Eligibility Update: Ankeny v. Daniels and Citizenship; Sen. Frist on “Birthers;” Kerchner Ad
Recently, Indiana Court of Appeals Judge Elaine Brown affirmed the lower Court’s decision regarding Ankeny v. Daniels and set off some interesting dissent regarding the natural born citizenship issue.
Attorney Leo Donofrio posted the following in response to the Judge’s opinion:
Also, the Chester Arthur analysis in Footnote 16 reeks. This Indiana decision is pure evil. They have rewritten history to make it appear as if the whole world knew Chester Arthur was a British citizen at birth while history records this blog discovered that fact and first published it to the world in December 2008. Before that time, it was not known. The propaganda has spread from the press to the courts.]
The Indiana Court of Appeals in the Arkeny and Kruse case has just issued a lame judicial attempt at defining the “natural born citizen” clause. The errors of fact and law incorporated into the decision serve as a beacon outlining the desperation certain government factions now face. Obviously, the British birth issue is getting on their nerves and this was clearly an attempt to derail further national discussion on this issue. …
Their main argument is to state that citizens are only born or naturalized. That fails to take into account the framers (and other original citizens) who themselves were neither born citizens nor were they naturalized. So the Court proves itself a bit wonky on that point. Still, I certainly do not dispute that today all US citizens are either born or naturalized. But that’s not the point. The necessary evaluation requires consideration of the various types of born citizenship. And on this important issue, the Indiana Court of Appeals has failed.
Born citizens can be broken up into three groups:
1. natural born
2. citizens by statute
3. 14th amendment citizens
- All three classes were born as US citizens, but not all three are the same. Persons born abroad are citizens by federal statute.
- A person born on US soil to alien parents who were domiciled here, according to Wong Kim Ark, is a 14th Amendment citizen.
- Natural born citizens are born on US soil to parents who are citizens.
All of the above are citizens, but each reaches their citizenship through different circumstances.
To be “natural born” is a circumstance of citizenship. It is not a separate level of citizenship. All citizens have equal rights. But naturalized citizens aren’t eligible for the office of President. This is because the natural born citizen clause is a national security measure, not a right of citizenship. The Indiana Court conveniently ignores this point.
Born citizens are not necessarily bestowed with citizenship in the same way. Some require a statute. Some require the 14th Amendment. Some were natural born and their citizenship was self-evident. …
Blogger and attorney Larry Welch goes on to show some of the other oddities of the order:
…Something I uncovered a few months ago that has been overlooked by all of the parties is that the certification filed with Indiana’s Election Division by the DNC and Indiana’s Democratic Party omitted language certifying that Barack Obama was a natural born citizen. That’s not a problem though for Judge Brown, who then went on to offer her constitutional interpretation of what “natural born citizen” means, something our U.S. Supreme Court has never done and something she had no obligation to do since there were already sufficient grounds to affirm Judge Dreyer’s dismissal of the badly flawed lawsuit.
