PDA

View Full Version : WSJ: "It’s Certifiable" (Sorry Birth Certificate Truthers)




RonPaulFanInGA
07-30-2009, 06:33 PM
It’s Certifiable
The last word on President Obama’s place of birth.
By JAMES TARANTO


Several readers have written over the past few days taking us to task for dismissing so-called birthers as lunatics without bothering to refute their claims. We reluctantly concede their point. The birthers have managed to sow confusion in the minds of some who are not lunatics, and for the latter group’s benefit it is worth clarifying matters.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204619004574320190095246658.html

jmdrake
07-30-2009, 06:47 PM
Interesting side note:

In a Commentary article last year, William F. Buckley recounted the way he, Sen. Barry Goldwater and a handful of other top conservatives worked to stigmatize the John Birch Society, whose founder, Robert Welch, maintained, among other things, that President Eisenhower was a “dedicated, conscious agent of the Communist conspiracy,” and that the U.S. government was “under operational control of the Communist Party.” The Birchers, like the birthers, made respectable conservatives look like kooks, and in preparation for a prospective Goldwater presidential campaign, Buckley and his associates “thought it best to do a little conspiratorial organizing of their own against it.”

They succeeded in “excommunicating” the Birchers. It’s probably impossible to do the same to the birthers, because today the right wing is too vast to mount much of a conspiracy. The birthers are likely to be with us for as long as Obama is president--and because of them, it is more likely that this will be for the next 7½ rather than just 3½ years.

I have no dog in the birther fight. But it's interesting that William F. Buckley admitted to being part of a conspiracy to smear the JBS. Operation Mockingbird anyone?

Reason
07-30-2009, 07:06 PM
The president would gain nothing politically for his trouble. By acknowledging the birthers’ demands, he would lend them a modicum of credibility. By ignoring them, he actually reaps political benefits from their efforts. His critics, even those who are not birthers, end up looking like cranks by association. His supporters use the birthers to paint Obama foes as racist--which is probably unfair even to the birthers, as we argued Tuesday, but that doesn’t mean it isn’t effective.

free.alive
07-30-2009, 07:09 PM
The birthers are likely to be with us for as long as Obama is president--and because of them, it is more likely that this will be for the next 7½ rather than just 3½ years.

I expect this to turn out to be true, at least if this "birther" thing is sustained. Please stop.

max
07-30-2009, 08:06 PM
I expect this to turn out to be true, at least if this "birther" thing is sustained. Please stop.

i'll stop...as soon as that lying scumbag shows us a birth certificate

Njon
07-30-2009, 08:10 PM
No, that is not the "last word" on the issue. The bottom line is that Obama was a citizen of Kenya (Britain) at birth thru his father under the British Nationality Act of 1948. The whole point of the natural born citizen clause was to prevent foreign influence from the office of president, and yet Obama held foreign citizenship until he was an adult.

In the Virginia ratifying convention of the Constitution, Madison said:

“It is to be presumed that, in transactions with foreign countries, those who regulate them will feel the whole force of national attachment to their country. The contrast being between their own nation and a foreign nation, is it not presumable they will, as far as possible, advance the interest of their own country?”
Quoted from: Madison. “Thursday, June 19, 1788″ (misprinted by Jonathan Elliot as “Wednesday, June 18, 1788″). Jonathan Elliot. “The Debates in the Convention of the Commonwealth of Virginia, on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution.” The Debates in the Several State Conventions on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution. Book compiled by Jon Roland of The Constitution Society, September 5, 1995 at http://www.constitution.org/elliot.htm Updated October 21, 2001. Specific section which was cited accessed July 29, 2009. http://www.constitution.org/rc/rat_va_16.htm

Madison’s point reflects the mindset that a government official involved in foreign affairs will obviously seek the interests of his own country more than that of another country, and that in fact, they will seek their own country’s interests to the fullest possible extent. This gives us good reason to believe that the founders intended to exclude dual citizens (like Obama, assuming he does have U.S. citizenship) from the ‘natural born’ category, seeing as a dual citizen may well have conflicting national interests, rendering such a person incapable of fully and properly representing the foreign interests of the United States. In Obama’s own case, he had foreign citizenship until he was an adult, by which time he would certainty have had the chance to intellectually-develop at least something of a national attachment.

Vattel said, "The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens." And he also said, “I say, that, in order to be of the country, it is necessary that a person be born of a father who is a citizen ; for, if be (sic) is born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country.”
Quoted from: Monsieur de Vattel. The Law of Nations. New edition by Joseph Chitty with notes and additions by Edward D. Ingraham. Philadelphia: T. & J. W. Johnson & Co., Law Booksellers, 1867. 101. Accessed June 26 and/or 27, 2009. http://books.google.com/books?id=0B0MAAAAYAAJ&pg=PP7


Also see:

1. The Venus, 12 U.S. 8 Cranch 289 (1814). Cited at the U.S. Supreme Court Center. Justia & Oyez & Forms WorkFlow. Accessed July 26, 2009. http://supreme.justia.com/us/12/253/case.html The court quoted Vattel as saying, "The natives or indigenes are those born in the country of parents who are citizens."

2. Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 21 Wall. 167-168 (1874). Cited at the U.S. Supreme Court Center. Justia & Oyez & Forms WorkFlow. Accessed July 26, 2009. http://supreme.justia.com/us/88/162/case.html The court stated, "The Constitution does not in words say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first."

Reason
07-30-2009, 08:12 PM
The president would gain nothing politically for his trouble. By acknowledging the birthers’ demands, he would lend them a modicum of credibility. By ignoring them, he actually reaps political benefits from their efforts. His critics, even those who are not birthers, end up looking like cranks by association. His supporters use the birthers to paint Obama foes as racist--which is probably unfair even to the birthers, as we argued Tuesday, but that doesn’t mean it isn’t effective.


i'll stop...as soon as that lying scumbag shows us a birth certificate

max I hope you have fun helping Obama and the democratic party get more power! :)

Number19
07-30-2009, 08:17 PM
I expect this to turn out to be true, at least if this "birther" thing is sustained. Please stop.How old are you? The next election will be decided by the economy.

qh4dotcom
07-30-2009, 08:22 PM
The birthers are likely to be with us for as long as Obama is president--and because of them, it is more likely that this will be for the next 7½ rather than just 3½ years.

