|
 |
IS OBAMA ELIGIBLE TO BE PRESIDENT?
What do you make of the Barack Obama birth certificate issue?
Barack Obama
|
Barack Obama may have won the presidential election, but is he eligible to serve? That's a question on the minds of millions of Americans eager to see his birth certificate and find out for sure if he was born in the U.S., as he claims. At least two of his relatives in Kenya claim to have been present at his birth in Mombasa, Kenya. In addition, the Obama machine has scoffed at requests to see the form of the Hawaiian birth certificate that includes the specific hospital in which the delivery took place. The form released by the campaign does not include that information, leading to suspicions Obama might have been one of the foreign-born babies of the 1960s who were, nonetheless, provided birth certificates by the state of Hawaii. Now it's time for you to sound off on this controversy.
|
I don`t know
Posted by Texan50 on Nov 19, 2009 15:48
Personally, I have no idea whether or not Obama is a natural born citizen. Obviously He is hiding something, or he would just release his birth certificate. He should be forced to release his birth certificate and the constitution should be obeyed, but I hope that he is eligible for the presidency. Obviously it's not gonna happen now, but if he is not eligible and he loses the presidency over it, things could get really bad. People would think he was disqualified just because he is black and Joe Biden would become president. Scary! And I'm putting it mildly.
RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: Pufendorf on Native and Indigenous Citizens
Posted by su359115 on Nov 19, 2009 12:02
In some cultures, the matriarch determines religion (Semetic), and perhaps even the family name (Spanish). I visited a home in an area where most men have been in jail, or are in jail presently. Rape and the taking advantage of underage girls is highly under-reported.
The women are the only stable influence on the family.
However, in a civilized country with advanced laws and record-keeping, a more orderly and natural system of law, allegiance, inheritance, and succession may exist.
Western civilization is such a culture, and inheritance and allegiance flows naturally from the father. All other claims to property, succession, and shared allegiance are statutory due to an unnatural absence of the father.
Your continuing reliance on soil and mere observation is archaic and primitive . . . and, in the end, ridiculous.
Early Americans placed great importance on ownership and rights of property, and marriage. Today, even though a significant percentage of children are born out of wedlock and property rights have been eroded by socialist taxation, the law has not changed, nor has perception.
We still are orderly enough a society as to encourage home ownership; marriage and the traditional family are still held in high esteem; and the small business is the backbone of our economy.
You seem have an urge to dismiss these facts, in favor of supremacy of the State. A British father created a British subject . . . domicile or native birth created only a legal inhabitant, with rights of a citizen to be determined by statute.
No law was required to confer Obama's British nationality, but meeting statutory requirements was required for his U.S. citizenship. There were complications, but at birth the father's nationality took precedent. Reply to: PhoxarRed
Dear LAD,
***
To consistently support an absolute Constitutional imperative, the greater legal community by consensus thinks Natural Law sufficiently supports a jus soli interpretation of Natural Born Citizen because that allows the child's NBC status to be verified by reference to a timeless, unchanging FACT, which is location. Jus sanguinis interpretations of Natural Born Citizen inconsistently reformulate the calculus of who can qualify for Natural Born Citizenship, by too often making eligibility dependent on constantly changing U.S. and foreign laws.
Natural Law by its nature seems to prefer jus soli. For any witness to a birth can instantly verify that child's jus soli Natural Born Citizenship. By comparison, jus sanguinis Natural Born Citizenship cannot be verified by a witness to a birth unless that witness becomes familiar with the CURRENT U.S. and foreign laws governing the legal, parental, and marital status of the presumed father and/or mother.
Judge Carter is just observing that by referring to constantly changing U.S. and foreign laws to detect "Natural Born Citizenship", you are changing who can be Article Two eligible for the Presidency, and that is itself, unconstitutionally changing the definition of Natural Born Citizenship.
Cordially,
PhoxarRed
(edited for content)
RE: More on SR511
Posted by su359115 on Nov 19, 2009 10:41
Citing Legalzoom has its problems. Here is the applicable law for Sen. McCain.
