446 comments posted · 71 followers · following 0
Purpura v. Obama (New Jersey 2012) ruling: “No court, federal, state or administrative, has accepted the challengers’ position that Mr. Obama is not a “natural born Citizen” due to the acknowledged fact that his father was born in Kenya and was a British citizen by virtue of the then applicable British Nationality Act. Nor has the fact that Obama had, or may have had, dual citizenship at the time of his birth and thereafter been held to deny him the status of natural born. It is unnecessary to reinvent the wheel here. … The petitioners’ legal position on this issue, however well intentioned, has no merit in law. Thus, accepting for the point of this issue that Mr. Obama was born in Hawaii, he is a ‘natural born Citizen’ regardless of the status of his father.”
Voeltz v. Obama (Florida 2012) ruling: “However, the United States Supreme Court has concluded that ‘[e]very person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, becomes at once a citizen of the United States. ‘Other courts that have considered the issue in the context of challenges to the qualifications of candidates for the office of President of the United States have come to the same conclusion."
Allen v. Obama (Arizona 2012) ruling: “Most importantly, Arizona courts are bound by United States Supreme Court precedent in construing the United States Constitution, Arizona v. Jay J. Garfield Bldg. Co. , 39 Ariz. 45, 54, 3 P.2d 983, 986(1931), and this precedent fully supports that President Obama is a natural born citizen under the Constitution and thus qualified to hold the office of President. … Contrary to Plaintiff’s assertion, Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162 (1874), does not hold otherwise.”
Farrar (et al.) v. Obama (Georgia 2012) ruling: “In 2009, the Indiana Court of Appeals (“Indiana Court”) addressed facts and issues similar to those before this court. [Ankeny] v. Governor, 916 N.E.2d (Ind. Ct. App. 2009). … The Indiana Court rejected the argument that Mr. Obama was ineligible, stating that children born within the United States are natural born citizens, regardless of the citizenship of their parents. … This Court finds the decision and analysis of [Ankeny] persuasive.”
And on October 1, 2012, the US Supreme Court turned down an appeal of the last of the rulings shown above, the Farrar case, which had ruled that "children born within the United States are natural born citizens, regardless of the citizenship of their parents." By rejecting the appeal, the US Supreme Court allowed the ruling of the lower court to STAND.
In addition to those rulings specifically on presidential eligibility, there are these:
Mustata v. US Dept. of Justice, 179 F.3d 1017 (6th Cir. 1999) (children born in US to two Romanian citizens described as “natural born citizens” of the US):
“Petitioners Marian and Lenuta Mustata are citizens of Romania. At the time of their petition, they resided in Michigan with their two minor children, who are natural born citizens of the United States.”
“Petitioner, Sebastian Diaz-Salazar, entered the United States illegally [from Mexico] in 1974 and has been living and working in Chicago since that time. *** The relevant facts which have been placed before the INS, BIA, and this court can be summarized as follows: The petitioner has a wife and two children under the age of three in Chicago; the children are natural-born citizens of the United States.”
Nwankpa v. Kissinger, 376 F. Supp. 122 (M.D. Ala. 1974) (child born in US to two Biafra citizens described as “natural born citizen” of the US):
“The Plaintiff was a native of Biafra, now a part of the Republic of Nigeria. His wife and two older children are also natives of that country, but his third child, a daughter, is a natural-born citizen of the United States.”
That makes about 13 courts that I can cite easily that have ruled that the US born children of foreigners are Natural Born Citizens.
In addition, there are articles like this: http://www.fredthompsonsamerica.com/2012/07/31/is...
and this: http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica...
and this: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204...
And the Congressional Research Service and Black's Law Dictionary, and the opinions of two legal scholars who knew the writers of the US constitution:
BTW, even anchor babies are Natural Born US Citizens, and they can run for president-----and if you don't like it, you can vote against them (or you can ask your congressman and senators to change the US Constitution), but currently they can run----when they reach the age of 35, of course.
SR511 was specific to McCain and it said that he was born on a US naval base (which none but an unpatriotic American would not consider to be US soil) and that both of his parents were US citizens. That act by one house of congress is not even a law much less a change in the US Constitution. But the fact is that McCain was born on a US Naval Base-----under the control of the USA where the US flag flew, and that is sufficient.
Obama, however, was born IN HAWAII, a US state, and his mother was a US citizen, and the fact that his father was never a US citizen has no effect whatever because the meaning of Natural Born Citizen really does come from the common law and really is based on the place of birth.