I recall Obama himself said in February that if the economy does not improve, the American people will have a new president in 2013.

max
07-30-2009, 08:27 PM
max I hope you have fun helping Obama and the democratic party get more power! :)


first of all, when one stands for truth and principle, he should give a rat's ass what the media says, or what the sheep will think...

secondly, what makes u so sure that the average man-in-the-street is laughing at the birth certificate truthers?


and thirdly....where's the birth certificate?...by producing it Obama would make so many of his enemies look like total fools...

yet he refuses...

lynnf
07-30-2009, 08:33 PM
It’s Certifiable
The last word on President Obama’s place of birth.
By JAMES TARANTO



http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204619004574320190095246658.html


actually, it's them that are certifiable-- certifiable to the looney bin if they think this is the last word.

they are basically saying "it's real because we say so" -- phooey!

it won't be over until the real deal is appropriately examined and scrutinized by all sides.

lynn

RonPaulFanInGA
07-30-2009, 08:42 PM
Prediction: Obama will be president till at least January 20, 2013 no matter how much the birthers whine and complain.

Peace&Freedom
07-30-2009, 09:10 PM
The president would gain nothing politically for his trouble. By acknowledging the birthers’ demands, he would lend them a modicum of credibility. By ignoring them, he actually reaps political benefits from their efforts. His critics, even those who are not birthers, end up looking like cranks by association. His supporters use the birthers to paint Obama foes as racist--which is probably unfair even to the birthers, as we argued Tuesday, but that doesn’t mean it isn’t effective.

Except Barry and his Praetorian guard MSM already lost face for having covered the birther issue, which was a tacit admission that they utterly failed to crush the story by ignoring it. Losing face is not gaining ground politically. And it's pretty hard to pull the 'GOP racism' card when even black Democrats in my neighborhood have been asking "why won't the dude let us see the birth certificate?," and some of the leading court cases on the matter were brought by Alan Keyes, and a Democrat like Berg. The ridicule approach will fail as surely as ignoring the story failed.

In the battle between Authority and Liberty, some will stand with the "because we said so" side, while free people will side with transparency. We are certainly seeing in debates like this who really is 'when push comes to shove' constitutionalist, instead of just by rhetoric.

max
07-30-2009, 09:17 PM
Prediction: Obama will be president till at least January 20, 2013 no matter how much the birthers whine and complain.

Prediction: The Federal Reserve will still dominate America's economy in 2013, no matter how much the crazy Austrian economists whine and complain.....ergo....according to your illogic, we should also drop our opposition to the FED

angelatc
07-30-2009, 09:21 PM
i'll stop...as soon as that lying scumbag shows us a birth certificate

No you won't. You'll insist it's a forgery .

max
07-30-2009, 09:29 PM
No you won't. You'll insist it's a forgery .

and you'll believe whatever this communist bastard spoon feeds you?....just so the media wont laugh at you.

newsflash...the media thinks Ron Paul fans are all nuts anyway!!!!! So stop playing by their rules! What do u hopr to gain by allowing Barry Soetero to get away with this fraud???

Reason
07-30-2009, 10:15 PM
YouTube - SA@Takimag - Born in the USA? (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IcI3KNzpLcY)

sevin
07-30-2009, 10:21 PM
I recall Obama himself said in February that if the economy does not improve, the American people will have a new president in 2013.

hey yeah. If anyone can find that vid I would be much obliged.

WarDog
07-30-2009, 11:55 PM
It's not just the BC it's his collage papers and his pass port

free.alive
07-31-2009, 12:20 AM
How old are you? The next election will be decided by the economy.


How myopic are you? There is more than just the one presidential election to be concerned with. In fact, there are quite a few races to work on between then and now.

Again, with this issue as with 9/11, it is only a political liability.

And how old are you? You still think the Constitution matters to the people who make the rules, ref the game, show up in the stands and even watch it on TV.

Pete
07-31-2009, 01:20 AM
YouTube - SA@Takimag - Born in the USA? (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IcI3KNzpLcY)

SA makes some good points, and I'd like to add that the citizenship issue comes off too much like partisan squabbling for my taste. Any 'victory' such as removing Obama from office would just polarize people along party lines and perpetuate bipartisan tyranny. This is why I personally will never call my congressman, write a newspaper, or blog about it.

OTOH, I think it's wrong to brand people with legitimate questions as nutters. Better to be like RP is about 9/11 and acknowledge that the concerns have merit, but that matters of policy are more pressing.

Njon
07-31-2009, 10:22 AM
It’s Certifiable
The last word on President Obama’s place of birth.
By JAMES TARANTO


http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204619004574320190095246658.html

Leo Donofrio, Esq. posts a response to this article from The Wall Street Journal and makes an accusation of propaganda. See http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/2009/07/31/wall-street-journal-caught-spreading-false-legal-propaganda-via-james-taranto/

Stary Hickory
07-31-2009, 01:13 PM
YouTube - Kenyan Ambassador admits Obama born in Kenya (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zH4GX3Otf14)

Why did the Kenyan Amabassador say this? At first there was no BC...then there is one yada yada yada....same old stuf over and over. But over and over the same paper he has had, and the same questions. ALways the same story.


Someone tell me why the Kenyan Ambassador said this? This is why the Ant-Birther crowd has no credibility. They say the same things over but won't deal with stuff like this.

Stary Hickory
07-31-2009, 01:25 PM
actually, it's them that are certifiable-- certifiable to the looney bin if they think this is the last word.

they are basically saying "it's real because we say so" -- phooey!

it won't be over until the real deal is appropriately examined and scrutinized by all sides.

lynn

Well they are saying the same thing over and over. He refuses to deal with the issue at first, makes an executive order sealing all his records, and pays 800,000 $ to stop the release of his records.....none of this is mentioned in that article.

Obama acts like a man with much to hide. If I had paperwork issues I would do the same thing, until I could resolve them. That is always the problem, Obama's actions and his claims don't jive.

And lets be honest that article settles nothing, but avoids questions raised by everyone and restates that same mantra. No new information at all.

Bradley in DC
07-31-2009, 03:24 PM
links in the original

Brouhaha, Balderdash, Ballyhoo--Birtherianism!
We thought our column yesterday, in which we definitively debunked the notion that President Obama has failed to prove he was born in America, would put an end to birtherianism. As it turns out, some people simply will not listen to reason. It also turns out, however, that the birther industry has produced a whole host of other false theories about the president, many of which are not even consistent with one another. Since it appears that some people who are willing to listen to reason remain confused, we thought we’d debunk more of the birther myths:

• A child is not a natural-born citizen unless both parents are U.S. citizens. That this is false should be obvious. It is uncontested that Obama’s father was an alien. Thus if both parents had to be citizens in order for a child to be a natural-born citizen, the question of Obama’s eligibility never would have come up. He would have been ineligible right off the bat and would not have run for president. The birth certificate and place of birth would be irrelevant.