8 U.S.C. § 1403. Persons born in the Canal Zone or Republic of Panama on or after February 26, 1904
(a) Any person born in the Canal Zone on or after February 26, 1904, and whether before or after the effective date of this chapter, whose father or mother or both at the time of the birth of such person was or is a citizen of the United States, is declared to be a citizen of the United States.
(b) Any person born in the Republic of Panama on or after February 26, 1904, and whether before or after the effective date of this chapter, whose father or mother or both at the time of the birth of such person was or is a citizen of the United States employed by the Government of the United States or by the Panama Railroad Company, or its successor in title, is declared to be a citizen of the United States.
One could say McCain is, therefore, a citizen by statute, not by nature. However, that would only be true if the statute 'naturalized' the newborn through legal 'de-alienage.'
By long tradition going back to Roman times, the foreign country of birth did not confer jus solis nationality to a child of a foreign diplomat or soldier. Therefore, the only nationality conferred was by the father, by nature.
There is concurring military law. If a child was born to an unwed local woman, the child did become the nationality of the mother under abandonment. If the soldier was not on active duty, there would be no U.S. nationality at all.
These complexities aside, McCain was born solely of his father's allegiance and nationality through jus sanguinis, by blood . . . a natural born citizen. Reply to: ch22240
[Please use quotation marks for all quotes, I do not know which is a quote and which is not. -Mikaia]
Quotes added - Thanks - ch22240
Per Legal Zoom
http://www.legalzoom.com/legal-articles/born-abroad-child-still-citizen.html
John McCain per the following;
"However, U.S. installations in foreign countries are not considered part of the United States. So, delivering a baby at a U.S. naval base or embassy in a foreign country does not entitle the baby to U.S. citizenship."
Again, why SR511 was a BS document for McCain.
For Barack Obama now;
"The U.S. citizen parent or grandparent must have been physically present in the U.S. for five years before the child's birth, at least two of which were after age fourteen. Further, the child must be temporarily present in the U.S. for the naturalization process and to recite the oath of allegiance. Of course, if the child is too young to understand the oath, this requirement may be waived.
At this naturalization ceremony, the foreign-born, foreign-resident babies gain not only a certificate of citizenship but also membership into an exclusive club. The Constitution rules that only "natural born" citizens can hold our highest office, so it seems these new Americans won't grow up to be President either. The regulations suggest parents who contemplate baby's future run for the White House may want to consider permanent residence in the United States after the birth of little George or Hilary.
If you are expecting a child abroad and want to be sure of your baby's citizenship, check with your local embassy for the latest laws. In any case, you should register your child's birth with the embassy as soon as possible as the first step in establishing your child's claim to U.S. citizenship at birth."
The normal procedure would be to also notify the relatives of the parents. In this case the newspapers would have also picked up the birth and put that in with the others in the case of Barack Obama.
Also in this case of Oabam, the "GRANDPARENT" can register the birth. So even an under-age Stanley Ann could confir 'NATIVE' status on Barack.
Barack Obama the 'un-Natural Born Citizen'
RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: Pufendorf on Native and Indigenous Citizens
Posted by su359115 on Nov 19, 2009 09:54
SR511 aside (I am fully satisfied that McCain was Art II eligible), the federal court has jurisdiction to decide if Obama was eligible under Art II. My argument is that the jurisprudence required was limited exclusively to the wording of the article itself, and a small universe of resources directly connected to the writers themselves.
What Judge Carter (Velamoor) based his dismissal on was completely unacceptable, wrong, and challengable on appeal.
While SR511 wasn't 'law' per se, it was a lawful review of McCain's Article II eligibility.
In comparisen, if McCain's staff had taken my two faxes seriously, and filed with the President of the Senate in January 2009 a Title 3, U.S.C. §15 challenge to the electoral votes based on Article II, the first step would have been a meeting of the senate to discuss the issue.
Congress would have ultimately disqualified Obama's electoral votes and McCain would have won the election. The burden would have then been on Obama to challenge their decision.
