Obama Birth Certificate Rears Its Head - Again

reply to post by danx

Never made a claim that it affected citizenship, but rather, whether it affects the "natural-born" clause.

They are, whether we like it or not, 2 different issues

May I recommend the following article, also from the Federalist Blog

What “Subject to the Jurisdiction Thereof” Really Means

Originally posted by redhatty
Never made a claim that it affected citizenship, but rather, whether it affects the "natural-born" clause.

They are, whether we like it or not, 2 different issues

Yes, I'm totally in agreement. But according the 14th Amendment there's only two ways of getting citizenship: at birth or by naturalization.

We've already reached the conclusion that naturalized persons cannot qualify as "natural born" citizens, as naturalization is done through legislation.

If Obama was born in the United States, he was a US citizen at birth. And since he apparently never relinquished his citizenship by his own application when he was at least 18 years of age, as required by US law, he never lost it.

The fact that the laws governing his father's nationality gave Obama dual citizenship, are irrelevant in my perspective.

Originally posted by redhatty
If you read the entire article, even if Obama WAS born in Hawaii, it is questionable as to his Natural-Born Status, due to his Father's Nationality and allegiance.

I don't know the article, but it's NOT TRUE! If 2 illegal aliens have a baby on US soil, it is a natural-born citizen. PERIOD. If a baby pops out IN THE US, it doesn't matter who the parents are, the child is a natural-born citizen.

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic

Originally posted by redhatty
If you read the entire article, even if Obama WAS born in Hawaii, it is questionable as to his Natural-Born Status, due to his Father's Nationality and allegiance.

I don't know the article, but it's NOT TRUE! If 2 illegal aliens have a baby on US soil, it is a natural-born citizen. PERIOD. If a baby pops out IN THE US, it doesn't matter who the parents are, the child is a natural-born citizen.

It was not always that way, though. And in reviewing the Federalists' writings, It seems that that is completely against what the founders and framers intentions were regarding citizenship.

Yes laws change, and in many respects, each state still has it's own laws regarding citizenship, as well as national laws regarding citizenship.

“Natural-born citizen” is a Common Law concept of the type known as “a term of art”. There are innumerable references to it and to its older cognate “natural-born subject”. In essence, a natural-born citizen is an individual born with only one, single, undivided allegiance or loyalty and who is, and has always been, subject to only one legal jurisdiction. There is not, and has never been, any real doubt that this is true and correct. The term itself is not vague, it is in fact, provably, quite precise and anybody who attempts to deny that is fudging the issue because they have an agenda.

Anybody born in territory over which the United States claims legal jurisdiction, at the time of birth, and both of whose parents are United States Citizens is inter alia, and by definition, a natural-born citizen of the USA.

Anybody born abroad of two US Citizen patents is a natural-born citizen, if they are born in a country which does not use ius soli law on birthright, if they are the child of a diplomat, or if the country in which they are born does not for whatever reason assert jurisdiction over them. A secondary condition is that the individual must not have been expatriated by any legal process.

The natural-born citizen cannot have acquired their citizenship by any form of legal action (other than simple registration of birth), it must be acquired by nature, ie the act of birth.

Anyone else inter alia, and by definition, though they be born a Citizen under the XIVth Amendment but of parents of differing allegiance, is not and cannot be a natural-born citizen.

Under USC Title 8, 1448, Section 337 a person who is to be naturalized as a citizen, must take the Oath of Allegiance to the United States of America and renounce allegiance and fidelity to any foreign state, etc. A person can not swear allegiance to the USA and owe allegiance to any political entity other than the USA. Yet under the Constitution and the Common Law a naturalized citizen may not hold the Offices of POTUS and VPOTUS by virtue of defect of allegiance, in that their allegiance is not held by simple birth, and due to “the appearance of Foreign Allegiance”. That this applies also in other Common Law jurisdictions may be determined by reading “The Annotated Constitution of the Australian Commonwealth”, John Quick, LLD & Robert Randolph Garran MA, Angus & Robertson (1901) and by reference to Sue vs Hill. One may also consider the Canadian position on Michaëlle Jean, John Turner, and Stephane Dion.

If a naturalized citizen is Ineligible for the Office of POTUS it follows axiomatically that an individual who has dual allegiance must also be Ineligible. The XIVth Amendment’s equal protection clause can lead to no other conclusion. Neither could any renunciation of that dual allegiance, or automatic lapse of it, be sufficient to change that position, nor could it be pled that no act of volition was involved in the acquisition of that dual allegiance be entertained for inter alia, and by definition, natural-born citizenship itself cannot be acquired by act of will, or by statute.

