Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

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

page: 14
75
<< 11  12  13   >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 23 2011 @ 05:06 AM
link   
reply to post by whatukno
 


You're calling my sources biased? Look at your "salon.com" source with the MSNBC video at the bottom! The most liberal news network hahaha, too funny. My source clearly states "We’re not in on the conspiracy theory, but it makes you wonder."
edit on 23-1-2011 by apodictic because: (no reason given)




posted on Jan, 23 2011 @ 05:11 AM
link   
reply to post by apodictic
 


The Federal Election Commission is not a biased source.

As for the other, the reason I put that up is because it contains the full audio of the conversation between McRae and Obama's grandmother and isn't cut specifically to make it look like something it isn't.



posted on Jan, 23 2011 @ 05:16 AM
link   
reply to post by whatukno
 


I'm not talking about the FEC as that was one of my sources as well. Look I'm not here to argue lol, I was stating a point that it has nothing to do with him being black at all whatsoever. This could all easily be avoided if he would release his actual documents, but his refusal to do so naturally raises questions. As with Gov. Abercrombie coming our and saying "Oh yeah we're gonna release his documents," then it turns to "Oh yeah we can't find them," and now it's "we can't legally release them." Wtf?



I'm sure the PRESIDENT can work something out to release his own information. Oh well, I'm off. Nice talking with you



posted on Jan, 23 2011 @ 05:21 AM
link   
reply to post by apodictic
 


Why should he? This is great fodder to make the other side look bad. Heck, I hope he never releases anything further, that way, any opponent going up against him who might use this, will be politically damaged.



posted on Jan, 23 2011 @ 10:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by apodictic
As with Gov. Abercrombie coming our and saying "Oh yeah we're gonna release his documents," then it turns to "Oh yeah we can't find them," and now it's "we can't legally release them." Wtf?

Governor Abercrombie never said they couldn’t find it.

You are claiming he did based on a misleading title and article by Jerome Corsi in WND.

When you read the interview with the Governor, on the Honolulu's Star-Advertiser, the one WND relies on, this is what the Governor actually said—

Q: You stirred up quite a controversy with your comments regarding birthers and your plans to release more information regarding President Barack Obama's birth certificate. How is that coming?
A: I got a letter from someone the other day who was genuinely concerned about it; it is not all just political agenda. They were talking on Olelo last night about this; it has a political implication for 2012 that we simply cannot have.
(Abercrombie said there is a recording of the birth in the State Archives and he wants to use that.)
It was actually written I am told, this is what our investigation is showing, it actually exists in the archives, written down

How does this translate to “Hawaii governor can't find Obama birth certificate”? Just another birther lie.

edit on 23-1-2011 by aptness because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 23 2011 @ 11:06 AM
link   
reply to post by aptness
 


Thanks for your excellent research throughout this thread. You were in tune with other "birthright" questions that arose during the course of this discussion and were always there to post the pertinent laws, declarations, and other information to answer those questions.

This helps put to rest the Birth Certificate question. The Governor's comment about "... a political implication for 2012 that we simply cannot have" seems to open another controversy though. That may be a topic for another thread, but do we know what he was referring to? Is that cat out of the bag yet?

Star!