The only thing I believe the plaintiffs got right in their lawsuit was their contention that a “natural born citizen” is a person born within the U.S. to two U.S. citizen parents. Obama’s father was at all times during his life a citizen of Kenya, which at the time of Obama’s birth was a British commonwealth. By virtue of his father’s citizenship, Obama was indisputably a dual citizen at birth. A person owing allegiance to two countries cannot be described as a natural born citizen in my opinion. The fact that Obama says he never affirmed his British citizenship before the age he was legally required to do so is irrelevant. A fact conveniently overlooked in Judge Brown’s decision is that Obama immigrated to Indonesia at age 6 with his mother and became a citizen in that country as well after his step-father adopted him. Sen. John McCain also arguably was not a natural born citizen because he was born in a Panamanian hospital while his father was stationed at a Navy base in the Panama Canal Zone. Both Obama and McCain are U.S. citizens for different reasons, but the term “natural born citizen” is a unique term used in the U.S. Constitution only to define a person’s eligibility to serve as president. …
It is worth noting that of the dozens of cases that have been brought forth over the past year challenging whether Obama is a natural born citizen, this is the only opinion that has been decided on the merits of the claim that he is not a natural born citizen. Every other decision refrained from making any determination on the actual merit; instead, the courts dismissed the complaints for lack of standing on the part of the plaintiffs to bring the constitutional eligibility challenge. There’s a reason other courts failed to reach a conclusion Judge Brown reached in this opinion. It is based upon the long-held rule of constitutional interpretation that a court should refrain from deciding a case on constitutional grounds when the case can be disposed of on other non-constitutional grounds. Procedurally, this case had to be dismissed because the plaintiffs sued the wrong defendant and lacked standing to sue. There was no reason for the court to decide a constitutional question as it did in this case, and that’s what makes it so disturbing. Judge Terry Crone and Melissa May signed on to Judge Brown’s decision. Gov. Mitch Daniels appointed Judge Brown to the Court of Appeals last year. I bet we won’t hear Gov. Daniels complaining about the judicial activism of his own appointees like he did the judges who ruled Indiana’s voter I.D. law unconstitutional.
The truth of all the above can be summed up in the following two points:
- The Judiciary has never made a ruling on the definition of natural born citizenship eligibility with respect to the presidency. For any Judge to attempt to opine on the subject, as has been done before when there is no legitimate reason to do so, shows further anecdotal evidence that the Judiciary needs to be restrained;
- Since even this Judge won’t touch the fact that Mr. Obama was a British citizen at birth, this bigger issue of his background will continue until the evidence is shown that otherwise contradicts what is already admitted about this man.
Via commenter “Black Lion,” the HuffingtonPost asked former Sen. Bill Frist about “birthers:”
Is the birther movement bad for the Republican Party?
I don’t think its a reflection of the Republican Party. I think that people trying to connect the two are exaggerating and trying to make a point.
Do you think President Obama was born in this country?
Absolutely. I have no question about Obama’s citizenship. [emphases original]
In response, commenter “MGB” pretty much sums up my response to this questioning:
Better questions would be: Do you KNOW that Obama was born in this country? If so, HOW do you know?
No, “because I saw an image of a document on the Internet” doesn’t cut it, because nobody’s been able to authenticate the document to which the image points. To date, any such official relationship is purely — how did Judge Brown put it? — ah, yes: conclusory.
Plaintiff Charles Kerchner of the case currently in appeal, Kerchner v. Obama, has submitted the following ad to The Washington Times Weekly:
Citizen vs Natural Born Citizen Advertorial in 20091116 Issue of Wash Times National Weekly – pg 5
And John Charlton at The Post & Email posts that the Director of Hawaii’s Office of Information Practices has resigned:
(Nov. 16, 2009: 7:30 PM ET) — The Director of the Office of Information Practices (OIP) in Hawaii resigned quietly from his position on Nov. 6th and where he went is unclear, according to Hawaii government personnel. …
This story was previously covered by The Post & Email in a series of reports and editorials beginning on September 23rd. …
Don Shimabukuro of that office, in passing, mentioned to me that the director, Mr. Paul Tsukiyama took another position with the state, and had resigned from his position of Director of the Office of Information Practices on Nov. 6th. Since Nov. 9th the acting director is Cathy Takase. When asked what position Mr. Tsukiyama had taken, Mrs. Shimabukuro was unclear where he had gone.
I contacted the Office of Governor Lingle, on the hunch that it was the governor who nominated or promoted the former Director. That office too was unclear what position he had taken, saying that they had never heard of Paul Tsukiyama. Mrs. Queenie, at the Office of Constituent Affairs, expressed surprise at Shimabukuro’s lack of awareness of her former Director’s new position, saying, “And that office wouldn’t tell you where he went?” [emphases original]
See the following links regarding the eligibility saga:
- The background:
- The questions:
-Phil
Subscriptions -=- Twitter: @trsol -=- Facebook (TRSoL) -=- Facebook (Rightside Phil)
Good try, Loren, but I was speaking to Phil.
