Obama Birth Certificate Rears Its Head - Again

Originally posted by maybereal11
I genuinely respect your opinions Danx..but I disagree here. People wait their entire lives to have cases heard before the supreme court. To entertain a case without merit just to quite the voices of those who have not only not presented a legitimate case, but have gone to great lengths to distort and alter evidence ....well I would not want the Supreme Court of the United States lowered to such tabloid spectacle.

I understand your position, but I must ask: have you read Leo Donofrio's case? Because it is completely different from Berg's and they shouldn't be confused.

In fact, I've written about Berg's case, and using the same laws he cites to help his argument, I've shown that it completely contradicts him and they don't apply to Obama's mother. I also believe, that case has no merit whatsoever.

Donofrio's case on the other hand, I believe has some merit. The only point I disagree with Donofrio's case is that he is going by a different definition of "natural born" citizen.

And this is why I would like that case in particular to go to the Supreme Court, so the Supreme Court decides, not only on Obama's situation in particular, but also on what exactly does "natural born" citizen mean!

I've also said, that in light of the Supreme Court's decision in U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, it is extremely unlikely that the Supreme Court would agree with Donofrio's definition of "natural born" citizen.

When I say I want the Supreme Court to hear it, it's not because I don't want Obama to be President, or because I believe all the cases out there have merit.

No, I say that because I believe this case in particular has merit. Reason? No, I don't think it does.

Making the Supreme Court hear this case, will settle Obama's situation once and for all, and (hopefully) set a precedent for what "natural born" citizen means, as I strongly believe this is something that should be addressed sooner than later.

edit: grammar

[edit on 4-12-2008 by danx]

reply to post by Flighty


Much like Bush and Cheney blocked any real investigation into 9/11, the manufactured reports of Saddam having WMD's and everthing else, Obama will use the same political protection.

These new world order elect and the Washington Elite are protected, surrounded by lawyers and special organizations. Nothing ever came of the millions demanding answers for 9/11, nothing will ever come of his birth verification.

America has been hijacked and no one can stop it.

Those that do are destroyed on a personal level, lose their political ground and are forced out or they are killed.

No one in Washington presses these issues because they do not want to lose their jobs. They do not want their personal lives exposed. They do not want their families harmed.

Our voices have been silenced, our representatives do not represent us anymore. We must kneel down and become a humbled nation of hungry and poor Corporate slaves until these Elite decide what is best for us.

The last phase is this manufactured economic collapse, then they will have full control of our lives and the lives of every being on this planet.
When they merge all banks, it will be complete.

reply to post by danx


You make a good point. I do think the phrase should be defined once and for all. And perhaps this is the case that would do it. I just don't think there's ANY doubt that someone born on US soil to a US citizen mother could possibly NOT be a N-BC.

And I admit to a selfish desire to have the case summarily thrown out as absurd on the face of it.

reply to post by danx


As best I can tell the Leo case goes like this ..
(Please correct me if I am wrong)

Our Pres. Elect was born in the United States (Hawaii) to an American Mother, but his father was Kenyan (under british rule) and thus he was born with both American and British Citizenship. OK Granted.

The case further argues that this dual citizenship disqualifies him as a "Natural born" American citizen. Disagree.

From what I have read in the past...the intent of the "Natural born" clause by our founding fathers was to forbid recent immigrants from other countries from taking office. It was a fragile time in the begining of our democracy and there were legitimate concerns about influence from abroad as our country was just trying to get it's footing.

An American woman gave birth to an American child on American soil..Yet the case says since the man who impregnated her was a british citizen that somehow this disqualifies the child as a "Natural Born Citizen"? I am not buying it.

The British citizenship that was attributed to him at birth in no way lessens his Natural Born American Citizenship status and further the laws that assigned him British Citizenship at the time were BRITISH...not American.

The first question is ...were there American laws in place that expressly declared children born to British citizens within the US ..British Citizens?

I doubt it since our current laws say that even if two British Citizens have a child on US soil...that child is an American Citizen.

The second question is does having British Citizenship atrributed to you by British law at birth on us soil lessen your American Citizenship?

