Certifigate: No “Long Form” for Obama; DNC Obama Eligibility Cert Only in HI
Mr. John Charlton of The Post & Email posted yesterday the following admission on the part of the ColoradoIndependent.com:
Experts have repeated time and again that the documents presented to the country and campaign officials are real and legitimate documents and that a “long-form certificate” does not exist. [emphasis mine]
On the face of it, this admission would go along with Newsmax.com’s story that I reported on, here, in which the conservative-leaning news site specifically contacted the Hawaii Department of Health regarding the original 1961 documentation.
However, Mr. Joseph Boven, the author of the ColoradoIndependent.com story, did not reveal anything regarding how he came to this conclusion, such as upon what authority made such a claim. And while many like to claim that the blog FactCheck.org supposedly very clearly points out an image of a short-form certification of live birth, I have already reported that they aren’t quite as consistently factual as some in the opposition to eligibility like to claim.
Further, Mr. Boven did not provide any immediately accessible email by which he could be contacted in order for any concerned citizen to follow up with him on this story.
Mr. Charlton’s posting goes on:
The import of this admission is that Barack Hussein Obama was not born in any hospital in Hawaii, since in Hawaii only those not born in hospitals lack the long-form vault certificate given to such children as the Nordyke twins, which can be seen in this article from World Net Daily.
This would leave only 2 possibilities: either that he was born out of state; or that he was born or claimed to be born at home, and an at-home-birth declaration was made by at least one relative.
If this is the case, Barack Obama has seriously misrepresented his birth story on numerous occasions. [emphases original]
The theory that Mr. Obama wasn’t born in a hospital has at least some direct anecdotal evidence in a posting, here, in that there has been no direct testimony from any witnesses regarding his birth. Further, there is at least one instance of direct, irrefutable evidence whereby the great State of Hawaii — before it was admitted into the Union — officially proclaimed (via strikingly similar language as that of Mr. Obama) China-born Sun Yat-sen was “born in the Hawaiian Islands.”
Yet, the bigger story may only be beginning to unfold, if a certain theory regarding the HI DoH’s recent proclamations regarding Mr. Obama’s birth could, in reality, be an invention of circular logic.
Let’s begin with a follow-up posting by Mr. JB Williams of CanadaFreePress.com entitled, “DNC Failed to Certify Obama as Eligible in MOST States!” (excerpted):
The Obama camp had been using the defense that the DNC had properly vetted and certified Obama’s eligibility for months. Judge after judge had used that claim and the fact that Obama’s COLB (Certification of Live Birth) had been “Snoped – FactChecked – blogged and twittered” as “legal proof” that Obama was eligible for office, despite the very real fact that Obama has never released any authenticated proof on the subject.
Then we find out that the DNC did NOT certify Obama as eligible under Article II – Section I of the Constitution, in 49 of 50 states. The DNC had only filed such certification in the state of Hawaii, Obama’s alleged birth place. The other 49 states received a Certification of Nomination which did NOT certify Obama as constitutionally eligible for office.
This story caused a firestorm of interest, comment and speculation across the web, leading Bob Unruh at World Net Daily to ask, What does Pelosi know about Obama’s eligibility?
On September 15, I released a follow up report, The Theory is Now a Conspiracy—II in which I was able to provide answers to many of the questions swirling around the two DNC docs.
- Both docs were real and both docs had been filed with Election Commission offices
- Only the doc filed in Hawaii certified Obama as constitutionally eligible
- Nancy Pelosi did in fact sign both documents, indicating awareness
- Both documents had been used before by the DNC, in 2000 and 2004
- Different states have different state statutes on the matter
- But the Constitution is clear, and the DNC ignored it
…
In short, the answer to Bob Unruh’s question at WND seems to be yes, Nancy Pelosi knew that she was signing a false statement on behalf of Obama. But she also knew that this false statement of eligibility would only be filed in Hawaii, which has a very specific state statute that requires that each party certify the constitutional eligibility of their candidates, using specific text.
It further appears that this Certification of Nomination which includes text concerning constitutional requirements is the basis for statements made by Hawaii officials, who have proclaimed that Obama is a “natural born citizen” on the basis that Nancy Pelosi said so in her false Certification of Nomination.
After all, NO actual birth certificate has ever been released by Obama. A COLB, which anyone born anywhere in the world could purchase from Hawaii in 1961, in fact at least two different COLB’s from Hawaii, are all that has been offered by Obama. …
In all cases except Hawaii, the DNC form without certification of constitutional eligibility was filed by the DNC. Meanwhile, everywhere we look, the RNC used one universal certification document which included full certification of constitutional eligibility in every state, in 2000, 2004 and 2008.
The following explanations have been offered on the subject.
- Only Hawaii has a state statute requiring such language
- Other states don’t require certification of constitutionalstanding for office
- The DNC certified Obama during the primary process
- Certification is “implied”
Obviously, while Hawaii’s statute requires that such language be there in the certification of nomination, no state statue requires that such language not appear in the document. So, why didn’t the DNC use one universal doc like the RNC?
