Obama Cannot be President Because Hawaii Not a State of the Union

reply to post by apodictic


Unfortunately the birther debate has been going on since WELL before he was sworn in as POTUS, so, basically you are saying you were fine with him when he was sworn in as POTUS, but because you don't like him NOW, NOW you are questioning whether or not he's a citizen?

I call BULL [SNIP]

It's because he's black, and that's the bottom line. That's why people made up this birther stuff, notice no one cared much when McCain's birth was questioned? No one did. It was an issue for like 2 days, and it was settled. But Obama, oh that is a different story.

Name a not stolen state... on second thought you don't have to. They were all resided in by somebody at sometime before the colonists arrived.

Originally posted by sdcigarpig
That is true, his father is a foreign born citizen, however, according to the constitution of the United States, only one of the parents, who is a citizen of the United States of America, is required for a child to be considered a citizen of the United States of America. This was further defined in the Title 8 of the US code.

The conditions you are describing are not in the Constitution, only in the Title of the US Code you mention, namely 8 USC 1401. The Constitution only talks about persons born or naturalized in the United States (14th Amendment).

Barak Obama is a citizen of the United States, it would not matter where he was born, or who his father is. The fact that his mother, at the time of his birth, was a Citizen of the United States of America, he is considered a citizen of the United States, no matter where he was born.

You are entirely correct that it doesn’t matter who his father was, but don’t forget we are not just talking about citizenship. There is a constitutional requirement to be a natural-born citizen in order to hold office. So the place of birth is crucial to that constitutional requirement. Or not... This is where we run into some constitutional uncertainty.

As you’ve described, 8 USC 1401 grants citizenship, at birth, to persons born abroad, as long as some conditions are met, like, for example, one of the parents be a US citizen and was physically present in the US for a continuous period of one year prior to the birth of the child [8 USC 1401(d)]. So far so good. But analyzing Supreme Court jurisprudence, it is not entirely clear if citizens born abroad could be, for the purposes of the Constitution, natural-born citizens like someone born in the United States.

In the landmark case United States v. Wong Kim Ark (1898), the Supreme Court wrote—

The Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution (...) contemplates two sources of citizenship, and two only: birth and naturalization. Citizenship by naturalization can only be acquired by naturalization under the authority and in the forms of law. But citizenship by birth is established by the mere fact of birth under the circumstances defined in the Constitution. Every person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, becomes at once a citizen of the United States, and needs no naturalization. A person born out of the jurisdiction of the United States can only become a citizen by being naturalized, either by treaty, as in the case of the annexation of foreign territory, or by authority of Congress, exercised either by declaring certain classes of persons to be citizens, as in the enactments conferring citizenship upon foreign-born children of citizens, or by enabling foreigners individually to become citizens by proceedings in the judicial tribunals, as in the ordinary provisions of the naturalization acts.

Persons born outside the jurisdiction of the United States are, therefore, naturalized US citizens, even if their citizenship was acquired at birth. Their citizenship was acquired by “the authority and in the form of law,” by “authority of Congress,” through one of the subsections of federal statute 8 USC 1401.

In the same case, citing the opinion in Osborn v. Bank of the United States (1824), the Court noted—

"A naturalized citizen," said Chief Justice Marshall, "becomes a member of the society, possessing all the rights of a native citizen, and standing, in the view of the Constitution, on the footing of a native. The Constitution does not authorize Congress to enlarge or abridge those rights. The simple power of the National Legislature is to prescribe a uniform rule of naturalization, and the exercise of this power exhausts it so far as respects the individual. The Constitution then takes him up, and, among other rights, extends to him the capacity of suing in the courts of the United States, precisely under the same circumstances under which a native might sue."

By reading only that excerpt in Wong Kim Ark, and especially the first phrase, one could easily get the impression that a naturalized citizen could qualify as a natural-born citizen. Problem is that reading the opinion in Osborn, the phrase immediately after the excerpt quoted in Wong Kim Ark, which is not cited, Chief Justice Marshall added—

He [a naturalized citizen] is distinguishable in nothing from a native citizen except so far as the Constitution makes the distinction.

