You Vattle Birthers Are Completely Friggin Nutz!!!
While I was a dedicated Common Sense Suspicious Birther before Obama finally coughed up his long form birth certificate, I was NEVER one of those Birthers who go around telling people it takes two citizen parents to be a natural born citizen. I call those idiots Vattle Birthers, because they try to wiggle a 300 year old dead Swiss guy named Emrich D. Vattel into our American law, as the basis for the term, natural born citizen. This is complete and utter CRAP. A 1898 Supreme Court case called Wong Kim Ark reviewed the history of citizenship of people born in America, and basically said, if you are born here, and not a child of a diplomat or invading soldier, then you are a natural born citizen.
In 2009, some Vattle Birthers took their silly arguments to court in Indiana, and lost. They appealed, and lost. The Vattle Birthers just HATE this case because it shoots them down, and their stupid theories. They like to act like this case was just pulled out of thin air by these judges, and therefore not worth the time of day. But, as you can read for yourself, this Court was very careful to back up their decision with numerous quotes from the 1898 Supreme Court case.
Here, reproduced in full is the part of the Appeals Court decision dealing with Natural Born Citizenship. I have moved the footnotes to the bottom and I have bolded some of the stuff so that it is easier to find. A link to the full case is provided at the bottom, so you can read the whole thing. First, here is the holding:
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. Just as a person “born within the British dominions [was] a natural-born British subject” at the time of the framing of the U.S. Constitution, so too were those “born in the allegiance of the United States [] natural-born citizens.”15
Now here is the Natural Born Citizen part of the case:
B. Natural Born Citizen
Second, the Plaintiffs argue that both President Barack Obama and Senator John McCain are not “natural born Citizens” as required for qualification to be President under Article II, Section 1, Clause 49 of the U.S. Constitution, and that therefore because neither person was constitutionally eligible to become President, “[t]he Governor . . . should [have been] prohibited by order of [the trial court] . . . from issuing any certificate of ascertainment, or any other certified statement, under the State Seal of the State of Indiana . . . .” Appellants’ Appendix at 13.
Before addressing the Plaintiffs’ specific arguments, we think it helpful to point out the context in which this claim arises. Leading up to the 2008 Presidential Election and in the ensuing months after, a number of lawsuits were filed nationwide challenging both President Barack Obama and Senator John McCain’s10 status as “natural born Citizens” under Article II of the U.S. Constitution. See, e.g., Berg v. Obama, 574 F. Supp. 2d 509 (E.D. Pa. 2008); Hollander v. McCain, 566 F. Supp. 2d 63 (D.N.H. 2008); Cohen v. Obama, No. 08-2150, 2008 WL 5191864 (D.D.C. Dec. 11, 2008), aff’d by 2009 WL 2870668 (D.C. Cir. Sept. 8, 2009); Wrotnowski v. Bysiewicz, 958 A.2d 709 (Conn. 2008). As to President Obama’s status, the most common argument has been waged by members of the so-called “birther” movement who suggest that the President was not born in the United States; they support their argument by pointing to “the President’s alleged refusal to disclose publicly an „official birth certificate” that is satisfactory to [the birthers].” Rhodes v. MacDonald, No. 4:09-CV-106, 2009 WL 2997605, at *1 (M.D. Ga. Sept. 16, 2009), reconsideration denied by 2009 WL 3111834 (M.D. Ga. Sept. 18, 2009).
The Plaintiffs in the instant case make a different legal argument based strictly on constitutional interpretation. Specifically, the crux of the Plaintiffs’ argument is that
“[c]ontrary to the thinking of most People on the subject, there’s a very clear distinction between a “citizen of the United States” and a “natural born Citizen,” and the difference involves having [two] parents of U.S. citizenship, owing no foreign allegiance.” Appellants’ Brief at 23. With regard to President Barack Obama, the Plaintiffs posit that because his father was a citizen of the United Kingdom, President Obama is constitutionally ineligible to assume the Office of the President.
The bases of the Plaintiffs’ arguments come from such sources as FactCheck.org, The Rocky Mountain News, an eighteenth century treatise by Emmerich de Vattel titled “The Law of Nations,” and various citations to nineteenth century congressional debate.11 For the reasons stated below, we hold that the Plaintiffs‟ arguments fail to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, and that therefore the trial court did not err in dismissing the Plaintiffs‟ complaint.
Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution governs who is a citizen of the United States. It provides that “[a]ll persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States . . . .” U.S. CONST. amend XIV, § 1. Article II has a special requirement to assume the Presidency: that the person be a “natural born Citizen.” U.S. CONST. art. II, § 1, cl. 4. The United States Supreme Court has read these two provisions in tandem and held that “[t]hus new citizens may be born or they may be created by naturalization.” Minor v. Happersett, 88 (21 Wall.) U.S. 162, 167 (1874). In Minor, written only six years after the Fourteenth Amendment was ratified, the Court observed that:
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.
Id. at 167-168. Thus, the Court left open the issue of whether a person who is born within the United States of alien parents is considered a natural born citizen.12
Then, in U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, 18 S. Ct. 456 (1898), the United States Supreme Court confronted the question of “whether a child born in the United States, of parents of Chinese descent, who at the time of his birth are subject to the emperor of China . . . becomes at the time of his birth a citizen of the United States, by virtue of the first clause of the fourteenth amendment . . . .” 169 U.S. at 653, 18 S. Ct. at 458. We find this case instructive. The Court in Wong Kim Ark reaffirmed Minor in that the meaning of the words “citizen of the United States” and “natural-born citizen of the United States” “must be interpreted in the light of the common law, the principles and history of which were familiarly known to the framers of the constitution.” Id. at 654, 18 S. Ct. at 459. They noted that “[t]he interpretation of the constitution of the United States is necessarily influenced by the fact that its provisions are framed in the language of the English common law, and are to be read in the light of its history.” Id. at 655, 18 S. Ct. at 459 (quoting Smith v. Alabama, 124 U.S. 465, 478, 8 S. Ct. 564, 569 (1888)). The Wong Kim Ark Court explained:
The fundamental principle of the common law with regard to English nationality was birth within the allegiance-also called „ligealty,‟ „obedience,‟ „faith,‟ or „power‟-of the king. The principle embraced all persons born within the king‟s allegiance, and subject to his protection. Such allegiance and protection were mutual,-as expressed in the maxim, „Protectio trahit subjectionem, et subjectio protectionem,‟-and were not restricted to natural-born subjects and naturalized subjects, or to those who had taken an oath of allegiance; but were predicable of aliens in amity, so long as they were within the kingdom. Children, born in England, of such aliens, were therefore natural-born subjects. But the children, born within the realm, of foreign ambassadors, or the children of alien enemies, born during and within their hostile occupation of part of the king‟s dominions, were not natural-born subjects, because not born within the allegiance, the obedience, or the power, or, as would be said at this day, within the jurisdiction, of the king.
This fundamental principle, with these qualifications or explanations of it, was clearly, though quaintly, stated in the leading case known as „Calvin‟s Case,‟ or the „Case of the Postnati,‟ decided in 1608, after a hearing in the exchequer chamber before the lord chancellor and all the judges of England, and reported by Lord Coke and by Lord Ellesmere. Calvin’s Case, 7 Coke, 1, 4b-6a, 18a, 18b; Ellesmere, Postnati, 62-64; s. c. 2 How. St. Tr. 559, 607, 613-617, 639, 640, 659, 679. The English authorities ever since are to the like effect. Co. Litt. 8a, 128b; Lord Hale, in Harg. Law Tracts, 210, and in 1 Hale, P. C. 61, 62; 1 Bl. Comm. 366, 369, 370, 374; 4 Bl. Comm. 74, 92; Lord Kenyon, in Doe v. Jones, 4 Term R. 300, 308; Cockb. Nat. 7; Dicey, Confl. Laws, pp. 173-177, 741.
* * * * *Lord Chief Justice Cockburn . . . said: “By the common law of England, every person born within the dominions of the crown, no matter whether of English or of foreign parents, and, in the latter case, whether the parents were settled, or merely temporarily sojourning, in the country, was an English subject, save only the children of foreign ambassadors (who were excepted because their fathers carried their own nationality with them), or a child born to a foreigner during the hostile occupation of any part of the territories of England. No effect appears to have been given to descent as a source of nationality.” Cockb. Nat. 7.
Mr. Dicey, in his careful and thoughtful Digest of the Law of England with Reference to the Conflict of Laws, published in 1896, states the following propositions, his principal rules being printed below in italics: “British subject’ means any person who owes permanent allegiance to the crown. „Permanent‟ allegiance is used to distinguish the allegiance of a British subject from the allegiance of an alien, who, because he is within the British dominions, owes „temporary‟ allegiance to the crown. „Natural-born British subject’ means a British subject who has become a British subject at the moment of his birth.’ ‘Subject to the exceptions hereinafter mentioned, any person who (whatever the nationality of his parents) is born within the British dominions is a natural-born British subject. This rule contains the leading principle of English law on the subject of British nationality.‟ The exceptions afterwards mentioned by Mr. Dicey are only these two: „(1) Any person who (his father being an alien enemy) is born in a part of the British dominions, which at the time of such person‟s birth is in hostile occupation, is an alien.‟ „(2) Any person whose father (being an alien) is at the time of such person’s birth an ambassador or other diplomatic agent accredited to the crown by the sovereign of a foreign state is (though born within the British dominions) an alien.‟ And he adds: „The exceptional and unimportant instances in which birth within the British dominions does not of itself confer British nationality are due to the fact that, though at common law nationality or allegiance in substance depended on the place of a person’s birth, it in theory at least depended, not upon the locality of a man‟s birth, but upon his being born within the jurisdiction and allegiance of the king of England; and it might occasionally happen that a person was born within the dominions without being born within the allegiance, or, in other words, under the protection and control of the crown.‟ Dicey, Confl. Laws, pp. 173-177, 741.
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.13
Id. at 655-658, 18 S. Ct. at 459-460.
Also, as quoted in Wong Kim Ark, Justice Joseph Story once declared in Inglis v. Trustees of Sailors‟ Snug Harbor, 28 U.S. (3 Pet.) 99 (1830), that “Nothing is better settled at the common law than the doctrine that the children, even of aliens, born in a country, while the parents are resident there under the protection of the government, and owing a temporary allegiance thereto, are subjects by birth.” Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. at 660, 18 S. Ct. at 461 (quoting Inglis, 28 U.S. (3 Pet.) at 164 (Story, J., concurring)). The Court also cited Justice Curtis‟s dissent in Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. (19 How.) 393 (1856):
The first section of the second article of the constitution uses the language, „a natural-born citizen.‟ It thus assumes that citizenship may be acquired by birth. Undoubtedly, this language of the constitution was used in reference to that principle of public law, well understood in this country at the time of the adoption of the constitution, which referred citizenship to the place of birth. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. at 662, 18 S. Ct. at 462 (quoting Dred Scott, 60 U.S. (19 How.) at 576 (Curtis, J., dissenting)).
The Court in Wong Kim Ark also cited authority which notes that:
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. We find no warrant for the opinion that this great principle of the common law has ever been changed in the United States. It has always obtained here with the same vigor, and subject only to the same exceptions, since as before the Revolution.
Id. at 662-663, 18 S. Ct. at 462 (quotations and citations omitted). The Court held that Mr. Wong Kim Ark was a citizen of the United States “at the time of his birth.”14 Id. at 705, 18 S. Ct. at 478.