Upon further investigation, we did indeed learn that some state primary filings do include language of constitutional eligibility by each candidate. However, that is a statement made by each candidate, not a certification of compliance made by the Party which had vetted the candidate and certified.
And, I can’t believe that anyone needs me to explain the significant difference between “implied” and “certified?” A personal check “implies” that you have money in your account, which may or may not be true. But a “certified” check guarantees that you have that money in your account. …
Many Americans, at home, in congress and in the media, have assumed that Obama meets all qualifications because the DNC said he did. But in 49 states, they never said it, at least officially!
If you ask Nancy Pelosi, on what basis did she “certify” Obama as eligible under Article II, she would simply state that she never made any such certification, except in Hawaii… and she would be telling the truth!
The language necessary to certify Obama as eligible was omitted from the documents filed at 49 Election Commission offices, and in most of those cases, such certification was also missing in the primary filings.
Now, to be fair, the DNC had been omitting that language from their official filings for years. Refusing to certify their candidates as “constitutionally eligible” has been a practice of the DNC for at least a few election cycles now. Why?
The Final Questions
- Why did the DNC certify Obama’s eligibility only in Hawaii?
- Why did no state DNC office, DNC elector, or Election Commission office catch it?
- Since the DNC made no such certification, on what basis do we assume Obama to be eligible?
- Without any such certification, isn’t it more important than ever to see the actual birth certificate and ask the courts to make an official ruling on the definition of “natural born citizen?”
- Why did the DNC use TWO different docs, one incomplete, when the RNC used the same complete doc nationwide?
- On what basis will the media continue to claim that Obama is eligible?
- Why did Nancy Pelosi show signs of stress in her Hawaii certification of Obama?
- When will every American demand answers to these and many more questions?
For more background information on what Mr. Williams is talking about, you can see my posting here. In this referenced posting, you will find my own references to highlighted coverage to what Mr. Justin Riggs of YourFellowCitizen.com has researched. Further, a recent article by “jbjd” entitled, “THE CHEESE STANDS ALONE,” is similarly helpful in gaining a more thorough understanding of the nomination process — and how to hold the several States to account — for apparently very lax oversight in this process.
Now, here’s where I connect the dots regarding what could be a fantastically shrewd and misleading (to say the least, if true) theory regarding HI DoH Director Dr. Fukino’s recent “natural born citizen” proclamation.
While we already know that not every State in the Union requires specific verbiage stating anything about constitutional eligibility of a given nominee by a major political party, this may not be the point at all with respect to the eligibility question.
But what if Dr. Fukino is merely using the DNC certification of eligibility as the basis for her claims that Mr. Obama is a natural born citizen?
After all, we know that the Director nor any other State official can reveal personal information regarding any individual’s private documentation. And, in her most recent statement, Dr. Fukino proclaimed that Mr. Obama is a natural born citizen based on the documentation they have on file. She couldn’t have said anything about this unless the documentation upon which she bases her proclamation is already public (or risk revealing information in such a fashion as to make it public, by virtue of a public admission on her or her office’s part, thereby carrying potentially very stiff penalties for doing so).
Yet, the DNC certification of eligibility is already public; in fact, blogs such as mine already have it stashed away. Therefore:
Could Dr. Fukino be making her basis on that piece of paper as the rationale for her proclamation?
And, as I’ve repeatedly said before, no political party — as far as anyone has been able to find — is under any obligation to actually vet a candidate; they merely require a self-ascribing document in which the candidate proclaims him or herself to be qualified. The political party operates under no rule or law that requires actual documentation. Not only this, but the Hawaii DoH is similarly under no obligation to otherwise vet what documentation they receive; they’re merely tasked with safely storing and archiving such data.
So, perhaps the real bottom line is this, according to my theory: The HI DoH says that Mr. Obama is a natural born citizen based on the DNC’s constitutional certification which is based upon Mr. Obama’s self-ascribed document wherein he states he’s eligible. Therefore, in theory, the DNC and the HI DoH are basing their belief on Mr. Obama’s word, because, thus far, no actual documentation exists to otherwise confirm or deny is eligibility.
And regarding his short-form certification of live birth? Again, we’ve seen an image of this document, and as this posting and blog have clearly shown, we don’t know anything about the documentation to which this COLB points, except for the possible DNC certification paperwork which, at best, is already conclusively shown to be based upon one man’s word.
Could this stuff get any more morbidly fascinating?
See the following links regarding the eligibility saga:
- The background:
- The questions:
-Phil
Subscriptions -=- Twitter: @trsol -=- Facebook (TRSoL) -=- Facebook (Rightside Phil)
[...] I still say it’s the DNC’s candidate eligibility certification. [...]
By the way, there is nontrivial evidence indicating that Obama was actually born in Kenya, but if you think Hawaii is stonewalling, consider that Hawaii is graciously cooperating compared to Kenya.
It is obvious that Obama is hiding his true birth record. In “Dreams from My Father” he said he found his birth certificate folded together with a newspaper article about his father and his vaccination record. It is logical to infer that the three documents were centered on a time and place, the time being his earliest childhood and the locus being Kenya.
