tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3756716410615422601.post2483768320210205681..comments2010-03-05T06:26:46.055-06:00Comments on Our Constitutional Republic, Save It or Lose It!: The Audacity of SomeChiefhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12003144956528844211noreply@blogger.comBlogger45125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3756716410615422601.post-86392321132735116492010-02-07T08:31:58.049-06:002010-02-07T08:31:58.049-06:00The 1775 edition of this legal book was used as a ...The 1775 edition of this legal book was used as a reference by Benjamin Franklin and other founders to set up our new nation in 1776 in the writing of the Declaration of Independence and also in drafting the new form of federal government in 1789 and the writing of our Constitution, the fundamental law of our nation.<br /><br />To borrow a quote,"Obama was born British. How can a person born a British Subject ever be considered to be a "natural born Citizen" of the USA, to constitutional standards? He cannot. Our founders must be rolling over in their graves witnessing what transpired in the 2008 election cycle."Chiefhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12003144956528844211noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3756716410615422601.post-26470747479139169452010-01-13T15:19:44.566-06:002010-01-13T15:19:44.566-06:00Natural Born was and is a synonym for native born....Natural Born was and is a synonym for native born. It does NOT require two citizen parents, any more than one needs both suspenders and a belt.<br /><br />Obama is a Natural Born citizen, having been born in Hawaii, as his official birth certificate which has twice been confirmed by the officials in Hawaii shows.<br /><br />Neither of Andrew Jackson's parents were citizens.<br /><br />That is why such prominent conservative Senators who are also lawyers as Orren Hatch and Lindsay Graham say that a Natural Born Citizen is simply one who was born in the USA:<br /><br />Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC), said:<br /><br />“Every child born in the United States is a natural-born United States citizen except for the children of diplomats.” (December 11, 2008 letter to constituent)<br /><br />Senator Orrin G. Hatch (R-UT), said:<br /><br />“What is a natural born citizen? Clearly, someone born within the United States or one of its territories is a natural born citizen.” (Senate Judiciary Committee hearing hearing on OCTOBER 5, 2004)smrstrausshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17130680385818556655noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3756716410615422601.post-40595813205238424122010-01-06T22:06:06.773-06:002010-01-06T22:06:06.773-06:00The United States Constitution requires a Nature B...The United States Constitution requires a Nature Born Citizen in Article II thereof to be president. I does not say native born or citizen by birth. You still fail to understand the intent and meaning of this requirement. It requires two U S citizen parents to bestow Natural Born Citizen status on any of their offsprings. In Obama's case he is at best a U S citizen; at worst an illegal alien with no credentials; otherwise why would he not produce the documents necessary to prove up the matter? The only way Obama becomes a Natural Born Citizen is if Frank Mitchell Davis turns up as his father; that is alway a possibility but again there needs to be proof, and the proof is not is some contrived document which his campaign tried to post as a valid document of proof during his run for the presidency. Being born by natural child birth does not make one a Natural Born Citizen. Repeat after me: It takes two U S citizen parents to bestow Natural Born Citizen status. Say this three times and turn around you may have a revolaton.Chiefhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12003144956528844211noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3756716410615422601.post-12508173958302599892010-01-06T13:16:33.721-06:002010-01-06T13:16:33.721-06:00What does this mean? It means that as far as the w...What does this mean? It means that as far as the writers of this document were concerned (Adams, Franklin, Jay and Livingston on the US side), the term natural born citizen is equivalent to natural born subject.<br /><br />The term “natural born citizen” meant to these US writers just what “natural born subject” meant to the British. It could not be that in the arrangement for equal treatment between the USA and Britain, that someone had to have two US parents to be treated just the same as a natural born subject in Britain who simply had to be born in the British realm.<br /><br />The key ruling from the Supreme Court is Wong Kim Ark. That is a six-to-two ruling, and there were no concurring votes, all six justices support everything in the ruling, and it said:<br /><br />“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, 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.<br /><br />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.”