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. Just as a person “born within the British dominions [was] a natural-born British subject” at the time of the framing of the U.S. Constitution, so too were those “born in the allegiance of the United States [] natural-born citizens.”15
The Plaintiffs do not mention the above United States Supreme Court authority in their complaint or brief; they primarily rely instead on an eighteenth century treatise and quotations of Members of Congress made during the nineteenth century. To the extent that these authorities conflict with the United States Supreme Court‟s interpretation of what it means to be a natural born citizen, we believe that the Plaintiffs‟ arguments fall under the category of “conclusory, non-factual assertions or legal conclusions” that we need not accept as true when reviewing the grant of a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim. Irish, 864 N.E.2d at 1120. Thus, we cannot say that the trial court erred when it dismissed the Plaintiffs‟ case. [16] See generally McCalment v. Eli Lilly & Co., 860 N.E.2d 884 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007) (holding that the plaintiffs‟ arguments had been sufficiently addressed by Indiana Supreme Court precedent and therefore the trial court did not err when it granted the defendant‟s motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted); see also, e.g., Diaz-Salazar v. I.N.S., 700 F.2d 1156, 1160 (7th Cir. 1983) (noting in its recitation of the facts that despite the fact father was not a citizen of the United States, he had children who were “natural-born citizens of the United States”), cert. denied 462 U.S. 1132, 103 S. Ct. 3112 (1983).
For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the trial court‟s grant of the Governor‟s motion to dismiss.
Affirmed.
CRONE, J., and MAY, J., concur.
[9] The Plaintiffs cite the “natural born Citizen” clause as Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 of the U.S. Constitution, but it is properly cited as Article II, Section 1, Clause 4. See also Ind. Code § 3-8-1-6.
[10] The United States Senate passed a resolution on April 30, 2008 which explicitly recognized Senator John McCain as a natural born citizen. S.J. Res. 511, 110th Cong. (2008). Also, the supposed authority cited by the Plaintiffs to support their claim as to the meaning of Article II, Section 1, Clause 4 of the U.S. Constitution does not support the argument that John McCain is not a natural born citizen. Plaintiffs state in their brief that the difference between being a “citizen of the United States” and a “natural born Citizen” “involves having [two] parents of U.S. Citizenship, owing no foreign allegiance.” Appellant’s Brief at 23. The Plaintiffs then concede that “John McCain . . . qualifie[s] as a „citizen of the United States,” by being born of [two] parents who were in turn „citizens of the United States,‟ and owed no foreign allegiance . . . .” Id. Their brief continues that “John McCain was born „subject to the jurisdiction‟ of the United States, but he was not born in one of the 50 States of the Union under Article IV of the Constitution, and thus . . . was not a „natural born Citizen . . . .‟” Id. at 23-24. Plaintiffs do not cite to any authority or develop any cogent legal argument for the proposition that a person must actually be born within one of the fifty States in order to qualify as a natural born citizen, and we therefore do not address Plaintiffs argument as it relates to Senator McCain. See Loomis, 764 N.E.2d at 668.
[11] Plaintiffs do not provide pinpoint citations to the congressional debate quotations to which they cite.
[12] Note that the Court in Minor contemplates only scenarios where both parents are either citizens or aliens, rather in the case of President Obama, whose mother was a U.S. citizen and father was a citizen of the United Kingdom.
[13] According to Westlaw, Wong Kim Ark has been cited to in over 1,000 cases.
[14] We note the fact that the Court in Wong Kim Ark did not actually pronounce the plaintiff a “natural born Citizen” using the Constitution‟s Article II language is immaterial. For all but forty-four people in our nation‟s history (the forty-four Presidents), the dichotomy between who is a natural born citizen and who is a naturalized citizen under the Fourteenth Amendment is irrelevant. The issue addressed in Wong Kim Ark was whether Mr. Wong Kim Ark was a citizen of the United States on the basis that he was born in the United States. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. at 705, 18 S. Ct. at 478.
[15] We reiterate that we do not address the question of natural born citizen status for persons who became United States citizens at birth by virtue of being born of United States citizen parents, despite the fact that they were born abroad. That question was not properly presented to this court. Without addressing the question, however, we note that nothing in our opinion today should be understood to hold that being born within the fifty United States is the only way one can receive natural born citizen status.
[16] We note that President Obama is not the first U.S. President born of parents of differing citizenship. Chester A. Arthur, the twenty-first U.S. President, was born of a mother who was a United States citizen and a father who was an Irish citizen. See THOMAS C. REEVES, GENTLEMAN BOSS, THE LIFE OF CHESTER ALAN ARTHUR 3-4 (1975). During the election of 1880, there arose a rumor “that [Arthur] had been born in Canada, rather than in Vermont as he claimed, and was thus constitutionally ineligible to become the Chief Executive.” Id. at 3. Although President Arthur‟s status as a natural born citizen was challenged in the 1880 Presidential Election on the grounds that he was born in Canada rather than Vermont, the argument was not made that because Arthur‟s father was an Irish citizen he was constitutionally ineligible to be President. See generally id.
I hope you enjoyed all this, and as you can see, IT DOESN’T TAKE TWO CITIZEN PARENTS TO BE A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN!!!
So There!!!
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
NOTE: Linky thing to the complete case:
The Birther Think Tank 
October 2nd, 2011 at 5:31 pm
I’ve been wondering for a while now, what have you considered yourself since Obama released the long form? Are you an after-birther, a skeptic, or some other term?
Do you think Obama is a natural born citizen?
October 12th, 2011 at 11:31 am
That is a good question. I talk about it in some of my Internet Articles. That is why I am doing Post-Birtherism Internet Articles here, and they have their own category. I think the KISS Matrix still has value, and is continuing to be vindicated as time goes on, that Obama has some major mental and attitude problems.
I am working on a major new Internet Article called , “2012 – The Year of the Birther” where I will discuss a lot of this.
I do believe that Obama is a natural born citizen if he was born in Hawaii or Connecticut. The law is very clear about that.
Sorry I did not answer this sooner, but I just now saw it.
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
November 3rd, 2011 at 8:58 pm
skepticismrock”
It’s hard to pin down exactly what Obama believes himself to be, but he has stated that he is a native-born citizen.
Of that he may be, but he is not a native-born Citizen.
ex animo
davidfarrar
October 12th, 2011 at 3:37 am
Wiyjout even having to read the unscholarly work above,it DOES REQUIRE that BOTH your parents be American and that you be born ON US Soil to be an NBC.
October 12th, 2011 at 11:26 am
Robert:
Well, your first mistake is you didn’t read the UN-SCHOLARLY work above. Because if you had, then you would realize that it DOES NOT require both parents be American. Closing your mind to what the law says is how you got to be a Vattle Birther in the first place. If you ever want to leave the CULT, then you will have to take those first baby steps and read stuff FOR YOURSELF.
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
October 26th, 2011 at 10:15 am
[…] Birtherism – The KISS MatrixThe Best Internet Article Ever On The SubjectThe Case the “Two Citizen Parent” Birthers Just HATE!!!Wong Kim Ark – Easy […]
October 26th, 2011 at 9:37 pm
I can’t see how you cannot be a birther if you believe there is only one law for all of us.
ex animo
davidfarrar
October 26th, 2011 at 9:40 pm
Do you know where Obama was born?
ex animo
davidfarrar
October 28th, 2011 at 11:27 am
In Hawaii.
October 28th, 2011 at 1:12 pm
Obama was more than likely born in Hawaii. This, however, does not mean Obama is a natural born citizen. Though, what I personally believe is that Obama is a natural born…person.
I find it asinine for birthers and anti-birthers to try and conflate the issues.
Whether Obama was born in Hawaii- issue of itself.
Short form- issue of itself
Long form- issue of itself
SSN- issue of itself
British citizenship- issue of itself
Indonesian citizenship- issue of itself
Cases of fraud (!)- issues of themselves
Whether Obama is a natural born citizen (going by the Vattelist definition) is more than likely going to go nowhere with the courts. When you look at all the discrepancies, however, you’ll see Obama has more than likely committed fraud in some way or form one way or another. Birthers seem to be gradually waking up to this revelation.
It’s important to attack the weak point! The dual citizenship is not the weak point! Granted, it’s still important to discuss, but, seriously, will a judge ever side with the birthers? For Pete’s sake, why do birthers have such a hard time accepting this! They can be 100% right, but it doesn’t mean it will go anywhere.
I kind of find a lot of the Vattel articles by Squeeky kind of silly to be perfectly honest. Birthers aren’t going to listen, and judges sure won’t agree with the “birthers.” Are Squeeky and the judges right? Once again, it doesn’t matter! The only way birthers can make it matter is by drawing public sentiment in support of the Vattel definition. I don’t foresee this happening.
Discrepancies surrounding the birth certificates (and expert evaluations), Indonesian issues, and evidence of numerous cases of fraud- these are the issues, imho, that should be focused on.
October 28th, 2011 at 2:34 pm
Skept:
I make the stuff silly or funny on purpose to be more fun to read. The Vattle Birthers do proceed along in a mindless fashion, with but one purpose in mind, without regard to logic or ethics or truth. If I say it that way, it just sounds sooo stale.
But, if I call them Living Brain Dead Zombies, that kind of brings up a mental picture to go with the words. Plus, I was in Debate in college (and Drama) and there is a difference between lively animated debating and people reading off of “quote cards”. The person who can express stuff in common everyday terms and expressions will win a lot more debates.
Plus, some of this stuff I do is really pretty devastating and intensely logical in the way I do it. Like the one on “scrubbing libraries in 1880” takes the charges leveled by the Vattle Birthers and runs it right straight up their rear-ends with the question of what happened with Chester Arthur. It makes their “scrubbing” argument look as silly as it is, while at the same time just clobbering them WITH LOGIC.
Sooo, there is method to my madness. Plus. read the thingy here about Mark Twain and Laughter.
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
October 26th, 2011 at 9:48 pm
US Supreme Court MINOR V. HAPPERSETT, 88 U. S. 162 (1874) superceds a state appeals court.
ex animo
davidfarrar
October 26th, 2011 at 11:51 pm
I think Obama was born in Hawaii. As far as Minor Happersett, the Ankeny Court had it right, that it did not resolve the issue. What are you going to say when no court believes that Minor v. Happersett is precedent, and probably throws the Vattle Birther case out before trial???
Will that be enough to convince you are wrong??? Or, will you blame the judges???
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
October 27th, 2011 at 2:11 pm
You think he was born in Hawaii; but you don’t know where. All you are doing is reciting hearsay from other people who have failed to issue an authenticated birth certificate. And until the original natal documents are examined and authenticate, nothing is known about Obama’s birth.
I am not familiar with the “Ankeny Court. Only the US Supreme Court make legal precedent.
ex animo
davidfarrar
October 29th, 2011 at 2:58 am
Obama’s autobiography, “Dreams from My Father”, written before he became a politician, has been worked over with a fine-tooth comb by many journalists.
Would a foreign student on scholarship, and a teenage daughter of a not-very-successful furniture/insurance salesman and a bank clerk have decided to travel outside of Hawaii for the birth of their son?
Since his mother was a U.S. citizen, the baby had U.S. citizen wherever he might have been born, maybe the only problem would have been eligibility for the U.S. Presidency. Would there have been any faking of place-of-birth back then, just so he could eventually be U.S. President?
We KNOW where Obama was born, – unless you can come up with some amazing evidence otherwise.
October 29th, 2011 at 7:47 pm
And that’s another thing: who does that? Who writes their autobiography before their careers have even started?
And if I can point out in Stanley Ann Dunham’s case, more precisely, her age, it does matter where Obama’s mother was when he was born, as to his citizenship. So there was a great need in “faking of place-of-birth then” just to acquire his US citizenship.
And you don’t KNOW where he was born. All you know is what the Hawaiian Heath Department says its records reflect.
ex animo
davidfarrar
October 28th, 2011 at 6:56 am
david,we have had an authenticated copy of the LFBC circulayting for quite some time now (we are not talking about the PDF here by the way, just the actual authenticated copy), which if it were to be presented in any court of law in the united states would be accepted as prima face evidence of your presidents birth in hawaii.
obviously that isn´t enough for you, but too bad – barack hussein obama is your president and commander in chief, and nothing you can do before 2012 is going to change that.
