Congress Goes Wild on Hawaii, Natural Born Citizenship
CNN reporter Lou Dobbs (and others in the press, including El Rushbo) really got the rhetorical juices flowing on eligibility by seriously discussing Mr. Obama’s birth certificate (or lack thereof). In fact, according to WhoRunsGov.com, some individuals are so mad at Mr. Dobbs that they’ve set up a site to try to take him out of the reporter’s chair:
By the way, Media Matters has unveiled a new site solely devoted to attacking Lou Dobbs and CNN for turning the network over to birthers, which is another sign that the birther tale is good business both sides.
And as you might have noticed from the referenced link, now Congress is officially trying to get around the eligibility issue as Rep. Neil Abercrombie (D-HI) attempted to introduce legislation that not only recognizes the 50th anniversary of Hawaii as the 50th State, but declaring that Mr. Obama was born there (via OpenCongress.org):
While the struggle to pass health-care reform legislation continues as the biggest story in Congress right now, that other “news” story just won’t seem to die:
Dem Rep. Neil Abercrombieof Hawaii is going to introduce a resolution on the House floor today that seems designed to put House GOPers who are flirting with birtherism in a jam.
The measure Abercrombie will introduce commemorates the 50th anniversary of Hawaii’s statehood. But here’s the rub, his spokesman tells me: It describes Hawaii as Barack Obama’s birthplace.
There’s been a lot of discussion on OpenCongress of late regarding natural born citizens, and whether President Barack Obama meets the criteria. But a few months ago, another piece of legislation also ruffled some feathers: the Birthright Citizenship Act of 2009 (H.R. 1868). Our summary of the legislation says, “This bill would eliminate birthright citizenship for children born to undocumented immigrants in the United States. Current U.S. law automatically recognizes any person born on American soil as a natural born citizen.”
This description was challenged by several readers, who argued there are very specific circumstances required for “natural born” classification. Mario Apuzzo wrote a lenghty post on the subject:
There is a critical difference between a “natural born Citizen” and a “citizen.” The Constitution itself does not tell us what a “natural born Citizen” is. Hence, we simply cannot just apply the term to a given situation. Rather, we have to construe from the Constitution itself and other extrinsic sources such as historical events, constitutional debates, congressional debates, case law, statutes, and any other relevant information what the Framers meant by the term. The Constitution uses both “natural born Citizen” and “Citizen of the United States.” It uses “Citizen of the United States” in Article II’s grandfather clause, giving such a citizen the right to be President, but only if born prior to the adoption of the Constitution. It even says that a President must be a “natural born Citizen” (implying from birth) and a Senator or Representative need only be a “Citizen of the United States” for 9 and 7 years, respectively (a fortiori showing that he/she could be a naturalized citizen). Basic rules of constitutional construction tell that the terms are not interchangeable. These rules also tell us that in construing the Constitution, special meaning must be given to the words “natural born.” We must give meaning to the Framer’s use of the words “natural born.”’
The Supreme Court ruled back in 1897 that citizens born on American soil, including those born to foreigners, are indeed citizens. The United States vs. Wong Kim Ark opinion contains a number of choice quotes regarding citizenship, pulling from English and French common law (and, it appears, contradicting the “international law” or “Law of Nations” mentioned by Apuzzo). Much of the language uses the terminology “natural born” or “native born.” For starters:
“It was contended by one of the learned counsel for the United States that the rule of the Roman law, by which the citizenship of the child followed that of the parent, was the true rule of international law, as now recognized in most civilized countries, and had superseded the rule of the common law, depending on birth within the realm, originally founded on feudal considerations.”
“But at the time of the adoption of the Constitution of the United States in 1789, and long before, it would seem to have been the rule in Europe generally, as it certainly was in France, that, as said by Pothier, ‘citizens, true and native-born citizens, are those who are born within the extent of the dominion of France,’ and ‘mere birth within the realm gives the rights of a native-born citizen, independently of the origin of the father or mother, and of their domicil.’”