The so called ‘Grandfather clause” exempted the Founders and Framers themselves from the natural-born requirement. The XIVth Amendment established the basic citizenship rights of former slaves, former CSA citizens, and the many thousands of former Citizens of France, Spain, Mexico, Britain, Russia, Texas and California and their children who lived in territories which had been absorbed by the USA during the 19th century. Nobody living today is covered by these clauses.

Natural Born Citizens: Or How to Beat a Subject to Death with a Stick.

Edit to add:
Obama’s natural-born status is in question because of his dual citizenship (more precisely multiple citizenships: British, Kenyan, Indonesian, US), NOT because of his birth place.

Maybe the SCOTUS agrees; maybe not. We’ll soon see.

[edit on 12/3/08 by redhatty]

Originally posted by redhatty
It was not always that way, though. And in reviewing the Federalists' writings, It seems that that is completely against what the founders and framers intentions were regarding citizenship.

It is assumed any person born in the United States (regardless of the legality of the parents) is a "natural born" citizen, for the simple fact that in the United States, a birth certificate is evidence of citizenship.

Those children, at birth, are US citizens. Thus, in theory, "natural born" citizens.

But let's not forget that the Supreme Court has never had to make a decision regarding someone in that situation regarding their "natural born" status.

In the future, however, if and when a person born to illegal parents in the US wins the race for the Presidency, the Supreme Court will have to deal with the dilemma.

So what does this article say that hasn't already been said 100 times in 100 threads already on ATS?

From article source in OP:

In short, the document proffered by Obama does not contain all the information needed to conclusively verify that he is legally eligible to hold the Office of President.

It's what so many others here have already been saying. I suppose just cause they said it at AOL now it means something? :shk:

SlObamanites keep acting like there's nothing on this. No reason to question. Accept the CoLB provided. Accept the WMD's in Iraq. Accept, accept, accept.

The American people are done just accepting. Show us the money, or STFU and take the illegal with you.

Hawaii Revised Statute 338-17.8 allows registration of birth in Hawaii for a child that was born outside of Hawaii to parents who, for a year preceding the childs birth, claimed Hawaii as their place of residence. The parents would be issued a Certification of Live Birth. It only proves that the parents claimed Hawaii as their main place of residence for the prior year. This is not proof of where the child was born.

Note - Parents would be issued a Certification of Live Birth - which is only what Obama has released.

Perhaps that's all that is under lock and key in Hawaii.

Otherwise - what's the hold up on the Birth Certificate?

Originally posted by danx
But let's not forget that the Supreme Court has never had to make a decision regarding someone in that situation regarding their "natural born" status.

In the future, however, if and when a person born to illegal parents in the US wins the race for the Presidency, the Supreme Court will have to deal with the dilemma.

Yes the court has. It's been around a lot longer than we have

Again, via the Federalist Blog, Why U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark Can Never Be Considered Settled Birthright Law references many times the citizen/natural citizen issue has been before the court.

Granted, not with a presidential candidate, but it has been there before

Originally posted by redhatty
Yes the court has. It's been around a lot longer than we have

Again, via the Federalist Blog, Why U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark Can Never Be Considered Settled Birthright Law references many times the citizen/natural citizen issue has been before the court.

Granted, not with a presidential candidate, but it has been there before

You are entirely correct on the fact the Court has pronounced on this matter, and I feel stupid because I was just reading US V. Wong Kim Ark the other day.

However, Wong Kim Ark's case differs from my hypothetical situation in the fact that his parents had permanent residence in the US at time of his birth, if I'm not mistaken.

I was thinking about those people who cross the border to give birth in the US. I wasn't explicit on that, my bad.

Anyway, still, it's not a stretch to think US V. Wong Kim Ark would apply to those born in those circumstances as well.


But speaking of that case, you do realize though, that according to US V. Wong Kim Ark, Obama having been born in Hawaii, is considered a "natural born" citizen, regardless of his father nationality?

I'm making this rhetorical question because a few posts back you posted that federalist blog post that puts into question what "natural born" citizen means, and that the author concluded that one's parents' nationality (and allegiance) would influence whether or not a one is a "natural born" citizen. I assumed you agreed with it.

I understand the argument the author (and you - if share the same opinion) is making. I personally don't agree with it, but that's for another discussion heh

Thank you for the heads up!

NEW

www.borderfirereport.net...