BTW, using semantics isn´t clever. you are fully aware of the case `arkeny vs govenor of the state of indiana´ which cited wong, not minor, as the precedent (wong being a later case than minor and actually being relevent to NBC status unlike minor) and the birthers lost – no big shock there.
P.S, good site squeeky – apologies for taking the piss a few weeks back.
October 28th, 2011 at 8:22 am
roadburner:
Even if you have a certified copy of Obama’s Hawaiian LFBC, unless, or until, the information contained on that document is verified, all it amounts to is official hearsay. The doctor it list is dead. The hospital has not record of Obama ever being there.
There is nothing magical about a birth certificate. It’s only probative value of any document depends on the verifiable facts it represents.
As far as the case you cite…it is meaningless and not on point. It’s a state case, and not a US Supreme Court case, which sets legal precedent.
As I, and many others who understand the issue at hand, will tell you: Minor directly construes Article II, the natural born Citizen clause, while Wong construes the 14th Amendment. Therefore, even if your state case superseded Wong, it doesn’t supersede Minor, in terms of what an actually A2S1C5 natural born Citizen is. Minor is still controlling legal precedent.
ex animo
davidfarrar
October 28th, 2011 at 10:20 am
come on david, get real!
what you are effectively saying is that it doesn´t matter if an official copy of a birth certificate is signed and sealed by the officials of the state as a true and legal copy of the original document (thereby verifying it´s authenticity under all u.s. laws), if the doctor is dead and can´t back up the claim, and the hospital will not release records of living individuals to third parties as it is prohibited by law, it´s false.
riiight.
the question isn´t can your president prove his birth in hawaii, it is can you prove otherwise. the main principal of u.s. law is innocent until proven guilty, and as accuser the responsibility of proof is upon YOU and the birther movement. this is why, having provided more concrete legal birth information than any other president in history, he is still president and the birther movement have lost EVERY case to date, because they have nothing.
with regards to wong, it was a SCOTUS case and 5 years after minor. even if minor was about NBC status (it wasn´t, it was concerned with voting rights), the SCOTUS decision on wong set precedent and prievious cases are then irrelivent as the decision was not overturned. this was wonderfully illustrated by the court´s use of wong in the arkeny case, and that it was taken no further after being kicked out.
if minor trumped wong in the arkeny case, it would have been apealed and won. it didn´t, it wasn´t, and the birther movement added another failure to the ever-growing list.
October 28th, 2011 at 11:29 am
Nicely done.
September 12th, 2012 at 9:23 am
”the main principal of u.s. law is innocent until proven guilty, and as accuser the responsibility of proof is upon YOU and the birther movement”.
Before any charges were made BO never proved he was qualified.
Too many questions. Too much cover up.
September 12th, 2012 at 10:19 am
Only in your paranoid and unfounded imagination, Jimmy. Only there.
Up until that point in time, no other candidate was ever asked for a birth certificate nor proffered one. Obama did. No one else. His COLB was offered freely for the public to see back in early 2008. The state of HI has backed it repeatedly. I realize that you are simply unhappy and ignorant, but that doesn’t change the fact that the COLB is the only official format of HI birth certificates provided by HI for more than the past decade.
All these “questions” and “cover up” are figments born out of your own fevered and irrationally paranoid imagination and simply not borne out by reality. Sorry.
October 28th, 2011 at 3:18 pm
Again, I am not familiar with the Arkeny case. Please cite the case if you want me to look at it. But from what I gather it is a state case, not a US Supreme Court case. If this is true, it doesn’t supersede Wong.
Minor was a voting rights case, but in order to see what the court did, we must look to the syllabuses of the case. Before the Minor court to reach a decision as to voting, it had to reach the issue of citizenship…it’s all in the second syllabus of the case.
The Minor court said the Constitution stood moot on the actual definition of what a natural born Citizen was, so it (the Minor court) had to set the precedent itself. The Minor court took judicial notice that the plaintiff (Virginia Minor) was a person born within the jurisdiction of citizen parents. Mrs. Minor was, in fact, a natural born Citizen as the Minor court understood the term to mean. It did so by observing that Mrs. Minor was a citizen before and after 14th Amendment — a key aspect of a natural born Citizen.
The Minor court also observed that there was less doubt as to the loyalty of a person born within the jurisdiction of citizen parents than a 14th Amendment who had not been born of citizen parents but within the jurisdiction. It was to this last point the authors of Article II, and the delegates to the Constitutional Convention unanimously upheld, without debate.
ex animo
davidfarrar
October 28th, 2011 at 3:32 pm
roadburner;
As to Obama’s certified birth certificate: again, in a court of law, a birth certificate is only prima facie evidence. If the originating documents cannot be found and the information contained in the birth certificate cannot be verified or cross-checked, the document itself has little probative value.
I am not a forensic document expert, but there are any number of them who have now gone on the record and have prima facie evidence that would indicate Obama posted LFBC is a forgery.
But, as I said, the information the Hawaiian Health Department has certified to is only as good as its originating documentation. Until this information is revealed, examined and authenticate, it means little by way of proof positive.
ex animo
davidfarrar
October 28th, 2011 at 6:16 pm
david, you´re clutching at straws here
if the copy of the LFBC is accepted by law in any court in the u.s, that´s it, no other proof is required. the original is on file (which the copy was made from) and it was signed and sealed as legal copy. if the original couldn´t be found, where do you think they made the copy from?
more to the point, if it doesn´t exist as you believe (but are unable to prove), where is the proof of his birth? the kenya theory has been well and truly exploded, and the kenyan certificates exposed as obvious bad forgeries. so what does that leave? exactly the same as lives in every birther case to date – absolutely nothing.
quite obviously you are not a forensic document analyst, and to date there have been no forensic document analysts who have gone on the record saying the LFBC is a forgery. the reason for this is that none have examined the original (prohibited by law) nor the copy made by the hawaii DOH. any forensic document analyst who laid claim that the original or copy was a forgery by looking at the PDF would lose all credibility. WND has trotted out some photoshop specialists to look at the PDF but no forensic documents analysts.
have you considered changing your signature from `ex animo´ to `mulgere hircum´? under the circumstances (attempting to remove your president from office) i´m inclined to consider it more apt.
October 29th, 2011 at 6:44 am
roadbuner:
Look on Obama LFBC…it says it is “prima facie” evidence. It is also prima facie evidence that what Obama produced on the internet and said was his LFBC can be proven to be a forgery.
But look where you have placed those who simply want to prove Obama is what he says he is: He produces something he calls a birth certificate, but we have to take his word for it, because the only way we can prove otherwise is by examining the original, which Obama won’t allow. Does that sound like the actions of an honorable man, with an authentic birth certificate?
ex animo
davidfarrar
October 29th, 2011 at 12:56 pm
http://web.archive.org/web/20040627142700/eastandard.net/headlines/news26060403.htm
Anybody ever read this!
October 29th, 2011 at 1:52 pm
Yes, but only us crazy “birthers” believe it though.
ex animo
davidfarrar
October 30th, 2011 at 8:20 am
david,
how can you say that a PDF of a document proves that the document is a forgery? there are cases like lucas smith´s POSFKBC that has such glaring errors that need no forensic examination, but the hawaII DOH cert?
`But look where you have placed those who simply want to prove Obama is what he says he is´ – he has provided more information than any president in u.s. history, and yet you want more. why is that?
` He produces something he calls a birth certificate, but we have to take his word for it, because the only way we can prove otherwise is by examining the original, which Obama won’t allow.´ – no, you don´t have to take his word for it, it´s the hawaii DOH you have to believe. your president isn´t preventing access to the original, u.s. law is. it would appear that the birther movement is somewhat selective in which laws they think should be obeyed.
` Does that sound like the actions of an honorable man, with an authentic birth certificate?´ – yes, it sounds like someone who has provided proof and can no longer be bothered by an incredibly small but vociferous minority of people who got upset that their candidate lost the last election and dislike the result.
let´s look at this from both sides for a moment.
there are 2 possibilities here.
1) there is a conspiracy involving the democrat party, the republican party, all of congress, all the senate, the electoral college, the complete legal system including the SCOTUS, the hawaii DOH, and all the mainstream media. and no-one letting anything slip.
or 2) the birther movement is wrong
now think for just a couple of moments. which is the more probable?
September 12th, 2012 at 9:38 am
”can no longer be bothered by an incredibly small but vociferous minority of people who got upset”
40% of the electorate ‘is not sure he is eligible to be president”
60% of Reps
30% of Dems
September 12th, 2012 at 10:22 am
Care to cite your source for those particular statistics? If you are going to throw out numbers, you better be prepared to back them up and defend them.
Your claims certainly stretch credulity. That’s for sure.
October 30th, 2011 at 10:47 am
roadburner:
I didn’t say, “…that a PDF of a document proves that the document is a forgery?”
I said a PDF, file which Obama purports to be his LFBC , does offer PRIMA FACIE evidence that the document itself has been tampered with, making any representations made thereon, worthless, unless cross-checked with the original document.
Let’s be clear here; besides Chester Arthur, Barack Obama is the only president who has taken the oath of office WITHOUT both parents being US citizens, which some might believe is reason enough to call for a closer look into Obama’s natal history.
Moreover, it is Obama who is blocking access, not US law, to his natal records.
Lastly, there wasn’t a vast conspiracy — just a misunderstand as to what US law states as it relates to a natural-born Citizen.
ex animo
davidfarrar
October 30th, 2011 at 3:38 pm
david,
the PDF of the LFBC does not offer prima facie evidence of tampering, and if you tried to take that to court, you´d be laughed out the courtroom faster than orly taitz. trying to claim a forgery from a PDF file which in the nature of the programme enhances and adapts the image for maximum resolution. it is not the original, but simply a representation of the original in exactly the same way as the voice you hear on the telephone isn´t the real voice of the other person. it is the sound converted into an electrical signal and then reproduced at your end through a speaker. not a hard concept to understand.
why (i ask yet again) would there be such a clamour from the birthers about his birth records when he has released more personal information than any other president in u.s. history?
the fact that his father was born in kenya is irrelevent. there are natural born citizens and naturalised citizens, and that´s it. there is no super-secret third category reserved for presidents you don´t like. was he a naturalised citizen from another country? – no. was he born in hawaii? – yes, therefore he is a natural born citizen under the umbrella of jus soli, and confirmed by the arkeny case (if you´re going to attempt to argue this point, i´d suggest you read up on actual cases rather than relying on the likes of WND, as you have stated you´re unfamiliar with arkeny – a very important case on this subject), and that´s it – he´s president until 2012.
regarding your comment about your president blocking access to the original LFBC and it not being the law, either you are totally unaware of the law in hawaii (not introduced by your president BTW) prohibiting access to confidential documents by third parties, or you´re being willfilly ignorant. this is why orly taitz got the FOAD letter at the doors of the hawaii DOH, and why the case `taitz vs fuddy´ bit the dust.
how you can say there has been no conspiracy, just a `misunderstanding´ beggars belief. do date there has been NO constitutional expers coming forward to back up the birther viewpoint, likewise the courts and the SCOTUS, who rely on past cases and precedent.
to say they are all wrong, and just the birthers with their opinions, lack of backing, and lack of legal standing are right, quite simply beggars belief.
November 1st, 2011 at 5:28 am
David Farrar, October 29th, 2011 at 7:47 pm, with my responses
“And that’s another thing: who does that? Who writes their autobiography before their careers have even started?”
Someone who receives a contract to write a book, that’s who!