And then there’s this citation in the opinion, from an English case on citizenship:
“By the common law of England, every person born within the dominions of the Crown, no matter whether of English or of foreign parents, and, in the latter case, whether the parents were settled or merely temporarily sojourning, in the country, was an English subject, save only the children of foreign ambassadors (who were excepted because their fathers carried their own nationality with them), or a child born to a foreigner during the hostile occupation of any part of the territories of England. No effect appears to have been given to descent as a source of nationality.”
The court also strived to clarify how citizenship applied to persons born abroad to an American parent:
“These opinions go to show that, since the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment, the executive branch of the Government, the one charged with the duty of protecting American citizens abroad against unjust treatment by other nations, has taken the same view of the act of Congress of 1855, declaring children born abroad of American citizens to be themselves citizens…
Finally, the court stated the Fourteenth Amendment was intended to clarify, once and for all, the citizenship question in the United States, and ruled thus:
The Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution … contemplates two sources of citizenship, and two only: birth and naturalization.
Of course, the issue still hasn’t been “settled,” more than 100 years after that decision was reached.
While the House attempted to pass the measure this afternoon, Rep. Michelle Bachmann (R-MN) blocked the bill’s passage via a point of order stating that there wasn’t a quorum present to carry a vote:
This afternoon, the House was moments away from approving a resolution to celebrate the 50th Anniversary of the entry of Hawaii into the Union that contains language declaring that President Obama was born in the state. But at the very last second, Rep. Michele Bachmann [R, MN-6] swooped in and rescued the birthers from legislative defeat. Here’s the video from Think Progress…
According to Sam Stein at the Huffington Post, the resolution, which is sponsored by Rep. Neil Abercrombie [D, HI-1] and co-sponsored by 8 Republicans, has been in the works since long before this current wave of birther conspiracy theories began picking up steam among conservatives. “Abercrombie is hoping to have it passed by the House before August recess because the real date of Hawaii statehood — August 21 — occurs while Congress is on break,” Stein reports.
Update: “earl” brings some news on the above:
The United States House of Representatives affirmed today that Barack Obama was born in Hawaii.
House Resolution 593 passed today 378-0.
House Resolution 593 says “Whereas the 44th President of the United States, Barack Obama, was born in Hawaii ”http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c111:1:./temp/~c111jnAxsa::
Michelle Bachman, who objected to the vote for lack of quorum voted “aye” later. And the 10 Representatives sponsoring your birther bill? 7 out of 10 voted for the resolution and 3 didn’t vote.
http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2009/roll647.xml
- Posey Aye
-Blackburn Aye
- Campbell Didn’t Vote
- Culberson Aye
- Carter Didn’t Vote
- Burton Aye
- Goodlatte Aye
- Marchant Didn’t Vote
- Neugebauer Aye
- Poe Aye
See also “Sue’s” comment.
HotAir.com — one site that hasn’t exactly been thrilled to cover the issue — opined the below regarding the above:
Dude, what if Ron Paul votes yes? Would that mean Birtherism’s too kooky even for the rEVOLution? Exit question: There’s going to be a full-fledged “Produce the Birth Certificate” third party once 2012 rolls around, isn’t there? And when they’re not allowed to participate in any of the televised debates, they’re going to whine forever.
More importantly, as ABCNews.com reports, Press Secretary Robert Gibbs had the following exchange with liberal talk radio host Bill Press:
Today at the White House briefing, press secretary Robert Gibbs was asked by liberal talk radio host Bill Press if there was anything he could say to make the “birthers” go away.
“No,” he said. “The God’s honest truth is no.”
Gibbs said he almost hesitated to even bring it up in the “august” setting of the White House press room, and then decried the “made-up fictional nonsense of whether or not the president was born in this country.”
