Birth Certificate Gate continues...

Trinity

Just Browsing
Joined
Sep 16, 2006
Posts
2,680
Media
0
Likes
0
Points
181
Gender
Female
EVERY house Republican voted for this bill. What will they tell their constituents who still think he was Born in Kenya?:

Resolution Proclaiming Hawaii Obama's Birthplace Passes House Unanimously


Resolution Proclaiming Hawaii Obama's Birthplace Passes House Unanimously

Well they could start by telling them that they will pass a bill that makes sure President's Natural Born Citizenship is reviewed and verified by the FEC and then confirmed by the Supreme Court.

Then they could say, that they are requesting the vault form information for Barack Obama to once and for all clear up the matter with certainty.

(Nixon committed illegal acts and lied...any state official could do the same for political, personal or monetary gain)

Finally, they could then proceed to have Barack Obama's Natural Born Citizenship determined by the Supreme Court...and every other General Election Presidential candidate going forward.

Because, John McCain's resolution was nonbinding...and so is this one. And it really only stuck in those words on a resolution not designated for that purpose.

"Recognizing and celebrating the 50th Anniversary of the entry of Hawaii into the Union as the 50th State."

Why are they passing nonbinding resolutions that do not officially mean anything? We stand on the Constitution and our system of government.

Avoiding the outstanding questions won't make it go away. For Obama or the Supreme Court.
 

D_Tintagel_Demondong

Sexy Member
Joined
Dec 9, 2005
Posts
3,928
Media
0
Likes
74
Points
193

Trinity

Just Browsing
Joined
Sep 16, 2006
Posts
2,680
Media
0
Likes
0
Points
181
Gender
Female
Yes, they affirmed that Wong was an American citizen and, in the process, defined what constitutes citizenship.
No argument there.



No, they didn't. Had you read their original documents, you'd find they specifically mention the father, not the mother:

I said Father.

No other statement regarding this came from the framers of the Constitution. The next Act of Congress in 1802 didn't mention sex of the parents at all and it wasn't again mentioned until 1855 when the framers were all dead.

Law of Nations, book published 1758,

Many maintain this the constitution's primary source that the Framer's utilized:
"The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. As the society can not exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights. The society is supposed to desire this, in consequence of what it owes to its own preservation; and it is presumed, as a matter of course, that each citizen, on entering into society, reserves to his children the right of becoming members of it. THE COUNTRY OF THE FATHERS IS THEREFORE THAT OF THE CHILDREN."

Additionally, Charles Pinckney in 1800 said the presidential eligibility clause was designed “to insure … attachment to the country.”

What better way to insure attachment to the country then to require the President to have inherited his American citizenship through his American father and not through a foreign father. Any child can be born anywhere in the country and removed by their father to be raised in his native country. The risks would be for the child the return in later life to reside in this country bringing with him foreign influences and intrigues.
Therefore, we can say with confidence that a natural-born citizen of the United States means those persons born whose father the United States already has an established jurisdiction over, i.e., born to father’s who are themselves citizens of the United States. A person who had been born under a double allegiance cannot be said to be a natural-born citizen of the United States because such status is not recognized (only in fiction of law).A child born to an American mother and alien father could be said to be a citizen of the United States by some affirmative act of law but never entitled to be a natural-born citizen because through laws of nature the child inherits the condition of their father.
P.A. Madison
 
Last edited:

Trinity

Just Browsing
Joined
Sep 16, 2006
Posts
2,680
Media
0
Likes
0
Points
181
Gender
Female
The point was that You didn't read it! Haha!! Holy shit! All this arguing and you still haven't sat down and read the whole thing.
I read it.

There is no way you can be this dense and still have read it unless you have some other undeclared motive to continue on with your argument. Justice Gray spends a great deal of time establishing the historicity of citizenship and then goes on to declare that anyone born on US soil or of American parents has right of citizenship

That's right citizenship.

and refers to the Act of 1790 (and other legal acts prior which all use the same term), which states, "natural born citizen," to establish the decision and by doing so, affirms American birth (by jus soli or jus sanguinis) as basis for citizenship.

It uses the Act of 1790 as a basis for citizenship. The Act of 1795 replaced the word Natural Born Citizen with merely Citizen. Because they did not wish to confuse the requirement set out in the Constitution in Article II. In both acts, congress was limiting by Parents (Two- as in Plural) limiting by focusing on the Father, and limiting having never been resident in the U.S.

Naturalization Act of 1790 - Excerpt
-And the children of citizens of the United States that may be born beyond Sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born citizens: Provided, that the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in the United States:

Naturalization Act of 1795
The United States Naturalization Act of January 29, 1795 repealed and replaced the Naturalization Act of 1790. The 1795 Act differed from the 1790 Act by increasing the period of required residence increased from two to five years in the United States, and introducing the Declaration of Intention requirement, or "first papers", which create...- Wikapedia

says only that foreign-born children of American parents [plural] "shall be considered as citizens of the United States(replacing natural born).