At Harvard Law School, Obama was the first Afro-American to be chosen head of the very prestigious Harvard Law Review. That attracted attention, and got him a book contract. “Dreams from My Father” about his search for identity, is very well written, had modest success. More success when reprinted after his keynote address at the 2004 Democratic convention which nominated Kerry.
“And if I can point out in Stanley Ann Dunham’s case, more precisely, her age, it does matter where Obama’s mother was when he was born, as to his citizenship. So there was a great need in “faking of place-of-birth then” just to acquire his US citizenship.”
It seems you’re wrong here.
I’m living in Poland, I know several couples where the father is an American citizen, mother Polish-citizenship-only. When they have a child born here in Poland, the American Embassy recognizes the child’s American citizenship and gives them a passport, on the basis of (only) the father’s citizenship. Is the Embassy wrong? (Only if the kids want to run for President of the U.S.A. might they have a problem.)
Wherever in the world Stanley Ann Dunham Obama was when her son was born, he was an American citizen with all its rights. Except, if outside the U.S.A., to become President of the U.S.A. Do you think Ann and Barack Senior actually were outside the U.S.A. and faked his Hawaiian place-of-birth just so he could become President when he grew up? Any evidence of that?
“And you don’t KNOW where he was born. All you know is what the Hawaiian Heath Department says its records reflect.”
I added, ” – unless you can come up with some amazing evidence otherwise.” And you haven’t come up with anything.
I myself don’t “KNOW” I was born in Philadelphia, PA, but that’s what my birth certificate says, that’s what I understand about family history suggests. It’s possible my parents (of sacred memory) and my older brothers and sisters are deceiving me, and my birth certificate was faked. But with all the evidence, I feel that I can say I KNOW I was born in Philadelphia.
Since journalists have been over Obama’s autobiography and life history with a fine-tooth-comb, there’s a book about his mother’s life and another about his father’s life by respected journalists, I think I can say I KNOW that Obama was born in Hawaii.
You can’t offere us a shred of evidence that Stanley Ann Dunham Obama was elsewhere than Hawaii when her son was born. Unless you CAN come up with something. That’s why I feel I can say that we KNOW he was born in Hawaii.
Understandably, you don’t WANT to believe he was born in Hawaii. But, if you dislike him, I think you would do best just to do what you can to see that he’s not re-elected in 2012.
Robert Gamble
rdgamble@sylaba.poznan.pl
November 1st, 2011 at 5:43 pm
A Question To All Present:
Do you believe a born citizen is a natural born Citizen?
ex animo
davidfarrar
November 2nd, 2011 at 2:06 am
David Farrar, November 1st, 2011 at 5:43 pm
A Question To All Present:
Do you believe a born citizen is a natural born Citizen?
YES!
I believe that’s what the fathers of the Constitution had in mind. No one could come from Britain and “buy” the Presidency of the USA. It had to be someone who was born and grew up in now-independent America.
Robert Gamble
rdgamble@syalba.poznan.pl
November 2nd, 2011 at 7:19 am
Mr. Gamble:
Allow me to use a sentence or two from Stephen Tonchen’s excellent work entitled: Obama Presidential Eligibility – An Introductory Primer
“What of U.S.-born children of alien parents? Such children are U.S. citizens by modern-day law. But are they natural born citizens? So far, Federal law, the Constitution and the courts have not answered these questions.”
Here’s the record and why I believe birthright citizenship is not the same as a natural born Citizen, as required in Article ll:
Birthright citizenship as defined by Section 1401 of Title 8 in the U.S. Code: “…means any person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof….”
To my untrained eye, this is exactly what Alexander Hamilton had in mind when he proposed, while sitting as a member of the Rules Committee to the first Constitutional Convention on June 18, 1787: “No person shall be eligible to the office of President of the United States unless he be now a Citizen of one of the States, or hereafter be born a Citizen of the United States”
Shortly thereafter, the first appointed jurists of the US Supreme Court, and Constitutional Convention delegate from New York, John Jay, wrote a letter to G. Washington, presiding president of the convention, suggesting, among other things, that “…the Commander in Chief of the American Army shall not be given to nor devolve on, any but a natural born Citizen.”
A few weeks later this phrase, a “natural born” Citizen, was unanimously adopted by the Constitutional Convention over Alexander Hamilton’s “born Citizen” suggestion.
Therefore, a born Citizen cannot possibly be a natural born Citizen within the meaning of the Constitution as adopted.
Furthermore; in adopting the “natural born” Citizen clause, the delegates to the Constitutional Convention were undeniably stating that the President, as Commander in Chief of the Army, should be of only one allegiance from birth, which could only be represented at that time by a citizen father.
Since that time, Congress has given the right of allegiance to the mother, as well.
My Conclusion:
Since the clear action of the Constitutional Conventional delegates was to insure a single allegiance birthright Commander in chief, both parents must be citizens , born subject to the jurisdiction, to be an Article ll, natural born Citizen.
The Minor court’s definition of an Article ll, natural born Citizen: as a person being born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction further confirms this conclusion.
Lastly, the record of elected presidents observing the born of two-citizen rule cannot be denied or ignored, and further acts to strengthen the two-citizenship rule for a natural born Citizen.
In short, being born a citizen within the jurisdiction cannot possible be the same as a natural born Citizen because the Constitutional Convention specifically overruled Alexander Hamilton’s “born a citizen” suggestion.
ex animo
davidfarrar
November 2nd, 2011 at 8:39 am
david,
ah yes, Stephen Tonchen. rather likes de vattel (irrelevent) and minor (also irrelvent) doesn´t he? this particular paper was dismantled back in 2009, although the birthers still do seem to love it.
to answer your question, yes i believe barack hussein obama is a natural born citizen of the united states of america, and is therefore eligable to hold the position of president and commander in chief.
a question for you.
there are, under u.s. law, natural born citizens, and naturalised citizens.
which category do you consider your president to be, and if neither category fits in your opinion, can you actually find one that does?
just an example of what other option there is under current u.s. law would be sufficient.
November 2nd, 2011 at 8:46 am
David:
The answer is hiding in plain sight:
June 18, 1787: Alexander Hamilton suggested “No person shall be eligible to the office of President of the United States unless he be now a Citizen of one of the States, or hereafter be born a Citizen of the United States”
Shortly thereafter, the first appointed jurists of the US Supreme Court, and Constitutional Convention delegate from New York, John Jay, wrote a letter to G. Washington, presiding president of the convention, suggesting, among other things, that “…the Commander in Chief of the American Army shall not be given to nor devolve on, any but a natural born Citizen.”
You CONCLUDE they ARE NOT the same thing. Actually, this suggests that they ARE the same thing, and Jay took Hamilton’s advice. Because what is an NBC??? Born in the country and not a child of a diplomat or a invading soldier.
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
November 2nd, 2011 at 10:57 am
Silly Fromm:
If that was the case, A2S1C5L would have read: “No person shall be eligible to the office of President of the United States unless he be now a Citizen of one of the States, or hereafter be born a Citizen of the United States.”
Instead of: “No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President”…
Now who are you going to believe: Silly Fronmm or you own eyes?
ex animo
davidfarrar
November 2nd, 2011 at 11:01 pm
David:
Are you a mind reader??? Since the terms are interchangeable, it doesn’t really much matter which term they used. They could have said “native born citizen” and that would have worked also. You are over concentrating on language and missing the meanings of terms.
A natural born citizen is just somebody born here, under the jurisdiction of the U.S. Probably a natural born citizen through naturalization would also work.
You might like the video I just put up. It is a film of a Vattle Birther changing his mind due to LOGIC. Very rare.
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
November 2nd, 2011 at 5:26 pm
david,
any chance of you showing us what the 3rd category is backed up by united states law?
we are waiting with bated breath for the revelation that no constitutional lawyer, nor judge, nor the SCOTUS, nor anyone in congress and the senate for that matter, knows about.
only the birthers and their legal representatives seem to know, despite having never won a case.
come on, let us into the secret!
November 2nd, 2011 at 10:22 pm
roadburner:
The US Supreme Court in Minor vs Happersett created a legal precedent establishing a A2S1C5 nbC as a person born to citizens within the jurisdiction.
ex animo
davidfarrar
November 2nd, 2011 at 10:28 pm
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter;
I think you had better reread Jay’s letter wherein he states he was seeking “a stronger check” …than “a born citizen’ Alexander Hamilton recently suggested.
ex animo
davidfarrar
November 3rd, 2011 at 3:58 am
david,
try again, and while you´re at it, try reading `arkeny vs goveror of the state of indiana´, as you have said yourself you are not familiar with the case.
here´s the court´s descision for you…..
“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.”
give up on minor. minor was a case regarding voting rights, and therefore did NOT set precedent on NBC status. if it had set precedent, arkeny would have been appealed and won. the birthers lost arkeny on appeal as they have lost every case in around 100 with absolutely no wins. ever.
doesn´t that tell you something?
so, tell us what the super-secret 3rd category of citizenship is, backed up with where you find it
November 3rd, 2011 at 6:05 am
roadburner:
The state court really doesn’t mean a thing to me, especially when it is in clear violation of the intent of the authors of Article ll and, thus, unconstitutional. Again, it is undeniably clear the Constitutional Convention delegates intended to place a “stronger check” on the qualifications of the Commander in chief by requiring a single allegiance of the Commander in chief of the American army, by requiring a two citizen requirement upon the birth of a natural born Citizen.
ex animo
davidfarrar
November 3rd, 2011 at 9:17 am
david,
wong kim ark was a supreme court decision that set precedent on NBC status (unlike minor which was voting rights), and as such a precedent, was quoted and used in arkeny. it was appealed, lost, and no-one in the whole judicial system took it up.
if it was unconstitutional, it would have been found on appeal and overturned. it wasn´t.
you are clutching at straws here, and getting nowhere.
now, are you going to show us where the super-secret 3rd citizen type is in the law of the united states? so far it would appear you are unable to.
November 3rd, 2011 at 10:27 am
roadburner:
No, it didn’t. Try not to back track now that you have painted yourself into a corner.
The Wong court had nothing whatsoever to do the Article ll. It used the 14th Amendment to establish Art’s “born Citizen” status, not an Article ll “natural born” Citizen.
Only the Minor court specifically construed Article ll in establishing Mrs. Minor’s citizenship as a predicate to establishing her voting rights.
ex animo
davidfarrar
November 3rd, 2011 at 11:34 am
david,
where exactly am i backtracking?
would you care to explain why, if minor supposedly established NBC status, it is wong that is used as the precedent, and why NO case to date has successfully used minor in establishing NBC status.
BTW, still waiting for you to tell us where we find the 3rd super-secret citizen category under u.s. law.
November 3rd, 2011 at 9:51 pm
The Wong decision was suppose to set precedent as to jus soli born citizens by way of the 14th Amendment.
Please note: If Mr. Ark’s parents had been US citizens, and Mr. Ark was born subject to the jurisdiction, the Wong court would have utilized Article ll, just as the Minor court did in establishing citizenship, but they didn’t. They couldn’t because they recognized the precedent set in Minor of an Article ll natural born Citizen as being a person born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction.
Therefore, Wong did not supersede Minor. Wong construed the 14th Amendment to establish citizenship, while Minor used Article ll nbC.