<br /><br />What is the meaning of Natural Born in this quotation? It can only be “born in the country.” <br /><br />“Natural born citizen. Persons who are born within the jurisdiction of a national government, i.e. in its territorial limits, or those born of citizens temporarily residing abroad.” — Black’s Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition.<br /><br />"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)smrstrausshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17130680385818556655noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3756716410615422601.post-6279699513374831672010-01-06T13:15:36.004-06:002010-01-06T13:15:36.004-06:00Re: "the Framers did not use English common l...Re: "the Framers did not use English common law to guide them in constituting the new Republic but rather natural law and the law of nations."<br /><br />There are all kinds of Natural Law philosophers. Vattel is only one of them. Vattel recommended that all countries have a state religion and force people to join it, or allow them to leave the country. If this is what "Natural Law" holds, then clearly the writers of the Constitution wanted nothing to do with it.<br /><br />The use of the term "Natural Born" in the Constitution does not mean that the US adopted common law. It only means that the writers of the Constitution used Natural Born in the commonly used way that it was used at the time that they wrote, which meant "born in the country."<br /><br />IF they may have meant "Natural Born" in some way other than "born in the country," they did not say so. Why didn't they say so?<br /><br />Under the conservative judicial philosophy of strict construction, it is not allowed to read into a phrase something that it does not clearly mean. You cannot say "they must have meant two citizen parents" unless they said "two citizen parents." You cannot say: "They must have meant Vattel," unless they said "Natural Born as in Vattel."<br /><br />There are hundreds of quotations from the American writers at the time, none of which show that they meant "two citizen parents" or "as in Vattel."<br /><br />Here is only one, but it was signed by Ben Franklin, John Adams, John Jay and Henry Livingston. It was part of a draft treaty with England, and it used the term Natural Born Citizen as equivalent to the British Natural Born Subject.<br /><br />(The spelling and capitalization are what they were at the time.)<br /><br />Quote begins:<br /><br />Draft Articles to Supplement the Preliminary Anglo-American Peace Treaty [ca 27 April 1787 [in Paris]<br /><br />Articles agreed on by David Hartley Esq., Minister Plenipotentiary of His Brittanic Majesty for &c in behalf of said Majesty on the one part, and J.A. [John Adams], B.F. [Benjamin Franklin], J.J. [John Jay] and H.L [Henry Livingston, who was also at the US Embassy in France, but is not as famous as the other three], ministers plenipotentiary of the Unites States of America for treating of peace….in addition to the articles agreed on the 30th day of November 1782…The subjects of the Crown of Great Britain shall enjoy in all and every of Said United States, all Rights, Liberties, Privileges and Immunities and be Subject to the Duties and Allegiance of natural born Citizens of the Said States---and, on the other hand, all the citizens of the Said United States shall enjoy in all and every of the Dominions of the Crown of Great Britain all Rights, Liberties, Privileges and Immunities and be Subject to the Duties and Allegiance of natural born Subjects of that Crown, excepting Such Individuals of either Nation as the legislature of the other shall judge fit to exempt."<br /><br />http://books.google.com/books?id=vemc7Vuqk1YC&pg=PA448&lpg=PA448&dq=%22draft+articles+to+supplement%22&source=bl&ots=Aojo7Iux2Z&sig=r8tN3gtsaDaRYWKBox5fOWNPo4M&hl=en&ei=K4pBSvW6ComJtge3iN2dCQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=3<br /><br />End quotation<br /><br />Another way of wording the same thing, in another draft, was that “the subjects of his Brittanic Majesty and the citizens of the United States shall mutually be considered as Natural born Subjects & enjoy all rights and privileges as such in the Respective Dominions and Territories in the manner heretofore accustomed.”<br /><br />http://books.google.com/books?id=vemc7Vuqk1YC&pg=PA214&dq=franklin+subject:%22History+/+United+States+/+Revolutionary+Period+(1775-1800)%22&lr=smrstrausshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17130680385818556655noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3756716410615422601.post-57029706119072696792010-01-05T19:46:25.420-06:002010-01-05T19:46:25.420-06:00I would also like to share from Atty/ Mario Apuzzo...I would also like to share from Atty/ Mario Apuzzo's blog a composit posting regarding the last several comments from SMRSTRUSS who can't seem to get his head around Natural Born Citizen. Quote:<br /><br />"Thomas Jefferson to J.Cartwright 1824<br /><br />It(Our Revolution)….presented us an album on which we were free to write what we pleased. We had no occasion to search into musty records, to hunt up royal parchments, or to investigate the laws and institutions of a semi-barbarous ancestry. We appealed to those(laws) of nature…<br /><br />I have shared my above posting, previously with you folks here & elsewhere , culled from a volume of Jefferson's letters collected for republication some 70 odd yrs ago However, in light of Mario's focus -in this particular comments section- on the English common law vs the Law of Nations/natural law based American common law & the Framers/Founders reliance upon the latter...I thought it(T.Jeff's own words) might merit reiteration<br /><br />Your find is very good. I have the citation and quote as supporting materials to my argument that the Framers did not use English common law to guide them in constituting the new Republic but rather natural law and the law of nations. This new law would have included defining what a "natural born Citizen" was. <br /><br />Those who advocate that the Framers used the English common law to define new national citizenship ignore that the Framers were writing in the context of having just gone through a revolution. They were, indeed, writing on a tabula rasa. <br /><br />The English common law continued to have its effect in the States where it was applied to resolve state issues concerning contracts, property, inheritance, torts, criminal procedure, marriage, etc. Those who advocate the English common law position take the use of English common law on state issues and impose it upon what the Framers did on the national level. Hence, by taking such an approach they incorrectly argue that the Framers also used the English common law to define new national citizenship. But various historical evidence and U.S. Supreme Court cases which I have cited in my essays show that this is not so and that rather the Framers used natural law and the law of nations to define the new national citizenship including defining an Article II "natural born Citizen." The Jefferson quote, along with other historical materials, bears this out."<br /><br />As we can see, which has been iterated in my past writtings; the founding fathers wanted distance themselves as far away from English Common Law as the new law for the new nation. Even though many states still practice English Common Law in those state, such as New York as SMRSTRUSS stated in one of his answers to my blog above; it was not to be the new law of the new nation, and was not and is not.Chiefhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12003144956528844211noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3756716410615422601.post-46435093709702884292010-01-03T12:05:05.537-06:002010-01-03T12:05:05.537-06:00John Jay may have established English Common Law i...John Jay may have established English Common Law in the State of New York, at the time,1977, but a the first Chief Justice of the United States of America, and during the writing of our constitution he and his collegues had a much different take on the laws of the new United States of America. New York, is not the United States only on state within the union and the legislators and writters of it constitution had differing views I am sure so what ever evolved only affected New York not the rest of the new nation. Spin and slant this issue all you wish the reality is that Vattel had a profound effect on our constitution and John Jay was one of the framers and a legal scholar many of the framers used to bounce the law of the new nation off. <br /><br />You might wish to reread:<br /><br />Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. (1Cranch) 137 (1803), and<br />Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162, 167-68 (1875)<br /><br />to refresh your mind on the meaning of Natural Born Citizen.<br /><br />Have a good day!Chiefhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12003144956528844211noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3756716410615422601.post-55579715279873317262009-12-30T11:44:40.222-06:002009-12-30T11:44:40.222-06:00Re: "the founding fathers were not about to i...Re: "the founding fathers were not about to instill English Common Law as the Law of the New Republic which they were about to constitutionalize."<br /><br />Mere speculation. We know that John Jay DID install the English Common Law as the law of the State of New York because he wrote it into the first independent Constitution of New York State (1777):<br /><br />It reads:<br /><br />"XXXV. And this convention doth further, in the name and by the authority of the good people of this State, ordain, determine, and declare that such parts of the common law of England, and of the statute law of England and Great Britain, and of the acts of the legislature of the colony of New York, as together did form the law of the said colony on the 19th day of April, in the year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and seventy-five, shall be and continue the law of this State, subject to such alterations and provisions as the legislature of this State shall, from time to time, make concerning the same. " (http://www.nhinet.org/ccs/docs/ny-1777.htm)<br /><br />Obviously they had to incorporate the common law until the new state legislature made New York's own laws. But that does not change the fact that they (1) respected the common law and saw it was useful; (2) were familiar with the common law as lawyers.