From source:

"Obama too Important to Respond to US Supreme Court
Wednesday, 03 December 2008 10:37
Sher Zieve
President-elect Barack Obama’s refusal to produce an original and viable birth certificate indicating that he truly and indisputably is a natural born US citizen—as is required by the US Constitution—is continuing to take unusual tacks and turns. In fact, as it is appearing more and more that Barack Obama is not qualified for the US presidency, his and his minions’ machinations may just take the country off course entirely. Now, not only is Mr. Obama refusing to provide proof that he is even eligible to be the President of the United States but, he has decided to thumb his nose at members of our highest court in the land.

With regards to Donofrio v Wells—one of a growing number of lawsuits filed nationwide that question the eligibility of Barack Obama to be POTUS—the full US Supreme Court has agreed to conference on the suit 5 December 2008. Obama and the DNC (also named in the suit) were advised by the high court to respond to Donofrio v Wells by 1 December. To date, neither Mr. Obama nor the DNC have responded. With this lack of response, the president-elect has now flatly stated that he is above—if not beyond and outside of—the law and reports and is responsible only to himself. This is what—not who—was elected to the presidency of the United States.

The primary qualification for any US President is articulated in the US Constitution’s Article II and reads: “No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.” Obama’s paternal grandmother still maintains that her grandson—Barack Hussein Obama (AKA Barry Sotero)—was born in Kenya and that she attended his birth. Obama’s half-brother and half-sister have confirmed the grandmother’s statement. Kenyan officials have worked tirelessly in their attempts to cover up Mr. Obama’s true birthplace and even held Obama-critic Jerome Corsi, PhD in custody (jail) for visiting that country and working to elicit the truth. Still, Obama was allowed and apparently continues to be allowed to refuse to produce a number of documents, including the one which would qualify or disqualify him to hold the office of President of the United States—his true and official birth certificate.

Note: The copy of the Hawaiian document (now sealed away from US citizens by the Governor of Hawaii) that appeared for a time on Obama’s website was not a certified birth certificate. Instead, it was a “certificate of live birth” stating that Obama was born alive. Even that document’s authenticity has been debunked by multiple sources. Obama’s rise to fame—with no vetting from the media or the Democrat Party—is nothing less than phenomenal. It causes any thinking person—apparently not too many of those left—to wonder what forces are behind him. "

..see link above for full article....

[edit on 3-12-2008 by Tinkabit]

Originally posted by danx
But speaking of that case, you do realize though, that according to US V. Wong Kim Ark, Obama having been born in Hawaii, is considered a "natural born" citizen, regardless of his father nationality?

Well, I cannot see into the future to see what SCOTUS will use IF they rule on this in any way, shape or form. I can say that in the Wong Kim Ark case, the majority decision was based on common law, and even with that, the Court usurped the power held by Congress.

The court was prohibited under 22 Stat. § 14 to admit subjects of China to U.S. citizenship: “that hereafter no state court or court of the United States shall admit Chinese to citizenship, and all laws in conflict with this act are hereby repealed.”

The power to admit foreign citizens to U.S. citizenship resides exclusively with Congress and not with the Supreme Court.

Although, in the ruling, Chief Justice Fuller said, “the words ‘subject to the jurisdiction thereof,’ in the amendment, were used as synonymous with the words ‘and not subject to any foreign power.’” He was absolutely correct.

Recently, Justice Scalia stated, “The common law is gone. The federal courts never applied the common law and even in the state courts it’s codified now.”

It would be a very sad thing to see SCOTUS, today, use a bad ruling, that usurped the power of Congress when made, as precedent to rule in this case. Although I am in many ways, prepared to see just that happen.

Originally posted by redhatty
Although, in the ruling, Chief Justice Fuller said, “the words ‘subject to the jurisdiction thereof,’ in the amendment, were used as synonymous with the words ‘and not subject to any foreign power.’” He was absolutely correct.

Justice Fuller and Harlan were the only two that opposed it, so, unfortunately for those who share your view, it holds no legal validity.

I understand that argument, and honestly speaking it is, most likely, the most accurate description of what the Framers intended, I don't necessarily agree with it, because I don't believe the dangers the Framers envisioned, still pose today.

I mean, I have no doubt that John McCain or Barack Obama owe allegiance to the United States and the United States alone. Hell, I could even say the same for Arnold Schwarzenegger, or Madeline Albright.

But in the strict, and perhaps original, meaning of "natural born" citizen you are right.

It would be a very sad thing to see SCOTUS, today, use a bad ruling, that usurped the power of Congress when made, as precedent to rule in this case. Although I am in many ways, prepared to see just that happen.

Well, since US v. Wong Kim Ark was held, and it was considered that Ark was a US citizen at birth, that set the precedent.

Therefor I doubt they would reverse that precedent in a case against Obama, so yeah I would say be prepared, because that's what most likely will happen.