THAT, duh, is why the chief justice of the USA swore in Obama, and that is why Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan and Karl Rove and the Republican Party did not object.
In addition, there have been these appeals court rulings, all of which confirm the fact that the meaning of Natural Born Citizen includes EVERY CHILD born on US soil except for the families of foreign diplomats and members of an invading enemy army.
Hollander v. McCain (New Hampshire 2008) ruling: “Those born “in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof,” U.S. Const., amend. XIV, have been considered American citizens under American law in effect since the time of the founding, United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, 674-75 (1898), and thus eligible for the presidency..."
Ankeny v. Governor of Indiana (Indiana 2008 – Appellate Court) ruling: “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.”
Tisdale v. Obama (Virginia federal court 2012) ruling: “It is well settled that those born in the United States are considered natural born citizens.”
Answer: Are you saying that you accept the fact that Obama was born in Hawaii? (If so, you are showing a modicum of sense. If not, I'll start posting the evidence----which is OVERWHELMING.)
Re: "He was born a Brit."
Answer: He was a dual citizen at birth British/American, or American/British if you prefer. The fact that he was born a dual citizen has absolutely NO effect on his Natural Born Citizen status whatever.
ALL children born on the soil of the United States----except for the children of foreign diplomats and members of an invading army-----are Natural Born US Citizens. That is why, duh, the Chief Justice of the United States swore in Obama and John McCain and Mitt Romney and Karl Rove and the Republican Party and Ann Coulter and Glenn Beck and Rand Paul and Ron Paul and Michele Bachmann did not object.
Why didn't they object. Because the Heritage Foundation book is right and birther lawyers are wrong.
See quotations above.
Re: "As you and I and millions of other people know BOTH parents have to be US citizens at the time of birth."
Answer: Actually, you are wrong and so are those "millions." The Heritage Foundation book is right (see above.) The rule refers to the PLACE of birth, not to the parents of a US-born child. (see quotations above.)
And in fact the "you gotta have two citizen parents" side took their claim that two citizen parents are required to more than TWENTY appeals courts, and lost in every single one of them----and the cases were not thrown out for lack of standing. The birther site lost on the meaning of the Constitution. Every single case ruled that the meaning of Natural Born Citizen includes EVERY child born on US soil (Yes, that means including anchor babies. If one runs for president, all that you can do is vote against her or him.)
Would you like me to show some of the more than TWENTY rulings?
“Under the longstanding English common-law principle of jus soli, persons born within the territory of the sovereign (other than children of enemy aliens or foreign diplomats) are citizens from birth. Thus, those persons born within the United States are "natural born citizens" and eligible to be President. Much less certain, however, is whether children born abroad of United States citizens are "natural born citizens" eligible to serve as President ..."---- Edwin Meese, et al, THE HERITAGE GUIDE TO THE CONSTITUTION (2005) [Edwin Meese was Ronald Reagan’s attorney general, and the Heritage Foundation is a well-known Conservative organization.]
"Some birthers imagine that there is a difference between being a “citizen by birth” or a “native citizen” on the one hand and a “natural born” citizen on the other. “Eccentric” is too kind a word for this notion, which is either daft or dishonest. All three terms are identical in meaning."---The Wall Street Journal (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204619004574322281597739634.html?KEYWORDS=obama+%22natural+born+citizen%22+minor+happersett)
"Every child born in the United States is a natural-born United States citizen except for the children of diplomats.”---Senator Lindsay Graham (December 11, 2008 letter to constituents)
Nathan Goulding with The National Review: “We have received several e-mails today calling into question the validity of the PDF that the White House released, namely that there are embedded layers in the document. There are now several other people on the case. We looked into it and dismissed it.… I’ve confirmed that scanning an image, converting it to a PDF, optimizing that PDF, and then opening it up in Illustrator, does in fact create layers similar to what is seen in the birth certificate PDF. You can try it yourself at home.”
The born in Kenya story IS a lie. Obama was born in Hawaii and not in Kenya.