posted on Jan, 23 2011 @ 11:32 AM
link   
reply to post by aptness
 

Yes that is true, it is not mentioned in the 14 amendment, however 8 USC does cover those people born in territories that are under the control of the United States of America, and more specifically those who are born outside of the United States of America. What you are suggesting, would fully discriminate against a portion of the population of the country who would be considered a natural born citizen. Are you for discriminating against people, all cause they were not born on what would be considered US soil or all 50 states proper? There is nothing there in the laws, as far as, anyone can tell that would indicate that such is written, yet thousands of children are born, while their parents are in foreign countries, be it people traveling, studying abroad, or even in the United States Military service. In the Kim Wong Ark case, as you pointed out, at that time, there was a strong anti Chinese sentiment through out the US.
Further to complicate matters the constitution does not define what is meant by natural born, leaving the question as to what is to be determined either by jus sanguinis (parentage, or jus soli (birthplace). Even in the Dred Scott V. Sanford, 60 US 1857, Justice Curtis stated the following:
The first section of the second article of the Constitution uses the language "a natural-born citizen." It thus assumes that citizenship may be acquired by birth. Undoubtedly, this language of the Constitution was used in reference to that principle of public law, well understood in the history of this country at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, which referred Citizenship to the place of birth. At the Declaration of Independence, and ever since, the received general doctrine has been, in conformity with the common law, that free persons born within either of the colonies, were the subjects of the King; that by the Declaration of independence, and the consequent acquisition of sovereignty by the several States, all such persons ceased to be subjects, and became citizens of the several States,
The Constitution having recognized that persons born within the several States are citizens of the United States, one of four things must be true:
First. That the constitution itself has described what native-born persons shall or shall not be citizens of such State, and thereby be citizens of the United States; or,
Second:. That it has empowered Congress to do so; or,
Third. That all free persons, born within the several States, are citizens of the United States; or,
Fourth. That it is left to each State to determine what free persons, born within its limits, shall be citizens of such State, and thereby be citizens of the United States.
If there is such a thing as Citizenship of the United States acquired by birth within the States, which the Constitution expressly recognizes, and no one denies, then those four alternatives embrace the entire subject, and it only remains to select that one which is true.
You mention the Rogers V. Bellei case, however, there is one thing, though Obama’s father is an African national, he was born in Hawaii, to a woman who was an American Citizen of the United States of America. And under 8 USC, as Hawaii was a territory, and it states: A person born in Hawaii on or after August 12, 1898, and before April 30, 1900, is declared to be a citizen of the United States as of April 30, 1900. A person born in Hawaii on or after April 30, 1900, is a citizen of the United States at birth. A person who was a citizen of the Republic of Hawaii on August 12, 1898, is declared to be a citizen of the United States as of April 30, 1900.

So, there you have it, a child, where the father is a national of a country in Africa, and the mother, a natural citizen of the United States of America, born in a territory, under the control of the United States, which the question of citizenship is covered under Title 8 of the USC, is therefore considered a natural citizen of the United States.



posted on Jan, 23 2011 @ 11:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by Erongaricuaro
The Governor's comment about "... a political implication for 2012 that we simply cannot have" seems to open another controversy though. That may be a topic for another thread, but do we know what he was referring to? Is that cat out of the bag yet?

Thanks for the kind words Erongaricuaro.

Regarding the question you pose, I can think of three ways of looking at the Governor’s comment. He could be talking about—
(1) the “electoral implication” -- having heard of the theories and stories, regardless their truthfulness, or not, some voters might be more reluctant to vote for Obama;
(2) the “congressional implication” -- if Obama is re-elected there could be some members in Congress who could raise objections during the certification of the election phase and;
(3) the, what I would call, “ballot birth certificate” implication -- some states apparently are contemplating introducing legislation to require candidates to present their long form birth certificates in order for their names to be put on the ballot.

In respect to (2) I have to say, if that were to happen, members of Congress are completely within their rights to raise objections. And I think if that were to happen Obama, or the Democrats, would be required to present evidence to convince the members raising objections.

I don’t think (3) will be a problem, at least from the legal standpoint, because the measure seems patently unconstitutional to me. The Constitution makes it clear the question of qualification for office is a federal matter exclusively. Individual states don’t have jurisdiction to rule on what the candidates are required to present, much less, if the evidence presented is sufficient at the discretion of their secretary of state, as per the proposed Arizona bill.

The Governor could be talking about any of these implications, or a combination of them, or perhaps even all those implications and some I haven’t thought of. But if I had to make a guess I would say he was probably talking about (1), the electoral implication.

edit on 23-1-2011 by aptness because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 23 2011 @ 12:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by sdcigarpig
What you are suggesting, would fully discriminate against a portion of the population of the country who would be considered a natural born citizen. Are you for discriminating against people, all cause they were not born on what would be considered US soil or all 50 states proper?
First, sdcigarpig, let me thank you for your wonderful post.

As we’ve agreed, the problem is on what exactly a natural-born citizen is, and that is the crux of the discussion. But when you say the interpretation I’ve expressed would discriminate a portion of the population “who would be considered natural-born citizens,” you are already injecting your interpretation of what a natural-born citizen is, and what I have, in essence, expressed, is that there is doubt on what a natural-born citizen specifically is, under existing jurisprudence, not what it should be according to my preference.

I have, in fact, in the past, said I am against the natural-born citizen clause, so under my personal preference, there would be no problem for those people to hold office.