There is evidence much more direct than the inference above, including the strong–not conclusive until verified, but strong–evidence of the Kenyan birth certificate obtained by Lucas Smith, who signed an affidavit attesting to its authenticity. There is no justification for just brushing off this document, which bears a baby’s footprint, has face validity, and is signed and stamped twice (both the original and the copy).
So why doesn’t Obama just release a certified copy of his Hawaii birth records and end the speculation? Because he cannot do so and still retain his office. If he could have done so without forfeiting office, he would have done it long, long ago.
Pete, no. What they said is that they can’t rule on a case that doesn’t have a actual harm on it. It’s one of the elements of standing.
Craig v. U.S. went this way: Craig wanted the courts to declare him a Natural Born Citizen (and by that ruling, declare people who were not born to U.S. Citizens not to be U.S. Citizens). However, he had suffered no harm. His alligation of harm was theoretical (that if the court didn’t do this, it would somehow diminish his Natural Born Status). His Original Complaint was this:
The way that reads is “Because some people might be declared Natural Born Citizens somehow dimishes my personal definition, and therefore is a civil rights violation.” It’s more like saying, “Because others are getting civil rights, it somehow dimishes my civil rights, and therefore, I’m getting harmed.”
Now, if there was an actual case or controversy, such as a Presidential Candinate being denied ballot access in a state because of this definition, then the courts would have subject matter jurisdiction to define it, and rule on it. However, just because you sue the government, does not give the courts subject matter jurisdiction.
The decision never said, “The Courts can never grant this request”. It said that there was no case or controversy on this matter in this case, because there had been no concrete harm. The Judiciary does not issue advisory opinions, is basically what they said there. That’s all that this case said.
It said that Craig had no recognizable right to just be declared a “Natural Born Citizen” by any government, or any court. That doesn’t mean that he can’t. It just means that he cannot demand it of the court until he can produce a harm that would be there. If he ran for President, and was denied ballot access because he wasn’t a Natural Born Citizen, then he’d actually have a harm, and could sue. He did not have the right to sue for the government to declare him a Natural Born Citizen by his definition.
That’s what the Appeals Court decision said. There’s no recognizable harm. There is no government action that obligated them to declare him a Natural Born Citizen.
Are you intentionally trying to misread Craig v. U.S.?
To dunstvangeet:
Yes, what you said was correct.
However, The judge(s)are also acknowledging that they can’t make a ruling that will magically turn you into a NBC.
Pete, that’s not what the court was saying. It was saying that you do not have a right for a court to declare you to be a Natural Born Citizenship, when there is no claim of actual harm. It gets to another standing issue. I cannot sue the government, and ask that the court grants me Natural Born Citizenship, if the government has done nothing to say that I don’t have it.
Furthermore, unless I can prove a concrete harm, there is absolutely no reason for the court to hear my case, because it does not qualify under the “case or controversy” clause of the Constitution.
>>>keokuk says:
September 29, 2009 at 8:34 pm
Could you please describe what legal standard you would use to differentiate legitimate claims from illegitimate claims?<<
Frankly, I'm not qualified to do so, nor would I try. This distinction would have to be made on a judicial level. However, I will say this:
"Treaties with legitimate states would have to be honored."
If the United States recognizes, officially a state, with an embassy, and has a treaty with it, then it would have to be recognized as sovereign. Onward, it would have to be decided by the judicial branch.
Once again, if the United States does not recognize said state or said claim on your birth, and you don't either, then personally I think you are NBC.
Could you please describe what legal standard you would use to differentiate legitimate claims from illegitimate claims?
RE dunstvangeet: [...] misanthropes, mind showing me one birther case that would be stopped if he showed the long-form birth certificate? [...] So, my question is why would you show something that wouldn’t even solve one case? [...]
Oh, dear, so you plead guilty?
From dunstvangeet “Even liberally construed, Mr. Craig’s claim is not grounded in a constitutional or federal question: there is no such “right” (a) to have courts adopt his proffered legal definition, (b) to be classified as a citizen pursuant to that definition, or (c) to obtain certification of the status he attempts to define.”
This to me is an important statement. You don’t have a “right” to be a NBC, either you are or you are not. Like you are either alive or dead, if your dead you can’t claim to be alive, and vice-versa. How do you know if your NBC? Therein lies the real question!
I would answer that if ONLY ONE Country (legitimate claim*) could claim your birth, and YOU can only claim ONE country, you are NBC. That only occurs with both parents as citizens and born on soil, or jurisdiction, of said country. No one, and I mean no one, argues that these individuals are NBC. Further, if you have to legislate or adjudicate your citizenship, you are not NBC, but you can be a citizen such as in Kim or any other 14th Amendment claim. That means if your born with another claim on your birth “dual or multiple” you ARE NOT NBC, but you can be a citizen by legislation or prior court judgment.