Not convinced it has merit...unless I am missing something.

reply to post by maybereal11


The Federalist Blog discusses your question(s) using the words of the founders and framers of the Constitution and the XIV Amendment. The very first post, Defining Natural-Born Citizen is a perfect place to begin, as well as reviewing the links to 2 other articles at the end of the full article.

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
FF, do you have a comment on the fact that Hawaii Revised Statute 338-17.8 wasn't enacted when Obama was born?

Of course.

Hawaii Department of Health Office

The Certificate of Hawaiian Birth program was established in 1911, while Hawaii was a territory, to register a person as born in Hawaii who was one year old or older and whose birth had not been previously registered in Hawaii. This included people born off the Island who claimed the Island as home. The Certificate of Hawaiian Birth Program was terminated in 1972.

The Hawaiian official claimed it had Obama’s original birth certificate "in accordance with state policies and procedures."

The Hawaii Birth Certificate Program – from 1911 to 1972 – had as it’s procedures the acceptance of "after the fact" birth certificates. This program was for residents of Hawaii over the age of one who did not register their birth with the state originally. Some "alternate form of documentation" was accepted as proof of birth. Alternate forms of proof included notarized statements. (heresay)

The 338-17.8 is a continuation – a rewrite – of how the Certificate of Hawaiian Birth program (1911 – 1972) dealt with those born outside the state to people who claimed Hawaii as their home state.

[§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.

If the info at Wikipedia is right (and you never know), it is more likely that Obama was actually born in Washington State where his mother was registered as a student at that time.

The University of Hawaii dates of attendance for Obama’s mother -

Fall 1960 (First day of instruction 9/26/1960)
Spring 1963
Summer 1966
Fall 1972 - Fall 1974
Summer 1976
Spring 1978
Fall 1984 - Summer 1992

Obama’s mother was enrolled at the University of Washington for:
Autumn 1961
Winter 1962
Spring 1962

I have no idea if those dates are correct.
You never know with Wiki.
And the info there keeps changing with the wind.

Originally posted by Tinkabit

BREAKING NEWS: NEW COMMERCIAL AIRING:

www.youtube.com...

Do you feel it explains the issue well for most people to understand?

That’s a load of crap. They make it out like Cert’s of live Birth are only given to people born abroad, they are not.

They then state about him being an Indonesian citizen? Duh! I thought that was obvious and everyone knew that, but he gave it up to become President, he also admitted that he had Kenya citizenship and gave that up. It doesn’t mean he wasn’t born in the USA. I have 3 citizenships – that’s what people usually get when they move somewhere as a PR or have a parent born overseas!

And to top it off, the document that shows he was in school in Indonesia as an Indonesian citizens also states his place of birth, and shock horror – it states Honolulu!

He went to Pakistan when US citizens were not allowed.....duh, because he also held another citizenship! He could have entered on one of those.

What is the point? This stuff is known; they are adding and twisting things to suit their agenda.

Mikey


[edit on 4/12/2008 by Mikey84]

Originally posted by maybereal11
As best I can tell the Leo case goes like this ..
(Please correct me if I am wrong)

You got it perfectly right.

The first question is ...were there American laws in place that expressly declared children born to British citizens within the US ..British Citizens? (...)

The second question is does having British Citizenship atrributed to you by British law at birth on us soil lessen your American Citizenship?

There is no such law. In fact, reading State Department's policies, we can find the following:

U.S. nationals and citizens may possess dual or multiple nationality and owe allegiance to one or several foreign states. (source: Foreign Affairs Manual)

Dual nationality can occur as the result of a variety of circumstances. The automatic acquisition or retention of a foreign nationality, acquired, for example, by birth in a foreign country or through an alien parent, does not affect U.S. citizenship. (source)

Not convinced it has merit...unless I am missing something.

Donofrio's argument, I believe, arises from an interpretation of some Framer's quotes (as contested here - the article redhatty posted yesterday), that some indicate that what they meant by "in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof", was that a person owed allegiance to the United States, and the United States alone.

