The Rise of the Birther Movement and It's Aims.

Originally posted by rnaa
That is incorrect. You misunderstand it completely.

No, you are not interpreting it correctly.

Look, we are reading the same material but coming to different conclusions.

Please read the ruling from United States v. Wong Kim Ark posted above.

Read it? I posted it in one of my previous posts. This ruling helps my case and not yours. Is this proof you are not reading anybody else's posts.

Again, we are coming to different conclusions given the same material so I seriously doubt our debating is going to change anyone's mind including each others.

I guess this issue will be debatable until the Supreme Court rules on this and specifically states the definition of a natural born citizen even though we each believe our interpretation is the correct one.

[edit on 7/25/2009 by WhatTheory]

Originally posted by WhatTheory

Originally posted by rnaa
Totally and 100% false. Every word of it.

Saying it in bold does not make it true.

Neither does laughing to hide your embarrassment it make it untrue.

Sorry, but you are totally wrong and are just ignoring the evidence.

there are no court rulings (in fact the opposite see below), and no act of Congress, that says the father must be a citizen, nor that either parent must be a citizen. NONE WHAT-SO_EVER. You are either lying out of malice or you are misinformed and refuse to be enlightened.

I gave you the links which proved otherwise so you are either ignorant and have reading comprehension problems or you are purposefully being disingenuous. Which is it?

I am not ignoring your evidence, I am dismissing it because it doesn't apply. You are admitting Obama was born on US soil on the one hand and trying to prove your point with rulings that apply to people not born on US soil on the other. This has been pointed out to you by several people in other posts. If you are citing other rulings that do apply that I have missed please humor me and repost the link.

United States v. Wong Kim Ark is exactly to the point and proves you wrong. Please read the ruling in this case (the essential extract is posted above so you don't have to look too far) before further embarrassing yourself.

Originally posted by rnaa
Neither does laughing to hide your embarrassment it make it untrue.

No, I'm not laughing with you, I am laughing at you.

I am not ignoring your evidence

Yes you are and your previous post proved it. You did not even know that I posted the same court case as you numerous times. This proves you are NOT reading posts and just being a troll.

So please stop embarrassing yourself because the hole you are digging is getting deeper and deeper.

Originally posted by WhatTheory

Originally posted by rnaa
That is incorrect. You misunderstand it completely.

No, you are not interpreting it correctly.

Look, we are reading the same material but coming to different conclusions.

Please read the ruling from United States v. Wong Kim Ark posted above.

Read it? I posted it in one of my previous posts. This ruling helps my case and not yours.

Is this proof you are not reading anybody else's posts.

Again, we are coming to different conclusions given the same material so I seriously doubt our debating is going to change anyone's mind including each others.

I guess this issue will be debatable until the Supreme Court rules on this and specifically states the definition of a natural born citizen even though we each believe our interpretation is the correct one.

[edit on 7/25/2009 by WhatTheory]

(sigh) This is not SCOTUS, but anyway.

Lynch v. Clarke, 3 N.Y.Leg.Obs. 236, 1 Sand. Ch. 583 (1844).

Summary of Case:
"The defendant, Julia Lynch, was born in the City of New York in 1819, of alien parents, during their temporary sojourn in that city. She re-turned with them the same year, to their native country, and always resided there afterwards. It was held that she was a citizen of the United States." [NYLO at 238.]
Excerpt:
"It is an indispensable proposition, that by the rule of common law of England, if applied to these facts, Julia Lynch was a natural born citizen of the United States. And this rule was established and inflexible in the common law, long anterior to the first settlement of the United States and, indeed, before the discovery of America by Columbus.

Does that help? A "Natural Born Citizen" is a person born on U.S. Soil (to non diplomatic protected parents). Period. End of Story.

The definition has held since "before the discovery of America by Columbus".

Goodnight.

Originally posted by rnaa
reply to post by theamazing60secondman

 

The Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America:

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Section 2. Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.

Section 3. No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

Section 4. The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.

Section 5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

[edit]

i'm sorry but I really don't get your point.

Originally posted by rnaa

First of all, please learn how to use the quotes because you are blending your replies and what you are replying to all in one bundle.

Does that help?

No, why would you use older ruling when more recent rulings take precedent.

A "Natural Born Citizen" is a person born on U.S. Soil (to non diplomatic protected parents). Period. End of Story.

No, that is your flawed interpretation. I am not going to repeat myself by linking the same proof to counter your argument.

The definition has held since "before the discovery of America by Columbus".

This is just NOT true. ** SIGH ** You are just intentionally being hard-headed right?