Besides, if you are right, you wouldn’t be here, I wouldn’t be here, and this blog would have died the day the case was dismissed.
So much for your idea of authority on the eligibility issue. It’s a federal matter any way, and Indiana is not a federal authority.
What about the Presidential Records Act of 1978 ?
All of obama’s records are available NOW
– USC Title 44 Chapter 25
Anyone should be able to use a FOIA under this 1978 Law and publish
his records
A new video is out on YouTube about the words – Natural Born Citizen – Three Little Words. Definitely worth watching. Here is the link:
http://www.youtube.com/view_play_list?p=B278681E23614868
RJ
THEY’RE OUT TO GET ME.
THEY WON’T CATCH ME.
‘CAUSE I’M INNOCENT!
MM
Black Lion says:
November 20, 2009 at 1:00 pm
*You are simply trying to read an implication into a choice of terminology. *
Exactly. “Native”, “native born”, “citizen at birth”, “citizen from birth”, “natural born citizen”, “natural-born citizen” all mean the same thing and are used interchangeably in a number of Supreme Court decisions. Playing games with the terminology is an attempt to confuse people who don’t know any better. People like Linda, who insist we realize how intelligent and educated they are, should be ashamed for foisting this garbage on people who are less educated. You can’t be intelligent and well-educated and make the statements Linda has about the Wong decision unless you’re being completely disingenuous.
Linda says:
November 20, 2009 at 12:39 pm
*WKA is a citizen, but is NOT a natural born citizen. WKA has all the rights of the latter, but could never be the latter due to his parents being foreigners.*
An utter falsehood. The Supreme Court found Wong Kim Ark to be a natural born citizen. You either haven’t read the Wong decision and are parroting what you’ve read at Leo’s blog, or you are deliberately trying to mislead people.
*I paid attention and actually retained what I was taught.*
Not closely enough it appears. Trying to invent a category of citizens who are citizens from birth yet not natural born citizens and say it comes from the Wong decision is deceitful. If you are as well-educated and intelligent as you insist we believe, you should be ashamed of yourself for promoting a lie. You don’t need a Berkeley education to read the Wong decision and realize what you are purveying is a load of cr@p.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0169_0649_ZO.html
Linda says:
November 20, 2009 at 12:39 pm
It would be both. Minor was used for the decision in WKA where the court determines that WKA is a citizen, but is NOT a natural born citizen. WKA has all the rights of the latter, but could never be the latter due to his parents being foreigners.
Nice try at confusing the issue. I may have grown up in rural America with a graduating class one tenth the size of most, but atleast I paid attention and actually retained what I was taught.
___________________________________________________________________
Really? You are sure. Because you need to reread the decision and figure out the difference between necessary and sufficient. Because the Minor decision comments that being born in the United States to citizen parents is a sufficient condition to be a natural born citizen but then says that did not assert that it a necessary one. The Indiana appeals court in Ankeny v Daniels similarly states that being born in the United States is a sufficient condition to be a natural born citizen and then goes on to say that nothing in the decision makes it a necessary condition.
The Minor Court held open the possibility that persons born in the United States of alien parents too might be natural born citizens, something upheld in the arguments in US v Wong. The Indiana court held open the possibility that persons born overseas to citizen parents might also be natural born citizens, but could not make that assertion because the case law is not strong on that point.
The section in dispute specifically states…
“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 [not "natural born citizens", but "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.”
Note the affirmation of the common-law definition and the equivalence of “natives” and “natural born citizens”.