Nonetheless, the birthers have blown a lot of smoke around the meaning of the phrase “natural-born citizen,” and we are here to clear it up.

Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution stipulates that the president must be a “natural born citizen” (or, in an obsolete provision, a citizen in 1788), but it does not define the term. The original interpretation relied on British common law, under which, as Justice Horace Gray noted in U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark (1898), “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.”

The 14th Amendment, ratified in 1868, established this principle as a constitutional right: “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.” Aside from the children of foreign diplomats and (theoretically) military occupiers, the only U.S. natives not to be natural-born citizens were Indians born on reservations--and this exception was abolished by the Indian Citizenship Act of 1924.

Other statutes have extended natural-born citizenship to some children born overseas to U.S. citizens. There a theory that these statutes are unconstitutional--that the Constitution, in granting natural-born citizenship to those born on U.S. soil, thereby denies it to everyone else. Although this view is eccentric, it is an open legal question. According to the State Department’s Consular Affairs Manual (at page 9 of PDF), “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.” Since Obama was born in the U.S., he is in any case a natural-born citizen by constitutional right. By contrast, John McCain, born in Panama, is a statutory natural-born citizen.

Some birthers imagine that there is a difference between being a “citizen by birth” or a “native citizen” on the one hand and a “natural born” citizen on the other. “Eccentric” is too kind a word for this notion, which is either daft or dishonest. All three terms are identical in meaning. As Chief Justice Morrison Waite noted in Minor v. Happersett (1874):

Additions might always be made to the citizenship of the United States in two ways: first, by birth, and second, by naturalization.” This is apparent from the Constitution itself, for it provides that “no person except a natural-born citizen, or a citizen of the United States at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President,” and that Congress shall have power “to establish a uniform rule of naturalization.” Thus new citizens may be born or they may be created by naturalization.

No doubt some birther somewhere is fervidly developing “proof” that Obama hatched from an egg and thus is not a citizen. Where is the shell?

• Obama might be a citizen of Indonesia, not the U.S. After the president’s parents divorced, his mother married an Indonesian man and moved the family Jakarta, where Barack lived from ages 6 through 10 (1967-71), at which point he returned to the U.S. The hypothesis--based on thin evidence and fat speculation--is that Obama was adopted by his stepfather and therefore became an Indonesian citizen.

Even if that were true, however, it would not deprive him of his status as a natural-born citizen of America. As the State Department Web site notes:

Parents cannot renounce U.S. citizenship on behalf of their minor children. Before an oath of renunciation will be administered . . ., a person under the age of eighteen must convince a U.S. diplomatic or consular officer that he/she fully understands the nature and consequences of the oath of renunciation, is not subject to duress or undue influence, and is voluntarily seeking to renounce his/her U.S. citizenship.

It is outlandish to suggest that a boy under 10 could persuade a diplomat of all that. It is only a tiny bit less outlandish to think that Obama came back to the U.S., spent eight or more years here, and then decided to renounce his citizenship.

Besides, the oath of renunciation is administered in writing. What are we to conclude about someone who refuses to accept an official state birth certificate as proof of birth but expects us to accept utterly preposterous theories with no documentary evidence whatever?

• Obama might have been an illegitimate child. The claim here is that Obama’s father had been married to another woman before Obama’s mother, the previous marriage was not legally dissolved, and therefore the marriage was invalid. We haven’t investigated the facts, because they are irrelevant to the question of citizenship. Obama was born in the U.S., and that is sufficient to make him a natural-born citizen.

Ironically, if Obama had been born overseas, he would have been a natural-born citizen only if illegitimate. Here, from the State Department Web site, is the legal provision that would have applied:

Birth Abroad Out-of-Wedlock to a U.S. Citizen Mother: A child born abroad out-of-wedlock to a U.S. citizen mother may acquire U.S. citizenship under Section 301(g) INA, as made applicable by Section 309(c) INA if the mother was a U.S. citizen at the time of the child’s birth, and if the mother had previously been physically present in the United States or one of its outlying possessions for a continuous period of one year.

If his mother’s was in the U.S. from birth to age 1, that would have been enough to meet this residency requirement. It may seem counterintuitive that the standard is easier to meet for a child born out of wedlock, but it actually makes perfect sense. An illegitimate father has no inherent legal tie to his child, and thus the father’s country has no claim to the child’s allegiance.

• “Why has Obama spent X dollars defending himself against lawsuits when he could just produce the original birth certificate and make the whole thing go away?” X varies, just in our emails of the past 24 hours, from “thousands” to “almost a million”; one reader set the amount at “$950,000.” As far as we know, all these estimates have a common source: thin air.

In any case, while this question sounds eminently reasonable, in fact it betrays a complete lack of understanding of the legal process. The “defense” against these frivolous lawsuits has consisted of filing a motion for summary judgment, which in every case has been granted.

In a motion for summary judgment, a defendant in a lawsuit asks the judge to dismiss the case as meritless before trial. In considering whether to grant such a motion, the judge is obliged to treat all facts in dispute as if they were resolved in the plaintiff’s favor. He may dismiss the case only if he finds it is without merit as a matter of law. The defendant’s introduction of additional factual evidence into the record would make the process more costly and time-consuming, not less.

The production of a 1961 birth certificate would make these lawsuits “go away” only if one assumes that it would persuade the plaintiffs to withdraw their claims, or not to file them in the first place. This assumption is completely fanciful. As we noted yesterday, birthers “claim without basis that today’s birth certificate is a fake; there is nothing to stop them from claiming without basis that yesterday’s is as well.” Sure enough, an outfit styling itself the Western Center for Journalism has produced what purports to be a report from “an investigator” commissioned by “a retired CIA officer”--neither of them has a name--arguing that the original birth certificate might be fraudulent.

• The serial number of Obama’s birth certificate is fishy. We’re including this one just because it is so much fun. Earlier this week the Honolulu Advertiser reported that 82-year-old Eleanor Nordyke had provided the newspaper with copies of the old-style birth certificates for her twin daughters, born in the same hospital as Obama on Aug. 5, 1961, the day after the president’s birth. Jerome Corsi of WorldNetDaily looked at the certificates and offered this analysis of the serial numbers:

Susan Nordyke was born at 2:12 p.m. Hawaii time and was given No. 151-61-10637, which was filed with the Hawaii registrar Aug. 11, 1961.