Plus, in your previous post you only put forth a partial definition and by doing so, you are being disingenuous. Read below for the FULL COMPLETE explanation.
If you want to go old school then I will relink this:
Defining natural born

Rep. Bingham commenting on Section 1992 said it means “every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents 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))

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. Bingham had explained that 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

Originally posted by WhatTheory
Plus, in your previous post you only put forth a partial definition and by doing so, you are being disingenuous. Read below for the FULL COMPLETE explanation.
If you want to go old school then I will relink this:
Defining natural born

Rep. Bingham commenting on Section 1992 said it means “every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents 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))

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. Bingham had explained that 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

And again this is the opinion of a politician, his own definition, not the law. If you go into the constitution itself it clearly states that the right to presidency is that of a birth right, no additions, no ifs or buts. Rnaa and myself have already referenced the constitution and the past court cases in conjunction to that. As proof in your argument that "both parents must be US citizens in addition" you again cite the definition from a politician, a personal account, not that of the law itself.

Now apart from the constitution I will refernce you another supreme court ruling:

In Minor v. Happersett (1874), the Supreme Court said that, if you were born in the United States and both of your parents were U.S. citizens at the time of your birth, you are, without doubt, a natural born citizen. In the same case, the Supreme Court also said that, if you were born in the United States and one of your parents was not a U.S. citizen when you were born, your natural born citizenship is in doubt. So far, the Supreme Court has not resolved this doubt because, until now, there has never been any need to do so.

With only two exceptions, every American President, who was born after 1787, was born in the United States, to parents who were both U.S. citizens. The two exceptions were Chester Arthur and Barack Obama. When Chester Arthur ran for office, the public did not know about his eligibility problem. Only recently did historians learn that, when Arthur was born, his father was not a U.S. citizen. The 2008 election was the first time in history that the United States knowingly elected a President who was born after 1787 and whose parents were not both U.S. citizens.

people.mags.net...

The link is actually pro-birther, but admits the argument denying Obamas natural born citizenship isnt clear cut.

Chester Aurther, previous america president also only had one parent as a natural born US citizen. So while the courts in the past have argued over the matter of natural born citizenship in the case of one parent as a citizen, no laws have been officially established denying that children born on soil to one natural born citizen is a natural born citizen him or herself.

It should be noted that Chester Auther did not reveal this status of his birth until after his death when historians found out, however one could only have speculated the reaction of the public, the decision there forth.

Under statutory law, that is Federal law at the time of his birth, Obama is a natural born citizen. However statutory law is not the same as constitutional law. Under the constitution it neither denies Obamas natural born citizen or confirmed as natural born citizenship is not clearly defined in the constitution. What is clearly defined is that the presidency can only be attained by somebody born on US soil. In addition the states had their own rights in defining natural born citizenship and under Hawaii law Obama qualified as a natural born citizen.

So let me just say this again. Obama's natural born citizenship status has not been denied as similar cases showed in the past, it has only been under question. Citing the opinions of law makers themselves and throwing around the "questions" of the matter doesnt prove he isnt a natural born citizen.

Now if you are going to argue against my references yet again, we dont want to hear the comments of law makers from the 19th and 18th centuries, what matters are the laws. Make sure you make direct constitutional references and law references.

SG



[edit on 25-7-2009 by Southern Guardian]

i am loving the continued debate that is now focused on Obama's legitimacy in regards to whether or not he is 'natural born'.

in this case once again the facts and evidence are on his side but the 'birthers' here at ats continue to press for framing Obama as illegitimate.

why?

because there is a insidious and systematic movement to discredit Obama at any cost. the desire to prove his ineligibility is based on the fear of the right-wings loss of power and downward spiral into irrelevance.

to the right Obama must be proven to be somehow suspect, irrelevant, and an outsider in order to prevent him from exercising the mandate granted to him in his win over McCain.

this is a movement of fear.

it has nothing to do with facts or relevance but with destroying an opponent.

the right-wing professionals know good and well the damage that is going to be done to their parties image as Obama performs presidential duties that bring the country forward.

the tactics demonstrated here are the same on the national stage. they are a perfect representation of the rights desperation.

[edit on 25-7-2009 by Animal]

reply to post by Southern Guardian


SG, i posted this from 12/08 on another thread but thought it is also apt in this one ...

Why the stories about Obama's birth certificate will never die

But that doesn't matter. The faux controversy isn't going to go away soon. Yes, Obama was born in Hawaii, and yes, he is eligible to be president. But according to several experts in conspiracy theories, and in the psychology of people who believe in conspiracy theories, there's little chance those people who think Obama is barred from the presidency will ever be convinced otherwise. "There's no amount of evidence or data that will change somebody's mind," says Michael Shermer, who is the publisher of Skeptic magazine and a columnist for Scientific American, and who holds an undergraduate and a master's degree in psychology. "The more data you present a person, the more they doubt it ... Once you're committed, especially behaviorally committed or financially committed, the more impossible it becomes to change your mind."