You may not like that, but it's what SCOTUS determined and they're the people empowered to do so.
The only citizen which is not a natural born citizen is one who is neither born to an American parent nor born on American soil.


During the original debate over the amendment Senator Jacob M. Howard of Michigan -- the author of the citizenship clause -- described the clause as excluding not only Indians but “persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers.” Howard also stated the word jurisdiction meant the United States possessed a “full and complete jurisdiction” over the person described in the amendment. Such meaning precluded citizenship to any person who was beholden, in even the slightest respect, to any sovereignty other than a U.S. state or the federal government.


Rep. John A. Bingham’s (OH) comments about Section 1992 of the Revised Statutes. Rep. Bingham is the author behind the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

“Every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents (PLURAL) not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen.” (Cong. Globe, 39th, 1st Sess., 1291 (1866))

P.A. Madison provides context to Bingham’s definition.

Bingham subscribed to the same view as most everyone in Congress at the time that in order to be born a citizen of the United States one must be born within the allegiance of the Nation. To be born within the allegiance of the United States the parents, or more precisely, the father, must not owe allegiance to some other foreign sovereignty (remember the U.S. abandoned England’s “natural allegiance” doctrine). This of course, explains why emphasis of not owing allegiance to anyone else was the affect of being subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. - PA Madison, worldandi.com and P.A. Madison

Further,
In Wong Kim Ark, the court thoroughly discussed “natural born citizen”. And in doing so, Justice Gray quoted directly from the holding in a prior Supreme Court case, Minor v. Happersett.

The following passage is a quote from Minor as quoted by Justice Gray in Wong Kim Ark:
” ‘At common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country, of parents who were its citizens, became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further, and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction, without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case, it is not necessary to solve these doubts. It is sufficient, for everything we have now to consider, that all children, born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction, are themselves citizens.’ Minor v. Happersett (1874) 21 Wall. 162, 166-168.”

From Wong Kim Ark:

The Constitution nowhere defines the meaning of these words, either by way of inclusion or of exclusion, except insofar as this is done by the affirmative declaration that "all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States." In this as in other respects, it must be interpreted in the light of the common law, the principles and history of which were familiarly known to the framers of the Constitution. Minor v. Happersett, 21 Wall. 162; Ex parte Wilson, 114 U.S. 417, 422; Boyd v. United States, 116 U.S. 616, 624, 625; Smith v. Alabama, 124 U.S. 465. The language of the Constitution, as has been well said, could not be understood without reference to the common law. Kent Com. 336; Bradley, J., in Moore v. United States, 91 U.S. 270, 274. [p655]


The Supreme Court affirmed that Wong Kim Ark was a citizen but not a natural born citizen. The Court chose not to address that.
 
Last edited:

Industrialsize

Mythical Member
Gold
Platinum Gold
Joined
Dec 23, 2006
Posts
22,253
Media
213
Likes
32,166
Points
618
Location
Kathmandu (Bagmati Province, Nepal)
Sexuality
100% Gay, 0% Straight
Gender
Male
Besides being terribly misogynisitic and ANTI-Immigrant(everything flows from the Father??? good grief), you shouldn't have wasted your time. The Book of Laws is translated from the original FRENCH and has absolutely no bearing on the USA. Your post makes it look like Charles Pickney wrote the last paragraph when he didn't. The last paragraph appears to be your OWN lunacy! Or something you found on a wacko
website.

I quote you:
A child born to an American mother and alien father could be said to be a citizen of the United States by some affirmative act of law but never entitled to be a natural-born citizen because through laws of nature the child inherits the condition of their father.

What fucking LAWS OF NATURE?

You are teetering on the brink of sheer lunacy.
 

jason_els

<img border="0" src="/images/badges/gold_member.gi
Joined
Dec 16, 2004
Posts
10,228
Media
0
Likes
163
Points
193
Location
Warwick, NY, USA
Sexuality
90% Gay, 10% Straight
Gender
Male
US v. Wong stands as the court's interpretation on the subject of what constitutes a natural born citizen and is, by the powers invested in the court, the sole source of what definition we must follow. Neither of Wong's parents were born in the United States so the question of whether he enjoyed the right of jus sanguinis was never a consideration for him.

Obama would have been entitled to Kenyan or perhaps even British citizenship if he had elected to follow the requirements to be considered such. As US v. Wong points out, the US has its laws and other countries may have theirs and the two may conflict. Obama never satisfied the requirements for Kenyan or British citizenship because both countries required him to declare his choice at majority and he didn't do that. We in the US may have said, before the sexes were treated equally before the law, that the father is the sole determiner of citizenship, but neither Kenya nor the UK legally recognized paternity as the sole determiner at the time of Obama's birth.