Gretchen Nordyke followed at 2:17 p.m. and was given No. 151-61 -10638, which was also filed with the Hawaii registrar Aug. 11, 1961.

According to a version of Obama’s purported short-form certificate available from FactCheck.org, Obama was given a higher registration number than the Nordyke twins. The online image indicates the number is No. 151-1961-10641, even though he was born Aug. 4, 1961, the day before the twins, and his birth was registered with the Hawaii registrar three days earlier, Aug. 8, 1961.

The middle figure in Obama’s purported registration also is different than the Nordykes’. Obama’s is 1961, indicating the year, while the Nordykes’ is merely 61.

One explanation for the out-of-order serial numbers might be that several serialized stacks of birth certificates were made available at different hospitals.

Another possibility is that Obama’s number is not a genuine registration number created in 1961 but was issued when the short-form document was generated during the 2008 presidential campaign.

Corsi gives equal weight to these “possibilities” even though the first one is innocuous and makes complete sense, whereas the second presupposes that the officials who administer Hawaii’s vital records are parties to some sort of conspiracy. Someone must have taken Occam’s razor away from him for fear that he would cut himself.

As to why the old-style certificate says only “61” where the modern one says “1961,” Corsi might want to consult his own Web site for the explanation.

Several readers have called our attention to an article by Andy McCarthy of National Review in which he partially dissents from his own magazine’s editorial renouncing birtherianism. Even McCarthy, however, scoffs at the birthers:

The overwhelming evidence is that Obama was born an American citizen on Aug. 4, 1961, which almost certainly makes him constitutionally eligible to hold his office. . . . The mission of National Review has always included keeping the Right honest, which includes debunking crackpot conspiracy theories. The theory that Obama was born in Kenya, that he was smuggled into the U.S., and that his parents somehow hoodwinked Hawaiian authorities into falsely certifying his birth in Oahu, is crazy stuff.

Apart from the “almost” before “certainly,” we agree entirely. McCarthy goes on to raise a series of other questions about Obama’s background--questions that do not, however, raise serious doubts about the legitimacy of his presidency and that, however interesting they may be to observers or historians, are of scant political salience now that Obama has been elected.

In 2012, Obama will have a record on which voters can judge him; his pre-2008 personal history will surely be of no more interest than Bill Clinton’s Arkansas scandals were in 1996 or George W. Bush’s military service in 2004. This is the sort of thing that animates partisans--and only partisans.

Taegan Goddard of CQ Politics reports that a new Research 2000 poll for the Angry Left site DailyKos.com “found 77% of Americans believe President Obama was born in the United States, 11% do not, and 12% are not sure. Among Republicans only, 42% think he’s an American citizen, 28% do not, and 30% are not sure.”

That is, a majority of Republicans--58%--are willing at least to entertain a fringe conspiracy theory about the president of the United States. Independents (83% yes, 8% no, 9% not sure) are much closer to Democrats (93% yes, 4% no, 3% not sure) than to Republicans. This is not a sign of strength for the GOP.

Conservative Christian
07-31-2009, 04:04 PM
I have no dog in the birther fight. But it's interesting that William F. Buckley admitted to being part of a conspiracy to smear the JBS. Operation Mockingbird anyone?

It's pretty much common knowledge now that Buckley was a CIA operative, and that National Review magazine was set up in the 1950's with the help of CIA funds, and was staffed with several Trotskyite socialists like James Burnham.

Buckley and the National Review served as controlled opposition to the political left, actively seeking to neutralize genuine opposition to the left, as well as very subtly injecting leftist ideas into the conservative thought-stream.

.

Peace&Freedom
07-31-2009, 05:19 PM
• “Why has Obama spent X dollars defending himself against lawsuits when he could just produce the original birth certificate and make the whole thing go away?” X varies, just in our emails of the past 24 hours, from “thousands” to “almost a million”; one reader set the amount at “$950,000.” As far as we know, all these estimates have a common source: thin air.

In any case, while this question sounds eminently reasonable, in fact it betrays a complete lack of understanding of the legal process. The “defense” against these frivolous lawsuits has consisted of filing a motion for summary judgment, which in every case has been granted.

What actually happened is, judges in the filed cases generally stalled ruling on the motions to produce the documents last year so as not to interfere with the election, then conveniently dismissed the cases after the election, since Obama was presumably certified as President. The request for basic documents has never before been considered frivolous---how does it suddenly convert into triviality for Obama?

If a defendant charged with committing a crime based on a law signed by Obama motions that the law is therefore invalid, and subpoenas Obama's birth certificate to prove it, will a relevant motion in a criminal trial also be squashed? How much standard logic, fairness and basic court procedure has to be bent to satisfy the anti-birthers lust for Authority to win out over Transparency?

As for Obama's expenses, one reason for the estimated numbers varying is there seems to have been a comprehensive secrecy about every aspect of Obama's document history. The below list of missing or unavailable forms going back almost thirty years shows somebody (perhaps a large team) has been sparing no expense at keeping every key record about the man hidden:

1. Occidental College records -- Not released
2. Columbia College records -- Not released
3. Columbia Thesis paper -- "Not available"
4. Harvard College records -- Not released
5. Selective Service Registration -- Not released
6. Medical records -- Not released
7. Illinois State Senate schedule -- Not available
8. Illinois State Senate records -- Not available
9. Law practice client list -- Not released
10. Certified Copy of original Birth certificate -- Not released
11. Embossed, signed paper Certification of Live Birth -- Not released
12. Record of baptism -- Not available

Can a obscure politician have managed to have singlehandedly and thoroughly suppressed access to all this information, on a small budget? Or did Obama have lots of help, past and present?

Njon
07-31-2009, 07:21 PM
• A child is not a natural-born citizen unless both parents are U.S. citizens. That this is false should be obvious. It is uncontested that Obama’s father was an alien. Thus if both parents had to be citizens in order for a child to be a natural-born citizen, the question of Obama’s eligibility never would have come up. He would have been ineligible right off the bat and would not have run for president. The birth certificate and place of birth would be irrelevant.