To those that believe that the 14th Amendment grants NBC, think again! The 14th grants citizenship via LEGISLATION, it can’t grant NBC because it can’t change who claimed you at birth(retro-active). Children born of citizens, on US soil, under the jurisdiction of the United States, are NBC…and that includes most American Indians. Frankly, the 14th Amendment NEVER tried to make former slaves NBC, but did make them citizens, and potentially their children could be born NBC. Indeed, the author of the 14th Amendment said so during open debate on the senate floor prior to its adoption.
I know that some 50 million Obots disagree with the particulars of the above. I again say that no one argues about which group is NBC when the above is applied. Also, if there is a debate that needs legislation or verdict, they aren’t NBC, but can very well be citizens.
*Legitimate Claim: No fake country or patently invalid claim is acceptable. The King of Saudi Arabia cannot claim as subjects all people born in the United States and deprive you of your NBC. If we allowed that to happen the POTUS would have to bow to a King!! Adjudicating or legislating such a false claim is not equivalent to adjudicating the circumstances of your birth.
In Craig v. U.S., the court found that it had no jurisdiction because there was no actual case or controversy under the Constitution. The courts cannot issue advisory opinions. What Craig v. U.S. did was Craig basically said “Declare me a Natural Born Citizen”. They found there was no case or controversy because the U.S. hadn’t actually done anything to say that he was not a Natural Born U.S. Citizen. Therefore it became an advisory decision, rather than an actual case.
Craig v. U.S. was a birther case trying to get around the standing issue. I’ll quote from the appeals court ruling on Craig v. U.S.: “Even liberally construed, Mr. Craig’s claim is not grounded in a constitutional or federal question: there is no such “right” (a) to have courts adopt his proffered legal definition, (b) to be classified as a citizen pursuant to that definition, or (c) to obtain certification of the status he attempts to define.”
Basically, all Craig v. U.S. ruling said was that he did not have a right to sue the government to have them adopt a definition, when there was no issue other than that. Craig v. U.S. is not binding precedent on the issue. Now, if Craig was to run for President, and get denied the ballot, then he could sue on the basis that he is a Natural Born Citizen. However, until that happens, he cannot just ask the court to define it without there being an actual case or controversy under the constitution. A case must have a concrete injury under the constitution.
Elk v. Watkins was about a Native American, born on Tribal Land, and whether or not he was a Natural Born Citizen. Tribal Land is considered a sovereign nation under the U.S. Government. So, Elk was born inside a sovereign nation, and therefore was not there. Wong also addresses this point. Let’s take the case of Charles Curtis, Vice President of the United States. His mother was 3/4ths Native American (1/4th French). He was a member of 3 different Native American Tribes. He was born outside one of the states of the U.S. (born in Kansas before Kansas was a state). His birth status seems to violate the Elk ruling. He was considered Natural Born, though. Again, Elk was about citizenship as a whole, not just Natural Born Citizenship.
But also the U.S. Law has changed. The U.S. Law now grants Natural Born Citizenship to almost every Native American born in the U.S. The only way that doesn’t happen is if they’re born ot a tribe in which their American Citizenship would violate their Tribal Citizenship.
Rich, if it truly is Fidel Castro’s child, after he took power, then no, your scenario doesn’t work. Fidel Castro, if he was on U.S. soil, would get Diplomatic Immunity. His family would also receive Diplomatic Immunity. Diplomatic Immunity is one of the specific things in Wong that takes away being under the Jurisdiction thereof. Now, the question is if this was a Love Child of Fidel Castro, where Castro doesn’t even acknowledge his existance, then yes, you might be right. However, this is no different than a blond-haired, blue-eyed neo-nazi who’s family has been in this country since before the Revolutionary War being raised as a Neo-Nazi, and loving Hitler. Personally, I think that the People can make these decisions. You obviously think that the people are a bunch of idiots, who must be protected from their own idiocy.
One last question, Rich. Can you name one case that held that you can be a Citizen by birth, without being a Natural Born Citizen? Please show me this case.
Rich says:
September 29, 2009 at 9:37 am
dunstvangeet says:
September 28, 2009 at 10:03 pm
The “doubts” in Minor were directly resolved in Wong. Minor first went out proving that Minor was a citizen. They stated since Minor fit every concievable definition, that it was there.
You cannot equate native born citizenship with natural born citizenship. And if you use Wong Kim Ark as a basis for the natural born issue, you’re barking up the wrong tree. Wong Kim Ark settled nothing when it comes to the natural born issue. Nowhere in the decision does the court declare Ark natural born.
___________________________________________________________________
Rich, you may want to reread the majority opinion in the Wong v. Ark case. The court stated the following…
“The constitution nowhere defines the meaning of these words [citizen and natural born citizen], either by way of inclusion or of exclusion, except in so far as this is done by the affirmative declaration that ‘all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States.’[18]”
So the court is saying that if you are born in the US, you are a citizen of the US and subject to it’s jurisdiction. So President Obama, being born in the US, is subject to its jurisdiction. That is why it doesn’t matter that his father may have passed along British or Kenyan citizenship. By virtue of being born in the US, he was automatically subject to its jurisdiction.
Also from the Wong case….