<br /><br />The next point is that the term "Natural Born" used in the Constitution does not mean that they were adopting common law. It simply was the way that the phrase was used at the time. They were lawyers. They were familiar with the common law. The words Natural Born appear in the common law. (They did not, not until much later, appear in a translation of Vattel.) The common meaning of Natural Born at the time, as shown in the Wong Kim Ark case, was that EVERY child born in England, or in the US colonies, or in the early states, or under the Constitution, was Natural Born.<br /><br />This is hardly shocking. Natural Born was simply a synonym for Native Born. It was used all the time. Native Born was not popular at the time. Natural Born always was used to mean "born in the country" (with the exception of the children of foreign ambassadors.)<br /><br />Re: "I think you have failed to read and comprehend the Federalist Papers."<br /><br />I have read them several times. There is not a single reference in the Federalist Papers to Natural Born. IF, the meaning of Natural Born was different than the meaning used in the common law, they would have explained it.<br /><br />Re: Jay used Vattel as a source. I have just done a search of the Federalist Papers and cannot find a reference to Vattel, but Jay may have cited him separately. When he did, used Vattel's expertise on International Law, not on his recommendations for the leadership of a REPUBLIC because Vattel, a monarchist, had no recommendations for the leadership of a Republic.<br /><br />Here is the searchable Federalist Papers: (http://federali.st/). You will see that a search for Vattel produces nothing. Blackstone has two references and Common Law five. The common law is also referred to in the US Constitution, where it says "In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved."<br /><br />The point is that in searching hundreds of quotations written by Jay, Adams, Hamiliton, Etc. I cannot find one use of Natural Born that means "two US parents," or "dual nationality is excluded" or "as Vattel uses the term." It always means "born in the country" (except for the children of diplomats).smrstrausshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17130680385818556655noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3756716410615422601.post-87339835037293124852009-12-29T19:41:21.959-06:002009-12-29T19:41:21.959-06:00Your point about Vattel?
Again you fail to unders...Your point about Vattel?<br /><br />Again you fail to understand the founding fathers were not about to instill English Common Law as the Law of the New Republic which they were about to constitutionalize, and was the point for the Revolutionary War. I think you have failed to read and comprehend the Federalist Papers. John Jay's reference material include Vattel. Sorry you have not made your point.Chiefhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12003144956528844211noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3756716410615422601.post-57595550298981125492009-12-27T21:17:33.117-06:002009-12-27T21:17:33.117-06:00Vattel was a Swiss philospher. The writers of the ...Vattel was a Swiss philospher. The writers of the US Constitution were 60%-70% lawyers who had studied the British common law. John Jay, who first used the term 'Natural Born" in his letter to Washington, was a lawyer and a jurist, and he was the main writer of the New York State Constitution of 1777 which grandfathered the British common law into New York State law, holding that it applied in New York until New York laws were written to change it.<br /><br />Moreover, Vattel was hardly the kind of experts that the writers of a Republic's consititution would consult. Vattel was a monarchist. He talks only about kings and emperors, not about elections. And, in the few cases he gives where countries pick their own sovereigns, he cites only examples of countries picking from the nobility of other countries---meaning picking people who were not even citizens. Vattel never says that this is a bad thing. He cites examples where it was successful.<br /><br />Vattel also recommended things that the framers of the Constitution did not adopt. One was that every country should have a state religion, and force people to join it or allow them to leave the country. Finally, Vattel never used the words Natural Born in any translation that appeared before the writing of the Constitution. He said that the "indignes" were born in the country of two citizen parents.<br /><br />If the Constitution had said that the president had to be an indienes, then it would have referred to Vattel. But, since it said Natural Born Citizen, it referred to the common use of the term Natural Born at the time, which was simply 'born in the country." <br /><br />And, as I said earlier, Dual Nationality cannot take away the fact that you are born in the country.smrstrausshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17130680385818556655noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3756716410615422601.post-81501908730220495112009-12-23T18:35:02.692-06:002009-12-23T18:35:02.692-06:00It does when you read and understand the intent of...It does when you read and understand the intent of the founding fathers as the researched Vattel to make sure the English common law did not find its way into our new constitution.