“If I had some DNA it wouldn’t assuage those who don’t believe he was born here,” Gibbs said, talking about how he posted the president’s birth certificate on-line last year to make the story go away, to no avail. “The President was born in Honolulu, Hawaii, the 50th state of the greatest country on the face of the earth.”
Gibbs said there were 10,000 more important issues than to be debating a the president’s citizenship, “which has been proven ad nauseam.”
Why does it keep coming up? Gibbs was asked.
“Because for $15 you can get an internet address and say whatever you want,” Gibbs said.
And yet this is a story that persists – aided in no small way, White House officials say, by Republican members of Congress who have introduced legislation to require future presidential candidates to present copies of their birth certificates “to establish that the candidate meets the qualifications.”
Further, as I had reported earlier concerning the social networking site, Facebook, and as UPI has picked up, Dr. Taitz has been be-Friended by some high-profile notables:
The woman leading the movement challenging President Barack Obama’s U.S. birth says she’s made some high-profile Republican friends on her Facebook page.Among those who asked to be her friend? Republican National Committee Chairman Michael Steele, House Republican Whip Eric Cantor of Virginia, and Reps. Mary Bono Mack of California and Cynthia Lummis of Wyoming, Politico reported.
“I am in total disbelief and greatly honored,” Orly Taitz, a Russian-born dentist-lawyer in Orange County, Calif., wrote on her blog Monday after Cantor appeared as one of her Facebook friends. “To me it means that the leadership of the Republican party understands the importance of the issues and legal cases I brought forward.”
Here’s the actual list from her page, to date:
- Rep. Cynthia Lummis (R-WY)
- Rep. Eric Cantor (R-VA, Minority Whip)
- Michael Steele (GOP Chairman)
- Benjamin Netanyaho (Israeli PM)
See the following links regarding the eligibility saga:
- Obama’s Presidential Eligibility: What You Need to Know
- Obama’s Sealed Background Documentation
- What’s the Difference Between a Birth Certification Versus a Birth Certificate?
- Keyes v. Lingle: Forensic Examiner and IT Expert Disprove Certification of Live Birth
- Obama Citizenship Facts
- The State Department and Sen. Patrick Leahy’s (D-VT) Natural Born Citizen Resolution (April 10, 2008)
- Citizen Grand Jury Updates and Eligibility Lawsuit Listing
-Phil
Twitter: @trsol -=- Facebook (TRSoL) -=- Facebook (Rightside Phil)
Photo courtesy RussiaBlog.org
[...] Phil wrote an interesting post today onThe Right Side of Life » Congress Goes Wild on Hawaii, Natural <b>…</b>Here’s a quick excerpt [...]
I think the House should make a resolution declaring Georgia to be the 5th state in the the now defunct united states and declaring that it is officially the birthplace of jimmy carter.
Civis Naturaliter Natus,
I agree with you that it is mostly useless to argue with HD. He is nothing but a troublemaker. So blinded by his own lack of common sense, ignorance, and pride that he could not find the truth if were pinned to his lapel. It’s tough to find the truth when you already know it all.
Liberals have gained momentum by becoming the the whiny, squeaky wheel of society. Conservatives generally speaking are more reserved and don’t make too much fuss. So I believe it is time to meet them head on in their own game and let the chips fall where they may.
HD is nothing more that a spoiled, undisciplined child. He can’t accept the fact that there are people who don’t share his world view and his only available means for dealing with it are playground antics. He wouldn’t dare behave like this face to face with anyone. But I admit, he is awfully tough sitting behind that keyboard throwing out his barbs.
I can say this.
I will be looking for a new representative next time around!
Congress, its real simple then!
Have Obama release all of his supporting documentation and records to the American people now, since you now know the truth. No big deal! Right?
Thank God, Hawaii officials confirmed it after so long, and after thinking and saying they could not legally do that. I’m so glad they resolved that matter.
This will really put mud on those faces of the Bithers!!! Let’s show those pests how stupid they are! Go ahead show’em the facts….Stupid Bithers….Right?