More recently, in Rogers v. Bellei (1971) the Supreme Court ruled that Bellei, who was born in Italy to an italian father and an american mother, acquired his citizenship by virtue of one of the subsections of the now 8 USC 1401, “does not come within the Fourteenth Amendment's definition of citizens as those born or naturalized in the United States.” The Court explained—

[H]e was born abroad. He was not born in the United States. He was not naturalized in the United States. And he has not been subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. All this being so, it seems indisputable that the first sentence of the Fourteenth Amendment has no application to plaintiff Bellei. He simply is not a "Fourteenth Amendment first sentence" citizen.

In Bellei, the Court also noted, referring to the Court’s opinion in Wong Kim Ark—

The Court concluded that "naturalization by descent" was not a common law concept, but was dependent, instead, upon statutory enactment.

One concludes from this that, children born abroad, are not citizens within the citizenship clause of the 14th Amendment. So it’s not entirely clear if those persons could qualify as natural-born citizens.

Contrary to your assertion, this has implications for Obama, if he wasn’t born in the United States — which I have no reason to believe he didn’t — and for McCain because he was born in Panama. In McCain’s case, it is even more uncertain because when McCain was born none of the existing statutes granting citizenship to persons born abroad were applicable to his circumstances. That’s why in August of 1937 Congress then enacted what is now 8 USC 1403.

reply to post by whatukno


lol you can play the oppressed black man card as much as you want, it won't change anything. if people were "fine" with him before he was sworn in, how could you call it racism? I just don't understand what the big deal is about showing his birth certificate, it's not that #in hard and it would shut everyone up.

Originally posted by whatukno
reply to post by apodictic

 

Unfortunately the birther debate has been going on since WELL before he was sworn in as POTUS, so, basically you are saying you were fine with him when he was sworn in as POTUS, but because you don't like him NOW, NOW you are questioning whether or not he's a citizen?

I call BULL [SNIP]

It's because he's black, and that's the bottom line. That's why people made up this birther stuff, notice no one cared much when McCain's birth was questioned? No one did. It was an issue for like 2 days, and it was settled. But Obama, oh that is a different story.

His grandmother has openly said he was born in Kenya. And his administration refused to come up with a birth certificate after SHE SAID THAT. It has nothing to do with him being black. It has to do with being eligible under US law to be a president. Finally he came up with a paper that shows proof that a birth certificate exists. But the actual birth certificate is yet to be seen.

Here's some more food for thought

www.youtube.com...

And another...

www.youtube.com...

Wait one more...you'll love this one

www.ihatethemedia.com...

Originally posted by apodictic
Wait one more...you'll love this one

www.ihatethemedia.com...

nah man didn't you hear the guy ITS CUZ HE'S BLACK

\
lol jk good stuff hopefully that will shut his mouth from playing the race card on the internet anytime soon because insinuating that whites don't like people just cuz their black is completely wrong. It's when we're accused of so that it is insulting. (at least for me) quit whining and that way we can progress equally.

You know...

I've posted a few times in retort of the arguments that have been brought up by the "Birthers" up to this point. I think my last one was a few days ago...so sick of the same re-hash.

By the way, I voted for Obama.

In addendum, I am very disappointed in Obama.

The OP's argument, on the other hand, is cool in my mind simply because it's something different. Thank you, thank you, thank you. Hawaii isn't an actual state?!? Orly?

Thumbs up, OP. This was a breath of fresh air.

His grandmother has openly said he was born in Kenya. And his administration refused to come up with a birth certificate after SHE SAID THAT. It has nothing to do with him being black. It has to do with being eligible under US law to be a president. Finally he came up with a paper that shows proof that a birth certificate exists. But the actual birth certificate is yet to be seen.

Could you kindly provide me a source for this one? I'm sorry to be posting again so quickly after my last, but a quick Google search didn't turn up anything reliable.

Thanks in advance.

More stupid comments saying he isn't president..HE IS THE PRESIDENT AND HAWAII IS A STATE GET OVER IT.

Originally posted by UluaHuntah808

To make a very long story short. Hawaii is not properly a State of the union.

Yawn...

