US Supreme Court to Conference on Obama's Presidential Eligibility

reply to post by Iblis Smiley

Maybe you are addressing the issue from the point of view that Obama was born in Hawaii, and it seems to me that Jenna is not.

If he wasn't, what Jenna is saying is pertinent. Of course if was indeed born in Hawaii none of that applies and he is a "natural born" citizen.

reply to post by danx


I never said that what she was saying was not pertinent, just that it was not true. You both seem to have completely missed what it is that I said. Obama bashers want to make him inelligable so baddly and the best they can do is try to say that he is not a U.S. Citizen because of some ammendment that was not drawn up until after he was born anyway. All I am saying is if that is the best you got, then we have a great 8 years ahead of us. The last president had a long list of business failures and arrests that would have made me think he was not elligable or fit but hey, Jenna has a technicality that was not even in effect. Ok, run with that.

reply to post by danx


The section I quoted earlier states the same thing, the part that was amended came after my quote. And yes, it only applies to someone born outside the US. Which, as I stated, is part of the reason why there is a fuss being made over where exactly he was born. If he was born anywhere outside the US, this law decides his natural born status. If he was born in Hawaii as claimed, then it doesn't matter he would be natural born no matter how you look at it.

However, Hawaiian law at the time stated that as long as his mother, being the only parent with US citizenship, lived there for 1 year prior to his birth he could have been born anywhere and she still could register his birth in Hawaii. Which is why the lawsuits demand his vault BC since it will contain his place of birth and the doctors name. I'll have to track down that law. It's been posted in one of these threads but there are so many I can't for the life of me remember which one it's in or which page to find it on.

Found it:

Hawaiian Law §338-17.8
Certificates for children born out of State. (a) Upon application of an adult or the legal parents of a minor child, the director of health shall issue a birth certificate for such adult or minor, provided that proof has been submitted to the director of health that the legal parents of such individual while living without the Territory or State of Hawaii had declared the Territory or State of Hawaii as their legal residence for at least one year immediately preceding the birth or adoption of such child.

[edit on 29-11-2008 by Jenna]

reply to post by Jenna


Thank god that in the meantime we have this one here that proves that either way, he is a natural born U.S. citizen. I will enjoy this law until you come up with one to contradict it.

Originally posted by Iblis Smiley
Obama bashers want to make him inelligable so baddly and the best they can do is try to say that he is not a U.S. Citizen because of some ammendment that was not drawn up until after he was born anyway. All I am saying is if that is the best you got, then we have a great 8 years ahead of us. The last president had a long list of business failures and arrests that would have made me think he was not elligable or fit but hey, Jenna has a technicality that was not even in effect. Ok, run with that.

Iblis,
I am an Obama supporter, but I also believe that the law of the land is more important than personal preferences or party affiliation.

Me, and Wig also asked if you could provide the links that substantiate your claim that the law was not in effect. Is it not understandable that we be provided with that information so we could evaluate it?

reply to post by danx


No I don't necessarily think he wasn't born in Hawaii. Actually, I have stated numerous times that he most likely was born in Hawaii as he claims. But the issue has been raised in numerous lawsuits and it needs to be settled one way or the other. So long as the laws and Constitution are upheld, I'm satisfied either way.

reply to post by Iblis Smiley


No, if he was not born in Hawaii it is a technicality that was very much in effect as of 1952. And had you read anything I've posted on any of the threads about this particular issue, which I can see you have not since you seem to think I'm an "Obama basher", I will state it again in simple terms.

So long as the laws and Constitution are upheld, I don't care if he is president or not. I hope he does a great job. However, if he was not born in Hawaii and is not a natural born citizen, he is ineligible.

As for your previous two posts that you directed at me, yes I can read English thank you and which law would you be referring to? So far you have posted opinions and nothing to back them up. I have provided my sources and have been attempting to remain unbiased about the situation. I make no claims as to where he was born, nor do I particularly care so long as the requirements set forth in our laws and Constitution are met.

It seems to me that your determination to be condescending would be better aimed at someone who has said something in no uncertain terms that you disagree with, rather than aiming it at me when I am merely attempting to understand where Donofrio was coming from when he wrote his Complaint.