The Minor case specifically does not define that the definition of a natural born citizen requires that both parents be citizens at the time of birth of an individual. It specifically says that this is a disputed question, and further there is no way you conclude that Minor’s phrasing of “parents of children” means one or two parents per child. And of course while the Minor court left the question hanging, the Wong court cleared it up
In the ruling for the Minor case, the Supreme Court EXPLICITLY said they would NOT address the question of children born to alien parents. The Court only had questions regarding whether children born to alien parents became citizens of the US, period. No third class of citizens was discussed in this case. Throughout English legal history it was assumed that native were the same as natural born. Natives or natural born citizens were different from aliens or foreigners. And finally the Wong Kim Ark case determined that the children of non citizens, or aliens, are citizens of the United States.
Linda says:
November 20, 2009 at 12:28 pm
*When looking into the original intent of the framers of the 18th century*
___________________________________________________________________
And since the founders did not detail their intent other than with the Constitution, we are left to debate what that intent was….it is sufficient to say that the Framers understood that “natural born citizen” meant nothing more or less than “born a citizen” analogous to the British common law term “natural born subject”. And three years later they proved that they didn’t mean “born in the country to two citizen parents” when they passed the Naturalization Act of 1790 that explicitly declared the children of citizen fathers born overseas “natural born citizens.” If this is not what they intended originally, then they changed their minds. I believe, and the Supreme Court repeatedly agrees, that “natural born citizen” is defined by British common law and the analogous term “natural born subject”.
Linda says:
November 20, 2009 at 12:28 pm
Hmmm, so a student who graduated with honors has a faulty memory. Good One, now since you know so much, maybe you had better call the school I graduated from and have my name removed from the honor rolls for those 4 years I spent there.
___________________________________________________________________
Yet Linda you are unable to provide us with the textbook that you supposedly heard that crap in. Is it that difficult for you to contact the school that you “graduated with honors from” and find out? I mean you were sure that you heard about this “both parents must be citizens” requirement in your History and Gov’t class. Which is kind of strange because it has never come up before Leo’s brillant theory last year. If you don’t believe me than google that phrase and see how many articles you find that make that argument that predate 2007, when the rumors that Obama was going to run started to leak. Come on, you graduated with honors, so this should not be a problem.
And as for your supporting info from the biased Federalist blog, I will see that and call you with the following….
Thanks to Ballantine from obamaconspiracy for the info…
No court has ruled on NBC. The court has not defined many terms, but that does not mean a definition is in doubt. Even if it was in doubt, the court will look to all early legal authorities to define such term…
With respect to native birth, Wong stated that since the common law was adopted, all children born in the US are generally native born citizens. You are simply trying to read an implication into a choice of terminology. The court made clear the English common law rules controlled and under the common law all the native born (subject to common law exceptions) were by definition “natural born.” I think you need to refresh your Blackstone as you would see there are only 2 classes of people at birth under the common law, the natural born and the alien born. The natural born were also referred to as natives. There is no authority anywhere that says there is a difference between native and natural born under the common law.
Finally, here is a list of early authorities saying that the president needs to be native born citizen or a native. Take notice it includes the most influential scholars of the early republic that court consistently relies upon. If you or Leo [Donofrio] disagree with this multitude you need to find authority to the contrary. Clearly, there you have no such authority.
“No man but a native, or who has resided fourteen years in America, can be chosen President.” Elliot’s Debates –DEBATES IN THE CONVENTION OF THE STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA, ON THE ADOPTION OF THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION, pg 195-196 (statements of future Supreme Court Justice James Iredell, July 30, 1788).
