It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Hawaii refuses to verify president's online COLBs

page: 5
21
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 3 2009 @ 02:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by octotom

See, that's wrong. If Obama was born in another country, he wouldn't be a natural born citizen and would not be eligible to be POTUS. He would be a citizen like you and I, have all the same rights as you and I, but not be eligible because he wouldn't have been a natural born citizen.


Please direct me to your source for defining natural born citizen. I see you saying a bunch of "that's wrong" or "that's not true" BUT...back it up with evidence. PLEASE



[edit on 3-8-2009 by Aggie Man]




posted on Aug, 3 2009 @ 02:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by HolydarknessVA
reply to post by Stormdancer777
 


What would happen would be a long drawn out impeachment trial, We all know Obama would not do the honorable thing and resign like nixon did.

That would make Biden POTUS and if by some chance he couldnt take the seat, 3rd in line is (quivers at the thought) The speaker of the house....Nancy Palosi *puke* and 4th in line would be Mrs. Clinton

You dont have to worry about Mccain and Palin getting in until at least 2012 lol


I don't think this is an impeachment scenario. If for some reason, an election is declared null and void due to error or malfeasance, the entire party's ticket is ineligible (after all Biden was Obama's choice, not America's).

I think Pelosi would get the hat, until the SCOTUS determined a constitutional solution.

Not that I would with that on anyone, except maybe North Korea.

[edit on 3-8-2009 by Maxmars]



posted on Aug, 3 2009 @ 03:12 PM
link   
reply to post by Aggie Man
 


Try this . It does quite a good job of explaining the history of it's meaning in the Constitution!

What it means to be natural Born!

Zindo



posted on Aug, 3 2009 @ 03:16 PM
link   
reply to post by Aggie Man
 


Congress, in 1790, passed the "Naturalization Act of 1790". In that piece of legislation it is stated:


"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."


Five years later, in the "Naturalization Act of 1795", Congress removed the phrase "natural born" from the law leaving it to say:


only that foreign-born children of American parents "shall be considered as citizens of the United States."


So, if a child is born overseas to American parents, he is a citizen, but not a natural born one. Many will bring up title eight, but title eight speaks nothing about who is a natural born citizen, only under what circumstances one becomes a citizen via foreign birth. The State Department even says that, though someone meets the standard previously held for being a "natural born citizen", that doesn't mean that they will be so Constitutionally speaking:


In any event, the fact that someone is a natural born citizen pursuant to a statute does not necessarily imply that he or she is such a citizen for Constitutional purposes.


With all this though, it is important to note that Congress, in 1795, removed the phrase saying that an American child born overseas is natural born. He is only a citizen.

In 1898, in United States v. Wong Kim Ark, the issue of "natural born" was brought up. Since there is no definition given in the Constitution, the Supreme Court resorted to English Common Law, from which the natural born citizen idea is derived. The court ruled:


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. 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.


Basically, they were saying that, just as it was in England that when someone was born in England, they were natural born subjects, so it is in the United States, as it is a carry over from America's English heritage, that anyone born in the United States is a natural born citizen.

I hope that now you see why I say that only those born in the United States are natural born citizens. You can be a citizen and be born abroad, but you're not natural born.

The best way to clear all this up, about what natural born means, is to either:


  1. Have the Supreme Court directly define natural born.
  2. Amend the Constitution to either get rid of the clause or define it.



posted on Aug, 3 2009 @ 03:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by octotom
reply to post by Bugsmasher
 


No, he's not natural born. There are two qualifications to be natural born.


  1. Be born to two American citizens, that have no alligience to another country.
  2. Be born within the borders of the United States.


My son wasn't born in the US or on a military base, which doesn't make him "natural born". But, say he was born on a military base. In my situation, he still wouldn't be a natural born citizen because my wife is a dual American-German citizen. That means that she has an "allegiance" to another a government other than the United States.


7 American presidents with one american and one not american parent (8 if you include obama) so far in your country.
If you are right octotom, 25% of american presidents were inegligible.



posted on Aug, 3 2009 @ 03:21 PM
link   
reply to post by ZindoDoone
 


I think that that blog post is slightly flawed. It is possible for an American child to be born with allegiances to two countries. This is true in the case of duel citizens. The 14th Amendment doesn't, as the author seems to say, signal change in what a natural born citizen is as it only addresses who is a citizen/how to be. Perhaps I read it wrong though.



posted on Aug, 3 2009 @ 03:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by octotom

  • Have the Supreme Court directly define natural born.
  • Amend the Constitution to either get rid of the clause or define it.


  • Until either are done, then Obama qualifies for POTUS. Of course this is a null point, as it has been proven that he was born in Hawaii.



    posted on Aug, 3 2009 @ 03:24 PM
    link   
    reply to post by debunky
     



    7 American presidents with one american and one not american parent (8 if you include obama) so far in your country.
    If you are right octotom, 25% of american presidents were inegligible.

    What other presidents had only one American parent?



    posted on Aug, 3 2009 @ 03:25 PM
    link   
    reply to post by Aggie Man
     


    Where is it proven again? Do you mind showing me your sources?

    The only thing ive seen is a COLB which anyone could get at the time even if they werent born in the united states......and a quote from someone saying officially that he was born there.........since when is someone just "saying" something made it a fact?



    posted on Aug, 3 2009 @ 03:27 PM
    link   
    reply to post by Aggie Man
     



    s it has been proven that he was born in Hawaii.