“It thus clearly appears that by the law of England for the last three centuries, beginning before the settlement of this country, and continuing to the present day, aliens, while residing in the dominions possessed by the crown of England, were within the allegiance, the obedience, the faith or loyalty, the protection, the power, and the jurisdiction of the English sovereign; and therefore every child born in England of alien parents was a natural-born subject, unless the child of an ambassador or other diplomatic agent of a foreign state, or of an alien enemy in hostile occupation of the place where the child was born. III. The same rule was in force in all the English colonies upon this continent down to the time of the Declaration of Independence, and in the United States afterwards, and continued to prevail under the constitution as originally established.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Wong_Kim_Ark
Basically since there was no definiton of the words “citizen and natural born citizen” in the Constitution, the majority decided to adopt the common law of England that had carried over from feudal times…”Which was in force in all of the English colonies at the time of the Declaration of Independence.” The language specifically states that “every child born in England of alien parents was a natural-born subject.”
The dissent argued that the meaning of the “subject to jurisdiction” language in the 14 amendment was the same that was found in the 1866 Civil Rights Act, which stated “All persons born in the United States, and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed, are hereby declared to be citizens of the United States.” Also the dissent cited that de Vattel may have influenced the founders of the Constitution.
So it was the dissent that wanted to define natural born as being someone not subject to any foreign power and use the de Vattel definition of natural born. However in citing case law, you only cite the majority opinion, which defined that we use the English common law definition. The Wong case was decided 6-2.
All of the arguments that the birthers are making now were made by the losing side in the Wong case. The majority specifically decided on the English common law definition (being born in the US regardless of the citizenship status of one’s parents) over de Vattel regarding what is a natural born citizen.
You like to cite Minor. Since Wong was decided in 1898, it is more recent relevant case law. In addition Minor said the following regarding the issue…
“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. For the purposes of this case it is not necessary to solve these doubts. It is sufficient for everything we have now to consider that all children born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction are themselves citizens.”
The operative phrase is “for the purposes of this case it is not necessary to solve these doubts.” Meaning that the court would not address the definition of what a natural born citizen is. So as much as you want to cite Minor, since that phrase is specifically in the decision, it negates your claim that the Court specifically states that natural born citizen could be defined as only someone being born to 2 citizen parents.
Also recall the ruling in the Lynch v. Clarke case,, which was referenced in Wong and has been referenced in many cases regarding citizenship. Specifically it states in the decision…
“It is an indispensable proposition, that by the rule of common law of England, if applied to these facts, Julia Lynch was a natural born citizen of the United States. And this rule was established and inflexible in the common law, long anterior to the first settlement of the United States and, indeed, before the discovery of America by Columbus. By the common law, all persons born within the ligeance of the crown of England, were natural born subject, without reference to the status or condition of their parents. So if a Frenchman and his wife, came to England, and had a son during their stay, he was a liege man. This was settled law in the time of Littleton, who died in 1492. And its uniformity through the intervening centuries may be seen by reference to the authorities, which I will cite without further comment.”
Specifically the ruling uses the phrase to describe Lynch as a “natural born citizen of the United States.” It goes on to state that “by the common law, all persons born within the ligeance of the crown of England, were natural born subject, without reference to the status or condition of their parents.” That is very specific. Now if you can find a case where in the majority ruling they specifically state that a natural born citizen can only be someone that was born to parents that were citizens decided after Wong in 1898 or explicitly states that the de Vattel definition was used, then provide it. If not it is difficult to see the SCOTUS going against what was decided in Wong.
dunstvangeet says:
September 29, 2009 at 1:13 am
misanthropes, mind showing me one birther case that would be stopped if he showed the long-form birth certificate? I can’t think of one that doesn’t also argue the dual-citizen theory, or the two-parent theory.
So, my question is why would you show something that wouldn’t even solve one case?
Furthermore, exactly what information is on the long-form, that isn’t on the short-form, that has anything to do with proving presidential eligibility?
As Leo thinks, that’s more of a smokescreen which has been keeping people distracted. Some though think that within the sealed record discovery will come other facts – and there has been discovery requested about far more than the long form itself. The CA case, if permitted, is throwing everything that comes to mind, hoping something will stick OR that at least the wealth of suspicious tactics insinuates a public’s need to know on many grounds. And, obviously, the question of British citizenship (not just dual) is being raised. It has always been a case of “it’s the judge stupid”. We’ve witnessed all too many who just are not familiar with the background, history, or who are not interested beyond the political repercussions to their own positions. Hopefully there is one now who has understood the country’s and its citizens’ (whose own lives are presently on the line) real interest and rights to settlement of the ongoing and unresolved questions. Such resolution would also force Congress itself to get its own ducks in line in taking seriously the ordered procedures under the Constitution.
dunstvangeet says:
September 28, 2009 at 10:03 pm
The “doubts” in Minor were directly resolved in Wong. Minor first went out proving that Minor was a citizen. They stated since Minor fit every concievable definition, that it was there.