<br /><br />"And besides, the original meaning of Natural Born had not the slightest connotation of loyalty. It simply meant "born in the country." Dual nationality cannot take away the fact that someone was born in the country."Chiefhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12003144956528844211noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3756716410615422601.post-15872207357145335672009-12-21T18:43:01.109-06:002009-12-21T18:43:01.109-06:00This comment has been removed by the author.Chiefhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12003144956528844211noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3756716410615422601.post-4663447744623625602009-12-21T18:37:21.796-06:002009-12-21T18:37:21.796-06:00How do you equate this to Article II Section I Par...How do you equate this to Article II Section I Paragraph 5? If he was in fact born on US soverign soil he would, at best as US citizen; not a Natural Born Citizen since is missing one more US citizen parent.<br /><br />"He does. Under US law, if you are born on US territory, you legally have allegiance to the USA. That is our law, which no other country's law can take away. The idea that some other country's law makes a US-born person not have allegiance to the USA is (1) silly and (2) subjecting the power and sovereignty of the USA to some other country's law."Chiefhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12003144956528844211noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3756716410615422601.post-16628881261858884972009-12-21T18:32:58.586-06:002009-12-21T18:32:58.586-06:00It is as difinitive as the WSJ.It is as difinitive as the WSJ.Chiefhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12003144956528844211noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3756716410615422601.post-54859297915292909262009-12-20T14:20:17.075-06:002009-12-20T14:20:17.075-06:00Re: "Since you like to cite articles in the W...Re: "Since you like to cite articles in the WSJ as definitive, try this as a difinitive source."<br /><br />What makes this definitive?smrstrausshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17130680385818556655noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3756716410615422601.post-86638441088452156562009-12-20T14:19:25.517-06:002009-12-20T14:19:25.517-06:00Re: "To be a "natural born Citizen"...Re: "To be a "natural born Citizen" as is required in the U.S. Constitution, Article II, Section 1, Clause 5, the person must be born in the country to parents who both are Citizens of the country when the child was born."<br /><br />This looks more like a letter than an article. In any case, it is simply not true that to be a Natural Born citizen you have to have two US parents. The original meaning of Natural Born is simply "born in the country." That is why Yale Law review wrote: It is well settled that “native- born” citizens, those born in the United States, qualify as natural born." And such prominent conservative Senators who are also lawyers as Orren Hatch and Lindsay Graham say that a Natural Born Citizen is simply one who was born in the USA:<br /><br />Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC), said:<br /><br />“Every child born in the United States is a natural-born United States citizen except for the children of diplomats.” (December 11, 2008 letter to constituent)<br /><br />Senator Orrin G. Hatch (R-UT), said:<br /><br />“What is a natural born citizen? Clearly, someone born within the United States or one of its territories is a natural born citizen.” (Senate Judiciary Committee hearing hearing on OCTOBER 5, 2004)<br /><br />Re: "That computer data registration record could have been based on false birth location registration testimony by a family member using a simple mail-in form available in 1961. GIGO - false location of birth registration into a data base yields false data out today on a computer print out."<br /><br />If this were true, the two officials in Hawaii would be lying when they said repeatedly that t he original document in the files shows that Obama was born in Hawaii. IN addition, it was not possible for just a parent to register a birth in Hawaii without some kind of proof that the child was born in Hawaii. It was possible to register the birth, but not to get a documet that listed the place of birth on it, but Obama's COLB and the statement by the officials was that Obama was born in Hawaii. <br /><br />Re "as his relatives claim." His Kenyan grandmother actually said that he was born in Hawaii.<br /><br />Re: "How can a person born a British Subject and a dual-citizen ever be considered a "natural born Citizen" of the USA...?"