How naive must someone be to make this kind of statement? This assumes that Obama is benevolent and would not have done something he knew was in violation of the Constitution; what a ridiculous notion that is. It also ignores the fact that a central aspect of this argument is that the proper intent and enforcement of the natural born citizen clause has been degraded over time. The author would have us to believe the fallacious concept that:

It is affirmed that Obama would not violate the Constitution (either knowingly or unknowingly), therefore, Obama could not possibly be holding office in violation of the natural born citizen clause.

But the premise that Obama would not, or could not, violate the Constitution either knowingly or unknowingly, is a false one; in fact, he plainly violates it every day. The premise also depends upon the American people as a whole being well-versed in Constitutional intent (thus making them effective guardians of the Constitution), which they obviously are not.


Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution stipulates that the president must be a “natural born citizen” (or, in an obsolete provision, a citizen in 1788), but it does not define the term. The original interpretation relied on British common law, under which, as Justice Horace Gray noted in U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark (1898), “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.”

The author fails to point out that Justice Gray also openly indicated that Wong Kim Ark --- born on U.S. territory to an alien --- was not a natural born citizen. See http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/2009/07/30/justice-horace-gray-clearly-indicated-wong-kim-ark-was-not-a-natural-born-citizen/


The 14th Amendment, ratified in 1868, established this principle as a constitutional right: “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.” Aside from the children of foreign diplomats and (theoretically) military occupiers, the only U.S. natives not to be natural-born citizens were Indians born on reservations--and this exception was abolished by the Indian Citizenship Act of 1924.

False. The 14th amendment defines citizens; it does not define natural born citizens. Minor v. Happersett, which was decided after the ratification of the 14th amendment, even held as much:

"The Constitution does not in words say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first."
Quoted from: Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 21 Wall. 167-168 (1874). Cited at the U.S. Supreme Court Center. Justia & Oyez & Forms WorkFlow. Accessed July 26, 2009. http://supreme.justia.com/us/88/162/case.html

Note how the court even explicitly tells us that we must resort to external sources (implicitly those from the founders' own day) to ascertain the meaning of the term.


Other statutes have extended natural-born citizenship to some children born overseas to U.S. citizens. There a theory that these statutes are unconstitutional--that the Constitution, in granting natural-born citizenship to those born on U.S. soil, thereby denies it to everyone else. Although this view is eccentric, it is an open legal question.

Statutes cannot define, clarify, or otherwise alter the original intent of the Constitution in any way; that would violate the supremacy clause of Article VI.


According to the State Department’s Consular Affairs Manual (at page 9 of PDF), “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.”

Speaking of the Department of State... http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/2009/06/24/why-do-both-obamas-state-department-and-the-senate-require-two-us-citizen-parents-for-those-born-abroad-to-attain-natural-born-citizen-status/

libertarian4321
08-01-2009, 05:03 AM
It’s Certifiable
The last word on President Obama’s place of birth.
By JAMES TARANTO



http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204619004574320190095246658.html

Good article.

Of course, the birthers will just adjust pull their tin foil hats on a little tighter and claim that the Wall Street Journal is just part of the conspiracy.

Just as the Republican Governor of Hawaii and anyone else who doesn't believe the conspiracy theory are part of the conspiracy.

Pepsi
08-01-2009, 05:04 AM
Yesterday, American journalism reached a new low when James Taranto of the Wall Street Journal published legal propaganda that appears to blatantly lie to readers. In discussing the issues surrounding Obama’s birth to an alien father, Taranto added text to a US statute which does not contain such text. Here is the offensive passage:

“Someone born overseas and after 1986, but otherwise in identical circumstances to Obama, would be a natural-born citizen thanks to a law signed by President Reagan.”

No such law exists.

The words “natural born citizen” do not appear in the statute discussed by Mr. Taranto. In fact, the words “natural born citizen” do not exist in any US statute. Those words only appear in the Constitution - Article 2 Section 1 – and only as a requirement to be President.

The US code Taranto makes reference to is TITLE 8 > CHAPTER 12 > SUBCHAPTER III > Part I > § 1401 (g):

§ 1401. Nationals and citizens of United States at birth
The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth:
(g) a person born outside the geographical limits of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is an alien, and the other a citizen of the United States who, prior to the birth of such person, was physically present in the United States or its outlying possessions for a period or periods totaling not less than five years, at least two of which were after attaining the age of fourteen years…

The statute does not use the words “natural born citizen”.

Mr. Taranto needs to get back to Hogwarts fast and try a new spell. His magic wand didn’t add new text to the US Code overnight.

Had Mr. Taranto made the focus of his article the issue of whether persons who obtain citizenship at birth by statute are also natural born citizens for purposes of meeting the Presidential requirements of Article 2 Section 1 Clause 5, such a discussion would have been proper. His legal analysis as stated in the article would be wrong, but stating such a question presented and taking a position thereto is a correct form of editorial.

But that’s not what Taranto has done.

Taranto and The Wall Street Journal have done something far more damaging and nefarious than simply mis-analyzing the law. He’s written – and they’ve published – a piece of propaganda here which makes it appear as if the text of the law contains words which are not there.

Let’s call that what it is – propaganda. They weren’t content to ask a legal question and honestly deal with both sides of the argument from a non-partisan and pure journalistic intent. No. This article is an attempt to trick readers into believing laws exist which do not exist.


The statute does not include the words “natural born citizen”. Regardless, those who read Taranto’s article are left with the impression that the statute includes those words.

And that is journalistic evildoing personified.


Statutes that grant citizenship – at birth or later in life via naturalization – provide rescue to those people whose citizenship is not self evident at birth. If you’re born in the US to parents who are citizens then you are a natural born citizen and you do not need a statute to create your citizenship which is natural and self evident.


Statutory citizenship does not give rise to natural born citizen status – which is not a right but a requirement to be President. All citizens have the same rights, but not all “citizens” can be President. Not even all “natural born citizens” can be President. The Constitution put the requirements for President in the Document to exclude persons from eligibility, not include them.

Taranto’s article is a gauntlet thrown down in your face. The fourth estate has signaled – through this blatant propaganda attack on the law – that it is willing to lie to your face – IN YOUR FACE – Amerika.

Perhaps all other measures to control this issue are failing. And perhaps my constant pessimism that this blog isn’t doing any good to wake people up is misguided. Blatant propaganda tells me somebody somewhere is getting desperate to make this all go away.

The Wall Street Journal via propaganda agent James Taranto has taken a drastic course of action from which the point of no return is clearly mapped.