So you were trying, perhaps subconsciously, to throw up Wong again as setting precedent as to an nbC, whereas Wong simply established a jus soli born citizen precedent, and wrongly; I might add.
ex animo
davidfarrar
November 4th, 2011 at 6:07 am
david,
`Wong simply established a jus soli born citizen precedent, and wrongly; I might add.´
this is simply your personal opinion, and not being a founder of the constitution, nor judge, nor sitting on the SCOTUS, means absolutely nothing in legal terms. nice of you to finally admit wong´s precedent though!
your other comment `The state court really doesn’t mean a thing to me, especially when it is in clear violation of the intent of the authors of Article ll and, thus, unconstitutional.´ also speaks volumes when the decision in arkeny was based upon the language of Article II, Section 1, Clause 4 of the constitution (the bit you like). in other words, you like decisions made based upon the constitution, unless they go against what you want, then they become unconstitutional. hmmm, bit contradictory don´t you think?
so, yet again, i will ask – there are natural born citizens and naturalised citizens in u.s. law. where exactly do you find under u.s. law the elusive secret 3rd category?
you´ve been dancing round this, and are either unable to answer simply and concisely, or it´s something that exists solely in your mind and the minds of the birther movement.
but don´t be too concerned, you can vote your democratically elected president and commander in chief out of office in 2012
that is, unless the american people democratically decide otherwise.
November 4th, 2011 at 7:01 am
roadburner:
The law for the elusive secret 3rd category.
ex animo
davidfarrar
November 4th, 2011 at 7:36 am
roadburner:
Now we have already discussed why it would be unconstitutional for a “born citizen” to be considered a natural born Citizen; haven’t we?
It would result in a “weaker check”, rather than a “strong check”, against foreign influences affecting the Commander in chief of America’s armed forces by allowing dual allegiances at birth, rather than insuring a single American one — which is undeniably unconstitutional.
ex animo
davidfarrar
*Print/Screen
November 4th, 2011 at 5:21 pm
david,
thanks for the link. in your position i would have properly read it first as it does your arguement no good at all. i especially liked the sections referencing blacks law dictionary, and academic opinions. but it still does NOT show in u.s. law another category of citizen apart from natural born or naturalised. when you have the time, do try to dig it out if you can.
if you take into account the scattergun approach that the birther movement has had towards attempting to remove president obama from office, using de vattel, minor, and gullible fools like terry lakin, if anything had existed of substance they would have won. but to date despite this, they have an unbroken record of 100+ cases lost and none won.
if i was doing a job and hit my thumb with a hammer 100 times, i´d come to the conclusion that maybe, just maybe, a hammer wasn´t the tool i needed for the job. this is what the birther movement needs to come to terms with. there is no legal impediment to president obama remaining in the position of president. an unbroken record of 100 lost cases should give them a bit of a clue in that respect.
if they want him out of office, the most logical thing to do would be to drop the ridiculous lawsuits and throw their support behind their candidate of choice for the next election, because barack hussein obama II will remain president and commander in chief until at least the 2012 election. make sure he doesn´t serve a second term by using the democratic system. that truly is the american way.
and if the american people democratically re-elect him for a second term, then they should quit complaining. that is unless they hate democracy.
November 5th, 2011 at 5:56 am
Roadburner;
What part of John Bingham’s 1866 statement about what a natural-born Citizen is don’t you understand: “Every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural-born citizen.”
“…not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty”… is a clear and unmistakable reference to the incorporation of jus sanguinis citizenship within the meaning of an Article ll natural born Citizen.
ex animo
davidfarrar
*Print/Screen
November 5th, 2011 at 6:17 am
david,
you do amuse me!
you crack on about `unconstitutional´ and irrelevent precedents, and now you want a statement to the house of representaives taken as law!
get real!
i could make a statement that orly taitz is a space bat from jupiter, and it would carry exactly the same weight and would be equally legally binding.
so, exactly like the rest of the birther movement, you´ve come to the party and brought nothing. this is why they keep losing in court, why you can´t give legal reference to a birther friendly 3rd citizenship category, and why president obama will remain in the white house until at least after the 2012 election.
seeing as you want to quote bingham, lets look at his previous statement to the house made before the quote you edited ……
The Constitution leaves no room for doubt upon this subject. The words ‘natural born citizen of the United states’ appear in it, and the other provision appears in it that, “Congress shall have power to pass a uniform system of naturalization.” To naturalize a person is to admit him to citizenship. Who are natural born citizens but those born within the Republic? Those born within the Republic, whether black or white, are citizens by birth–natural born citizens´.
`
November 5th, 2011 at 6:36 am
Precisely so: “Who are natural born citizens but those born within the Republic? Those born within the Republic, whether black or white – not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty are natural born Citizens.”
Roadburner: It doesn’t get any clearer than this.
ex animo
davidfarrar
November 5th, 2011 at 11:19 am
david,
nice edit there to add your opinion to binghams words, which were not law, just his opinion, including the part i quoted, and as such are NOT legally binding.
i believe we can say without question you are unable to show UNDER U.S. LAW where there is another citizenship category other than NBC and naturalised.
in other words, it exists purely in the minds of the birther movement and yourself.
that is, unless you can show us UNDER U:S. LAW where it is, rather than simply the opinion of certain historical figures.
try again (god! i´m getting bored of waiting for something of substance from this guy) you´re making the claim – back it up.
November 5th, 2011 at 4:29 pm
My mind…and in the mind of Congressman John Bingham, the principal author of Section One of the Fourteenth Amendment.
I would also note for the record, you did not actually state any objection to the point of the statement: only those born under a single allegiance (born of citizen parents) within the jurisdiction are, in fact, natural born Citizens pursuant to A2S1C5.
Progress, undoubted progress!
ex animo
davidfarrar
November 5th, 2011 at 6:09 pm
david,
you can continue to spout the standard vattelist birther line as long as you want, but the reality is it is purely an evasive manouever on your part as you are obviously unable to back up your claim that under u.s. law there is another category of citizenship other than NBC or naturalised.
i have repetedly asked you to back up your claim, and you have not.
this is precisely why the birther movement has failed in all their court cases. they make a claim, and then have nothing under united states law to back it up.
let me explain something. i am a conservative, and i do not consider president obama to be the best president the united states has ever had. however, he was elected in exactly the same way as every other u.s. president and won with a substantial majority. in that way i must respect the will of the american people and the democratic system and accept him as president and commander in chief.
if you don´t like your president and would rather have had mc cain and caribou barbie (what the hell was the GOP thinking when they fielded those two against obama?) , fine, but president obama won and that´s the end of it.
we´ve been hearing `any day now!´ for the last 3 years, and not suprisingly that day has never come. there will be no sudden removal of president obama from office, and all of the legislation introduced during his presidency reversed.
i´m sorry my friend, it just isn´t going to happen. get over it. live with it.
November 6th, 2011 at 1:06 pm
roadburner;
I believe I have addressed your point on several occasions. The US Supreme Court in MINOR V. HAPPERSETT, 88 U. S. 162 (1874) established a legal precedent that an Article ll, natural born Citizen is a person born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction.
Moreover, UNITED STATES V. WONG KIM ARK, 169 U. S. 649 (1898) Establish the legal precedent that
November 6th, 2011 at 3:09 pm
david,
i have spent too much of my time this afternoon looking for anything i can find as far as u.s. law is concerned (effectively doing your work for you) for the category of citizenship you call `14th amendment u.s. citizen´, and guess what? there is NO legal statute or law that backs this up.
now ain´t that a suprise!
the only references are on birther sites (not a suprise there either – lets build a new category specially for our president so we can then disqualify him), and as a result this 3rd category only appears to exist in the fevered minds of the vattelist birthers, as it sure as hell hasn´t been adopted anywhere in the u.s. legal system.
so effectively, you still have nothing backed up by u.s. law.
November 6th, 2011 at 5:12 pm
What part of this sentence don’t you understand, or, in your opinion, I don’t understand?
ex animo
davidfarrar
November 6th, 2011 at 5:36 pm
david,
you don´t seem to understand that no matter how much you want it to be your way, it isn´t.
if the law or constitution prohibited president obama from being president, he´d have been ousted by now, or more to the point, wouldn´t have been on the dem ticket in the first place. it was publicly known well before the election who his father was and where he came from, but there was no objection from the dems, GOP, the house and senate, the electoral college, and the SCOTUS.
this i believe proves my point (along with the birthers unbroken 100 case loss record) that you are wrong. the birther movement is a miniscule minority in the united states, and now even smaller after the release of the LFBC. what seems to be left is the vociferous hardcore who wouldn´t accept it if jesus christ himself said president obama was eligable.
if all those people who could have disqualified him didn´t do so, why do you think that was?
November 6th, 2011 at 6:02 pm
bob,
For the record, you have just tried once again to lay down a smokescreen instead of addressing my point. As I have said — and this you may be right — it took 123 years for someone to finally find evidence that Chester Arthur’s father wasn’t a US citizen at the time of little Chester’s birth.
As far as the issue of a “natural born” Citizen goes, it will someday get it’s day in court. At present there are now FOUR presidential candidates challenging Obama’s eligibility.
As I have stated before:
One question: When the US Supreme Court does take up the issue of Obama eligibility; do you think the two US Supreme Court jurists he appointed should recuse themselves?
ex animo
davidfarrar
November 6th, 2011 at 6:33 pm
david,
my name isn´t bob 😀
`As far as the issue of a “natural born” Citizen goes, it will someday get it’s day in court´.
yeah, any day now (as we´ve been hearing since 2008)
so why didn´t the plethora of people i mentioned who could have stopped his bid for the presidency not do anything?
in answer to your question, i believe in the integrity of the SCOTUS, and in that respect do not see the need for any of the judges to recuse themselves. it would be equally valid to ask any who have republican sympathies to do the same as that could equally influence their decisions.
November 6th, 2011 at 8:17 pm
roadburner;
I apologize for the error.
Click here to see and hear Justice Thomas: We are evading the eligibility issue.
So you don’t believe in the long tradition US Supreme Court jurists have in recusing themselves not only in cases where there is a conflict of interest, but even in cases where their might be a possibility of a conflict of interest?
Click here TITLE 28 > PART I > CHAPTER 21 > § 455
§ 455. DISQUALIFICATION OF JUSTICE, JUDGE, OR MAGISTRATE JUDGE
November 6th, 2011 at 10:30 pm
David,
This comment went into moderation also, where your others today, did not. It must be the links that are causing this. The only time this seems to happen is when there are links in the comments.
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
November 7th, 2011 at 3:52 am
david,
no problem. what´s in a name anyway? 😀
the problem is, what would be considered a conflict of interest that would influence impartiality?
if it is who appointed the judge or party afiliations, we´d have to question the impartiality of the SCOTUS in every case and it would cease to be what we want and need it to be. personally, i beleive the SCOTUS is above that (unlike many elected representatives) and is as impartial as it can be. if they were a shareholder in a company of which a subsidiary had a case coming before the SCOTUS, or were involved on a personal level with somone in a case, i would expect them to recuse themselves. who appointed them doesn´t come into this and hasn´t before.
anyway, i answered your question, answer mine.
if all those people who i mentioned before could have disqualified him from taking the democrat nomination didn´t do so, even though all the information was available before the election why do you think that was?
November 10th, 2011 at 3:54 am
hmmm……he´s gone a bit quiet.
guess he doesn´t have the answer (or more to the point, doesn´t have an answer that fits his perspective).
November 10th, 2011 at 5:44 am
Cite your cases, please.
Thank you.
ex animo
davidfarrar
November 10th, 2011 at 5:48 am
By the way; I have been busy. I have just filed an “official” challenge against Barack Hussein Obama ll, being placed on the state’s primary ballot.
palma specto
ex animo
davidfarrar
November 10th, 2011 at 5:54 am
And one more thing, roadburner: You’re sick if you don’t see Obama’s appointees’ impartiality being reasonably questioned in this case.
ex animo
davidfarrar
November 10th, 2011 at 7:25 am
I spend to much time thinking about this issue, when I should be thinking of other things.
David, I admire your courage in maintaining your position.