<br /><br />He does. Under US law, if you are born on US territory, you legally have allegiance to the USA. That is our law, which no other country's law can take away. The idea that some other country's law makes a US-born person not have allegiance to the USA is (1) silly and (2) subjecting the power and sovereignty of the USA to some other country's law. <br /><br />And besides, the original meaning of Natural Born had not the slightest connotation of loyalty. It simply meant "born in the country." Dual nationality cannot take away the fact that someone was born in the country.smrstrausshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17130680385818556655noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3756716410615422601.post-47522567974285236872009-12-20T12:02:42.835-06:002009-12-20T12:02:42.835-06:00Since you like to cite articles in the WSJ as defi...Since you like to cite articles in the WSJ as definitive, try this as a difinitive source.<br /><br />14 Dec 2009: Obama is a usurper. Obama is an unconstitutional illegal putative president. See this 14 Dec 2009 issue of the Washington Times National Weekly edition - pg 15. To be a "natural born Citizen" as is required in the U.S. Constitution, Article II, Section 1, Clause 5, the person must be born in the country to parents who both are Citizens of the country when the child was born. Obama's father was a British Subject when Obama was born in 1961. Obama's father was never a U.S. Citizen nor was he even an immigrant to the USA. We are a nation of immigrants but Obama Sr. was not one. And under the British Nationality Act of 1948 and international law, Obama (Jr.) was also born a British Subject and thus is a dual-citizen Citizen to this day, if he was born in Hawaii as he claims. To date, he has not conclusively proved exactly where he was born to any investigative controlling legal authority. Photoshop'd digital images and pictures of computerized summary data put on the internet proffered by Obama proves nothing. That computer data registration record could have been based on false birth location registration testimony by a family member using a simple mail-in form available in 1961. GIGO - false location of birth registration into a data base yields false data out today on a computer print out. The original "ribbon copy" long-form birth records with the names and signatures of medical attendants and of witnesses, if any, to the alleged birth in Hawaii must be examined by experts as well as all his other hidden and sealed records of his early life. If he was born in Kenya as his relatives and news account there claim, then Obama could even be an illegal alien since his mother was not old enough under U.S. laws at that time to convey U.S. citizenship to her child born of a foreign father if the child is born in a foreign country. Obama had dual allegiance at birth if he was born in Hawaii - British via his father and U.S. via his mother. How can a person born a British Subject and a dual-citizen ever be considered a "natural born Citizen" of the USA with sole allegiance to the USA per the intent of our nation's founders and framers, to Constitutional standards, for the office of the Presidency? He cannot.<br /><br />Yes, this man may be an illegal alien!Chiefhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12003144956528844211noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3756716410615422601.post-76284726566686936602009-12-19T11:51:50.098-06:002009-12-19T11:51:50.098-06:00smrstrauss: It is unfortunate that you are so mis...smrstrauss: It is unfortunate that you are so misguided. I would think by now, given all the secrecy of Obama's past, you would have gotten the message. The man is a man without a country, and has managed to hijeack the United States of America to give himself a temporary home and assumed citizenship. The man will never be able to prove up his right for the office he occupies or his Natural Born Citizen as required by our constitution. If he could he would have already done so instead of spending millions to cover up his past. Who is this man? Have a Merry Christmas!Chiefhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12003144956528844211noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3756716410615422601.post-14397333314674628522009-12-19T10:55:36.012-06:002009-12-19T10:55:36.012-06:00Re: "It does not confirm his birth or the att...Re: "It does not confirm his birth or the attending doctor, etc. with is what a real birth certificate does."<br /><br />The so-called "birther bill," the bill sponsored by a group of Republicans that would make future candidates for president show proof that they were born in the USA asks only for the official birth certificate of the state, not the original birth certificate, not a birth certificate signed by a doctor.<br /><br />The Certification of Live Birth is the official birth certificate of Hawaii, and the facts on it, that Obama was born in Hawaii, were confirmed twice by the officials in Hawaii, with a statement saying that the facts in the files MEAN that Obama was born in Hawaii. (http://www.swamppolitics.com/news/politics/blog/2008/11/obama_hawaaianborn_citizen_for.html).<br /><br />This is certainly legal and confirmed evidence. Moreover, it is more evidence of birth in the USA than any other president has shown before.<br /><br />The last point is that Obama cannot show the original birth certificate or the doctor-signed birth certificate (which are probably different things) because Hawaii does not send them out. It does not even send them out when the person involved asks for a copy of the original. It only sends out the Certification.