The argument Donofrio makes, is in light of that interpretation: since Obama was born with dual citizenship, he didn't owed allegiance to the United States alone.

I personally don't agree with this, and in U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, the Supreme Court decided (6-2) that Wong, a US-born person to Chinese parents who resided in the US, was a US citizen at birth, and the federal Government couldn't take away that right from him.

The 2 Justices didn't agree with the decision seem to indicate they were in line with the strict interpretation that one cannot be "natural born" if he owes allegiance to more than one country. But since they were the minority, their opinion has no legal validity.

The decision of the Supreme Court doesn't address what "natural born" citizen really means, or even if Wong was one. The decision simply meant that Wong, was a US citizen at birth, and the federal Government, couldn't take away that right from him through legislation (at the time there was an Act prohibiting Chinese people from becoming US citizens).

Does this mean that Wong was a "natural born" citizen, and that's what "natural born" citizen means: being born in the United States? I think so. Either way, it set a precedent.

So, in light of that, I don't see any way the Supreme Court will agree with Donofrio's argument (and definition).



[edit on 4-12-2008 by danx]

Originally posted by FlyersFan
The Certificate of Hawaiian Birth program was established in 1911, while Hawaii was a territory, to register a person as born in Hawaii who was one year old or older and whose birth had not been previously registered in Hawaii.

Well that's interesting... That "as" is not in the original document you linked and changes the meaning entirely...

The Certificate of Hawaiian Birth program was established in 1911, during the territorial era, to register a person born in Hawaii who was one year old or older and whose birth had not been previously registered in Hawaii.

It says "To register a person born in Hawaii", not "to register a person AS born in Hawaii"

This is for people who WERE born in Hawaii, but their birth wasn't registered.

This included people born off the Island who claimed the Island as home.

And where did this information come from?

Some "alternate form of documentation" was accepted as proof of birth. Alternate forms of proof included notarized statements. (heresay)

And where did you get this information? Because your source says:

If there is no standard birth certificate on file, an applicant is required to submit documentary evidence of the birth facts necessary to support of the registration of the late certificate of birth.

Originally posted by danx

Donofrio's argument, I believe, arises from an interpretation of some Framer's quotes (as contested here - the article redhatty posted yesterday), that some indicate that what they meant by "in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof", was that a person owed allegiance to the United States, and the United States alone.

The argument Donofrio makes, is in light of that interpretation: since Obama was born with dual citizenship, he didn't owed allegiance to the United States alone.
[edit on 4-12-2008 by danx]

I don't mean to come across as a raging Liberal...well maybe I do But I have a hard time taking the "Federalist Blog" as a unbiased source. I have always had an impression of the Federalist society as the "Thinking Mans" far right club.

They are premised on the "Literal" interpetation of the constitution vs. what they view to be "Liberal" Interpretation. There articles are well written and articulated, but unquestionably rightward biased. Taken to the nth degree this means no amendments..though I don't think they outwardly declare themselves that far right...a return to slavery and all.

Interestingly enough Clarence Thomas and Atoni Scalia are members! wasn't this case referred to Thomas after Suiter rejected it? It might not have been a coincidence since it is premised on the "Federalist Societies" interpretation.

Well what it comes down to is the definition of "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" and what that means...forgive me if I don't take the Federalist Societies interpetation at face value. I will have to take a look at varied sources and interpretations.

reply to post by Benevolent Heretic

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic

Originally posted by FlyersFan
The Certificate of Hawaiian Birth program was established in 1911, while Hawaii was a territory, to register a person as born in Hawaii who was one year old or older and whose birth had not been previously registered in Hawaii.

Well that's interesting... That "as" is not in the original document you linked and changes the meaning entirely...

The Certificate of Hawaiian Birth program was established in 1911, during the territorial era, to register a person born in Hawaii who was one year old or older and whose birth had not been previously registered in Hawaii.

It says "To register a person born in Hawaii", not "to register a person AS born in Hawaii"

This is for people who WERE born in Hawaii, but their birth wasn't registered.

