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.

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:

Therefore; Claimant asserts ongoing Civil Rights Violations by the United States of America against Claimant, individually, and as a member of a Class and to the Class as a whole, due to Claimants National Origin not being recognized by exclusion of distinctions and omission of acknowledgement thus being offenses to the Legacy derived therefrom.

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.?

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.

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.

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.

*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.

Could you please describe what legal standard you would use to differentiate legitimate claims from illegitimate claims?

Oh, dear, so you plead guilty?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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?)