AnotherReader,
You wrote to HD: “Until you can provide me the list of UserId’s on this site that you claim to have converted to your way of thinking, you are nothing more than a rather dimwitted liar.”
I have been reading this site since Jan. and I have seen no one converted by HD’s blather.
I don’t argue with HD anymore, not because he is right, but because he is lost. Prayer alone can now save his soul…
His personal issues seem to be to debunk anyone he can: whether he is here to do that, or because he has some personal issue with Obama as an atheist or someone of non normal life styles, is his own affair: but he is thoroughly intellectually dishonest…
If there is one good thing that does come from him: he will correct the egregious factual error anyone makes against Obama: to that extent his existence is useful (sarcasm)!
Pete:
Simple? Yes.
Effective? Doubtful.
The right thing to do? Absolutely not.
The precedent it would set would be a disaster to the institution of the Presidency and the functioning of our civil judicial system. I know Birthers do not care about that, but Obama is the President. He has to care.
Teo Bear:
Why is it that so many Birthers live in a universe composed almost entirely of false dichotomies? Those are not the only two options.
Here’s at least one more:
It is a resolution which means that the US House of representatives unanimously believes that Barack Obama was born in Hawaii.
Well, it’s not an ex post facto law, but let’s pretend that it is, just for a second. Why not explain to us the remarkable reasoning that leads you to imagine it gives you standing?
I’d be fascinated to read it.
Don’t you?
And what injury would that be? Hurt feelings?
AnotherReader:
I addressed the issue directly. You’re just frustrated and angry that Dr. Fukino has put sand in your Vaseline, so you are whining about her authority rather than dealing with the fact that her statement is absolutely authoritative.
Barack Obama was born in Hawaii.
1. She is the custodian of the records. She can pretty much do anything with them she wants that doesn’t violate the law. There is no law forbidding her from looking at anything she wants to.
2. She did not look at Obama’s birth certificate on a whim or because it was “of interest to her personally.” She did it specifically so that she could make the statements she has made.
Are you ready for more mockery and ridicule? It’s coming up next.
Oh, boo-hoo-hoo. You almost hurt my feelings.
But the accusation would be so much more powerful if you actually could demonstrate a lie. You know, a lie like… like… oh, here’s a good one…
“Obama was born in Kenya.”
HistorianDude,
Great answer. You have just exposed yourself to be a fraud. You completely sidestepped the issue.
Obviously, her job is to the be caretaker of records. But neither you or anyone else can show that the job description includes the option to open and examine records without authority to do so. Basically just because a particular record is of interest to her personally.
Phil admonishes to keep it civil, but I see no reason to do so since by your own admission you are going to “mock and ridicule” these posts. I suppose that you think that by doing so makes you superior somehow. And that’s fine, it will be your own undoing.
And I stand by my last statement. You are nothing but liar.
You are making statements you can’t back up. You are the master of the Straw Man argument.
Dear History DUD,
Either it is a resolution which means absolutely nothing, or it is an ex post facto law.
If it is an ex post facto law, Congress has finally gave us what Obama has tried for so long to deny us, STANDING. Obviously you, MSM, and the majority of Congress thinks that we “the Birthers” are a minority. Clearly this vote was in response to the Birthers claims. Therefore using the opposition to each lawsuit filed to date, we now have a unique injury, one not shared by the general public.
What do you want for dinner History DUD, peas and carrots, or carrots and peas.
Tèo Bear `,:-)
Black Lion,
Sorry my fingers are to tired to point out that citizen and Natural Born Citizen as mentioned in the Constitution appear to be two different things. As I have state previously, I firmly believe that a British Citizen at birth (as Obama has claimed) would never qualify for POTUS unless born prior to roughly 1790. Be that as it may, it is just my opinion. What I have noticed about all the Obots is they can’t seem to explain one nagging little fact….
It would be much simple and effective for Obama to release his certified copies of his original long form Birth Certificate and College entrance records to a roomful of reporters.