“That provision in the constitution which requires that the president shall be a native-born citizen (unless he were a citizen of the United States when the constitution was adopted) is a happy means of security against foreign influence,…” St. George Tucker, BLACKSTONE’S COMMENTARIES (1803)
“As the President is required to be a native citizen of the United States…. Natives are all persons born within the jurisdiction and allegiance of the United States.” James Kent, COMMENTARIES ON AMERICAN LAW (1826)
“The president must, by law, be a native born citizen; so that none need aspire to that high calling, but those who might emphatically be termed natural sons of America.” Joseph Dennie, John Elihu Hall, The Port Folio, pg. 199, (18)
“By the provisions of the federal constitution, the President and Vice President of the United States are required to be native-born citizens; and the President is required to cause the laws of the Union to be executed.” Rep. Russel, Congressional Globe, 24th Cong., 1st Sess. pg 4256 (1836)
” It is not too much to say, that no one, but a native citizen, ought ordinarily to be intrusted with an office so vital [the presidency] to the safety and liberties of the people. But an exception was, from a deep sense of gratitude, made in favor of those distinguished men, who, though not natives, had, with such exalted patriotism, and such personal sacrifices, united their lives and fortunes with ours during the Revolution….” Joseph Story, A Familiar Exposition of the Constitution of the United States, pg. 167 (1842 ed.)
“Citizenship” ….Citizens are either native born or naturalized. Native citizens may fill any office; naturalized citizens may be elected or appointed to any office under the constitution of the United States, except the office of president and vice-president.” Bouvier Law Dictionary (1843)
“No person can be elected president who is less than 35 years of age, who is not a native born citizen of the United States, or was not a citizen at the time of the adoption of the constitution of the United Stales…” John Ramsay McCulloch, Daniel Haskel, M’Culloch’s Universal Gazetteer: A Dictionary, Geographical, Statistical, and Historical, of the Various Countries, Places, and Principal Natural Objects in the World, pg. 994 (1844)
“Afterwards however, in Convention, the words “natural born citizen” were stricken out, and the word ” native” was substituted, as the original words might have left an uncertainty as to the meaning of the Convention, for ” natural born citizen” might have had some reference to the manner of birth, while the word “native” would refer more particularly to the place of birth. ” Sherman Croswell, R. Sutton, Debates and Proceedings in the New-York State Convention – New York (State) Pg. 148 (1846)
“No person can be President or Vice-president who is not a native-born citizen, of the age of thirty-five years, ….” Richard Swainson Fisher, The progress of the United States of America: from the earliest periods. Geographical, statistical, and historical, pg. 9 (1854)
“The executive power is vested in a president and vice-president; each chosen for a term four years each to be a native born citizen…..Emma Willard, Abridged history of the United States, or, Republic of America, pg. 254 (1856)
” They declared by that solemn compact, that the President of the United States should be a native born citizen, … Samuel Clagett Busey, Immigration: Its Evils and Consequences pg. 10 (1856) pg. 10
“Your committee is of opinion that no one can be eligible to discharge, for the time being, the functions of President, unless he be thirty-five years old, and a native born citizen. A Speaker of the House, or a President pro tempore, might not have these qualifications —and if so, he could not act as President in compliance with the Constitution.” Sen. Butler, 8/05/1856, Reports of Committees: 30th Congress, 1st Session – 48th Congress, 2nd Session, pg. 4., By United States Congress. Senate, Congress, Published 1856
“One of those principles is that the candidate voted for must be thirty-five years of age; another is that he must have been a citizen of tho United States at the time the Constitution was adopted, or he must be a native-born citizan.” Sen. Davis, 2/2/1865 reported in The presidential counts: a complete official record of the proceedings of Congress at the counting of the electoral votes in all the elections of president and vice-president of the United States; pg. 203 (1877)
“It is a singular fact, however, that to-day, under the Federal Constitution, a negro may be elected President, United States Senator, or a member of the lower branch of Congress. In that instrument no qualification for office is prescribed which rejects the negro. The white man, not native born, may not be President, but the native-born African may be.” Sen. Henderson, Civil Rights Acts Debates, reported in Cong. Globe, 1st Sess. 39th Congress, pt. 1, pg. 387 (1866)