You cannot equate native born citizenship with natural born citizenship. And if you use Wong Kim Ark as a basis for the natural born issue, you’re barking up the wrong tree. Wong Kim Ark settled nothing when it comes to the natural born issue. Nowhere in the decision does the court declare Ark natural born.
http://federalistblog.us/2006/12/us_v_wong_kim_ark_can_never_be_considered.html
In Craig v. US, the court determined there is no subject matter jurisdiction when Craig asked the court to declare him “natural born.” Natural born citizenship is a birthright. By admitting there is no subject matter jurisdiction (which is why Craig filed the suit), the courts are also saying there is no “right” to be President under the 14th amendment. It voids any argument you, or anyone else makes, about Obama’s “right” to be President under the 14th amendment through the Wong Kim Ark decision.
Elk v. Wilkins denied Elk’s right to vote because his allegiance to the United States was not “direct and immediate.” Even though he was born on US soil, Elk was part of an Indian tribe, governed by the United States congress, and the court stated his allegiance was to his Indian tribe, and because his allegiance was not “direct and immediate” he needed to be naturalized (later, an Act passed in 1924 gave Inidans the rights of citizenship.) Our own State Department today admits dual citizens oew allegiance not only to the US, but to the other country in which they are a citizen. Please show me how this alegiance is “direct and immediate” to the United States.
Under your justification, Fidel Castro could have taken power in 1959, impreganted a US citizen, who then gives birth on US soil nine months later. The child is then raised to love and respect his father and his beliefs. The child turns 35 and runs for President, totally hiding his past and his real beliefs. He wins election. Do you think this person has total allegiance to the United States? Do you think this person has no conflict? Believe it or not, that is what the founding fathers had in mind when they placed “natural born” into the consitution. They wanted an extra layer of allegiance to hold the highest office in the nation.
misanthropes, mind showing me one birther case that would be stopped if he showed the long-form birth certificate? I can’t think of one that doesn’t also argue the dual-citizen theory, or the two-parent theory.
So, my question is why would you show something that wouldn’t even solve one case?
Furthermore, exactly what information is on the long-form, that isn’t on the short-form, that has anything to do with proving presidential eligibility?
The divorce papers, which mention Obama as an emancipated product of the marriage is prima facie evidence of adoption.
Except it isn’t since the divorce papers don’t say that. A divorce decree is only evidence that a divorce occurred.
When he lived in Indonesia, a student could only attend school if they were born in Indonesia or they were “sponsored”, meaning adopted.
Even assuming that is true (and you can overcome the hearsay issues), no parent ever has lied to seek an advantage for their children’s education. Noooo, sir. (And how did Obama affirmatively renounce his U.S. citizenship as a child?)
Brygenon, still ratiocinating and turning things upside down and inside out regarding Barry’ fraudulence?
Man, you guys spend so much energy on this! (And probably someone funds you, too).
Why don’t put the whole thing to rest and have Barry order the Hawaii HD to make the BC available for public scrutiny and that’s it.
Why quote pompous constitutional scholars (as integrity Tribe comes to mind firstly), when $12 bucks would do it?
I told you once – if Barry is a bit squeezed nowdays, I’ll write immediately a check for this expense.
Brygenon, show us that there are cases when 1+1=2, and that Obama’s BC story falls in this category. Let’s do it – I understand that Obama might be a bit embarrased, but, hey, it can happen to anyone to be short of cash.
Let’s do it, Brygenon – Phil has my e-mail and I am sure that he will intermediate my $12 check for Obama -
Rich, Minor didn’t actually solve anything. And any doubts in Minor were resolved in U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark. All minor said was that citizenship could be either of these two definitions. Since Minor fit both definitions, it was not going to go in and decide which one it actually was. And notice how Minor didn’t once mention anything on Natural Born Citizenship. It only mentioned actual citizenship.
Jus Soli is all that’s required. And even then, it seems like some of the current Supreme Court Justices equate it with Citizenship at Birth, such as Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who in arguments stated that she believed that someone born to U.S. Citizens abroad is a Natural Born Citizen. That clearly takes away the Jus Soli requirement of it. Justice Antonin Scalia said that Natural Born Citizenship was Jus Soli, therefore taking away the Jus Saguinus argument. Both of these justices seem to state that Citizenship at birth equals Natural Born Citizenship. In fact, there is really no court that has held that you can be a Citizen at Birth without being a Natural Born Citizen.
The “doubts” in Minor were directly resolved in Wong. Minor first went out proving that Minor was a citizen. They stated since Minor fit every concievable definition, that it was there.
Christinewjc asked:
Greg already answered, but again, any claim Obama had to British citizenship was governed by Great Britain. We don’t let other countries decide who is eligible to be President of the United States.
Mick says:
Here’s a link, the dissent is at the bottom. Check it out: http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=169&invol=649
Utterly refuted by the Court’s citation U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark in Perkins v. Elg. http://supreme.justia.com/us/307/325/case.html
A natural born citizen is simply a citizen by birth. That’s just what the words mean. Nowhere does the majority opinion say that Wong Kim Ark is not an a natural born citizen, and I challenge you to find any case where a person was ruled to not be a natural born citizen while being a citizen by birth.
