foreign diplomat who is born prior to that preants foreign diplomatic service.
Obama was still a kenyan/American citizen at the time his father served the Kenyan government, was he not? If so, his fathers service disqaulifies him, no matter when that service occurred during Obama’s kenyan/american citizenship.
Dunham divorced Obama sr in 1964? Obama was still a Kenytan citizen though, until 1983.
“While still living near Kendu Bay, Obama Sr. attended Gendia Primary School and transfered to Ng’iya Intermediate School once his family moved to Siaya District. From 1950 to 1953, he studied at Maseno National School, an exclusive Christian boarding school in Maseno that is run by the Anglican Church of Kenya. (Dreams from my Father, 2004 edition, p. 418). The head teacher, B.L. Bowers, described Obama Sr. in his records as “very keen, steady, trustworthy and friendly. Concentrates, reliable and out-going.” In 1954, after attending the Maseno Mational School, Obama Sr. was married for the first time.”
“Obama Sr. received a scholarship in economics through a program organized by nationalist leader Tom Mboya. The program offered Western educational opportunities to outstanding Kenyan students”
“At the age of 23, Obama Sr. enrolled at the University of Hawaii at Manoa, leaving behind a pregnant Kezia and their infant son. He had abandoned Islam and become an atheist by the time he moved to the United States. On 2 February 1961, Obama Sr. married fellow student Ann Dunham in Maui, Hawaii, though she would not find out that her new husband was already married until much later”
*note* Obama was already under a foreign diplomatic student exchange. He was already being groomed for public service BEFORE Barry was born, which was paid for using Kenyan national funds.*******
“On his return to his native Kenya in 1965, Obama Sr. was hired by an oil company and then served as an economist in the Kenyan Ministry of Transport and later became a senior economist in the Kenyan Ministry of Finance.”
“In 1959 a monograph written by him had been published by the Kenyan Department of Education, entitled Otieno jarieko. Kitabu mar ariyo. 2: Yore mabeyo mag puro puothe. (English: Otieno, the wise man. Book 2: Wise ways of farming.)”
“In 1965 Obama Sr. published a paper entitled “Problems Facing Our Socialism” in the East Africa Journal, harshly criticizing the blueprint for national planning, “African Socialism and Its Applicability to Planning in Kenya”, which had been produced by Tom Mboya’s Ministry of Economic Planning and Development. The article was signed “Barak H. Obama.” As his son described it in his memoir, Obama Sr.’s conflict with President Kenyatta destroyed his career. (Dreams from my Father, pp. 214-216.) The decline began after Tom Mboya’s assassination in 1969. Obama Sr. was fired from his job by Jomo Kenyatta, was blacklisted in Kenya, and began to drink”
*Final Note* Obama was 4 years old, and still a legal citizen of Kenya, when Obama’s father accepted position within the kenyan government, making him, a foreign diplomat, while Obama was a kenyan citizen. Obama’s fathers studies, were all relating to, and paid for by, internal government offices, such as finance and planning, in an effort to learn to be profitable in a financial system ruled by western politics and business.
Obama’s FATHER, worked for KENYAN GOVERNMENT offices when OBAMA was TOO YOUNG to renounce his citizenship, and that citizenship could NOT be removed any other way. Furthermore, Kenya NEVER renounced, nor gave permission for America to renounce for them, Obama Jr’s Kenyan citizenship.
You see why it can never be possible? No matter how hard you try. The 14th amendment and title 8 give no leniency, and make no exceptions. Obama can NOT serve legally.
hope this helps with your little problem, Obat!
Emeritus
Re: “I reapeat, NO WHERE AT ALL does the 14th amendment or title 8 qualify a child of a foreign diplomat who is born prior to that preants foreign diplomatic service.”
This is the strangest logic ever. Diplomats get diplomatic immunity. People who intend to become diplomats do not get diplomatic immunity. Why not? Before they become diplomats they are not diplomats. The children of diplomats are not entitled to at-birth citizenship. The children of people before they become diplomats are the same as everyone else.
Re: “That is why he won’t show you his records…….. the occupation of the father will not say “student”………..it will say “DIPLOMAT”.”
He came to the USA on a student visa, not a diplomatic visa.
And you happen to have the proof of the claims you’ve made? I’ve shown you using your own interperetations that you have disqualified Obama YOURSELVES…………and I’ve also stated, it don’t matter any more any way. YOU’RE ENGLANDS SLAVES NOW…………..SUCKED IN………..INTERPOL PWNS AMERICA, and INTERPOL is headed by SCOTLAND YARD…….WOOT!
Have fun with that.
Mwuahahahahahahahahaha……..LUCKY I”M AUSTRALIAN THEN, ISN’T IT!
Emeritus
>>>He came to the USA on a student visa, not a diplomatic visa.
Is that assumed or do you know that?
The WRIF interview with Ambassador Ogego, he said that Barack Obama Senior was one of the Big 5.
So I looked up to find that Big 5, in Kenya, it has 2 meanings. One refers to popular wild animals. The other refers to members of Kenya’s executive pentagon.
I’m back–Hi Paralegal. I find all the comments interesting to say the least, as usual. How a matter of such simplicity can be debated by so many Legal people is amazing. I read the comments and then I check the Constitution. The interpitation is all in what side you’re on. Were this to be decided on legal issues it would still come down to one thing, where is the Documentation? Can you provide proof of your Eligability? That’s what I want to know. Happy New Year and may all this get sorted out.
Re: “Can you provide proof of your Eligability? That’s what I want to know.”
Did you ask Bush to provide proof? Or Clinton, or Pappy Bush, or Reagan?