We aint in Kansas anymore, people.

http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/2009/07/31/wall-street-journal-caught-spreading-false-legal-propaganda-via-james-taranto/

Pepsi
08-01-2009, 05:08 AM
TITLE 8 > CHAPTER 12 > SUBCHAPTER III > Part I > § 1401 (g):


http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode08/usc_sec_08_00001401----000-.html

libertarian4321
08-01-2009, 05:11 AM
• A child is not a natural-born citizen unless both parents are U.S. citizens. That this is false should be obvious.

Yup, especially since we've already had at least one President who's parents weren't citizens of the USA. Chester A. Arthur's father was Irish and didn't become an American citizen until more than a decade after the future President was born.


• “Why has Obama spent X dollars defending himself against lawsuits when he could just produce the original birth certificate and make the whole thing go away?” X varies, just in our emails of the past 24 hours, from “thousands” to “almost a million”; one reader set the amount at “$950,000.” As far as we know, all these estimates have a common source: thin air.

Some of the birthers are now claiming Obama has spent $1,800,000+ on this now. The number seems to change with each shift in the wind. Who knows, by next week, they may be claiming Obama has spent $10 Million, lol.

libertarian4321
08-01-2009, 05:25 AM
Yesterday, American journalism reached a new low when James Taranto of the Wall Street Journal published legal propaganda that appears to blatantly lie to readers.

As I said, to the conspiracy theorist, anyone who questions the conspiracy theory is part of the conspiracy.

It doesn't matter that Taranto works for a decidedly non-liberal publication and that he is a hard core right winger who has made a career out of excoriating liberals.

As soon as he writes something that doesn't fit the conspiracy theory, he's part of the conspiracy with all the other "liberals" (including all the rational libertarians and conservatives here on the Ron Paul forums, apparently).

Jags~Beach
08-01-2009, 05:41 AM
The issue is a huge distraction IMO, there are more dire constitutional matters that we need to focus on than the issue of this one. For one like how our rights are going to be trampled underfoot as a result of seeing the government circumvent our constitutional rights through healthcare.

Sean
08-01-2009, 07:22 AM
This issue comes down to why won't he show his long form certificate. It is there and a lot of people want to see it. I think really it is a fair request.

Number19
08-01-2009, 09:34 AM
I don't know how many already know of this, it certainly has not been widely circulated. I only found it yesterday. Here is an image of an Indonesian school record, from 1968, giving Obama's location of birth as Honolulu, Aug 4, 1961. This provides corroborating backup to the COLB.

http://i469.photobucket.com/albums/rr52/TomPaine/obamas-school-record1.jpg

ghengis86
08-01-2009, 09:47 AM
I don't know how many already know of this, it certainly has not been widely circulated. I only found it yesterday. Here is an image of an Indonesian school record, from 1968, giving Obama's location of birth as Honolulu, Aug 4, 1961. This provides corroborating backup to the COLB.

http://i469.photobucket.com/albums/rr52/TomPaine/obamas-school-record1.jpg

that's obviously a fake! and if it isn't, of course they would list honolulu as his birth place because they annouced it in the paper and they wanted to make sure he was a U.S. citizen; who would want to be a Kenyan (edit: as TB pointed out, it' actually British) citizen? Also, if it's real, it proved he renounced his citizenship to be an indonesian student.

However you look at it, birthers win!

lolz...I, for one, am agnostic on this and see more potential for a blowback on birthers if Barry ever showed his long form. however, I'm very interested due to the entertainment value. both sides keep each other going. it's like how dems/libs and repubs/conservatives put on a good show, pretending to hate each other, but in the end it just keeps the sheeple bewildered.

good stuff

torchbearer
08-01-2009, 09:53 AM
obama isn't kenyan, he is british by birth.

ghengis86
08-01-2009, 10:15 AM
obama isn't kenyan, he is british by birth.

my bad...i'll edit that. forgot that Sr was a Brit cit

torchbearer
08-01-2009, 10:19 AM
my bad...i'll edit that. forgot that Sr was a Brit cit

and what people don't understand, even if he was born in hawaii, he would still be a british subject. He would retain the citizenship of his father.

That is why Orly states both parents have to be american. At least, in this case.

Dr.3D
08-01-2009, 10:22 AM
Here is something I found that kind of points to Barry being born in Honolulu but being registered as an Indonesian while in school.
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?p=2240135#post2240135

erowe1
08-01-2009, 10:28 AM
and what people don't understand, even if he was born in hawaii, he would still be a british subject. He would retain the citizenship of his father.

That is why Orly states both parents have to be american. At least, in this case.

Then why the concern about the original birth certificate? Sounds like it's a moot point.

torchbearer
08-01-2009, 10:32 AM
Then why the concern about the original birth certificate? Sounds like it's a moot point.

It is the fact that he sealed it with his army of attorneys that everyone is focusing on it.
The logical question is how could it hurt him to show it?
Perhaps it may show his mother lied on it through affidavit to get on welfare.
No telling really...

RevolutionSD
08-01-2009, 10:55 AM
Not surprising that the neocons/msm won't let this issue die, it serves them well.

But shame on the libertarians on this board that want to support this issue!

This changes NOTHING if proven true. It's a complete waste of time and distraction. Why does anyone think that Biden or fucking MCCAIN would be better?

Let's not associate with this silly issue and move on. We still have a tyrannical government that we need to begin breaking the chains from.

Number19
08-01-2009, 11:01 AM
and what people don't understand, even if he was born in hawaii, he would still be a british subject. He would retain the citizenship of his father.

That is why Orly states both parents have to be american. At least, in this case.
U.S. Code
Title 8; Chapter 12; Subchapter III; Part I

§ 1401. Nationals and citizens of United States at birth

The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth:
(a) a person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof...

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode08/usc_sec_08_00001401----000-.html

I really don't understand why people keep saying that U.S. Law is not the final authority. This "Orly" doesn't mean blank. How, or who, is going to enforce Orly?

torchbearer
08-01-2009, 11:05 AM
U.S. Code
Title 8; Chapter 12; Subchapter III; Part I

§ 1401. Nationals and citizens of United States at birth

The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth:
(a) a person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof...

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode08/usc_sec_08_00001401----000-.html

I really don't understand why people keep saying that U.S. Law is not the final authority. This "Orly" doesn't mean blank. How, or who, is going to enforce Orly?