While fathers are mentioned exclusively at times, at present, women are considered to enjoy equal protection and rights under the law. So are black people. When all these laws and opinions were released, neither women nor blacks enjoyed equal rights or protections. Because they now do so, we should dismiss the exclusive use of, "father," as obsolete and broaden that to include, "parent," as a point of current common law which is how the court operates at present.

Obama's mother was undoubtedly American and never renounced her citizenship nor swore allegiance to any other nation. As I explained earlier, that means she was still considered a US citizen, carrying her American rights with her. She had right to access consular services, vote, carry an American passport, pay taxes, and re-enter and reside in the United States. Her child, unless he renounced his citizenship was born into these rights as well because neither Kenya nor the UK recognized his right to their citizenship. By default, he was an American citizen because he did not automatically have the right of citizenship by jus solis where he was born if he was born in Kenya. As stated in the example in US v. Wong, a child born in a country which does not recognize jus solis exclusively (as Kenya and the UK) (the example used was occupiers of territory during war), is not a citizen and his parentage defaults to that of his parents; in this case, his mother. That makes him a natural born citizen no matter if he was born in the US or Kenya.

But all that only matters if he was born in Kenya and not the US.
 
Last edited:

jason_els

<img border="0" src="/images/badges/gold_member.gi
Joined
Dec 16, 2004
Posts
10,228
Media
0
Likes
163
Points
193
Location
Warwick, NY, USA
Sexuality
90% Gay, 10% Straight
Gender
Male
Besides being terribly misogynisitic and ANTI-Immigrant(everything flows from the Father??? good grief), you shouldn't have wasted your time. The Book of Laws is translated from the original FRENCH and has absolutely no bearing on the USA. Your post makes it look like Charles Pickney wrote the last paragraph when he didn't. The last paragraph appears to be your OWN lunacy! Or something you found on a wacko
website.

I quote you:
A child born to an American mother and alien father could be said to be a citizen of the United States by some affirmative act of law but never entitled to be a natural-born citizen because through laws of nature the child inherits the condition of their father.

What fucking LAWS OF NATURE?

You are teetering on the brink of sheer lunacy.

Lunacy it may be, but it's legal. Only it's legal in reverse. The US recognizes citizenship automatically for children born out of wedlock to American mothers, but not to American fathers, even if paternity can be legally proven by DNA testing. This law, US Code Title 8, Chapter 12, Subchapter III, Part I, §1409, states in subsection 3:

(c) Notwithstanding the provision of subsection (a) of this section, a person born, after December 23, 1952, outside the United States and out of wedlock shall be held to have acquired at birth the nationality status of his mother, if the mother had the nationality of the United States at the time of such person’s birth, and if the mother had previously been physically present in the United States or one of its outlying possessions for a continuous period of one year.
The subsections prior to (c) state all the hoops a child and/or father must jump through for that child to qualify as a US citizen. This law was upheld by SCOTUS in Nguyen v. INS.

Interestingly enough, if Obama had been born out of wedlock, there might be less ambiguity for the birthers. But I doubt it.
 

SR_Blarney_Frank

Experimental Member
Joined
Mar 27, 2009
Posts
383
Media
0
Likes
5
Points
103
The slightly more practical of the lunatic fringe have given up asserting imaginary interpretations of the law and founding fathers to simply form their own "citizen juries." I'll choose to not link there out of respect for my browser, but one is titled "Barack Obama AKA Barry Soetoro is illegal POTUS" and a "Lone Star grand jury" (whatever that is) has indicted him.

These folks have never quite progressed past the mentality of 8 year olds who build tree forts and declare themselves king of the backyard. Trinity is just a dressed up version of same. Time to let it be.
 

jason_els

<img border="0" src="/images/badges/gold_member.gi
Joined
Dec 16, 2004
Posts
10,228
Media
0
Likes
163
Points
193
Location
Warwick, NY, USA
Sexuality
90% Gay, 10% Straight
Gender
Male

And as far as they're concerned, Generalissimo Francisco Franco is still dead! This resolves nothing for the birthers. It's just a restatement of what was previously declared and that didn't sway the birthers.

I think nothing short of an independent board of inquiry with subpoena powers led by Lou Dobbs, Sarah Palin, Alan Keyes, Orly Taitz, DW Griffith, Strom Thurmond, and George Wallace (D-AL) and Robert Byrd (D-MD) (has to be bipartisan!) will suffice. Those members who are dead, or nearly so, shall be exhumed, propped-up, and assumed to agree with the rest of the board of inquiry in all matters.
 

Notaguru2

Experimental Member
Joined
May 20, 2008
Posts
1,519
Media
0
Likes
10
Points
123
Location
Charleston, SC
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Male
Nice to see the house resolution passed 384-0; Obama was born in Hawaii. Non-binding of course, but its a clear message to the birthers they've lost the battle and war.