“By the terms of the Constitution he must have been a citizen of the United States for nine years before he could take a seat here, and seven years before he could take a seat in the other House ; and, in order to be President of the United States, a person must be a native-born citizen. It is the common law of this country, and of all countries, and it was unnecessary to incorporate it in the Constitution, that a person is a citizen of the country in which he is born….I read from Paschal’s Annotated Constitution, note 274: “All persons born in the allegiance of the king are natural born subjects, and all persons born in the allegiance of the United States are natural born citizens. Birth and allegiance go together. Such is the rule of the common law, and it is the common law of this country as well as of England. There are two exceptions, and only two, to the universality of its application. The children of ambassadors are, in theory, born in the allegiance of the powers the ambassadors represent, and slaves, in legal contemplation, are property, and not persons. (2 Kent’s Com. 3d ed. l ; Calvin’s Case, 7 Coke, 1 ; 1 Black. Com. 366; Lynch v. Clark, 1 Sandf. Ch. Rep. 139.)” Sen. Trumbull (author or the Civil Rights Act of 1866), April 11, 1871, Cong. Globe. 1st Session, 42nd Congress, pt. 1, pg. 575 (1872)
“What is the qualification for the office of President? He must be a native-born citizen of the United States and thirty-five years of age. Nothing more!” Rep. Boutwell, 1/11/69 cited in Great Debates in American History: Civil rights, part 2 Volume 8 of Great Debates in American History: From the Debates in the British Parliament on the Colonial Stamp Act (1764-1765) to the Debates in Congress at the Close of the Taft Administration (1912-1913), United States. Congress, pg. 113 (1913)
“One of the qualifications of President of the United States is that he must be a native born citizen, and incontestibly were it not for this provision a naturalized citizen might, if elected, hold that high position.” White v. Clements, Georgia Supreme Court, 1870, Reports of Cases in Law and Equity, Argued and Determined in the Supreme Court of the State of Georgia, in the Year , pg. 256-57 (1870)
“The qualifications for president and vice-president by this clause are made the same. They must, therefore, be native born citizens of the United States, or citizens of the United States at the time of the adoption of the federal constitution, and been fourteen years citizens of the United States, and thirty-five years old.” John King, A Commentary on the Law and True Construction of the Federal Constitution, pg. 206, (1871)
“These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners.” Minor v. Happersett, 21 Wall. (U. S.) 162 (1874).
“The President was required to be thirty-five years of age, and native born, or a citizen at the adoption of the Constitution.” Richard Hildreth, The History of the United States of America, pg. 521 (1880)
“The President and the Vice-President, (and hence their Electors also), are required, however, to be native-born citizens of the United States. Here we have a clear inclusion of all the States as to their native-born, and a clear Delusion of all foreign-born citizens.” Meeds Tuthill, The civil polity of the United States considered in its theory and practice, pg. 83 (1883)
“As the president and vice-president are elected at and for the same time, the right to be chosen to both offices is dependent upon the same conditions (12th amendment). To be eligible, it is necessary to be a native-born citizen of the United States,…Hermann Von Holst, Alfred Bishop Mason, The Constitutional Law of the United States of America” pg. 84 (1887)
Linda says:
November 20, 2009 at 12:28 pm
*When looking into the original intent of the framers of the 18th century*
Writings of the “intent” of the framers are meaningless in courts of law. What matters is precedent and the law. You can parse and interpret what the framers intended until night falls and it will not give you a valid argument in court. Such writings fall into the category of non-factual assertions of legal conclusions. As Ankeny and Kruse found out when the ignored the Supreme Court ruling in Wong, and instead tried to argue their case in the very same way you are trying to do. Nice try but no cigar.
See pp17-18 here:
http://www.in.gov/judiciary/opinions/pdf/11120903.ebb.pdf
It would be both. Minor was used for the decision in WKA where the court determines that WKA is a citizen, but is NOT a natural born citizen. WKA has all the rights of the latter, but could never be the latter due to his parents being foreigners.
Nice try at confusing the issue. I may have grown up in rural America with a graduating class one tenth the size of most, but atleast I paid attention and actually retained what I was taught.
Hmmm, so a student who graduated with honors has a faulty memory. Good One, now since you know so much, maybe you had better call the school I graduated from and have my name removed from the honor rolls for those 4 years I spent there.