This is the unfortunate lesson of history, much more difficult to undo now that the ineligible party holds the presidency. Reply to: ch22240
su359115
BINGO!!!! * * * "For congress to define 'natural born citizen,' or a court to rely on case law to adduce its meaning is potentially an unconstitutional revision of Article II. * * * "
As I stated before in regards to SR511; As I refered to SR 511. SR511 is a non-binding, non-lawful understanding, that can not be held as a LAW. Being such, a non-binding resolution is a written motion adopted by a deliberative body that cannot progress into a law. The substance of the resolution can be anything that can normally be proposed as a motion.This type of resolution is often used to express the body’s approval or disapproval of something which they cannot otherwise vote on, due to the matter being handled by another jurisdiction, or being protected by a constitution.
Again, I will note: being protected by a constitution.
“Simple resolutions do not require the approval of the other house nor the signature of the President, and they do not have the force of law.”
Therefore neither the Senate, the House of Representatives, the Executive, nor the Judicial Branches have the authority to circumvent the law and apply their own meaning. The law being the United States Constitution.
The Carter/Velamoor dismissal of Barnett vs. Obama, is mistaken as they believe that coming from a judicial source it carries weight of law. If this was true, we would never have overturned decisions or courts being over-ruled.
RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: Pufendorf on Native and Indigenous Citizens
Posted by PhoxarRed on Nov 19, 2009 01:54
Dear LAD,
***
To consistently support an absolute Constitutional imperative, the greater legal community by consensus thinks Natural Law sufficiently supports a jus soli interpretation of Natural Born Citizen because that allows the child's NBC status to be verified by reference to a timeless, unchanging FACT, which is location. Jus sanguinis interpretations of Natural Born Citizen inconsistently reformulate the calculus of who can qualify for Natural Born Citizenship, by too often making eligibility dependent on constantly changing U.S. and foreign laws.
Natural Law by its nature seems to prefer jus soli. For any witness to a birth can instantly verify that child's jus soli Natural Born Citizenship. By comparison, jus sanguinis Natural Born Citizenship cannot be verified by a witness to a birth unless that witness becomes familiar with the CURRENT U.S. and foreign laws governing the legal, parental, and marital status of the presumed father and/or mother.
Judge Carter is just observing that by referring to constantly changing U.S. and foreign laws to detect "Natural Born Citizenship", you are changing who can be Article Two eligible for the Presidency, and that is itself, unconstitutionally changing the definition of Natural Born Citizenship.
Cordially,
PhoxarRed
(edited for content) Reply to: su359115
I will soon finish my critique of the Carter/Velamoor dismissal of Barnett vs. Obama, but what stands out is the dismissal's complete misallocation of the 'natural born citizen' clause to congress and naturalization law.
As we've discussed, a natural born citizen is outside of naturalization law. It is not defined in 8 U.S.C. 1101, or the 1952 Immigration and Nationality Act. Why? Because it is by law of nature, not congressional statute.
* * * For congress to define 'natural born citizen,' or a court to rely on case law to adduce its meaning is potentially an unconstitutional revision of Article II. * * *
A contemporary definition risks being influenced by liberalism or politics. The correct method is to: 1) Read the clause as it appears in Article II, and; 2) rely upon the discussions and sources utilized by the writers themselves.
At the moment, the misinterpretation foisted upon the electorate by Obama, the media, and misinformed members of congress is that Obama's claim to have been born in Hawaii, even with only minimal proof, satisfies Article II.
This is at a minimum negligence, if not a conspiracy to defraud the United States government and electorate through a violation of constitutional law. For this reason, it demands vigilance and our protests and formal complaints in civil court.