But if you take the view that under such interpretation — that persons born abroad as US citizens wouldn’t qualify — would amount to discrimination, couldn’t one very well say that the natural-born citizen clause already is a discrimination?



The Constitution having recognized that persons born within the several States are citizens of the United States, one of four things must be true:
First. That the constitution itself has described what native-born persons shall or shall not be citizens of such State, and thereby be citizens of the United States; or,
Second:. That it has empowered Congress to do so; or,
Third. That all free persons, born within the several States, are citizens of the United States; or,
Fourth. That it is left to each State to determine what free persons, born within its limits, shall be citizens of such State, and thereby be citizens of the United States.
Addressing your first point, I think much of the confusion and doubt we have here is exactly because the Constitution doesn’t specify what a natural-born citizen is. I would interpret this omission as meaning the The Framers were relying on the common law principle (native-born citizen).

Regarding point two, notice that in Article I Section 8 clause 4 says that Congress shall have the power “to establish a uniform rule of naturalization.” I’m not sure if that’s the same has allowing Congress to decide what a natural-born citizen is. It’s at least clear to me that Congress couldn’t do it through legislation, they would have to pass an Amendment. And even then I’m not sure the Supreme Court wouldn’t have the legitimacy and authority to say that Congress’ interpretation of a legal principle was incorrect.

In respect to your third and fourth points, I think it is obvious that the states can’t determine what a citizen of the United States is. We could run into the trouble of some states unilaterally deciding that some persons wouldn’t qualify as citizens. To me, the question of United States citizenship is clearly a federal one. It’s the federal government that decides who is a citizen of the United States.



You mention the Rogers V. Bellei case, however, there is one thing, though Obama’s father is an African national, he was born in Hawaii, to a woman who was an American Citizen of the United States of America. (...) So, there you have it, a child, where the father is a national of a country in Africa, and the mother, a natural citizen of the United States of America, born in a territory, under the control of the United States, which the question of citizenship is covered under Title 8 of the USC, is therefore considered a natural citizen of the United States.
sdcigarpig, if Obama was born in Hawaii, 8 USC 1401 doesn’t even come to play, because Obama would be a Fourteenth Amendment citizen by virtue of his birth. If Obama, or anyone else for that matter, is born in the United States, then they are a citizen, with no conditions, and their parentage is thus irrelevant.



posted on Jan, 24 2011 @ 11:51 AM
link   
Big sigh........Its obvious many of you didn't even visit the website to at least try and understand its contents. Why have conversation when many of you are just reacting to the title of the thread with personal opinion rather than discussing the article's contents? A few of you understood it, many of you went of on different tangents! Sadly, I think this thread would be better off deleted to save ATS some precious "Thread" space.
edit on 24-1-2011 by UluaHuntah808 because: mis-spelling



posted on Jan, 24 2011 @ 02:11 PM
link   
reply to post by UluaHuntah808
 

UluaHuntah808 I told you right from the start the thread title seemed inadequate, and ultimately counter-productive, to the argument and idea you were presenting.

I believe you can still change the thread’s title, but I wouldn’t do that, nor I would advocate locking the thread. If you truly want to continue debating, either ignore some posters and continue presenting your argument here, or start a new thread with a title appropriate to what your argument actually is.



posted on Jan, 24 2011 @ 09:20 PM
link   
If this is true and you are correct I would like to recommend we immediately relieve all members of the opposing party who in our system of checks and balances neither checked nor balanced.

Apparently...from what you say here the Republicans are barely holding down the light end of the sea-saw.

They have in an ommission of facts and in an act of the greatest irresponsibility allowed a man to take the highest office of the land who is not even legally allowed to.

Clearly, if this is so...the entire GOP should be removed for sleeping at the wheel, the entire GOP should recuse itself for stupidity and dangerous, irresponsible incompetence.



posted on Jan, 25 2011 @ 11:46 PM
link   
Please tell me, what argument are you trying to pass in the first place?



Adverse Possession is all that needs to be said.
www.expertlaw.com...


that and they did confront the issue by voting on it in 1959.

case closed on the topic.

Hawaii is a state of the union. I read your hawaiin kingdom updates and and was baffled that you would get this involved with it.

NONE OF IT MEANS ANYTHING. HE HAS NO CASE AND CONGRESS PROBABLY WON'T EVEN LOOK AT IT.



posted on Jan, 25 2011 @ 11:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by rusethorcain
If this is true and you are correct I would like to recommend we immediately relieve all members of the opposing party who in our system of checks and balances neither checked nor balanced.