Originally posted by danx
Jenna,
The amendment of 1966 that you quote doesn't apply to Obama though. If it was signed into law in 1966, it was 5 years after Obama's birth.

In that case, the original text of the Immigration and Naturalization Act of 1952 applies, and is as following:

(7) a person born outside the geographical limits of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is an alien, and the other a citizen of the United States, who prior to the birth of such person, was physically present in the United States or its outlying possessions for a period or periods totaling not less than ten years, at least five of which were after attaining the age of fourteen years.

This applies to him, if he wasn't born in the United States. If he was, none of this applies, and he is a "natural born" citizen (in my opinion).

Actually, you posted it right there.

When I come across the other thread that completely debunks it, I will post it. Until then, how about anyone provide any proof at all that he was born outside the U.S.

reply to post by Iblis Smiley


I must say, you have me a bit confused... A law stating that his mother had to be a citizen for at least 10 years, 5 of which after the age of 14, for him to automatically gain US citizenship from her debunks her failing to meet those requirements because she was 18 and not 19? How does that debunk anything? The law states what I said it did, and his mother being 18 and not 19 at the time of his birth means she did not meet the requirements for him to automatically gain citizenship at birth if he was not born in the US.

And how exactly are we supposed to prove where he was born when he has not released his vault BC? That was the original point of this thread. Everyone is waiting for the Supreme Court to decide if they are going to hear the case or not. No one here can claim anything either way with any authority since no one here has seen his vault BC. Nice try though.


edit: spelling..

[edit on 29-11-2008 by Jenna]

Originally posted by Iblis Smiley
Actually, you posted it right there.

When I come across the other thread that completely debunks it, I will post it. Until then, how about anyone provide any proof at all that he was born outside the U.S.

OK. Well, I think we just had a misunderstanding, because neither me or Jenna are Obama bashers. We are simply addressing this matter from an objective and legal perspective.

We are covering all bases. I have no doubt if Obama is requested to present proof that he was born in Hawaii, he will do so.

But he hasn't (been asked) so far. At least from any legal agent. Also, if you read the Application of Leo Donofrio he points this out too:

As regarding the issues surrounding Senator Obama's birth certificate, and if it may please this Honorable Court, I would point out that Senator Obama has not been presented with a genuine legal request from a party with proper standing to command him in any way, and therefore he has no legal responsibility to submit or to bend his integrity. And for that, he certainly deserves respect.

While I agree that some people have used this whole matter to muddy the waters or bash Obama, neither me or Jenna fall into that category.

In fact, I would like to think that I'm actually denying ignorance, as I'm investigating and reading the actual law and legislation and everything that could be pertinent to this case, instead of accepting what other people say or don't say on a blog.




[edit on 29-11-2008 by danx]

reply to post by danx


So then what are you basing this on and why are you ignoring your own post?

What is the evidence that he was born in the U.S.?

What is the evidence that he was not?

I am in no way in favor of anyone being president if it goes against the constitution but so far all I see is people believing lawyers who have no credibility and a radio show interview over the obvious fact that people more connected and able than you or I have had more time and more reason to look into this well before we got this far.

So please, lay out the evidence for each case and then tell me you are still being objective about this.

Originally posted by Jenna
reply to post by Iblis Smiley

 

I must say, you have me a bit confused... A law stating that his mother had to be a citizen for at least 10 years, 5 of which after the age of 14, for him to automatically gain US citizenship from her debunks her failing to meet those requirements because she was 18 and not 19? How does that debunk anything? The law states what I said it did, and his mother being 18 and not 19 at the time of his birth means she did not meet the requirements for him to automatically gain citizenship at birth if he was not born in the US.

I am confused as to what you are confused about. She had to be here for 5 years before the age of 14 in order for her foreign born offspring to be counted as naturally US. She was here for 5 years before the age of 14. What is the issue?

Originally posted by Iblis Smiley
I am confused as to what you are confused about. She had to be here for 5 years before the age of 14 in order for her foreign born offspring to be counted as naturally US. She was here for 5 years before the age of 14. What is the issue?

The law says that it was required to be in the US at least 5 years after the age of 14, not before as you said.