But your response to me reference to Obama’s post-law school autobiography, – “And that’s another thing: who does that? Who writes their autobiography before their careers have even started?” says to me you tend to react negatively to any fact about Obama. I must admit, I’m something of a fan of Obama, published “Dreams from My Father” in Polish, read the biographies of his mother and his father, and so I tend to react positively or defensively to facts about Obama.
I agree to three categories of citizenship. “Naturalized”, “Born”, and one relevant ONLY to candidate for President, “Natural born”, which I interpret as “born in the USA”. As I’ve written, living in Poland, I know couples where the father is an American citizen, mother Polish-only, the children born here are recognized by the Embassy as American citizens and get their American passport. But yes, I think it appropriate that these children not be eligible to be elected President of the USA, because, living in Poland with a Polish-only mother, their identity is not so American.
But now Barack Obama. Reality please, not arguments about documents.
There is NO evidence that the child of an African student on scholarship and the teen-age daughter of a not very successful furniture/insurance salesman and a bank clerk traveled outside of the USA for the birth of their child. Do YOU have any evidence? Since he was a USA citizen, thanks to his mother, would there have been any conspiring to fake a birth IN Hawaii just so he could eventually be elected President? Again, do you have any evidence?
(Yes, once there was talk about a telephone interview, with translation, with Barack Obama’s step-grandmother Sarah, that she was in Nairobi for the birth on Barack Senior’s son. But likely that was confused with the birth of Obama’s half-brother, whose mother was also a white American citizen. I’ve also read that the interview ended with her realizing the confusion, and stressing that “Barack was born in Hawaii, in Hawaii !” This was the best “evidence”, but when quoted by “birthers” I’m amazed that it couldn’t be on the internet as a transcript or an audio.)
Why was this “natural born” made part of the Constitution. I think to protect from the possibility that someone, likely from England, couldn’t come to the USA and kind of “buy” the Presidency. They wanted it to be someone who grew up here, having a fully American identity.
Have you read the autobiography? Barack’s parents separated before he can remember his father from that time, so there wasn’t any real Kenyan influence. Stanley Ann’s second marriage was to an Indonesian, and they lived there when Barack was five to ten years old. But the autobiography, plus the biography of his mother, emphasize that she worked to maintain his American identity, homeschooling him at 4:00am each morning. (He complained, but quotes her as saying, “This isn’t any picnic for me, either, buddy.”
He was back in Hawaii, living with his grandparents, for his teenage years. College in California and New York City, work in Chicago as a community organizer, Harvard Law School, back to Chicago. Some experience abroad, but a thoroughly American identity, – as the Founding Fathers wanted.
Maybe you don’t like him, but the variety is part of our being Americans. He was elected by a majority of the Electoral College and the popular vote. I think the “birther” protests not based on evidence, but on dislike. And the remedy is simple: Work to see that he’s not re-elected!
Robert Gamble
rdgamble@sylaba.poznan.pl
November 10th, 2011 at 8:17 am
david,
why sick?
the SCOTUS is made up of 9 judges, of which 5 were appointed by republicans (g.w. bush, g.h.w. bush, and reagan) which is a majority by anyones counting, and as such would offset any decision made even if those appointed by your current president (2) showed favouritism, as cases are decided by majority vote.
also it should be noted that judges on the SCOTUS can only be removed by impeachment, retirement, or death, so it wouldn´t be a fear that if a judge didn´t do `a favour´ for the person who appointed them that they´d be removed. this helps ensure their impartiality.
anyway, are you going to be as kind as to answer my question, as i did yours?
`if all those people who i mentioned before could have disqualified him from taking the democrat nomination didn´t do so, even though all the information was available before the election why do you think that was?´
BTW, what´s your `official challenge´ ? please don´t tell me you´ve been taking advice from orly or donofrio!
you seem smarter than that.
November 10th, 2011 at 9:31 am
Roadburner:
My official challenge:
My address: XXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXX, Georgia xxxxx
Nov. 9, 2011
The Honorable Brian P. Kemp
Georgia Secretary of State
Elections Division
214 State Capital
Atlanta, Georgia 30334
RE: Complaint Challenging the Qualifications of Barack Hussein Obama II for Re-election to the Office of the Presidency of the United States
Dear Secretary Kemp,
My name is David Farrar. I live at XXXX xxxxxx xx, Georgia xxxxx. The aforementioned address is my personal residence, and I am a registered voter and elector at that address in XXXX County, Georgia.
Pursuant to O.C.G.A. § 21-2-5, I hereby challenge the qualifications of Barack Hussein Obama II to be placed on the Democratic Presidential Preference Primary Ballot of March 6, 2012, and/or on the November 6, 2012 general election ballot for said office. This challenge is proper and ripe under O.C.G.A. § 21-2-5, as Barack Obama is a candidate for federal office who has been certified by the state executive committee of the Democratic Party of Georgia in their letter of November 1, 2011, and as the deadline for notifying the Secretary of State of candidacy for the Presidential Primary ballot is on November 1, 2011, as set in O.C.G.A. § 21-2-193.
On information and belief, and in support of this challenge to Mr. Obama’s qualifications, I respectfully show as follows:
(1) The official state certified birth certificate proffered by Barack Obama contains a factual inconsistency and other anomalies that calls into question the veracity of the rest of the information contained within said document.
(2) Barack Obama has not adequately proven that he was born a natural born citizen of the United States.
(3) Barack Obama’s father, Barack Obama Sr., was never a citizen of the United States and, at the time of his son’s birth, was not a permanent resident of the United States. Consequently, Barack Obama was born to only one parent who was a U.S. citizen or U.S. permanent resident.
(4) By his own admission, and under the British Nationality Act of 1948, Barack Obama was born a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies, and from 1963 until at least 1984 was also a citizen of the Republic of Kenya.
(5) Due to his dual citizenship with the United Kingdom and with Kenya, Barack Obama was born with dual allegiances to foreign nations other than the United States of America.
(6) Such additional evidence as may be shown at the hearing of this case.
It therefore appears that Barack Obama does not meet the Constitutional requirements for seeking and holding the office of President of the United States because:
(a) Mr. Obama is not a natural born citizen, as required by Article II, Section 1 of the United States Constitution.
Accordingly, I challenge Mr. Obama’s qualifications to seek and hold the office of President of the United States on these grounds. I respectfully request that you notify Mr. Obama of this challenge and that you are requesting a hearing before a judge of the Office of State Administrative Hearings.
ex animo,
David Farrar
1. Original: Overnight delivery
2. 1st copy Faxed
3. 2nd copy emailed
November 10th, 2011 at 8:37 am
david,
as a side note, do you consider that it was inapropriate that judges thomas and souter didn´t recuse themselves in the case `gore vs bush´, seeing as they were appointed by g.w. bush´s father?
November 10th, 2011 at 9:28 am
roadburner:
Well, let’s say the conflict of interests was definitely less in the “gore vs bush” issue. Since even if they had somehow arrived at Gore being duly elected, their seats on the Supreme Court would not have been placed in jeopardy, as is the case with the Obama appointments, as you well know.
ex animo
davidfarrar
November 10th, 2011 at 9:23 am
Robert Gamble,
You are making a big mistake when you quote from someone’s autobiography and consider it the record.
I am not sure I understand all of your questions. But I will try and address some of them.
No, there is no evidence. But, oddly enough, the records that would have told us just where Stanley Ann Dunham had traveled outside of the US are missing from the US passport offices.
The issue of a natural born Citizen is a record created at birth. If we have the documentary evidence of just where Barack Jr. traveled and when, perhaps we could look at it more closely. But in any case, a dual allegiance (at birth) 14th Amendment citizen cannot legally be a A2S1C5 nbC, if one is familiar with its history, as you seem to be.
As far as the electorate, it is up to state officials in each state to insure the candidate that THEY placed before THEIR electorate are qualified. In the case of Barack Hussein Obama, II, they simply failed.
ex animo
davidfarrar
November 10th, 2011 at 9:51 am
“You are making a big mistake when you quote from someone’s autobiography and consider it the record.”
It might be “a mistake” if it stood alone as a document., But all sorts of respected journalists have been over that autobiography, including a biography (or two or more) of Obama, a biography of his mother, a biography of his father. And no major discrepencies with his autobiography found.
Are all those journalists all in on some conspiracy? As you admit, “no evidence”. Can you imagine the sensation, the fame, some journalist might get, finding evidence that stands up to scrutiny?
Does the passport office ever give information about our travels? Does it keep any, if there’s not a reason to keep a person under surveillance? I don’t think so. “Missing”?, or just don’t exist? In any case, NO evidence that Stanley Ann Dunham Obama traveled outside the USA before Obama’s birth.
As I’ve written, in reality (not theory) there’s no evidence of young Obama having any “dual allegiance”. Barack’s parents were separated, then divorced, before he could ;think about any “dual allegiance”.
Robert Gamble
rdgamble@sylaba.poznan.pl
November 10th, 2011 at 10:45 am
I am talking about dual allegiances at BIRTH. The issue is at birth, Barack Obama ll was born with dual allegiances. He, himself, has admitted at BIRTH he was a native-born citizen (14th Amendment US citizen and a British subject — that’s the record, Robert. And, as such, he cannot be an A2S1C5 nbC of the US constitution.
ex animo
davidfarrar
November 10th, 2011 at 10:19 am
david,
if president obama´s appointments to the SCOTUS would have undue influence, then the ghw bush ones would as well. you can´t cherry-pick your favourites.
but as i mentioned, it doesn´t really bother me either way, as they can only be removed by impeachment, retirement, or death, and as such president obama cannot put them in jeopardy, plus the republican majority would act as a buffer to potential influence.
this is kind of interesting….
`No, there is no evidence. But, oddly enough, the records that would have told us just where Stanley Ann Dunham had traveled outside of the US are missing from the US passport offices.´
you do realise that the whole kenyan thing has been thoroughly debunked a long time ago, don´t you? as far as evidence is concerned there is absolutely none to back it up. to have documentary evidence that SAD travelled outside the u.s, she would have had to have travelled outside the u.s. if she hadn´t travelled outside the u.s, there would be no documents saying that. it would be a bit like me saying that you had committed arson on an occasion in your home town, and then saying it must be true because there is no documentary evidence to say you didn´t
it isn´t rocket science.
well, are you going to answer the question i asked of you, or are you going to continue to avoid it? yet again……
`if the law or constitution prohibited president obama from being president, he´d have been ousted by now, or more to the point, wouldn´t have been on the dem ticket in the first place. it was publicly known well before the election who his father was and where he came from, but there was no objection from the dems, GOP, the house and senate, the electoral college, and the SCOTUS.
if all those people who could have disqualified him didn´t do so, and didn´t even voice one doubt, why do you think that was?´
i respectfully answered your question to me honestly, please do the same with mine.
November 10th, 2011 at 10:49 am
roadburner:
I have no idea, nor do I need any. The Georgia statue states if I, as an elector, have a doubt, I can challenge Barack Hussein Obama, ll on his constitutional qualifications.
ex animo
davidfarrar
November 10th, 2011 at 11:51 am
david,
that was an evasion at best.
IMO, the reason that the democratic party, the GOP, the house and senate, the electoral college, and the SCOTUS, (all of whom are familiar with the law and constitution) had no objections firstly to your presidents nomination as candidate, then as actual candidate, was because there was none. this even though all of the information was available before he was chosen as candidate.
think about it for a moment.
you said you have no idea, but seem to be ignoring what is so blindingly obvious. if all of them didn´t object (and that´s a serious number of people with legal backgrounds and knowlege of the constitution) or even some of them, hell, even one! (his appointment to the post of president and commander in chief was passed unanimously), had you considered that it was because there was no impedement?
to follow your continued path of believing your president is ineligable to hold the position he currently holds, you must have some opinion why the rest of the political and (highly qualified) legal system let him become president.
come on, man up.