Any inconvenient facts are irrelevant. People who believe in a conspiracy theory "develop a selective perception, their mind refuses to accept contrary evidence," Chip Berlet, a senior analyst with Political Research Associates who studies such theories, says. "As soon as you criticize a conspiracy theory, you become part of the conspiracy."

Evan Harrington, a social psychologist who is an associate professor at the Chicago School of Professional Psychology, agrees. "One of the tendencies of the conspiracy notion, the whole appeal, is that a lot of the information the believer has is secret or special," Harrington says. "The real evidence is out there, [and] you can give them all this evidence, but they'll have convenient ways to discredit [it]."

Whatever can't be ignored can be twisted to fit into the narrative; every new disclosure of something that should, by rights, end the controversy only opens up new questions, identifies new plotters. Perhaps the most common argument of those questioning Obama's eligibility is that he should just release his full, original birth certificate, rather than the shorter certification, which is a copy. His failure to do so only proves there is reason to be suspicious, they say, and if the document was released, the issue would go away. But that's unlikely. It was, after all, the Obama campaign's release of the certification this summer that stoked the fever of conspiracy mongers.

For believers, it works like this: So what if Dr. Chiyome Fukino, the director of Hawaii's Department of Health, released a statement saying she has verified that the state has the original birth certificate on record? So what if she said separately that the certification looks identical to one she was issued for her own Hawaii birth certificate? Why didn't her statement specify Obama's birthplace? So what if a Hawaii Health Department spokeswoman later clarified that Fukino meant that Obama was born in Hawaii? So what if researchers for FactCheck.org actually saw the physical copy of the certification and debunked much of the key "evidence" supposedly proving that the image posted online is a forgery? They're not really independent. They're funded by the Annenberg Public Policy Center, and Obama once (with Bill Ayers, no less) ran an entirely unrelated program that happened to be paid for with money donated by Walter Annenberg. And on and on and on.


If the long-form birth certificate were released, with its unequivocal identification of Hawaii as Obama's place of birth, the cycle would almost certainly continue. Rush Limbaugh already suggested that Obama's trip to Hawaii to see his ailing grandmother, who died not long after, was somehow connected to the controversy. Others, like Michael Savage, followed Limbaugh's lead, saying Obama was going to Hawaii to alter the record.

Prophetic don't you think?

reply to post by schrodingers dog


indeed it is... I read that not too long ago.

I in no way expected this issue to go away, however the cr*p these individuals produce each day... its just waiting for me to pick at so ofcourse I cant resist......

I'll be putting in my weight in your thread soon.

Originally posted by Southern Guardian
So let me just say this again. Obama's natural born citizenship status has not been denied as similar cases showed in the past, it has only been under question. Citing the opinions of law makers themselves and throwing around the "questions" of the matter doesnt prove he isnt a natural born citizen.

This only shows that you also don't read entire article or follow links in posts.
What you replied to is only 1 small section. I have provided many links proving my case which also included court cases. You seem to pick and choose what you respond to in order to help you make your point.

we dont want to hear the comments of law makers from the 19th and 18th centuries

First of all, who is 'we'. I guess you meant YOU.
Secondly, who do you think makes and writes the laws.....yeah, law makers.

what matters are the laws. Make sure you make direct constitutional references and law references.

Umm.....I have, numerous times which again proves you don't read posts and follow links.

Originally posted by Southern Guardian
So let me just say this again. Obama's natural born citizenship status has not been denied as similar cases showed in the past, it has only been under question. Citing the opinions of law makers themselves and throwing around the "questions" of the matter doesnt prove he isnt a natural born citizen.

And we simply want that "under question" aspect clearly resolved.

Why is this so unsatisfactory to the "Illigitmizers"???

The liberal left has repeatedly used every resource available in courts and congress to clarify many other areas of law that were "under question" or "questionable".

Why do those who lean to the right get lambasted by the left when we attempt to do the same thing?

Originally posted by redhatty
And we simply want that "under question" aspect clearly resolved.

It was solved, when the state of Hawaii verified the short form birth certificate as authentic and sufficient enough. What we have left are afew sour grapes who hold numerous other conspiracies about the man and will have issue so long as he is president.

"Resolved" you say? It was already "resolved". The concerns of the Obama bashing fringe doesnt necessarily amount to any further investigation into the matter.... unless ofcourse the fringe actually come up with the evidence to back up their accusations.

SG

Originally posted by WhatTheory
What you replied to is only 1 small section.