The Law that governed Obama's father and Obama himself at birth- regardless of where he was-
British Nationality Act, 1948


http://www.uniset.ca/naty/BNA1948.htm

Obama = British at birth.

Number19
08-01-2009, 11:06 AM
Here is something I found that kind of points to Barry being born in Honolulu but being registered as an Indonesian while in school.
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?p=2240135#post2240135Yes, I forgot to give you credit. This is where this piece of information came to my attention and I thank you for it. It is the final piece of information which tips me toward supporting the position of Hawaiian birth. Again thanks.

Number19
08-01-2009, 11:21 AM
The Law that governed Obama's father and Obama himself at birth- regardless of where he was-
British Nationality Act, 1948


http://www.uniset.ca/naty/BNA1948.htm

Obama = British at birth.I'm under the impression that the Laws of other nations do not apply to the U.S.

Obama may very well have held duel citizenship with the British, but once he exercised his American right to citizenship, he became eligible to become POTUS.

The Courts have upheld this.

Now, you may believe otherwise, but how are you going to enforce your belief on the American legal system?

That makes me a pragmatist, I guess.

nobody's_hero
08-01-2009, 11:33 AM
I admire the dedication by those who are seeking to determine Obama's birthplace, but can we now start focusing on the 1,403,504,395,204,373 x 10^43 blatantly obvious violations of the U.S. Constitution that are audaciously committed in plain sight for all the world to see?

dannno
08-01-2009, 11:41 AM
I admire the dedication by those who are seeking to determine Obama's birthplace, but can we now start focusing on the 1,403,504,395,204,373 x 10^43 blatantly obvious violations of the U.S. Constitution that are audaciously committed in plain sight for all the world to see?

Because if it is true, then Barry is being blackmailed with this information by anybody who has the documentation. Could be foreign governments or could be the reason why he's escalating defense spending and in many other areas doing the exact opposite of what he campaigned on. I'm sure he didn't want to screw over the voters, but now he has no choice.

torchbearer
08-01-2009, 11:46 AM
I'm under the impression that the Laws of other nations do not apply to the U.S.

Obama may very well have held duel citizenship with the British, but once he exercised his American right to citizenship, he became eligible to become POTUS.

The Courts have upheld this.

Now, you may believe otherwise, but how are you going to enforce your belief on the American legal system?

That makes me a pragmatist, I guess.

after being a british citizen. he then became an indonesian citizen...
supposedly, he later became an american citizen?

Njon
08-01-2009, 12:40 PM
Yup, especially since we've already had at least one President who's parents weren't citizens of the USA. Chester A. Arthur's father was Irish and didn't become an American citizen until more than a decade after the future President was born.

So because something was done wrongly in the past, that must make it legal now?

Njon
08-01-2009, 12:41 PM
I don't know how many already know of this, it certainly has not been widely circulated. I only found it yesterday. Here is an image of an Indonesian school record, from 1968, giving Obama's location of birth as Honolulu, Aug 4, 1961. This provides corroborating backup to the COLB.

Notice that the same document also lists Obama's citizenship as Indonesian.

nobody's_hero
08-01-2009, 12:43 PM
Because if it is true, then Barry is being blackmailed with this information by anybody who has the documentation. Could be foreign governments or could be the reason why he's escalating defense spending and in many other areas doing the exact opposite of what he campaigned on. I'm sure he didn't want to screw over the voters, but now he has no choice.

I'll have whatever you're smoking.

Njon
08-01-2009, 12:44 PM
U.S. Code
Title 8; Chapter 12; Subchapter III; Part I

§ 1401. Nationals and citizens of United States at birth

The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth:
(a) a person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof...

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode08/usc_sec_08_00001401----000-.html

I really don't understand why people keep saying that U.S. Law is not the final authority.

U.S. law is the final authority. And in the U.S., the supreme law is the (original intent of) the Constitution, not the U.S. Code.

Njon
08-01-2009, 12:47 PM
Obama may very well have held duel citizenship with the British, but once he exercised his American right to citizenship, he became eligible to become POTUS.

You cannot become a natural born citizen later in life. The whole point of natural born citizenship is that you possess it at birth.

dannno
08-01-2009, 01:05 PM
I'll have whatever you're smoking.

It's unfortunate that you haven't realized that this is how politics work, and why most politicians are such jackasses. Bribing is expensive.

Warrior_of_Freedom
08-01-2009, 01:07 PM
I wouldn't believe it if I see it. At this point one could be easily forged.

Peace&Freedom
08-01-2009, 02:43 PM
As I said, to the conspiracy theorist, anyone who questions the conspiracy theory is part of the conspiracy.

It doesn't matter that Taranto works for a decidedly non-liberal publication and that he is a hard core right winger who has made a career out of excoriating liberals.

As soon as he writes something that doesn't fit the conspiracy theory, he's part of the conspiracy with all the other "liberals" (including all the rational libertarians and conservatives here on the Ron Paul forums, apparently).

Sounds like you subscribe to an opposite cartoon: to the anti-conspiracy theorist, anyone who questions the Authority position is part of the conspiracy against the 'rational libertarians' on RPF.

The anti-birthers keep droning on with a double standard talking point which goes: if conspiracy people say something without presenting the key evidence, it shows they are goofy, BUT if you repeat your support for the 'he was born in Hawaii' view without presenting the key evidence, you are the voice of reason.

If you likewise speculate most birthers will call any full birth certificate presented at this point a fake, in the absence of evidence, you are supposedly 'rational,' but if birthers withhold from accepting Obama's US birth until evidence is presented, they are supposedly 'obsessed.'

Apparently if you speculate, in the total absence of evidence, that Obama secretly has a valid certificate with which he is lying in wait to destroy the liberty movement, that's considered rational. But if you conclude, in the presence of evidence that Obama has withheld virtually all his records from the public, thats's considered to be 'conspiracy talk.' What a wonderfully convenient world to live in, where only your fact-free speculations are rational, but your opponent's requests for actual evidence are treated as silly! Can I get a birth certificate to be naturally born in that land?

BlackTerrel
08-01-2009, 03:04 PM
I wouldn't believe it if I see it. At this point one could be easily forged.

This is exactly the point, and why he'll ignore the issue.

The "birthers" want to believe it so bad that no evidence in the world will change their mind. So why would he engaged these people?

BTW this stuff is great for Obama. It hasn't turned anyone from a supporter to a detractor, it's only big among people who didn't like him to begin with and it builds his support among those who originally supported him. Which is why his approval rating is still at 95% among blacks - even as it falters elsewhere.