This, and I have stated this before is a done deal on ‘place’ of birth if a Physicians name and hospital and footprints are attached. The newest statement by Fukino should be like blood in the water for the ‘investigating reporters’, and just brings up the same ole questions about the documents. This looks counter-productive for Obama, he would have been better off releasing the original certified documents to quell the controversy.
speedy says:
July 28, 2009 at 2:09 pm
How can they pass such laws without an actual birth certificate document in front of them? Also, what about the fact he was adopted in Indonesia and became an Indonesian citizen?
____________________________________________________________________
There is nothing to the birther rumor about President Obama because there is no documented proof that President Obama was ever adopted. Do you have some proof that he was adopted? If you do please share it with us. Secondly do you have proof that President Obama became an Indonesian citizen? If so would it be the infamous school registration form that is inadmissible in a US court because its authenticity has not been established? And you do realize that it states the President’s city of birth as Honolulu. And even if the off chance that the President did get Indonesian citizenship, you do realize that as a result of the Supreme Court ruling in Perkins v. Elg that he cannot lose the US citizenship he recieved at birth. So that is why it was not addressed.
AnotherReader:
Given the vast font of disappointment that is the Birther movement, I must take a certain amount of pride in even deserving notice in such a way. The fact that you imagine that my response was anything other than the absolutely correct answer, though… now that’s just funny.
She is the custodian of those records. How do you propose she do her job without having complete access to those records? How do you imagine anybody in her employ could perform the most routine and repetitive of their jobs without full and unfettered access? How, for example, could Dr. Onaka certify that a COLB was a true copy unless he had the opportunity to actually check? How do you imagine any of their reporting and demographic functions could take place? Do you guys even allow a minimum 30 seconds of thought before you propose the ad hoc objections that you feel compelled to offer in the face of yet another (your word) disappointment?
Understand this very simple and basic fact: Privacy laws are enacted to prevent custodians of information (like the Hawaii Department of Health) from revealing private information to people who do not deserve access to it (like Birthers). They were not designed to make it impossible for bureaucrats to do their jobs.
That’s one possibility. Another is that you get a flippant reply when the question asked was so thoughtless that it deserved to be mocked and ridiculed.
Well that’s two different questions, and finally one of them is meaningful. The answer to the first (her access) is unchanged from my last post; her job description.
The answer to the second (her making comments) is there there are none. She is not allowed to make public comments on them without the approval of the person whose information has been released. Now… a second’s thought should have led you to one of two (and as far as I can tell, there actually are only two) possibilities here.
The first is that she got permission from the White House. Given that I know from personal sources that the Hawaiian DoH has been begging for that permission for months, this is likely.
The second is that she has broken the law.
Either way, her statement remains unchanged and authoritative. Obama was born in Hawaii.
Yawn.
Pete says:
July 28, 2009 at 12:45 pm
You and I both know her statement provides nothing new about how births are registered in Hawaii.
http://www.westernjournalism.com/?page_id=2697
________________________________________________________________
I just wanted to point out that the same site that you are referencing the report, they also stated the following…
“Orly Taitz asserts that “to be president there have to be two parents who are citizens.” This is false. Here is Blackstone’s classic exposition in 1765 of the legal meaning of the term from the Commentaries on the Laws of England.
William Blackstone, Commentaries 1: 354 361–62
“Natural-born subjects are such as are born within the dominions of the crown of England, that is, within the ligeance, or as it is generally called, the allegiance of the king; and aliens, such as are born out of it…all children, born out of the king’s ligeance [i.e on foreign soil], whose fatherswere natural-born subjects, are now natural-born subjects themselves, to all intents and purposes, without any exception; unless their said fathers were attainted, or banished beyond sea, for high treason; or were then in the service of a prince at enmity with Great Britain.” [The italics are Blackstone's]
Also from the same article…
Blackstone explicitly grounds natural-born status on location (jus soli), not parentage, except when the child is born abroad. The notion that both parents have to be citizens is false. All children born on American soil are natural-born subjects or citizens. If Obama was born on American soil there would be no controversy. If he was born on foreign soil, the fact that his father was not an American citizen would disqualify him from natural-born citizenship
http://www.westernjournalism.com/?p=2686
It also goes on to address the infamous registering foreign births in HI myth….