Wow…Great catch BH!....I will just repeat my prior post to you Flyers…

Originally posted by maybereal11
Agenda over facts. Why would our President elect waste his time engaging in honest dialogue with folks who have proven themselves REPEATEDLY and CONSISTENLY to not care about the truth what-so-ever....

By the way Flyerfan- Some posters are simply uneducated on this issue, but I have posted in enough threads with you over this past campaign cycle to know that you do thorough although biased research. But so often, like here in this statute garbage, you trade honesty to serve some deeper dislike of Obama. Your honor isn't worth whatever feelings are driving you to post this dishonest garbage.

More MSM reports starting to pick it up:

www.chron.com...

(haven't read it yet so please refrain from pelting me with pertinant passages...)

Originally posted by maybereal11
I don't mean to come across as a raging Liberal...well maybe I do

But I have a hard time taking the "Federalist Blog" as a unbiased source. I have always had an impression of the Federalist society as the "Thinking Mans" far right club.

I consider myself a liberal, but I tried to read the whole article without any preconceptions. I have to say that I understand the argument of the author(s) of the article, but I don't agree with it.

Well what it comes down to is the definition of "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" and what that means...forgive me if I don't take the Federalist Societies interpetation at face value. I will have to take a look at varied sources and interpretations.

No need for forgiveness, as I don't agree with their interpretation either. And I would never, take anyone's interpretation at face value, regardless of political affiliation or bias.

Ok I read it. Looks like the odds are very slim :

"Many petitioners seeking stays of pending events have their cases distributed to the full court, he said. Of those, Volokh found that 782 were denied in the last eight years while just 60 were heard — and not all of those ultimately were successful."

Once thing I think that we can all agree on, is that this issue is far from clear. This really should not be this convoluded.

Aren't any of you actually a wee bit interested in what that vault copy has to say? Could the charges of it releasing some "embarrassing information" (as DNC claimed) have more to do with paternity, then country of origin.

(Some have alleged that the Frank (commonly regarded as Marshall now) referred to in his autobiog may in fact be his actual father?) This would then be a matter of privacy I could at least understand.

Originally posted by Tinkabit
Aren't any of you actually a wee bit interested in what that vault copy has to say? Could the charges of it releasing some "embarrassing information" (as DNC claimed) have more to do with paternity, then country of origin.

I am interested, but my personal interest doesn't override the necessity for a substantiated case that meets the Supreme Court's requirements, in order to be heard.

Just because I (or other people) would like this matter to be settled, the only way the Supreme Court can hear it, is if it's the case has merit.

The Supreme Court can't make up cases to do investigation.

You raise the point that he might have not released his birth certificate, not because of his citizenship, but because of other "embarrassing information". You are right to point this out, because the reality is that, we don't know what his reasons are, and Obama has not been asked by any legal authority to release it, and is in his own right not to release it.

We can imagine and assume all sorts of reasons why he hasn't released it, doesn't mean we're right (or wrong), but he hasn't broken any laws so far.



[edit on 4-12-2008 by danx]

reply to post by danx


Okay I read it. Many questions and I would have liked to have seen varied qoutes from those that debated the issue rather than simply those who supported the argument...maybe I will google for some balance.

as it stands..I still don't buy the interpretation and would need to read excerpts from other political voices at the time on the issue.

One of my favorite questions sparked by a commentator on the blog....
My words..his question essentially..

If we are to define a "natural born citizen" as one born on US soil to parents of singular allegiance to the united states...does that mean we should add paternity tests to the presidential screening process to assure the father of the candidate is the legitimate father and was a citizen of singular allegiance to the US at the time of the candidates birth? And if not ...exclude those candidates that refuse a paternity test from consideration? Slippery, Slippery slope.

Also the bit in bold about the US "not Recognizing dual allegiances" They played it like the speaker meant it invalidates someone's citizenship...couldn't have meant that they consider those US citizens with dual citizenships...just US Citizens....Otherwise he didn't say that they consider those with dual allegiances allied with foriegn nations...he said they don't recognize dual allegiances inferring that they consider them of singular allegiance to the US and under their jurisdiction.

One of many things I had issue with in the Federalist opinion. I have no doubt more astute minds than my own within our legal system will see far more faults in the argument than I did.