    See, that's what's up for debate though. There are people that don't believe that he was born in Hawai'i because the COLB that he released can be obtained by people not born there. If I moved to Hawai'i today, I could get a COLB from them. Then, his grandma said that she was there, in Kenya, when he was born.

    There are just questions that haven't been answered. To be completely honest though, he's still the president until proven otherwise. It just would be nice to have the cloud of uncertainty removed so that the country doesn't get any divided any further.



    posted on Aug, 3 2009 @ 03:27 PM
    link   

    Originally posted by ManBehindTheMask
    reply to post by Aggie Man
     


    Where is it proven again? Do you mind showing me your sources?

    The only thing ive seen is a COLB which anyone could get at the time even if they werent born in the united states......and a quote from someone saying officially that he was born there.........since when is someone just "saying" something made it a fact?


    Ummm...let me see...Hawaii verified it....the Supreme court (majority republicans) declined to hear the argument...It's a done deal...what do you want? the video of his birth?



    posted on Aug, 3 2009 @ 03:29 PM
    link   
    reply to post by Aggie Man
     



    Hawaii verified it

    This gets back to the topic of this thread...the State of Hawai'i isn't verifying his COLB anymore.



    posted on Aug, 3 2009 @ 03:46 PM
    link   

    Originally posted by octotom
    reply to post by Aggie Man
     



    Hawaii verified it

    This gets back to the topic of this thread...the State of Hawai'i isn't verifying his COLB anymore.


    NO, they are not verifying his ONLINE COLB....they already confirmed it before, while holding it in their hands....they are not going to verify an online copy...anyone in their right mind...and following LAW will not verify something as AUTHENTIC via an image on the internet.



    posted on Aug, 3 2009 @ 04:11 PM
    link   

    Originally posted by ManBehindTheMask
    Where is it proven again? Do you mind showing me your sources?


    WOW! That is such an UNAMERICAN thing to say! Since when does the burden of proof lay with the accused?



    posted on Aug, 3 2009 @ 04:37 PM
    link   
    Why are we having this discussion? all you birthers did have the "final nail" in the Kenyan birth form. Ohhhh that one was a hoax and shows the length birthers will go.

    Also a funny thing is ive noticed how you all star eachother for so lame quotes that it screams to the heaven about, agreed crediting, and i would even go as far as say that half of those who started anti Obama birth certificate nonsense are disinfo working for either some 3 letter company or some fringed rightwing site like wnd.com or so.

    Best regards

    Loke.:.



    posted on Aug, 3 2009 @ 05:03 PM
    link   


    Loke: all you birthers did have the "final nail" in the Kenyan birth form. Ohhhh that one was a hoax


    "All you birthers...'
    Sigh


    "...Ohhhh that one was a hoax..."
    Says who?
    The 50+ page thread has been taken out of the HOAX classification again, because the 8 points were rebutted sufficiently.
    It's very simple, nobody knows for sure.
    Makes you wonder what agenda the people have that just go screaming their certainty around without anything to back it up but name calling and generalizations.



    posted on Aug, 3 2009 @ 05:11 PM
    link   

    Originally posted by octotom
    reply to post by ZindoDoone
     


    I think that that blog post is slightly flawed. It is possible for an American child to be born with allegiances to two countries. This is true in the case of duel citizens. The 14th Amendment doesn't, as the author seems to say, signal change in what a natural born citizen is as it only addresses who is a citizen/how to be. Perhaps I read it wrong though.



    It's true that you can be a citizen with dual citizenship ...but not President!
    Only one allegiance is what has always been considered the main point. You can't be President of the USA and have an Allegiance to another country.

    ZIndo



    posted on Aug, 3 2009 @ 05:19 PM
    link   

    Originally posted by TLomon
    Back to the original poster's subject, I believe that the registrar's office is correct in NOT authenticating the on-line copies. They authenticate their documents. Here is a scenario.

    * Person A puts up their birth certificate on their website.
    * Registrar authenticates birth certificate - the birth certificate on Person A's website is legit!
    * Person B hacks into web or domain server, and has a new image going up their serving their own agenda.
    * Registrar is now compromised.

    As such, the registrar should not, under any circumstance, authenticate a document not within his or her control. Period.


    This is the only post that actually belongs in this thread.

    TLomon is completely right, the only reason the registrar won't verify an image that is posted online is because the registrar can only verify the actual certificate, not a digital reproduction of it.

    It's all very cut and dry, and once again WND is taking a minor point and stretching it into something its' not.

    Hawaii officials have already verified Obama's certificate and confirmed that he was born in Hawaii TWICE. They cannot legally verify the online certificate because they cannot view it in person, as it only exists in a digital form.

    That's all, folks.



    posted on Aug, 3 2009 @ 05:27 PM
    link   
    reply to post by drwizardphd
     


    They verify that the document in their possession is real but not that what it represents is correct or truthful. Not one of those bureaucrats was in office or there when the document was originally written. All they can do is verify that the document is in their possession period!

    Zindo



    posted on Aug, 3 2009 @ 05:35 PM
    link   

    Originally posted by ZindoDoone
    reply to post by drwizardphd
     


    They verify that the document in their possession is real but not that what it represents is correct or truthful.





    State officials in Hawaii on Monday said they have once again checked and confirmed that President Barack Obama was born in Hawaii and is a natural-born American citizen, and therefore meets a key constitutional requirement for being president.


    From Fox News, no less.

    Yeah, they did verify the information. Twice.

    You can make up stories all you want, the facts are right there, in black and white.



    new topics

    top topics



     
    21
    << 2  3  4    6 >>

    log in

    join