However this statement does not take into consideration US Immigration law…
SEC. 301. [8 U.S.C. 1401] 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: Provided, That any periods of honorable service in the Armed Forces of the United States, or periods of employment with the United States Government or with an international organization as that term is defined in section 1 of the International Organizations Immunities Act (59 Stat. 669; 22 U.S.C. 288) by such citizen parent, or any periods during which such citizen parent is physically present abroad as the dependent unmarried son or daughter and a member of the household of a person (A) honorably serving with the Armed Forces of the United States, or (B) employed by the United States Government or an international organization as defined in section 1 of the International Organizations Immunities Act, may be included in order to satisfy the physical-presence requirement of this paragraph. This proviso shall be applicable to persons born on or after December 24, 1952, to the same extent as if it had become effective in its present form on that date; and
(h) a person born before noon (Eastern Standard Time) May 24, 1934, outside the limits and jurisdiction of the United States of an alien father and a mother who is a citizen of the United States who, prior to the birth of such person, had resided in the United States.
http://www.theodora.com/ina_96_title_3.html
So according to US Immigration law even if Obama had been born in Kenya, he could have recieved citizenship through his mother….
Let’s keep it civil, please.
-Phil
HistorianDude,
Give it a rest. Her Job Description ??? Really. That’s the best you could come up with? You disappoint me.
Your very good at citing references when it suites your current argument, but you always substitute a flippant reply when you know you can’t provide one. As I originally asked, since you seem to believe you have the answers to everything. What is the Statute that allows her to access those records and then make public comments about them?
Until you can provide me the list of UserId’s on this site that you claim to have converted to your way of thinking, you are nothing more than a rather dimwitted liar.
MBG:
Let’s pretend for just a moment that is true.
The standard for legal proof does not care.
She would be breaking the law if she did so. What about that simple fact do you not get?
It would eviscerate the civil legal foundation of standing.
Nope, that’s not it.
How can they pass such laws without an actual birth certificate document in front of them? Also, what about the fact he was adopted in Indonesia and became an Indonesian citizen?
The Hawaiian DOH has a website with a tab for press releases. If this statement by Fukino was made officially, then why isn’t it posted on the website?
Another Reader:
Her job description.
If she has, then the only person with standing to sue over it would be President Obama. Don’t hold your breath.
By concentrating on the fake Birth Certificate and filing in Federal Courts, the “birthers” are playing into BO’s endgame which is a acquittal on all charges in Federal Court in DC.
If Mayor Marion Barry can get acquitted by a DC Jury after they saw him smoke Crack Cocaine on video, then getting BO acquitted of all charges by a DC Jury will be easy.
BO’s lawyers have done a masterful job of creating reasonable doubt and herding all the foolish “birthers” toward an acquittal for BO in a DC court. If that happens, we will have a Dictatorship in the US.
Now, wouldn’t it be more reasonable to execute a plan to indict BO in as many Local Red Counties before his puppet masters are able to install their puppet to lord over us?
INDICTING BO is EASIER than having a TEA PARTY.
Simple Steps to Legally Remove BO:
1) Advertise and Promote the Fact that you are forming a Grand Jury in Blogs, Local Newspapers and Community Organizations.
Schedule presentment of said Documents to Grand Jury by Grand Jury Attorney General.
2) Form the Grand Jury and select a Foreman.
3) Select a Private Attorney General to make Presentments to Grand Jury, if local DA refuses to make presentments.
4) Select a convenient Meeting Place.
5) Communicate with all Citizens who have criminal information to present.