Originally posted by danx

Originally posted by Iblis Smiley
I am confused as to what you are confused about. She had to be here for 5 years before the age of 14 in order for her foreign born offspring to be counted as naturally US. She was here for 5 years before the age of 14. What is the issue?

The law says that it was required to be in the US at least 5 years after the age of 14, not before as you said.

LOL, my bad. Ok then I guess I will have to go and look for that thread then. I guess I was so eager to not do the legwork I was reading too quickly. You got me, I was wrong and should have read more carefully. but I will find it.

Originally posted by Iblis Smiley
What is the evidence that he was born in the U.S.?

I have personally seen no evidence. And apparently Obama hasn't yet been requested to present it either.

What is the evidence that he was not?

I haven't seen any evidence that he was not.

So please, lay out the evidence for each case and then tell me you are still being objective about this.

Want any more objectivity than that? I haven't seen any evidence for or against. As I've said, I'm merely addressing some questions people raised, from a legal standpoint.

I'm substantiating my claims with actual laws, instead of people just saying "of course he is not natural born, his father is Kenyan", or "of course he is a natural born he was born in America" and not backing up their claims - many of which, incorrect and false.

Don't blame me or label me an Obama basher for covering all hypothesis and explaining why they are valid or not based on the actual law.

reply to post by danx


I honestly do not remember specifically calling you an Obama basher but you said it about 3 times now. Did I?
I do fail to get the point here. You are saying there is no evidence either way at all...so then why would you even believe the least likely story a little? All logic points to him obviously being born in HI. You see no evidence, ok. Some logic, SOME points to him being born outside the U.S. yet still being qualified as a natural born U.S. And then some other logic points to him just being born outside the U.S.

OK...so how does a completely objective person look at that and assume it is one of the last two?

Originally posted by Iblis Smiley
You are saying there is no evidence either way at all...so then why would you even believe the least likely story a little?

I know there were numerous other threads about this, but many of them were based on people's personal opinions or rants from their blogs. I did not post in those.

But this is an actual lawsuit and is being considered for the Supreme Court. So I think it deserved to be addressed.

All logic points to him obviously being born in HI.

I agree

Some logic, SOME points to him being born outside the U.S. yet still being qualified as a natural born U.S. And then some other logic points to him just being born outside the U.S.

And that's why I addressed many of those questions based on the actual legislation.

OK...so how does a completely objective person look at that and assume it is one of the last two?

I didn't. In fact, I believe Obama was born in Hawaii, and therefor is a "natural born" citizen.




[edit on 29-11-2008 by danx]

Originally posted by danx

I didn't. In fact, I believe Obama was born in Hawaii, and therefor is a "natural born" citizen.

Ok then what else is there for you to argue with me about?

reply to post by Iblis Smiley


I think that is kinda our point. Neither of us were arguing with you, we were discussing the issue from a legal standpoint. Since these cases have been filed, the legal aspects deserve to be discussed regardless of anyone's personal feelings about it.

reply to post by Jenna


That is my point. No, you really cannot. As has been admitted by your other cohort, you both are concerned with an issue that has a complete lack of evidence instead of believing the obvious truth that actually has evidence. I do not see how that can be unbiased in any way at all. You are leaning towards a conspiracy that has less evidence than the boring old truth. Why? Why would an objective person follow the path of least evidence as well as a lawyer known for being full of crap instead of a truth that has been satisfied in every way necessary? I am confused. You claim to be neutral and not arguing, then why do I have to remind you that you are both doing whatever you can to keep a rumor based on almost nothing alive instead of helping to research the truth that is there for anyone who really wants it.

reply to post by Iblis Smiley


See, there you go again trying to create conflict where there is none and dragging this thread off topic. We were discussing the legal side of these lawsuits against Obama. We feel that the legal aspect deserves to be discussed and have been looking up the laws that pertain to the cases ourselves and have not really been going off of our personal feelings about it. The law doesn't care what anyone's opinion is. Not mine, not yours, not anyone's. If you dislike seeing the laws that may pertain to any of the cases about Obama, I invite you to not read these threads, my posts within these threads, or the post of anyone else that includes any laws. Problem solved.