Mick is pretending an expertise that he simply does not have.
Black Lion says:
September 28, 2009 at 10:32 am
“Not school records that have not been authenticated or so called divorce decrees that do not specifically mention adoption.”
Wrong. Absolutely wrong. The divorce papers, which mention Obama as an emancipated product of the marriage is prima facie evidence of adoption. It is not “best evidence”,but it can be presented in a court of law, which then throws the burden of proof on the defense. When he lived in Indonesia, a student could only attend school if they were born in Indonesia or they were “sponsored”, meaning adopted.
As for “natural born”, Minor v. Happersett casts doubt on anyone who claims natural born citizenship if they do not meet jus soli and jus sanguinis requirements. Elk v. Wilkins stated one’s allegiance must be “direct and immediate”. Our own state department today says those with dual citizenship owe allegiance to a country other than the United States. The Minor case is critical, since it was adjudicated six years after the 14th amendment was passed, and the justices then never said anyone who was simply born here is natural born.
As for foreign aid, that is pure conjecture. However, once the divorce decree is presented and discovery moves forward, those documents can be opened to find if he did apply for foreign aid.
Instead of defending Obama, maybe he should be a little more forthcoming and be the transparent President he said he would be. Or are you defending his right to lie and hide his past?
Christinewjc,
You said, “I identify myself as a Christian first, patriot second. As a patriot, it is my desire and duty to expose and help to eradicate corruption in our nation’s government. To stand by and just let it happen without protest is a sin.
Who says that God only “allowed” Obama in office for one purpose? What if He is testing us to expose the corruption that got Obama there in the first place? What if God wants us to expose the ineligibity issue? Didn’t God have his hand of guidance in the lead for our Founders to write the Constitution? Wasn’t the “natural born citizen” clause placed in there for the purpose of protecting our nation from a usurper? What if God is influencing millions of people across our great nation to do all we can to expose the usurper and prevent the evil policies Obama and his cronies are putting out there from becoming law?
Well…you may be thinking how can I presume to know God’s will? Might I say the same about you?
God’s will for our lives is spelled out plainly in the Bible. That is how I know what my Savior and Lord would want me to do in perilous times like today.
Whose wisdom and knowledge are you following?”
Let’s start at the end first. I follow the teachings of Jesus Christ, and I might add, these are expressly apolitical. My purpose is not to demand anything of you or make you misunderstand this as some sort of affront. I appreciate your faith if you have it. But I must also speak about what is true and right and good regarding the person of Jesus Christ. If His Kingdom is “not of this world” then many of your assertions as put seem to be misguided. “Sin” is literally missing the mark, something which hampers our communion with God and requires healing. It is NOT government. It is NOT fixing man-made things. I DO believe that this is a civic duty, but it has nothing to with faith in God/Christ.
You say, “What if God is influencing millions of people across our great nation to do all we can to expose the usurper and prevent the evil policies”
Again, for reasons stated above I think that you should consider what I’m saying and realize that God wants you to follow him first and is not interested in “evil policies” but rather the repentance of people back to the one true God.
This is the wisdom I am following, along with the teachings of ancient Christianity, which are unbroken and testified to unto ages of ages.
In summary, I of course believe that we should demand integrity, honesty and truth from our leaders; I believe that our Constitution is a beautiful thing, and therefore I believe that we should take the appropriate measures to uncover the falsehoods of this administration. To make it a religious issue is misguided at best. I state these things only to make people think about everything they say and do. Please be assured that I wish all my best, and I pray for the President, as I think all should. Ultimately, it is he who decides what he will do, however. And to this point, living realistically, we should be very careful and protective of what our forefathers handed down to us.
Best,
JM
yo says:
Akhil Reed Amar is the Sterling Professor of Law and Political Science at Yale University, and a visiting professor of law at Harvard — those are generally considered the top two U.S. law schools and he’s a professor at both. He teaches Constitution Law, publishes in the peer-reviewed literature of the field, and has been cited in over 20 U.S. Supreme Court opinions.
Writing for a lay audience last February, he stated that all the major candidates (five at the time) are eligible, and explained the birthers’ favorite bit of Constitution:
“Natural-Born Citizens: The Constitution’s rule that the president be ‘a natural born citizen’ focuses not on where a person became a citizen, but when. To be eligible, one must be born a citizen rather than naturalized at some later date.”
http://slate.com/id/2183588/
yo, how about Justice Antonin Scalia? Is he respectful enough?
How about the United States Supreme Court in various rulings saying that the Constitution was written in the language of English Common Law (Smith v. Alabama)? Or them declaring that when someone is in this country, they are subject to the jurisdiction of this country (U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark)
How about the Supreme Court of the State of New York? (Lynch v. Clarke)
How about the Federal District Courts, State Courts and courts of appeals in cases such as U.S. v. Rhodes, U.S. v. Low Hung, Takana v. INS, Diaz-Salazar v. INS, Musata v. Justice Department, New Hartford, v. Cannan, Munro v. Merchant?