Here is what you missed being taught in your liberal progressive Alinsky school of misinformation:
bob strauss says:
November 19, 2009 at 4:15 pm
Black Lion, Why when describing the Low case did you hyphenate natural born, the way Hawaii DOH did when describing Obama’s status?
___________________________________________________________________
No, because that wouldn’t change the meaning. When the HI DOH Dr. Fukino stated President Obama was born in HI that was all I needed to hear. All someone needs to be is born in the US for them to be considered a natural born citizen. Whether you want to hyphenate it or not it means the same thing.
Phil,
“As I’ve just laid out, I think most of these questions are irrelevant. As for the third question, of course there’s evidence that Mr. Obama was at birth a citizen of the UK; you can do a search over at the FactCheck.org blog itself to see this admission.”
This so called “admission” is irrelevant based upon the recent Indiana Appellate Court unanimous decision by a 3-judge panel. The judges concluded that based on the Constitution and Wong Kim Ark, persons born within the borders of the US are natural born citizens regardless of parents’ status. President Obama’s “at birth citizenship of the UK” was due to his father’s citizenship which according to the recent court decision based upon previous Supreme Court decisions does not alter or change President Obama’s natural born Citizenship whatsoever.
“Based upon the language of Article II, Section 1, Clause 4 and the guidance provided by Wong Kim Ark, we conclude that persons born within the borders of the United States are “natural born Citizens” for Article II, Section 1 purposes, regardless of the citizenship of their parents.”
Note: These three Appellant court judges (3) did not “create law” but rather followed “existing law interpreted by SCOTUS’ decision of Wong Kim Ark.”
dunstvangeet,
I am saying that the Director of Health has no authority to make any determination with respect to any individual’s eligibility for the presidency. Therefore, it is a conclusive statement to suggest that the Director is saying that Mr. Obama is eligible for the presidency when, in fact, she did not say that.
Regarding “extreme[] parsing,” this should be nothing new to you nor anyone else who has been dealing with this issue for well over a year. I will have to say that it is a rather unfortunate set of circumstances, and I — quite frankly — thought that former President Clinton was “der Schlickmeister” in terms of true parsing of the law. I am, however, completely convinced that Mr. Obama could beat Mr. Clinton at the “is” game hands down.
Then you have completely and totally missed what I call the “second prong” of the eligibility argument (where the birth certificate, per se, is the “first prong”) — that Mr. Obama was (and could still be) a British citizen at birth.
Therefore, everything you’ve just said is pretty much irrelevant to me with respect to a discussion regarding his “at birth” status, considering that said status applies no matter where he was geographically born. In fact, it’s precisely and exactly the same situation that the American founding fathers were in when the Constitution was adopted; they were not natural born citizens in that they were initially born in a different country (physically and legally) and then subsequently had become Americans. In the case of Mr. Obama, he may have been born in Hawaii, but he was simultaneously already a national of a different country (if not physically, then certainly legally).
I see an issue there, regardless of how much the “lamestream media” or anyone else wants to poo-poo individuals such as myself for raising the question.
As I’ve just laid out, I think most of these questions are irrelevant. As for the third question, of course there’s evidence that Mr. Obama was at birth a citizen of the UK; you can do a search over at the FactCheck.org blog itself to see this admission.
Perhaps now that I’ve shown you that your line of questioning is largely irrelevant in terms of what I think, maybe this is no longer an issue.
If you actually saw my entire quotation, you would have seen that I never said that any Judges were creating law in the Ankeny v. Daniels case. Instead, I was communicating that, in general, it’s not up to the Judiciary to create law, but to interpret it; it’s too bad that you’ve jumped to a conclusion there.
Then again, it appears that many individuals in the opposition have jumped to the conclusion that there’s no way that Mr. Obama could be ineligible.
And, as I’ve always said, you’re clearly freely to come and go from my site as you please.
-Phil