Anyway, this of course, assuming he was born in Hawaii. I personally see no reason to think otherwise, but I don't exclude that possibility, obviously.

I serously doubt that Obahma or anyone his age or younger could produce their original, footpints on the back, Birth Certificate. It is most likely sitting in a Bank vault somewhere over seas, having been used for collateral on the Debt plus interest on a loan.

Right?

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
I don't know the article, but it's NOT TRUE! If 2 illegal aliens have a baby on US soil, it is a natural-born citizen. PERIOD. If a baby pops out IN THE US, it doesn't matter who the parents are, the child is a natural-born citizen.

I think that documentation and proof of exactly what country's soil he 'popped out' onto, as you put it, is exactly the matter at hand here.

As for the hawaii officials, i've looked at the quotes closely, and all i see is that that are confirming that have a valid birth certificate on file, nowhere have I seen anything of them saying exactly what is on the birth certificate. I beleive that falls in accordance to their laws, but at the same time, doesn't give the info people really need. just becuase its valid doesn't mean the birth place listed necessarily says hawaii on it, or even kenya for that matter.

Originally posted by freecell
I serously doubt that Obahma or anyone his age or younger could produce their original, footpints on the back, Birth Certificate. It is most likely sitting in a Bank vault somewhere over seas, having been used for collateral on the Debt plus interest on a loan.

Right?

Your original birth certificate is not just the 1st one you were issued with (most don’t last more than 10 years). An original birth certificate is ANY that is issued from the department that holds the record, for example I was born in 1984, my original birth certificate has the issue date of 2006 on it, is it my original? YES! The one I had before that got ripped and worn out, was it an original also? YES!

The Original is any issued from the department, the change over time with new security updates and such. When you are asked to submit your original birth cert to get a passport you can apply for your original birth cert at the relevant department, they will issue it and that’s what you hand in. A copy of your birth cert is a copy such as a photo copy.

So Obama can get is original cert at any time, and as shown on another ATS thread he has, the latest one issued in 2007.

Birth certificates are normally issued by Vital Records Department of the State you are any. ANY birth cert issued by them is an original, if you lose it you can get a new one, it's still an original.

Learn how these things work.

Mikey


[edit on 4/12/2008 by Mikey84]

So, any chance someone in Hawaii could go and verify this so this can all go away? (I say, someone there because only the sane people will accept a PDF on wikileaks as proof.).

[edit on 4-12-2008 by lordtyp0]

Originally posted by lordtyp0
So, any chance someone in Hawaii could go and verify this so this can all go away? (I say, someone there because only the sane people will accept a PDF on wikileaks as proof.).

[edit on 4-12-2008 by lordtyp0]

I don't know what they want.

They have his Birth Cert, it's all over the internet - just do a Google images and they even have the news paper birth announcement (although one ATS poster claims that it was planted there in 1961 knowing what would happen in 2008 – crazy).

I’m curious what actually do they want to prove he was born in the USA, it has been proven!

Mikey

reply to post by Mikey84


Planted.. in 1961. I don't even know how to respond to that, cept that I think I implied a 'sanity' disclaimer

Ah well. there will be a fringe convinced every president is/was/will be the anti-christ. Im sure if you look and you will find people saying Lincoln was.

A heavy sigh and a facepalm is my usual reply.

Originally posted by Mikey84
Your original birth certificate is not just the 1st one you were issued with (most don’t last more than 10 years). An original birth certificate is ANY that is issued from the department that holds the record, for example I was born in 1984, my original birth certificate has the issue date of 2006 on it, is it my original? YES! The one I had before that got ripped and worn out, was it an original also? YES!

Well, the state of Hawaii seems to believe there is a difference between the two documents:

In order to process your application, DHHL utilizes information that is found only on the original Certificate of Live Birth, which is either black or green. This is a more complete record of your birth than the Certification of Live Birth (a computer-generated printout). Submitting the original Certificate of Live Birth will save you time and money since the computer-generated Certification requires additional verification by DHHL.

Learn how these things work.

Touche, my friend.


-Sour

[edit on 4-12-2008 by SourGrapes]

reply to post by Muundoggie

i don't know what I'm talking about? the certificate of birth is a short form that shows he was born in Honolulu, the only difference with this form is that it doesn't include details such as birth weight. it does show enough to prove obama is a legal citizen.the original copy that the article refers to is the original copy of the certificate of birth, the long form is what your referring to as vaulted. and if you can get a certificate of birth from Honolulu even though your from germany then you must have some pretty shady connections! why do you even care don't you have issues in your own country you should be worried about?