You gave us a link to a blog full of blabble and personal definitions of the term "natural born". You failed to direct to anything in the constitution or federal laws to cite his disqualification as a natural born. I suggest you directly link us the law.

I have provided many links proving my case which also included court cases. You seem to pick and choose what you respond to in order to help you make your point.

And I addressed those courts cases you cited, I also in addition linked you to a website where the information from Obama file and laws cited against Obama are addressed and explained why they fail prove his ineligibility.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Read my reply again, address my replies to the court cases I replied to you with and address the court cases as defined by the website I linked you to. None of these court cases can be applied to Obamas case, I suggest you read my reply in that link if you intend to prove otherwise.

First of all, who is 'we'. I guess you meant YOU.

Me? If I was a judge do you think Im going give a damn about what politician from the 19th century defined as "natural born citizenship"? or am I only really concerned about the laws voted in regarding natural born citizenship. Thus far you have not proven Obama not to be a natural born, you have, yet again, referenced me to individual definitions by some politicians who do not dictate the laws of the land individually. What we are looking for is constitutional or statutory law disproving Obamas natural born citizenship.

So, you have still not proven vai the law that Obama is not a natural born citizen, you have merely brought it into question, which really is the only thing you fellas have done thus far. You sit here whining about why your side of the argument never gets heard, its because you base the entire argument of his eligibility of personal and speculative accounts. Thats not going to get you that long form.

SG

9 pages... wow.

The only point that I have issue with is this: Yes there is a short form, the State of Hawaii, or rather government officials of the State have seen his original BC, I am assuming the long form. Why doesn't Barack Obama give the ok for the State of Hawaii to release it? You can say "he's already met all the requirements" but that still doesn't give the "rest of the story" as Paul Harvey would say. What Hospital in Honolulu is recorded on his birth certificate, would go a great ways towards further proving his Hawaiian birth. There is one easy way to quell most of this debate, it's not saying "he's already done all he can/has to do", it's allowing the release of ALL his original birth records that the State of Hawaii has. You can keep saying 'he doesn't have to prove it" but full disclosure of his birth records would go a long ways towards ending this debate once and for all, do you agree with that?

Originally posted by pavil
Yes there is a short form, the State of Hawaii,

And it is sufficient proof for eligibility. I dont think anybody, including the judges, are going to really care "what you personally want to see". I think they'd be more interested in what evidence you have to give this conspiracy any legs at all.

Originally posted by Southern Guardian
You gave us a link to a blog full of blabble and personal definitions of the term "natural born". You failed to direct to anything in the constitution or federal laws to cite his disqualification as a natural born. I suggest you directly link us the law.

Are you dense? Geesh!
Again proving my point you DON'T read.
I gave numerous links throughout this thread and not just the one which you are talking about. How many times must I repeat myself. You guess you just choose to ignore them.

So, you have still not proven vai the law that Obama is not a natural born citizen

Yes, I have but you have a different OPINION.

you have merely brought it into question, which really is the only thing you fellas have done thus far.

Well, if it's questionable then I guess your side is NOT proven either right?

Nothing will be resolved here on ATS until the Supreme Court rules specifically on the definition of natural born. I guess Congress could also step in or the Constitution could be amended to make it more clear.

Originally posted by Southern Guardian
And it is sufficient proof for eligibility.

Umm...no it's not.

Originally posted by Southern Guardian
And it is sufficient proof for eligibility. I dont think anybody, including the judges, are going to really care "what you personally want to see". I think they'd be more interested in what evidence you have to give this conspiracy any legs at all.

Boy Southern, is that your stock answer??? Why can't Obama out of the kindness of his heart just ask them to release the records????

SG, answer me this, could Obama ask them to release the records? Can he make this request, regardless of the courts or me or anyone.

Originally posted by Southern Guardian
It was solved, when the state of Hawaii verified the short form birth certificate as authentic and sufficient enough. What we have left are afew sour grapes who hold numerous other conspiracies about the man and will have issue so long as he is president.

Well it is nice to know that it doesn't bother you in the least that the State of Hawaii allows for births to be recorded even more than a year after they occur, and that little "proof" of the event, it's location, etc. was required by Hawaii in 1961.

It does bother me, and I would very much like to know the truth, the whole truth & nothing but the truth about the circumstances of Obama's birth & the recording of the event.

"Resolved" you say? It was already "resolved". The concerns of the Obama bashing fringe doesnt necessarily amount to any further investigation into the matter.... unless ofcourse the fringe actually come up with the evidence to back up their accusations.

You OPINION. Mine is different. Isn't it wonderful that we are still allowed that freedom? I wonder when they will take that away too & make us all automatons.

They is NOT referring to Obama, but to the sociopathic fringe in high government (or shadow government) that want to make the whole world a socialized/fascist entity