It's been a while since I've smiled thinking about Republicans. They earned it today for doing the right thing. It's also a signal to the 10 GOPers in the senate who are trying to cause future Presidents to pony up a birth certificate to stand down. I predict that bill goes away quietly.

Now, piss off Trinity :rolleyes: You lost, again.
 

Trinity

Just Browsing
Joined
Sep 16, 2006
Posts
2,680
Media
0
Likes
0
Points
181
Gender
Female
Nice to see the house resolution passed 384-0; Obama was born in Hawaii. Non-binding of course, but its a clear message to the birthers they've lost the battle and war.

It's been a while since I've smiled thinking about Republicans. They earned it today for doing the right thing. It's also a signal to the 10 GOPers in the senate who are trying to cause future Presidents to pony up a birth certificate to stand down. I predict that bill goes away quietly.

Now, piss off Trinity :rolleyes: You lost, again.

That resolution means nothing.

Obama must meet the requirement of the Constitution of being a Natural Born Citizen. And that issue will not go away.
 

Pitbull

Sexy Member
Joined
Oct 25, 2006
Posts
3,659
Media
0
Likes
51
Points
268
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Male
Hawaii officials confirm Obama's original birth certificate still exists | HonoluluAdvertiser.com | The Honolulu Advertiser

Yes they have it.
No they don't.
They destroyed it.
No they didn't.

I am still puzzled.
I look at the long form certificate
then I look at the Certificate released by the Obama campaign
not much of a difference.

Doesn't seem to be worth spending a million dollars for
Hiding the name of the hospital and the doctor and a couple of other minor details.

Unless there is no long form birth certificate.
That still is a possibility.
The statement by Dr. Fukino was very carefully worded.
 

jason_els

<img border="0" src="/images/badges/gold_member.gi
Joined
Dec 16, 2004
Posts
10,228
Media
0
Likes
163
Points
193
Location
Warwick, NY, USA
Sexuality
90% Gay, 10% Straight
Gender
Male
They also mention that birth announcements such as the ones published announcing Obama's birth were supplied to the paper by the Hawaii Department of Health. Private announcements of birth were published in a different section of the papers. As the columnist points out, a conspiracy would require the complicity of the hospital records keeper supplying false information to the DOH or the complicity of the DOH itself.

I'm really surprised that CNN reported the original records were destroyed when Hawaii denies that they were. That really bothers me.
 

Jason

Superior Member
Verified
Gold
Joined
Aug 26, 2004
Posts
15,639
Media
62
Likes
5,013
Points
433
Location
London (Greater London, England)
Verification
View
Sexuality
90% Gay, 10% Straight
Gender
Male
It seems to me that this issue is absolutely closed, unless by some chance some new information comes up.

It could happen. Right now I'm willing to bet there is someone sitting in a closed, unindexed archive in Kenya looking through ledgers on the off chance they might find a birth certificate of Obama. If they do that is quite something. But its a very long shot.

If some new information should come up the discussion would re-open, but if I've understood posts in this thread correctly I'm far from convinced it would actually change anything.

Maybe America does need to sort out prior to the next election crystal clear directions on what is meant by NBC, what evidence has to be given and who gives it. Or maybe better just get rid of the requirement. As a British subject born in Britain I am horrified to learn that I cannot stand for election as president of the USA and feel that some right or other has been infringed by this state of affairs. After all an American could become Prime Minister of the UK, or have a stab at becoming (almost) head of state (queen consort is up for grabs for whomever marries Prince William).
 

Notaguru2

Experimental Member
Joined
May 20, 2008
Posts
1,519
Media
0
Likes
10
Points
123
Location
Charleston, SC
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Male
That resolution means nothing.

Obama must meet the requirement of the Constitution of being a Natural Born Citizen. And that issue will not go away.


The issue has gone away because he has met the test. He did so back in 1961. Prediction: none of these suits see the light of day inside our Supreme Court. They're being shot down, one by one.

Everyday the GOP distances themselves even more from your kind. You are the dregs of society and America now realizes it.
 

Trinity

Just Browsing
Joined
Sep 16, 2006
Posts
2,680
Media
0
Likes
0
Points
181
Gender
Female
The issue has gone away because he has met the test. He did so back in 1961.
The issue remains until Obama proves he is a Natural Born Citizen and verification of eligibility and qualifications for President and Vice President are put in place going forward.

Prediction: none of these suits see the light of day inside our Supreme Court. They're being shot down, one by one.
It is a constitutional matter that will be taken up.

Everyday the GOP distances themselves even more from your kind. You are the dregs of society and America now realizes it.
This isn't a GOP issue. This is a Constitutional issue. America is starting to realize that the Natural Born Citizen Qualification for President has gone unverified which is a constitutional issue. This matter will not go away.