Peace&Freedom
08-01-2009, 03:51 PM
You could flip that right around and say the 'non-birthers' want to dismiss this so bad, no amount of evidence in the world will change their mind. Yes, the constitution isn't big with supporters of Obama, only with us. But a Democrat who only has a base vote of support left (the 95% of Blacks and Hollywood actors) is nonetheless vulnerable. Ignoring the issue hence does erode his presidency---which is why his supportive media had to start covering it, thus conceding their attempts to ignore the story hadn't worked.

Number19
08-01-2009, 04:32 PM
after being a british citizen. he then became an indonesian citizen...
supposedly, he later became an american citizen?No..."Obama" never chose these citizenships. He was a minor child. But because of his Hawaiian birth, he held the right of American citizenship from birth. You cite British law - this was by American law. Upon reaching the age of majority, he could have renounced his American citizenship and sued for British citizenship derived from the law you cite. He did not.

I'm 61 years old and actually had an excellent public school education back in the late 50's and early 60's. I learned this way back then and to the best of my recall, this is the first time this education has actually been put to practical use. My current research merely affirms this long held belief.

This has never been a question for me. My doubt and indecision revolved entirely around the question of whether he was born in Hawaii or whether he was actually born outside the U.S. The surfacing of the 1968 Indonesian school document has settled, for me, this question.

Number19
08-01-2009, 04:36 PM
Notice that the same document also lists Obama's citizenship as Indonesian.Yes, but he was a minor child. He held a legal right to American citizenship derived from his birth in Hawaii. Upon reaching the age of majority, Obama retained his American citizenship and not any other he may have held through his parents.

free.alive
08-01-2009, 04:41 PM
The logical question is how could it hurt him to show it?

Who knows? One way it could hurt is that it would mute the conspiratorial firestorm that is going to be so beneficial to him politically, discrediting his opponents and all.

Number19
08-01-2009, 04:43 PM
U.S. law is the final authority. And in the U.S., the supreme law is the (original intent of) the Constitution, not the U.S. Code.In the United States the final arbiter of the Constitution is the Supreme Court, not public opinion. Now, philosophically, I'm in agreement with you, but I'm stating realpolitik.

Number19
08-01-2009, 04:53 PM
...his approval rating is still at 95% among blacks - even as it falters elsewhere.I doubt it. His support by blacks is pure racism, or maybe you might call it culturalism, but it is probably inherently natural and although I don't like it or hold a high opinion of it, is to be expected.

Njon
08-01-2009, 05:03 PM
In the United States the final arbiter of the Constitution is the Supreme Court, not public opinion. Now, philosophically, I'm in agreement with you, but I'm stating realpolitik.

The belief that the U.S. Supreme Court is the ultimate arbiter of constitutionality in all matters whatsoever is a complete denial of the Article VI supremacy clause, and can be found nowhere in the Constitution. See http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/constitution/794 and http://etext.virginia.edu/jefferson/quotations/jeff1030.htm

Granted, in practice, the Supreme Court is treated as such today, but it ought not be. But even from a practical judicial standpoint, Supreme Court precedent gives us reason to doubt Obama's natural born status.

The Venus, 12 U.S. 8 Cranch 289 (1814). Cited at the U.S. Supreme Court Center. Justia & Oyez & Forms WorkFlow. Accessed July 26, 2009. http://supreme.justia.com/us/12/253/case.html

Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 21 Wall. 167-168 (1874). Cited at the U.S. Supreme Court Center. Justia & Oyez & Forms WorkFlow. Accessed July 26, 2009. http://supreme.justia.com/us/88/162/case.html

United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 693 (1898). Cited at the U.S. Supreme Court Center. Justia & Oyez & Forms WorkFlow. Accessed July 30, 2009. http://supreme.justia.com/us/169/649/case.html

Matt Collins
08-03-2009, 02:54 PM
[/URL][url]http://barefootandprogressive.blogspot.com/2009/08/more-birther-fun-and-fineprint.html (http://barefootandprogressive.blogspot.com/2009/08/more-birther-fun-and-fineprint.html)



At Fancy Farm, I asked Republican Senate candidate Rand Paul if President Obama was born in the United States and he said he "didn't know". Yes, Rand Paul is a birther.

erowe1
08-03-2009, 03:00 PM
[/URL][url]http://barefootandprogressive.blogspot.com/2009/08/more-birther-fun-and-fineprint.html (http://barefootandprogressive.blogspot.com/2009/08/more-birther-fun-and-fineprint.html)

A birther isn't just anyone who claims not to know if Obama was born in the US. A birther is someone who demands that Obama provide more proof than he is legally required to provide in order to prove that he's a natural born citizen. A person may have doubts about the truthfulness of Hawaiian state records indicating Obama was born there. But if they are not a birther they may also defer to those records as legally good enough absent stronger evidence to the contrary. A birther, on the other hand, insists that those records are not good enough.

Edit: I see that's probably what you meant by way of including the word "ignorantly" in your subject line.

erowe1
08-03-2009, 03:03 PM
In the United States the final arbiter of the Constitution is the Supreme Court, not public opinion. Now, philosophically, I'm in agreement with you, but I'm stating realpolitik.

Whoa now! I'm not a birther. But what's this business about the Supreme Court being final arbiter of the Constitution? Who says they are? Themselves?

Pepsi
08-05-2009, 09:59 AM
The question presented then is whether the US is willing to allow persons who were born without sole allegiance to the US to be Commander in Chief of our military.

For it is this specific fear that prompted our first Supreme Court Chief Justice – John Jay – to suggest to George Washington the following:

Permit me to hint, whether it would be wise and seasonable to provide a strong check to the admission of Foreigners into the administration of our national Government; and to declare expressly that the Commander in Chief of the American army shall not be given to nor devolve on, any but a natural born Citizen.

This letter was written on July 25, 1787. It is in direct response to Alexander Hamilton’s suggested Presidential requirement appearing in the first draft of the Constitution wherein Hamilton – five weeks earlier – on June 18, 1787 submitted the following:

No person shall be eligible to the office of President of the United States unless he be now a Citizen of one of the States, or hereafter be born a Citizen of the United States.

There you have the crux of the issue now before the nation. Hamilton’s original drafted presidential requirement was rejected by the framers. Instead of allowing any person born a citizen to be President, the framers chose to adopt the more stringent requirement from John Jay, that the President be a natural born citizen.