RE: He is hiding Something
Posted by Key Eligibility Question on Nov 19, 2009 01:41
To Majorx:
For some perspectives concerning the possible reasons for the April 30, 2008 passage of Senate Resolution 511 that affirmed Senator McCain's eligibility to be President and the absence of a similar resolution for then Senator Obama, you might find of interest the following two items at http://eligibilityquestions.com :
~ Background, Perspectives, Research, and Analysis Bearing the April 30, 2008 Senate Resolution 511 Affirming Senator McCain’s Status as a “Natural Born Citizen”
~ 2009-10-18 Transcript of an Interview of Mario Apuzzo & Charles Kerchner by Andrea Shea King.doc
Excerpt focusing on S. Res. 511 from a 2009-10-08 Interview on blogtalk radio. (A URL for the archived program accompanies the transcript.)
Reply to: majorx
If there wasnt something to hide, he wouldnt be spending over a million dollars in legal fees hiding it. Its common sense.
Why wasnt Obama required to have eligibility hearings as was McCain??
There is sufficient circumstantial evidence to have a court hearing or some action on the part of Congress. The ones in Congress blocking hearings were the ones that knew his status before the election and are possibly traitors.
This and other issues with Obama could eventually lead to civil war. And Obama knows that the military is loyal to their oath of office to support the Constitution, not the President.
The Oath of Office is carefully crafted to swear allegience to the United States and the Constitution and not to any one President.
He is hiding Something
Posted by majorx on Nov 18, 2009 23:00
If there wasnt something to hide, he wouldnt be spending over a million dollars in legal fees hiding it. Its common sense.
Why wasnt Obama required to have eligibility hearings as was McCain??
There is sufficient circumstantial evidence to have a court hearing or some action on the part of Congress. The ones in Congress blocking hearings were the ones that knew his status before the election and are possibly traitors.
This and other issues with Obama could eventually lead to civil war. And Obama knows that the military is loyal to their oath of office to support the Constitution, not the President.
The Oath of Office is carefully crafted to swear allegience to the United States and the Constitution and not to any one President.
RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: Pufendorf on Native and Indigenous Citizens
Posted by ch22240 on Nov 18, 2009 21:16
su359115
BINGO!!!! * * * "For congress to define 'natural born citizen,' or a court to rely on case law to adduce its meaning is potentially an unconstitutional revision of Article II. * * * "
As I stated before in regards to SR511; As I refered to SR 511. SR511 is a non-binding, non-lawful understanding, that can not be held as a LAW. Being such, a non-binding resolution is a written motion adopted by a deliberative body that cannot progress into a law. The substance of the resolution can be anything that can normally be proposed as a motion.This type of resolution is often used to express the body’s approval or disapproval of something which they cannot otherwise vote on, due to the matter being handled by another jurisdiction, or being protected by a constitution.
Again, I will note: being protected by a constitution.
“Simple resolutions do not require the approval of the other house nor the signature of the President, and they do not have the force of law.”
Therefore neither the Senate, the House of Representatives, the Executive, nor the Judicial Branches have the authority to circumvent the law and apply their own meaning. The law being the United States Constitution.
The Carter/Velamoor dismissal of Barnett vs. Obama, is mistaken as they believe that coming from a judicial source it carries weight of law. If this was true, we would never have overturned decisions or courts being over-ruled.
Reply to: su359115
I will soon finish my critique of the Carter/Velamoor dismissal of Barnett vs. Obama, but what stands out is the dismissal's complete misallocation of the 'natural born citizen' clause to congress and naturalization law.
As we've discussed, a natural born citizen is outside of naturalization law. It is not defined in 8 U.S.C. 1101, or the 1952 Immigration and Nationality Act. Why? Because it is by law of nature, not congressional statute.
* * * For congress to define 'natural born citizen,' or a court to rely on case law to adduce its meaning is potentially an unconstitutional revision of Article II. * * *
A contemporary definition risks being influenced by liberalism or politics. The correct method is to: 1) Read the clause as it appears in Article II, and; 2) rely upon the discussions and sources utilized by the writers themselves.
At the moment, the misinterpretation foisted upon the electorate by Obama, the media, and misinformed members of congress is that Obama's claim to have been born in Hawaii, even with only minimal proof, satisfies Article II.
This is at a minimum negligence, if not a conspiracy to defraud the United States government and electorate through a violation of constitutional law. For this reason, it demands vigilance and our protests and formal complaints in civil court.
RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: Pufendorf on Native and Indigenous Citizens
Posted by su359115 on Nov 18, 2009 19:50
I will soon finish my critique of the Carter/Velamoor dismissal of Barnett vs. Obama, but what stands out is the dismissal's complete misallocation of the 'natural born citizen' clause to congress and naturalization law.
As we've discussed, a natural born citizen is outside of naturalization law. It is not defined in 8 U.S.C. 1101, or the 1952 Immigration and Nationality Act. Why? Because it is by law of nature, not congressional statute.
* * * For congress to define 'natural born citizen,' or a court to rely on case law to adduce its meaning is potentially an unconstitutional revision of Article II. * * *
A contemporary definition risks being influenced by liberalism or politics. The correct method is to: 1) Read the clause as it appears in Article II, and; 2) rely upon the discussions and sources utilized by the writers themselves.
At the moment, the misinterpretation foisted upon the electorate by Obama, the media, and misinformed members of congress is that Obama's claim to have been born in Hawaii, even with only minimal proof, satisfies Article II.
This is at a minimum negligence, if not a conspiracy to defraud the United States government and electorate through a violation of constitutional law. For this reason, it demands vigilance and our protests and formal complaints in civil court. Reply to: GVA
Very true, LAD. And not just the Constitution, but the words of the very Framers themselves on protecting the presidency from foreign influence, from "all danger" of "foreign powers". Those are the words of Hamilton, who wrote that the Framers used "the most provident and judicious attention" in protecting against foreign powers "raising a creature of their own to the chief magistracy of the Union".
Beyond the necessary transition period, the Framers meant for the President to be a citizen, of course, BUT ONLY A U.S. CITIZEN FROM BIRTH BY NATURAL LAW. Hence, the president must be a "natural born Citizen", naturally born a citizen by parents who are only U.S. citizens. Representatives and Senators must be ONLY citizens going back at least seven or nine years before election, respectively, so the President must be ONLY a citizen going back to birth. Not only that, but his singular citizenship from birth is "natural" in the sense of natural law, not a product of conferring citizenship by naturalization law.
More on SR511
Posted by ch22240 on Nov 18, 2009 18:45
[Please use quotation marks for all quotes, I do not know which is a quote and which is not. -Mikaia]
Quotes added - Thanks - ch22240
Per Legal Zoom
http://www.legalzoom.com/legal-articles/born-abroad-child-still-citizen.html
John McCain per the following;
"However, U.S. installations in foreign countries are not considered part of the United States. So, delivering a baby at a U.S. naval base or embassy in a foreign country does not entitle the baby to U.S. citizenship."
Again, why SR511 was a BS document for McCain.
For Barack Obama now;
"The U.S. citizen parent or grandparent must have been physically present in the U.S. for five years before the child's birth, at least two of which were after age fourteen. Further, the child must be temporarily present in the U.S. for the naturalization process and to recite the oath of allegiance. Of course, if the child is too young to understand the oath, this requirement may be waived.
At this naturalization ceremony, the foreign-born, foreign-resident babies gain not only a certificate of citizenship but also membership into an exclusive club. The Constitution rules that only "natural born" citizens can hold our highest office, so it seems these new Americans won't grow up to be President either. The regulations suggest parents who contemplate baby's future run for the White House may want to consider permanent residence in the United States after the birth of little George or Hilary.
If you are expecting a child abroad and want to be sure of your baby's citizenship, check with your local embassy for the latest laws. In any case, you should register your child's birth with the embassy as soon as possible as the first step in establishing your child's claim to U.S. citizenship at birth."
The normal procedure would be to also notify the relatives of the parents. In this case the newspapers would have also picked up the birth and put that in with the others in the case of Barack Obama.
Also in this case of Oabam, the "GRANDPARENT" can register the birth. So even an under-age Stanley Ann could confir 'NATIVE' status on Barack.
Barack Obama the 'un-Natural Born Citizen'
|
|
|