WHY!
November 10th, 2011 at 5:56 pm
david,
i read your letter, and i hope you don´t have high expectations.
his secretary will read point 1 and refer you to the COLB and LFBC copies released, signed, sealed, and confirmed as authentic by the hawaii DOH as they are legal documents and prima facie evidence in any court in the united states, regardless of what you believe.
the office staff will probably laugh at points 2 through 6 as irrelevent, reaching a crescendo at point (a).
what you more likely can expect is a polite `we are looking into it´ letter and no further contact.
sorry my friend, but that´s the way it will be, guaranteed.
November 10th, 2011 at 7:49 pm
roadburner,
I would get down on my hands and knees, look up to the starrier skies above and pray to God Almighty you are right. In fact,
is exactly what I hope to predicate.
Thank you.
ex animo
davidfarrar
November 11th, 2011 at 3:55 am
david,
so what exactly are you trying to achieve here?
if they refer you to the COLB and LFBC, that´s it – end of story.
it won´t give you some magical key to access the original COLB, because the copy released was verified, signed and sealed as a true copy by the state of hawaii, and as such is the only thing needed in any court in the u.s.
saying `well i think it´s a forgery´ won´t be enough as you are not a forensic document analyst, have never seen the hard copy the PDF was taken from, and yet again it´s a verified, signed and sealed document from the state which in itself is evidence of it´s authenticity.
add to that the law prohibits you and your representatives having access to the original (a law introduced before president obama took office), and you´re no further ahead than when you started.
well, this aside, are you going to at least have some kind of attempt at answering my question? no evasions this time please! 😉
November 11th, 2011 at 7:15 am
No, not at all. It is just the beginning. They have their document that has been investigated in every detail, Hawaiian Health officials have testified. Obama’s birth certificates are official state records upon which Obama’s whole prima facie rests upon. Does that about size up the picture, as you see it?
ex animo
davidfarrar
November 11th, 2011 at 9:49 am
david,
i take it you´re referring to the investigations of the PDF that have been done by the birther movement? the `investigations´ that have not been made by any qualified document analyst and not made of any hard copy of a document?
you know, it´s funny, but quite a lot of folks who have followed this subject predicted what would happen when the copy of the LFBC was released.
there was a lot of people like squeeky here, who doubted and wanted the LFBC released, and then said `o.k, that seems to be in order´ when it was.
then there was the minority (whom i mentioned before wouldn´t accept it if jesus christ himself authenticated it) who said, quite dishonestly `if Obama would present a “certified copy of his Birth Certificate, his “Certificate of Live Birth”, I, and many, many others would be satisfied.´ and the started squarking `forgery!´ before anyone had even had a chance to comment because they had no intention of accepting anything opposing their point of view and proving them wrong.
if you think you´re going to get a court case or access to the original by this, take care. you´d be heading down the road of orly, and have about as much success and gain as much credibility as she has to date. which is to say, none.
BTW, still awaiting a non evasive answer to what i asked you several days ago. why are you avoiding that issue?
November 11th, 2011 at 10:42 am
To answer your question; one must first answer why didn’t the German courts stop Hitler?
ex animo
davidfarrar
November 11th, 2011 at 11:12 am
“To answer your question; one must first answer why didn’t the German courts stop Hitler?”
I’ve been following this thread, not too closely, throwing in my two (or four!) bits. I’ve forgotten what Roadburner’s question is, but David, that sure seems like an EVASION to me.
Robert Gamble
rdgamble@sylaba.poznan.pl
November 11th, 2011 at 11:28 am
roadburner,
Obama’s birth certificates are official state records upon which Obama’s prima facie evidence rests. If that prima facie evidence is compromised in any fashion, a resort to that document’s primary source would be legally required to rectify the mistake and check for any other discrepancies between the source documentation and the “official” state record.
ex animo
davidfarrar
November 11th, 2011 at 11:36 am
REality, not documents.
Even if there’s a problem with the documents, if Obama WAS born in Hawaii, he’s a Natural Born Citizen. And you’ve admitted that there is NO evidence that it was elsewhere.
Robert Gamble
rdgamble@sylaba.poznan.pl
November 11th, 2011 at 11:53 am
david,
you seem really uncomfortable with my question.
for robert´s benefit (and yours) here it is again….
`if the law or constitution prohibited president obama from being president, he´d have been ousted by now, or more to the point, wouldn´t have been on the dem ticket in the first place. it was publicly known well before the election who his father was and where he came from, but there was no objection from the dems, GOP, the house and senate, the electoral college, and the SCOTUS.
if all those people who could have disqualified him didn´t do so, and didn´t even voice one doubt, why do you think that was?´
it´s quite simple, but you appear to have an extreme reluctance to answer.
your question concerning hitler is pure birther, as they love to liken their president to hitler and label anyone who would defend him against their outlandish claims as `nazis´.
not very subtle david, and rather disingenious. i´m dissapointed.
November 11th, 2011 at 1:35 pm
david,
your last post shows a lack of understanding.
`If that prima facie evidence is compromised in any fashion, a resort to that document’s primary source would be legally required to rectify the mistake and check for any other discrepancies between the source documentation and the “official” state record.´
and who would check? the state, of course!
there was a direct chain from the original in the hawaii DOH to your presidents hand, and any `compromise´ could be easily traced.
as far as the authenticity is concerned, because they are responsible for state records, the hawaii DOH would check the hard copy they sent to your president against the original, say `o.k.´, and send a verification to the court.
you don´t honestly believe that they would let orly or the WND crowd have a look do you? the verification would be done by the dept that issued the document, and no-one else.
sorry my freind, but the path of birtherdom is paved with disapointments, and this will be yet another.
still waiting BTW…..
November 11th, 2011 at 2:35 pm
roadburner,
You are as welcome to your own opinions delusions as I am to mine.
ex animo
davidfarrar
September 12th, 2012 at 10:31 am
Maskell makes no reference to an effort by a Chicago firm led by an Obama fundraiser to remove the “natural born citizen” requirement from the U.S. Constitution – a move that seems to betray doubt about Obama’s eligibility.
The article in 2006 by Sarah Herlihy stated: “The natural born citizen requirement in Article II of the United States Constitution has been called the ‘stupidest provision’ in the Constitution, ‘decidedly un-American,’ ‘blatantly discriminatory,’ and the ‘Constitution’s worst provision.'”
She said “emotional” reasons were defeating attempts by “rational” arguments to remove it.
She was listed as an associate at the Chicago firm Kirkland & Ellis, where partner Bruce I. Ettelson cited his membership on the finance committee for Obama. Her writings were available online under law review articles from Kent University until they were reported on.
September 12th, 2012 at 2:23 pm
Give it a rest. There is not and has not been any serious attempt to remove the NBC requirement from the Constitution at all. While a few folks over the past decade (advocating for Arnold S. or Jennifer G) submitted some low-level attempts at such, they went nowhere. There is nothing connected to Obama, as he is clearly NBC, having been born in HI.
As usual, you just spout ignorant BS and only make yourself look like an incompetent tool.
September 12th, 2012 at 10:43 am
Mention of the 3rd type of citizen in 2012.
http://www.uscis.gov/ilink/docView/SLB/HTML/SLB/0-0-0-1/0-0-0-45104/0-0-0-48602.html. Now is ”requested page not found on site 404 ” When you visit the suggested link to the USCIS.gov, it brings you to “Interpretation 324.2 Reacquisition of citizenship lost by marriage.”
Interpretation 324.2 (a)(3) provides:
“The repatriation provisions of these two most recent enactments also apply to a native-born and natural-born citizen woman who expatriated herself by marriage to an alien…” (Emphasis added.)
Then, Interpretation 324.2(a)(7) provides:
“(7) Restoration of citizenship is prospective . Restoration to citizenship under any one of the three statutes is not regarded as having erased the period of alienage that immediately preceded it.
The words “shall be deemed to be a citizen of the United States to the same extent as though her marriage to said alien had taken place on or after September 22, 1922″, as they appeared in the 1936 and 1940 statutes, are prospective and restore the status of native-born or natural-born citizen (whichever existed prior to the loss) as of the date citizenship was reacquired.” (Emphasis added.)
And again, Interpretation 324.2(b) provides:
“The effect of naturalization under the above statutes was not to erase the previous period of alienage, but to restore the person to the status if naturalized, native-born, or natural-born citizen, as determined by her status prior to loss.”
September 12th, 2012 at 2:27 pm
Again, no 3rd type of citizen here. This is about repatriation of “citizen woman who expatriated herself by marriage to an alien”…and is otherwise irrelevant to any issue at hand here.
Learn to read. Boy, you sure are desperate in your cut/paste quote mining search…but it isn’t helping you at all. Keep failing.
September 12th, 2012 at 10:54 am
Oh, here it is. Mention of 3 types of citizen. Please don’t attack my character and intelligence. I’m just intrigued and curious.
http://www.uscis.gov/ilink/docView/SLB/HTML/SLB/0-0-0-1/0-0-0-45077/0-0-0-48575.html
September 12th, 2012 at 11:41 am
It says no such thing. There are only 2 types of citizen, period.
September 12th, 2012 at 11:19 am
Regardless of who you supported in 2008, or whether you agree with the assertion of Minor’s relevance, every American should be outraged that 25 Supreme Court cases were surgically sabotaged and then passed off to the public as if the tampered versions contained the “Full Text of Case”. This is the very definition of “Orwellian” fascism. It’s propaganda. And there is no place for it in the United States. The sacrifices for truth and justice which created and have sustained this nation are wantonly debased by the subversive deception emanating from Justia.com servers.
September 12th, 2012 at 11:33 am
Jimmy:
Justiagate was nothing but a big bunch of nonsense about nothing cooked up by Leo Donofrio and pimped out by Donofrio-Groupie Dianna “The Dianna” Cotter. There are several articles here about it, and what a non-story it was. Here is one:
If the Minor v. Happersett case is not precedent, then it is no harm, no foul.
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
September 12th, 2012 at 2:30 pm
Man you are nothing but a gullible tool, Jimmy. Sorry, but a mere glitch on a single online legal database is proof of nothing, except a glitch. It sure didn’t change or affect the endless other sources that actual lawyers pay to use, nor the countless number of physical books, which also contain those same court cases in their entirety. You folks are just desperate to create imaginary feigned outrage to justify your irrational hate…pathetic and sad and so transparent.
November 11th, 2011 at 4:52 pm
david,
that i am.
but the difference is that when people like myself explain to birthers that their `any day now´ moment will turn out exactly like all of them since 2008 without exception, they have a tendency to get upset. when the prediction comes true as it has in every birther case to date, they switch to another way out idea and the cycle repeats itself.
i thought from the quality of your initial posts that you may be somewhat different from most birthers. but since you cannot honestly answer a simple question that would be easy for a normal person to answer, i find myself coming to the conclusion that you are no different from any other birther i´ve debated with (minus the caps which the more insane insist on writing in), which is a pity.
catch you around on the web
mulgere hircum
roadburner.
March 23rd, 2012 at 3:53 am
Nice shill and circus semantics. Those that are of the lost & delusion are very common, and increasingly so in these latter days.
EVERYTHING about Barry Soteoro is a LiE. Not only is it easily provable on any topic about him, but it is the ones that hold the string up his tail that has emphasized every lie about him as a joke in showing how stupid and gullible the common Amerikan is.
There would be little surprise to find out that the money trail for this site ends with some Rockefeller connected charity or institute.
Goebbels: the sheeple will believe a huge lie much easier than a small one.
March 23rd, 2012 at 10:40 am
Hi Bill Moses!!!
From your mouth to Rockefeller’s ears!