6) Schedule presentments by said Citizens.
7) Subpoena documents from Government Offices and Officials.
9. Have Grand Jury Attorney General present said Documents to Grand Jury.
10) After investigation and deliberation is completed, vote and issue a True Bill (Indictment) or No True Bill.
11 Announce all Indictments to the Press.
12) Serve the Indictment on the Judiciary for the Issuance of Arrest Warrants.
It is interesting to me that Dr. Fukino seems to be able to access these records at will and make public comments about them without a Court Order.
What Federal or State statute gives her the right to look at records that are sealed for privacy reasons? Why is she allowed to make public comments on it’s contents? It’s supposed to to private. I’d say she has broken the law.
CAL: What credibility does CNN (one of the “most trusted names” in news) have now? Remember that a few days ago, Klein asserted that their “researchers” have proved that Obama CAN’T produce an original birth certificate because all those records have been “discarded.” He even went so far as to order Lou Dobbs to state that Hawaii has no original paper records anymore, so the story is “dead” and nobody can evermore have a “legitimate beef.”
How’s this for a legitimate beef:
Why did CNN LIE to their viewers?
How does Klein reconcile that Fukino has just seen records that no longer exist?
Besides which, yesterday Janice Okubo also made a statement to the effect that Hawaii has thrown away NO original paper documents. So there, CNN and Mr. Klein.
How about a correction on that? How about an apology to all Lou Dobbs viewers? How about a very visible mea culpa?
For everyone who has been citing FactCheck and Wikipedia as authorities, what say you now about the “facts” presented by CNN?
Can we believe anything SAID in the media? NO.
All we can believe is actual, three-dimensional evidence, presented to a Court of Law, where there are penalties for forgery, fraud, and obstruction of justice, AND statements made TO a Court of Law, under oath, where there are penalties for perjury and obstruction of justice.
Barack Hussein Obamahdinejihad is NOT “of the country”, NOR is he a “natural born citizen” of the United States of America, as his father was a “foreigner”…
Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. 393 (U.S. 01/02/1856)
[1] UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT
[418] …The natives or natural-born citizens are those born in the country of parents who are citizens…
[419] Again:
[420] …to be of the country, it is necessary to be born of a person who is a citizen, for if he be born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country…
MGB:
In the order they were asked:
1. She can’t, it would break the law.
2. Because she is the Director of the Hawaii Depratment of Health, and you are not.
3. Whether she got permission from the Whitehouse or not, she is probably safe from being sued for revealing the info. Only Obama has standing to do so, and I pretty much figure he’s happy with her statement.
Only in Birfistan.
They already answered that when they issued the COLB. Remember Dr. Onaka’s statement on the back?
They already answered that when they issued the COLB. Remember Dr. Onaka’s statement on the back?
She already told you in her previous statement last October. She said it was “Obama’s original birth certificate.”
in the order they were asked:
1. Who cares? Proof of citizenship at birth does not require birth in a hospital at all, let alone care what its name was.
2. Who cares? Proof of citizenship at birth does not require delivery by a doctor at all, let alone care what his or her name was.
3. Obama’s original birth certificate.
Who cares? Proof of citizenship at birth does not require a birth address.
What needs to be reconciled? The two citizenships are not mutually exclusive.
They already answered that when they issued the COLB. Remember Dr. Onaka’s statement on the back?
Dr. Alvin T. Onaka already has. Remember his statement on the back of the COLB?
Except, of course, for the only ones that matter.
If you believe that, then you’ve never actually read any of the lawsuits.
“Phil,
Therefore, yes, I am fully aware of the statement that Dr. Fukino put out. And no, I will say now that I don’t think she’s lying one bit; the statement is what it is. However, there are numerous questions and various other analyses that continue to be done at this point based on this new statement, if you can call it new.”