How about just about every constitutional scholar and American Law review throughout history, such as Black, Rowle, Paschel, and others?
How about every single U.S. Senator, and every single U.S. Congressman, including direct quotes from Senator Lindsey Graham, and Orrin Hatch?
How about Professor Gabriel J. Chin (Arizona), Professor Daniel P. Tokaji (Ohio State), Solicitor General Theodore Olson (Bush Admin), or Professor Laurence Tribe (Harvard)?
What about Senator Lyman Trumbull?
You got even any Law School Professors to press your point?
Read this page…
http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2009/01/the-great-mother-of-all-natural-born-citizen-quotation-pages/
New Docket Entry:
09/28/2009 21 ORDER granting 20 Motion to Withdraw as Attorney with conditions (see order for explanation). Attorney Orly Taitz terminated. Ordered by Judge Clay D. Land on 09/28/2009 (esl) (Entered: 09/28/2009)
Text of the Order:
O R D E R
“Plaintiff’s counsel filed a motion to withdraw as counsel for Plaintiff (Doc. 20). Plaintiff apparently does not object to such withdrawal. (See Doc. 18.) Accordingly, counsel’s motion to withdraw is granted with the following conditions. Counsel remains subject to the jurisdiction of this Court for purposes of the Court’s show cause sanctions order and related proceedings, and Plaintiff remains subject to the jurisdiction of this Court for purposes of the Court’s previous order casting the court costs upon Plaintiff.
The Court further notes that this order shall not be construed to authorize Plaintiff’s counsel to breach any attorney-client privilege that may exist due to counsel’s representation of Plaintiff. Moreover, the Court notifies counsel that in issuing its show cause sanctions order, the Court did not rely upon the letter sent by Plaintiff purporting to discharge counsel (Doc. 18), nor does the Court intend to rely upon that document in future proceedings regarding sanctions against Plaintiff’s counsel. Whether Plaintiff expressly authorized counsel to file the motion for reconsideration is irrelevant to the Court’s determination of whether the filing was legally frivolous.
IT IS SO ORDERED, this 28th day of September, 2009.”
Linda says:
September 28, 2009 at 2:19 pm
ATTENTION….
I want as much focus on this blog as possible when I publish Part 3 of the TerriK Investigation Report, subtitled:
STATE OF HAWAII LAW DEMANDS THAT VITAL RECORDS INFORMATION FOR PRESIDENT OBAMA BE RELEASED TO THE PUBLIC ALONG WITH ALL RECORDS PERTAINING TO DoH DIRECTOR FUKINO’S JULY 27, 2009 PRESS RELEASE.
Not only has Obama waived privacy interests, the state waived them as well. More important is the fact that state law governs that no privacy interest exception applies when the information requested is required to be released under the UIPA at 92F-12.
The only question is whether Hawaii will obey its own laws.
I will publish this report late tonight or early tomorrow morning.
This comment was issued by Leo C. Donofrio on September 27, 2009 at 12:41PM ET
Please repost far and wide.
____________________________________________________________________
Of course we know that is what Leo believes. He is probably having a flashback to his poker playing days and is trying to bluff the public and the state of Hawaii. However I hope the birthers are not relying that much on Leo and the others to all of a sudden turn this into a smoking gun moment and somehow use this to obtain the information they seek.
The HI Office of Information Practices (OIP), the agency in which the infamous “TerriK” appealed the decision of the Department of Health to reponded to her appeal request a couple of weeks ago. And not surprisingly they agreed with the DoH regarding what they consider to be private information bound by the federal privacy laws. Leo has an uphill battle in this matter. In the end he may not be a successful as he thinks he will be.
http://nativeborncitizen.wordpress.com/2009/09/27/leos-argument/
Of course Leo is aware of result of “TerriK’s” appeal and reason given by the OIP for denying her request. And he should also be aware that the courts in HI usually defer to the opinion of the OIP in these matters. States find it very difficult to violate federal privacy rules so the burden of proof is really on Leo in this case to show why the state should release this information.
An interesting piece from the article…
“Leo appears to still hold a somewhat confused interpretation as to 92F-12(a)(15) which states that data which are collected for the purpose of being made publicly available should be publicly available as well. However, per HRS 338, the vital records are not collected for the purpose of being made publicly available and are in fact explicitly stated to not be released publicly. Leo seems to interpret 92F-12(a)(15) as if anytime some information is made public, the underlying data should also be made public. Such an interpretation runs directly counter to HRS 338 and the better and more likely interpretation of HRS 92F-12(a)(15), namely the avoidance of reduplication of data generation.”
brygenon says:
““Null” is exactly what eligibility deniers come up with when specifically challenged to cite any respected legal authority who claims Barack Obama is ineligible. I’ve been making that challenge for some time.”
Ok, brygenon. I can offer you the same challenge.
Cite one legal authority that we respect that says he is eligible.
So let me get this straight.. They’re to have us believe that his long form has been destroyed after Hawaii state officials have gone on record saying that they have seen/verified it?