You are only asking now because someone has made the absurd claim that Obama was born in Kenya. His Kenyan grandmother never said that he was born in Kenya. She said that he was born in Hawaii.
In addition to this, there is the official birth certificate of Hawaii, the first birth certificate that any president has ever shown. IN addition, the facts on the birth certificate were repeatedly confirmed by the officials in Hawaii, and there is even a witness who recalls being told of his birth in Hawaii in 1961.
So, this HAS been sorted out.
Emeritus,
Thank you for illustrating Ms. Freeze’s thesis. The idea that any action or position of the father after a child is born affects that child’s birth status is and totally unfounded in law. Can a person become a natural born citizen because their father takes a vacation in the US when they are 5 years old? Since no competent legal authority shares your view and it is ridiculous on its face, I’ll just thank you for the amusement that your inane theory afforded me and watch you try to get a judge to agree with your illogical ramblings. I’d be willing to bet that you couldn’t get even convince one judge, let alone the 5 supreme court justices that you would need to win your point. Good luck tilting at windmills…
P.S. Not all government officials are diplomats and it is irrelevant who paid for Barack Sr.’s schooling, he did not have diplomatic status when his son was born (and even if he did, I think that you would have a hard time getting a court to deny that the child of any American citizen born within the United States was a natural born citizen).
Obama’sfathers service did NOT affect Barrack’s citgizenship at all. I made NO attempt to mislead people into think it would. However, Obama’s fathers service to kenya at a time when Barrack was STILL a kenyan citizen, therefore makes him the son of a kenyan foreign government official, ie, diplomat. Shadow government, is STILL government, that is to say, there has to be an opposition to the government, who enjoy the same benefits as serving government party candidates.
YOU are the one blurring the edges of the law, not me. Obama was still a MINOR, a KENYAN CITIZEN, and unable to renounce that citizenship AT THE TIME of his FATHERS foreign diplomatic (government) service.
Also, Obama’s fathers studies were in fact paid for by the kenyan government, and intended to be the starting point of a new direction in Kenyan education/politics. Ther is NO DOUBT IN MY MIND, that having being recognised BY the opposition party in kenya as being intelligent enough to be of use, Obama’s father was shipped of to america to learn all about how american economics worked, america having the strongest economy in the world, at that time at least.
You can paint it any colour you like. Obama’s citizenship to Kenya at the time of his fathers service to the kenyan government DISQULIFIES HIM and there are NO outlining laws to suggest OTHERWISE. ie, show me where the clause (or any other law, case, common, or other), says children born prior to a parents foreign service in government may apply? If Obama did NOT have a kenyan citizenship at that time, this would not be an issue, but factcheck clearly states he DID.
Have a nice life, under your usurper’s “interpol controlled” administration..
Emeritus
Can anyone truly be so ignorant of the law as to believe that you have the slightest clue what you’re talking about? Are you intentionally trying to prove Ms. Freeze’s point? Any job Barack Obama Sr. held after Barack Obama Jr.’s birth is irrelevant to his birth status. It wouldn’t have mattered if his father had become a head of state the minute after his birth, he would still be a natural born citizen. Even if his father were a head of state during his birth, Barack Obama Jr. would probably have still been a natural born citizen by virtue of his mother. Like every other birther claim, you are arguing a case with absolutely no merit.
my argument is flawed is it? Then wheres YOUR supporting evidence?
i’ve cited title 8, section 1(*)
inparticularly, the (*)
which clearly states as follows:-
* There is an exception in the law — the person must be “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States. This would exempt the child of a diplomat, for example, from this provision.
*NOTE THIS*
the term “for example”, eluding to the FACT that this is NOT the ONLY disqualification, but other SIMILAR circumstances WILL void a candidates qualification.
THIS WAS CLEARLY NOT INVESTIGATED, NOR MENTIONED, when Obama SEALED his RECORDS from the PUBLIC!
The fact that he sealed the records prior to the presidency unconstitutionally, and then signed law denying requests of public presidential information being released, is enough to make anyone ask questions. To have them go unanswered for so long, is a joke in itself. If he has nothing to worry about, he wouldn’t be hiding behind you to defend him now, would he? If he had any honor at all, he’d say to the people, yeah sure, here you go, take a look.
Just release the information if you want the issue to cease and desist…………otherwise, buckle up, and hold on, it gets rough from here on. When your representatives are being arrested for doing WHAT YOU WANT THEM TO DO by INTERPOL, you might change your tune a bit!
Emeritus
Terry,
To add to Ann’s comment, the only interpretations that matter are those of the courts and the SCOTUS in particular and the interpretation of the courts as shown in both established precedent (Wong Kim Ark among numerous others) and contemporary opinions (Ankeny v. State of Indiana, or the rulings by judges Land and Cater in Orly Taitz’s cases) imply that President Obama is a natural born citizen and therefore qualified for his office. Proof has been provided, its veracity has been confirmed by the Hawaii department of health, and the law is clear – in the absence of compelling new evidence (which is unlikely to exist), this matter is settled for any reasonable person.
I have followed this issue for more than a year & there is one thing that I don’t think has never been mentioned. At the bottom of the COLB is the staement “Any alterations to this document make it null & void” or some such wording. The certicicate number is blacked out. That is the only thing on this document that can’t be faked. Why?
The staffers who originally posted the document were unsure if they should post the document number so they redacted it. Subsequent versions have been published without the number redacted. The Hawaii department of health has confirmed all that they are legally allowed to do, including the fact that (in their official opinion) Barack Obama is a natural born citizen. If you’ve followed one side of this argument for more than a year, maybe you should look at the evidence for both sides and decide which is more credible.