The “born in Kenya” story is the height of the loony side of the birther movement. It is based on forgeries like that of Lucas D. Smith, and falsifications–such as the claim that Obama’s Kenyan grandmother said that he was born in Kenya—when she actually said right on the same tape that he was born IN HAWAII, and she said in another interview that the first that her family in Kenya had heard of Obama’s birth was in a letter FROM HAWAII. And there is also the mistake of the publicist (which she has admitted)
Lucas D. Smith, a convicted felon, claimed that he went to Kenya and got Obama’s birth certificate at a hospital in Mombasa. But Lucas D. Smith has constantly refused to show proof that he, Smith, had ever gone to Kenya. All that he would have to do would be to show a Kenya stamp on a page of a passport, but Lucas D. Smith has refused to do that, constantly, and he has also constantly refused to say why he will not show that proof. (Moreover, his “birth certificate” uses US date formats [month/day/year] and not the day/month/year format used in Kenya.)
Laying aside for a moment the overwhelming proof that Obama was born in Hawaii, the evidence that Obama was NOT born in Kenya is also very strong. There were a grand total of 21 people who came to the USA from Kenya in 1961. Of these only seven were US citizens. And the birther myth has always been that Obama’s parents went there and returned by plane, but only one person came to the USA from Kenya in 1961 by plane and that person was, wait for it, NOT a US citizen. And Obama’s father did not go to Kenya in 1961 either (making it unlikely that his mother did, since travel late in pregnancy was rare, and even more rare without the husband going along). WND has proved with a FOI Act request that Obama senior stayed in Hawaii throughout 1961.
And the Kenyan government investigated the “born in Kenya” story, and found that it was not true.
“Jon Chessoni, a first secretary at the Kenyan Embassy in Washington, can’t understand why his office gets so many baseless questions about whether Barack Obama was born in Kenya.
“It’s madness,” said Chessoni on Monday.“His father, in 1961, would not even have been in Kenya. When this matter first came up, the Kenyan government did its research and confirmed that these are all baseless claims.””
Obama has a Hawaii birth certificate that says that he was born in Hawaii, in Kapiolani Hospital, and the officials of both parties in Hawaii have confirmed that fact. It is also confirmed by the birth announcement in the Hawaii newspapers in 1961, which were sent to the papers only by the DOH of Hawaii.
Obama’s birth announcement appeared in a section of the newspapers called Health Bureau Statistics. As the name indicates, and as the papers and the DOH also say, ONLY the DOH of Hawaii could send birth notices to the Health Bureau Statistics section of the paper. And the DOH only sent out those notices for children that it had issued birth certificates for, and in 1961 the DOH was not allowed to register the births of children who were not born in Hawaii.
Oh, and there is this:
Yes, as you stated, the claim that Obama and Michelle said that Obama was born in Kenya is a known lie, and the publisher (actually it was a literary agent) has admitted to writing it but that it was her mistake (which was an easy mistake to make since Barack Hussein Obama, Obama's father, actually was born in Kenya).
Answer: It is not Obama's "story" that he was born in Hawaii. It is the story of his birth certificate, which says that he was born in Hawaii, and the facts on that birth certificate have been confirmed by the officials of BOTH parties in Hawaii and by the Index Data file and by the 1961 birth notices sent to the newspapers by the DOH of Hawaii and by the teacher who wrote home and by the INS official who checked on Obama's father's status and wrote: "They have one child, born in Honolulu."
It is THEIR story as much as it is Obama's.
Re: "The BC is full of digitally fabricated..."
Answer: Birthers have LIED about that over and over and over---now, what do you suppose their motive might be?
And they have never shown all (or any) of the real experts who say that Obama's birth certificate is not forged. Nor have they been able to answer this:
NATURALLY birthers claim that Obama's birth certificate is forged. That's all that they have left, their claim that they are "experts" (sure they are) and that Obama's birth certificate is forged. Well, if there had been a particle of evidence from REAL experts that Obama's birth certificate were forged, don't you think that Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan and Karl Rove and Huckabee and Gingrich and Santorum and Ann Coulter and Glenn Beck and the National Review (or at the very least one member of the 535 members of Congress) would have said so? Well, none of them ever did, and Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan and Ann Coulter etc have all said that they do not believe the birthers.
BTW, layers are normal when a complex document is scanned, compressed and put into pdf and then the pdf file is opened in Adobe Illustrator. That is what is supposed to happen.
Okay, Obama has lied. (Big deal, name a politician who hasn't.)
But he did not lie about being born in Kenya because he said that he was born in Hawaii (which is true) and wrote that he was born in Hawaii and there is NO evidence that he EVER said that he was born in Kenya, and he wasn't---he was born in Hawaii.