You and I both know her statement provides nothing new about how births are registered in Hawaii.
http://www.westernjournalism.com/?page_id=2697
There is just to much ‘legal speech’ and not enough original documentation. I think everyone has a good idea what the lack of original documentation means with this. I am also CERTAIN that Dr. Fukino is in the ‘tank’ because of her ‘natural born’ statement. Unless, this is a public admission that Barrack H. Obama’s father was NOT whom he says it was (Barrack Obama Sr.), and HE was born of two US Citizen Parents on US soil. However, that would make things a bit more interesting.
Honestly Phil, I don’t think she is lying either. I think it is CAREFULLY crafted to cover both Obama and the State of Hawaii. However, I do think she is MISLEADING because of the ‘Natural Born’ statement, she should have said “Native born” or said that Obama’s father was NOT Barrack Obama Sr.
The reality remains that this could be solved with less than a thousand dollars with certified long form copies of the BC released publically to the press in a news conference, with delivering Dr. and hospital, and footprints. Then the could back that up with Obama’s college registration records…NOT HIS GRADES. BTW, they STILL HAVE the originals http://theobamafile.com/ObamaLatest.htm as admitted by Hawaii, despite what CNN executives say.
I suspect that Obama life has been about making up what ever story to get ahead, claiming what ever nationality was convent, changing the rules to get ahead. The cover-up and missing records are about preventing people from discovering this reality. What worries me more than Obama is the precedence it sets for future political parties, and what it means for our Constitution and Freedom. Documents must be released now, the truth will be less dangerous than the continued status quo to the future of the Constitution.
Notice that Fukino did not say that she verifies the information. She said that she’s seen the vital records that (supposedly) verify his status. These could consist of nothing more than a statement by someone that he was born in Hawaii, with no investigation done back in 1961 to verify that information as fact.
That’s how it was done back then. That’s why a court needs to see the vital records, too. There’s something being hidden. What and why? If Fukino can see these records, and if they prove that he was born in Hawaii and is a NBC, then why not SHOW US THE PROOF, too?
Before anyone says this would set a bad precedent: What would that be? That a candidate for the highest office in the land ought to PROVE that he or she is eligible under our Constitution to run for, much less hold, that office?
Sounds like a very good precedent to me. We shouldn’t ever again allow anyone to skate through a loophole–that loophole being that there is no controlling authority to absolutely verify that any candidate is eligble for the office being sought.
Black Lion,
“Birthers” (title not given by themselves) are, in truth, “Dual Citizenshippers – AT TIME OF BIRTH”. This is what is already confessed to by Obama himself and, not being the “Constitutional lawyer” he thought he was accepted as (just as he has no record of being a “scholar” either), he proves that he is ineligible under the Constitution for POTUS. Too much importance given to BC that is locked up tighter than a tic. This has avoided attention being given to Constitutionally accepted definitions for NBC and historical precedent of all previous presidents (all with both parents being citizens of U.S. and themselves born in U.S. – except for the willful fraud, Chester Arthur, who had to forge his birth facts which only shows that he had to also have been aware of this accepted definition for NBC)
Rise up DUAL CITIZENSHIPPERS AT TIME OF BIRTH-ERS and get this most important point across to Dobbs, Hannity, O’Reilly, Rush, Congress, et al. That question has already been admitted to by Obama himself.
roxe:
I hope you did. because the web page I read did not say that.
da verg:
No such executive order exists.
HistorianDude,
…and when you can show that 38 (or whatever the number is) States have agreed over the past year to amend the Constitution over any issue, then maybe we’ll talk.
-Phil
da verg says:
President Obama’s first executive order removed restrictions on release of documents. http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/promise/239/release-presidential-records/ It is irrelevant to Fukino’s statement, because the President’s orders cover only the executive branch of the federal government.
Hawaii’s executive branch is run by Linda Lingle. “Left wing”? Not so much.
Phil wrote:
Of course there is.
A simple, straightforward and authoritative statement is never complete without the frantic Birther spin.
Anyone up for a game of “whak-a-mole?”