Apparently...from what you say here the Republicans are barely holding down the light end of the sea-saw.

They have in an ommission of facts and in an act of the greatest irresponsibility allowed a man to take the highest office of the land who is not even legally allowed to.

Clearly, if this is so...the entire GOP should be removed for sleeping at the wheel, the entire GOP should recuse itself for stupidity and dangerous, irresponsible incompetence.


what are you talking about. your saying the GOP is responsible for Obama taking office??? Please explain this logic ha


here's what checks and balances means.




It has nothing to do with parties checking and balancing, rather the different branches of the federal government.

edit on 25-1-2011 by prophet90 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 26 2011 @ 12:28 PM
link   
reply to post by prophet90
 



Funny. Here's what I mean;
If the opposing party let "inelligibility" get by them - they are incompetent.
Any more questions?



posted on Jan, 27 2011 @ 12:30 PM
link   
Even if it was a state of the union, he still couldn't be President; he wasn't born there. If he was, we would have seen his birth certificate by now. Governor Abercrombie even said that they couldn't find it.



posted on Jan, 28 2011 @ 02:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by truepatriot
"We would have seen his birth certificate by now..."


Really? You would have?

Let's see if you can manage a truthful answer....

How many birth certificates of past Presidents have you seen?

I don't expect you to remember if the seal was embossed or where they were issued..
Just tell me what color paper they each were printed on?

I'll be waiting right here.
edit on 28-1-2011 by rusethorcain because: the helluvit



posted on Feb, 20 2011 @ 04:25 AM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Mar, 25 2011 @ 02:09 AM
link   
Obama Not Born in the U.S.!!!

Reply to DaTruthDaLies

Iam a Obama Voter/supporter!!! But He was not born in the U.S., He was born in the Nation of Hawaii!!!

Is Hawaii Really a State of the Union?
" The Answer Is No!!!
Educate ones self and visit the link below if you would like to know the truth, compliments of "Hawaii Nation, Info educational service"

www.hartford-hwp.com...

Here is a snipit from the "Hawaii Nation, Info educational service"

The following information provides an historical perspective on how Hawaii came to be integrated into the United States as a state of the Union, and the fact that this status is not and has never been legally valid. Obviously America claims that Hawaii is part of their country, and most people, in Hawaii, on the 'mainland' and around the world, have tended to accept that as so.

The common understanding is that in 1959, a plebiscite was held in which the people of Hawaii voted to become a state of the Union, and on August 18, 1959, Hawaii was admitted to the Union.

"My view" Lets see The U.S. decides they want Hawaii! So what do they do? Make it a state!!! How did they go about it? They take a vote! Who can vote? Not native Hawaiians!!! Not asians! Not any foreigners! Not even the king or Queen of Hawaii if they were still alive!!! So then you may wonder and ask, who was left to vote? As stated above " The People of Hawaii "!!!! So one would think that meant "HAWAIIANS", Wrong! The only way a Native Hawaiian could vote would be to become an "American Citizen" and that went for all foreigners as well. So for that matter the only "persons of Hawaii" that could vote would be persons of Hawaii that were"American Citizens" What a farce!!! The true "People of Hawaii" really had no say, only "America" ( The American People were heard) and that is how the U.S. Government intended it to be. So please read on, follow the links below so that the truth can be told, it's about time for all too know!!!

Mahalo and thank you for your time.

Russell

Thanks to "Hawaii Nation, Info educational service"

To subscribe send a note to info@hawaii-nation.org

Link to the complete article: www.hartford-hwp.com...
Another great link to educate oneself. www.hawaii-nation.org...
edit on 25-3-2011 by datruthdalies because: forgot some info.



posted on Jul, 8 2011 @ 08:39 PM
link   
reply to post by datruthdalies

This is very interesting indeed. I can not even begin to imagine how it could be officially declared that Hawaii was no longer a part of our Republic because there was never a treaty agreed upon by the Hawaiian natives and the Queen. I never heard this argument before. I have never been to Hawaii yet but hope to someday. Now that I have been exposed to this information and I am subscribed to this thread I look forward to new information on the topic. Thank you!





new topics

top topics



 
75
<< 11  12  13   >>

log in

join