The United States isn't valid, either. It's been said we stole the land from native inhabitants and are usurping it. Therefore no presidents have been valid.

Yawn again....

reply to post by Elepheagle




www.israelnationalnews.com...

this one isn't all reliable but i know i saw it on colbert report a while ago i just can't find anything right now im sorry.

reply to post by prophet90


lmao oh of course it's cause he's black! whatever though, he needs something else to fall back on since he can't produce a valid argument

reply to post by prophet90


www.youtube.com...

there you go bud

reply to post by apodictic


Ok, first off, let's talk about this supposed million dollar hide the birth certificate payout bull. I used your links to find this so, don't blame me for your information being faulty.

This is where WND and Bluegrasspundit got the data...

query.nictusa.com...

Do you see, "birth certificate question squashing legal team" in there anywhere? This is just a dispersement list that each candidate is required to submit.

The line item they reference is this:

Perkins Coie 688,316.42

en.wikipedia.org...

Yes it's a law firm, no $688,316.42 is not $1,000,000.00.

Let's see, a general election campaign, I wonder if that might be the real reason that a law firm was hired? Maybe it's not to hide his birth certificate after all, but just general council and legal advice. Lawyers are expensive.

And as far as Obama's grandma goes, that's a proven fake too...

No, Obama's grandmother didn't say he was born in Kenya

MCRAE: Could I ask her about his actual birthplace? I would like to see his birthplace when I come to Kenya in December. Was she present when he was born in Kenya?

OGOMBE: Yes. She says, yes, she was, she was present when Obama was born.

MCRAE: When I come in December. I would like to come by the place, the hospital, where he was born. Could you tell me where he was born? Was he born in Mombasa?

OGOMBE: No, Obama was not born in Mombasa. He was born in America.

MCRAE: Whereabouts was he born? I thought he was born in Kenya.

OGOMBE: No, he was born in America, not in Mombasa.

MCRAE: Do you know where he was born? I thought he was born in Kenya. I was going to go by and see where he was born.

OGOMBE: Hawaii. Hawaii. Sir, she says he was born in Hawaii. In the state of Hawaii, where his father was also learning, there. The state of Hawaii.

So fail again there.

Actually it is a US state, if you or your state care to argue otherwise we can always go to war and see how long you last.

Any land won by conquest is in fact owned by those who conquered it. I'm sorry if you, or your liberal professor cares to argue otherwise, it's a simple fact.

I see no point to this allowing this topic to remain unless the mods of this site are so desperate for views they'd allow this sorry excuse for a topic to continue.

well, i don't see anything wrong in the logic here, in spite of my opinion on obama. overturning this however is just like us giving texas back to mexico, and our borders of n. america back to native americans. a lot easier said than done, although not unthinkable or impossible.

i'm really shocked at the hostility in this thread though.

i'll admit that i had never in my life once considered if a presidential candidate's birth certificate, or double checking to make sure it's legit. this is a completely fair issue to raise, and it only became an issue because everything seemed to be so cloudy with obama's, and i'm happy for the edge of discernment the simple question left me. yes, there are simple minded racists out there who are undoubtedly birthers, but there are also constitutionalists and those who love the guy but still need solid proof to make it official wether or not he's valid. it's a simple, black and white rule, and sorry, but you gotta play by it.

if he's legit, good on him, if he's not, do the right thing. doesn't change the fact that i have no f# clue what he's doing for the country as prez though besides just being a talking head, saying a lot, yet somehow not saying anything at all. seriously just white noise comes out of the guy's mouth, it's mind numbing.

i wish i could reply to everyone's post in this thread.

reply to post by whatukno


If you would lead the link I provided, it states

"According to the Federal Election Commission, Obama paid the Perkins Coie law firm $683,316.42 in the first quarter of 2009 to keep those records from being released. That’s on top of the $378,375.52 he paid them in the last quarter of 2008."

Are you able to do math?

reply to post by apodictic


That does not specify what that law firm was doing for candidate Obama, and it does not list any previous payments. Instead of trusting the obviously biased and birtherific story from the BLOG you and WND got it from, I decided to go to the source.