Actually, I am pretty independent and I don’t even like Obama and don’t plan on voting for him. But to me, that is an entirely different issue than the Birther stuff. All the Vattel and two citizen parents stuff is nothing but a Big Lie, and there is no excuse for Birthers to continue to spread it. As far as the birth certificate stuff, it is past time for that to end, too.
I used to have my own questions about it and was quite vocal. Just read the early Internet Articles here. But when the long form came out, it was just time to hang it up and move on. Should somebody come up with some credible and substantial evidence that Obama was born somewhere besides Hawaii, then I would be most interested. But 4 years into it, and with money people like Donald Trump looking into it without finding anything, then it seems a pretty safe bet that there is no “there” there.
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
September 12th, 2012 at 1:09 pm
Oh my goodness! More comments than I have time to read.
My slogan: Reality not documents. If Obama WAS born in the USA state of Hawaii, he’s a “natural born citizen”. That should be the end of the discussion.
Birthers have NO realistic evidence that he was born elsewhere. And it’s hard to imagine that a student on scholarship, and the daughter of a not-very-successful furniture salesman and a bank clerk would go somewhere else for the birth of their child.
The latest biography of Obama, by David Maraniss, quotes a doctor who remembers when Barack H. Obama was born in his hospital, with a colleague (now not living) as the obstetrician. NOT because, “Gee, the future President of the USA was just born in our hospital,” but because a joke was going around the hospital, “A guy named Stanley just gave birth here.” (Obama’s mother’s first name was “Stanley”.)
Corsi quotes from the Maraniss biography, but ignores this.
September 12th, 2012 at 3:09 pm
You have a good grasp of the situation. If the Birthers’ demands for birthplace documentation were universally applied, NOBODY could adequately prove their citizenship, or get a passport, or a security clearance, or a Social Security number, or a driver’s license, or . . .
September 12th, 2012 at 3:36 pm
Robert,
Hearsay. inadmissible evidence.
Tom,
State certified birth certificates were designed to simply register live births, not to establish proof-positive of one’s identity.
Probate courts all over the country know that a state certified birth certificate only proves (in court) a live birth occurred and that that birth was ‘officially’ recorded.
The probative value of any state certified natal document is determined by the amount of information contained in said document that can be independently verified. If there is absolutely no independent, verifiable evidence of the information contained in a birth certificate, an examination of the records that lead to the ‘live-birth’ decision is in order to establish identification.
ex animo
davidfarrar
September 12th, 2012 at 3:41 pm
Sorry David, but that is now how the real world works. When you have to legally provide proof of birthplace evidence, an actual state-issued birth certificate is required. Not hospital “natal” records or souveniers.
September 12th, 2012 at 3:48 pm
G
Please cite your source.
Thank you.
ex animo
davidfarrar
September 12th, 2012 at 5:17 pm
No David, it is up to you to prove otherwise. YOU are the one claiming:
“The probative value of any state certified natal document is determined by the amount of information contained in said document that can be independently verified. If there is absolutely no independent, verifiable evidence of the information contained in a birth certificate, an examination of the records that lead to the ‘live-birth’ decision is in order to establish identification.”
So it is up to YOU to back that up and show us evidence of what YOU claim.
Come on David, show us ONE single organization or agency that does NOT accept a state-certified birth certificate or that demands hospital records in their place. I dare ya. You sir, as always, are just full of BS with your claims.
September 12th, 2012 at 3:58 pm
David “out of breath”,
President Obama doesn’t need to prove anything (especially to your nonsensical standards)—he’s already satisfied all of the Constitutional requirements for his office. Something which has been confirmed by multiple courts, by the way. You are just a bigot and a sore loser (you probably have nightmares about empty chairs coming to get you…).
September 12th, 2012 at 6:40 pm
David, you are correct on a one point. Birth Certificates are not identity documents but are proof a birth registered in the state. However, after that, you run off the rails.
The probative value of any state vital record is found in the
Full Faith and Credit clause of the US Constitution. One reason states are entrusted with vital records is so an independent verification is not required anytime somebody needs to provide proof of age, parentage, place of birth or eligibility for employment (see Federal Form I-9). By itself, a Birth Certificate is “at first face/appearance” (i.e. Prima Facie), sufficient evidence to prove a birth. Only strong contrary, evidence reduces the efficaciousness of the state certified Birth Certificate to establish birth. Persuasive evidence that may overcome the inherent probative value of a state record is another state with conflicting records. A record from a foreign government may not even be sufficient since, less any corroborating evidence, US records are normally given more weight.
September 12th, 2012 at 6:47 pm
Hmm.. I mentioned, in agreement with David, that BCs are not identity documents, but some doubt now appears in the guise of the Georgia Department of Driver Services. In their requirements for State IDs, they mention:
which contains in the list:
Nothing about independent verification.
September 13th, 2012 at 6:42 pm
Please, quote me no more of Article unless you are actually familiar with how such documents are applied in a proof of Identity lawsuit. Thank you.
As to you Federal Form I-9 issue, I find it fascinating there was absolutely no mention of the requirements of eligibility for the President of the United States. As international events have just shown us, we are talking about much more than just hiring an employee. There are a few more constitutional requirements that I found curiously missing from those required by this form.
Please cite your source as to the ‘judicial notice’ that must be present to overcome prima facie evidence that doesn’t have any probative value in the first place?
ex animo
davidfarrar
September 13th, 2012 at 8:10 pm
David “out of breath”,
Once again you flaunt your willful ignorance. You said:
“[President Obama’s birth certificate is] prima facie evidence that doesn’t have any probative value in the first place”
Which is impossible—prima facie evidence is guaranteed to have probative value (to be definitive, in fact), in the absence of credible evidence to the contrary. In the case of a state-issued birth certificate, there isn’t any conceivable evidence (save possibly the birth records of another state—useless for your dishonest purposes) which could be used to impeach a BC that state officials (and thus the “full faith and credit” clause of the US Constitution) stand behind.
September 13th, 2012 at 9:40 pm
Sooo.. David, though you obviously have no idea was prima facie means, let’s turn the table on the case so Obama can now be the Plaintiff, which will shift the burden of proof to him, and how he will make this a prima facie case.
In our hypothetical:
1. Obama is removed from the ballot because the SOS believes he not born in the US.
2. Obama sues the SOS to be placed on the ballot (we are ignoring the obvious issue on whether the SOS can actually remove him, since it is not germane for this discussion).
3. Obama’s claim is that he was born in Hawaii.
4. As plaintiff, the burden of proof now lies with Obama.
5. Obama requests and receives a Birth Certificate (let’s say long form but either would do), from Hawaii with all of the appropriate certifications.
6. As his evidence is considered prima facie evidence, the case is now generally a prima facie case and the burden of proof shifts to the defense to provide extremely strong evidence to the contrary of the birth certificate from Hawaii.
And how about some citations from Black’s Law Dictionary, 2nd Edition (online edition but I verified it with a print version available on Google):
http://thelawdictionary.org/burden-of-proof/
(Lat. onus pro- bandi.) In the law of evidence. The necessity or duty of affirmatively proving a fact or facts in dispute on an issue raised between the parties in a cause. Willett v. Rich, 142 Mass. 356, 7 N. E. 776. 56 Am. Rep. 6S4; Wilder v. Cowles. 100 Mass. 4!X); People v. McCann, 16 N. Y. 58, 69 Am. Dec. 642. The term “burden of proof” is not to be confused with “prima facie case.” When the party upon whom the burden of proof rests has made out a prima facie case, this will, in general, suffice to shift the burden. In other words, the former expression denotes the necessity of establishing the latter. Kendall v. Brownson, 47 N. H. 200; Carver v. Carver, 97 Ind. 511; Heinemann v. Heard, 62 N. Y. 455; Feurt v. Ambrose, 34 Mo. App. 366; Gibbs v. Bank, 123 Iowa, 736, 99 N. W. 703.
http://thelawdictionary.org/prima-facie/
Lat. At first sight; on the first appearance; on the face of it; so far as can be judged from the first disclosure ; presumably. A litigating party is said to have a prima facie case when the evidence in his favor is sufficiently strong for his opponent to be called on to answer it. A prima facie case, then, is one which is established by sufficient evidence, and can be overthrown only by rebutting evidence adduced on the other side. In some cases the only question to be considered is whether there is a prima facie case or no. Thus a grand jury are bound to find a true bill of indictment, if the evidence before them creates a prima facie case against the accused; and for this purpose, therefore, it is not necessary for them to hear the evidence for the defense. Mozley & Whitley. And see State v. Hardelein, 109 Mo. 579, 70 S. W. 130; State v. Lawlor, 28 Minn. 210, 9 N. W. 698.
And no, the birthers inuendo and doubt is not prima facie evidence.
September 13th, 2012 at 10:58 pm
Northland10,
Thank you for the hypothetical (complete with citations 😉 ), but remember, David “out of breath” has Orly Taitz for a lawyer—and he thinks that this is a good thing! As I’m sure you are aware, Orly is currently trying to raise a zombie of the case before Judge Malihi that she lost to the empty chair (sorry to bring up such painful memories, David, but those who ignore the lessons of the past are doomed to repeat them…). Both she and David are poster children for the Dunning-Kruger effect and in David’s case the depth of his ignorance and lack of understanding is so deep that he makes Orly look like a Supreme Court justice by comparison (well, Justice Thomas, at least… 😛 ). You will never be able to convince David that just mumbling the words prima facie over his evidence a couple of times doesn’t magically imbue it with more credibility than the State of Hawai’i can lend with all of the rational, logical, and well-supported reasoning in the world. Ain’t nobody never getting through that redoubt of cognitive bias buttressed by his impressive ignorance and stupidity.
September 14th, 2012 at 5:49 am
Slarti, very true.. I have no assumption that David would actually try to understand any of it but I have always enjoyed explaining things to a wall. I suppose if I want some fun, I will start finding insults in Latin and confuse him in a way that he starts trying to use these in a legal explanation.
September 13th, 2012 at 11:02 pm
@David Farrar
Why are you suing a sitting judge? Judge Clay Land.
September 13th, 2012 at 11:10 pm
RC,
That sounds like the beginning of a joke (“why did David OOB sue a sitting judge?”) What’s the punchline?
September 12th, 2012 at 4:17 pm
@ David Farrar
Why are you suing Judge Clay Land? (I posted this question on another article).
September 13th, 2012 at 9:35 am
To DavidFarrar: I don’t understand your comment. Reality! You sound like you’re wanting extra-special documentary proof of identity and birth. I doubt if ANY previous President of the USA had submitted what it sounds like you’re demanding of Obama.
Is there any evidence that Obama was NOT born in Hawaii, USA??? All evidence, including “hearsay” (the obstetrician’s memory of a guy named “Stanley” giving birth) says he WAS born in Hawaii, and so is a “natural born citizen” eligible to be President of the USA.
rdgamble@sylaba.poznan.pl
September 13th, 2012 at 9:44 am
I will repeat my question to David F.:Why are you suing Judge Clay Land?
September 13th, 2012 at 8:06 pm
Ex animal belches:
Are you seriously saying that the President is using someone else’s identity? You have made some crazy statements, and some outright stupid ones–we have come to expect that of you, but this one takes the cake.
Btw, when are you going to show us and show Obama how to retrieve hospital birth records? If you are unable to produce the same, it should signal, even to the wack-a-doodles, that you are blowing smoke.
September 13th, 2012 at 8:16 pm
Monkey Boy,
I noticed that piece of ludicrous batshittery from David “out of breath” as well. Just another example of how he cherry picks phrases, which he believes are magic words, and uses them in his “arguments” with absolutely no regard (or understanding) of their meanings.
September 14th, 2012 at 12:27 pm
@ David Farrar
Why won’t you answer my simple question? Why are you suing Judge Clay Land?