Originally posted by Tinkabit
Once thing I think that we can all agree on, is that this issue is far from clear.

It's clear to me. In my mind, there was never a reason to even QUESTION his place of birth. Any more than GW Bush, Clinton, GHW Bush, or ANY of them. I believe this whole thing was started by someone who didn't want Obama to be president and looked for a way to make him seem suspicious.

Aren't any of you actually a wee bit interested in what that vault copy has to say? Could the charges of it releasing some "embarrassing information" (as DNC claimed) have more to do with paternity, then country of origin.

I'm curious, but my curiosity is nothing compared to his right to privacy. I didn't see where the DNC claimed there was "embarrassing information" on it. But it's possible his parents weren't married. Or his religion was listed as Muslim. But I seriously doubt his parentage is in question.

Originally posted by maybereal11
Otherwise he didn't say that they consider those with dual allegiances allied with foriegn nations...he said they don't recognize dual allegiances inferring that they consider them of singular allegiance to the US and under their jurisdiction.

This is something I've been saying all along. So according to Kenya, Barack Obama was a Kenyan citizen at birth. The US doesn't really care about Kenyan citizenship laws. That's from a Kenyan perspective. We go by OUR laws and from OUR perspective, he's a US citizen. Natural-born to boot!

Not to cloud the water, but the same argument stands for any alleged Indonesian citizenship. Unless Obama renounced his US citizenship the US doesn't care what Indonesian law accepts or allows.

Originally posted by maybereal11
If we are to define a "natural born citizen" as one born on US soil to parents of singular allegiance to the united states...does that mean we should add paternity tests to the presidential screening process to assure the father of the candidate is the legitimate father and was a citizen of singular allegiance to the US at the time of the candidates birth? And if not ...exclude those candidates that refuse a paternity test from consideration? Slippery, Slippery slope.

A great point, and a good example - if I may say so - that shows there are numerous things the Framers couldn't have possibility anticipated, and therefor, it might not be wised to make many rigid or literal interpretations.

With that being said though, the Framers understood this and anticipated and allowed for Amendments to be made.

If we, as a people, see the injustice in that someone like John McCain doesn't qualify to be President, and we disagree with this fact, let's change it.

Even though I didn't support John McCain, nor did I think he was the best choice, I truly believe it's unfair, and wrong, that he's not allowed to be President under the "natural born" citizen clause.

One of many things I had issue with in the Federalist opinion. I have no doubt more astute minds than my own within our legal system will see far more faults in the argument than I did.

I hope I made it clear that I don't endorse, or even agree, with the Federalist's opinion and conclusion.

I mentioned it because it served as basis for a pretty good discussion I had with redhatty yesterday, and because I believe it is the reasoning behind Leo Donofrio's argument.

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
This is something I've been saying all along. So according to Kenya, Barack Obama was a Kenyan citizen at birth. The US doesn't really care about Kenyan citizenship laws. That's from a Kenyan perspective. We go by OUR laws and from OUR perspective, he's a US citizen. Natural-born to boot!

It wouldn't even be reasonable to contemplate the possibility for some country's laws to invalidate the nationality or citizenship of a person who owes those things to some other country.

Just imagine the (clearly exaggerated) following hypothetical situation, just for the sake of argument:

Iraq's Government in the future decides to rewrite their Nationality and Citizenship laws. Imagine they declare Iraqi's could only have one nationality and citizenship. And imagine that for some reason they declare that people who resided in Iraq since 2003, regardless of status or place of residence, for at least 1 year, become Iraqi citizens.

The men and women who served our country in Iraq would become Iraqi citizens and lose their US citizenship?

Granted that they would have no reason to pass such a preposterous law, but they could if they wanted.

I think it's quite apparent why other countries' laws cannot invalidate or abridge the rights given to you by your country.

Not to cloud the water, but the same argument stands for any alleged Indonesian citizenship. Unless Obama renounced his US citizenship the US doesn't care what Indonesian law accepts or allows.

Exactly.

edit: grammar

[edit on 4-12-2008 by danx]