<br /><br />So, who is responsible for the situation? Hawaii. No, Obama could not get them to make an exception for him. It would be improper for him to ask for a special benefit when Hawaii does not send the documents out to other people.<br /><br />Hawaii, however, could change its mind and rule that in the case of a president's birth certificate, it should be a public document. If you would like that to happen, petition Hawaii. The governor's name is Linda Lingle, and she is a Republican.<br /><br />Of course, the original birth certificate will show EXACTLY what the Certification says and what the two officials say and what a witness who recalls being told of the birth says ((http://www.buffalonews.com/494/story/554495.html), that he was born in Hawaii.<br /><br />Re: "what a real birth certificate does." <br /><br />Some long-form birth certificates show those details (usually without the signature of the doctor because that is the hospital certificate, not the official state birth certificate), but many states are changing to short-form birth certificates, which this is. It is the official birth certificate of Hawaii, and it is accepted as proof of birth in the USA by all the branches of the US military and by the US State Department.smrstrausshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17130680385818556655noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3756716410615422601.post-80099746114959029072009-12-17T06:16:09.014-06:002009-12-17T06:16:09.014-06:00i.e. you are right in 1961 you could not get a Haw...i.e. you are right in 1961 you could not get a Hawaiian birth certificate unless you were born there; hence Obama's inability to produce nothing other than the Certificat of Birth now known as a Certificato of Live Birth which only validates he was born to a resident of Hawaii. It does not confirm his birth or the attending doctor, etc. with is what a real birth certificate does. The man cannot produce valid evidence, on spin what was present as meeting the challenge for elibility, which it does not. Sorry you still have not gotten it.Chiefhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12003144956528844211noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3756716410615422601.post-66534732823782428262009-12-13T11:34:07.445-06:002009-12-13T11:34:07.445-06:00Re: ". Anyone residing in Hawaii can obtain t...Re: ". Anyone residing in Hawaii can obtain the form posted for him."<br /><br />Not true. No one in Hawaii can obtain an official Hawaii birth certificate that says on it that the person was born in Hawaii if the person was not born in Hawaii. Obama's says that he was born in Honolulu, Oahu, Hawaii.<br /><br />Moreover, in 1961 you could not get a birth certificate from Hawaii unless you were born in Hawaii. Moreover, the officials in Hawaii have repeatedly said that the document in the files shows that Obama was born in Hawaii (http://www.swamppolitics.com/news/politics/blog/2008/11/obama_hawaaianborn_citizen_for.html). Moerover, there is even a witness who recalls being told of his birth in Hawaii in 1961 (http://www.buffalonews.com/494/story/554495.html).smrstrausshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17130680385818556655noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3756716410615422601.post-38748556989614668132009-12-12T12:10:37.931-06:002009-12-12T12:10:37.931-06:00You are miss informed on what his handlers posted ...You are miss informed on what his handlers posted as a birth certificate, it is not. Anyone residing in Hawaii can obtain the form posted for him. It, alone, does not meet the challenge.Chiefhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12003144956528844211noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3756716410615422601.post-91022457670083283952009-12-11T22:40:11.937-06:002009-12-11T22:40:11.937-06:00Re: "Wake up; he does not have a birth certif...Re: "Wake up; he does not have a birth certificate."<br /><br />He has a birth certificate. He has posted an image of it. It is the official birth certificate of Hawaii. Two officials of Hawaii have repeatedly said that the facts on the birth certificate are the same as in the file, and that this means that he was born in Hawaii (http://www.swamppolitics.com/news/politics/blog/2008/11/obama_hawaaianborn_citizen_for.html). And there is even a witness who recalls being told that he was born in Hawaii in 1961 (http://www.buffalonews.com/494/story/554495.html).<br /><br />He HAS proven where he was born.smrstrausshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17130680385818556655noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3756716410615422601.post-41560274704395117842009-12-11T18:31:07.408-06:002009-12-11T18:31:07.408-06:00Wake up; he does not have a birth certificate, if ...Wake up; he does not have a birth certificate, if he did and it could prove where he was born to satisfy the citizenship question he would have produced it; the cover up continues.Chiefhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12003144956528844211noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3756716410615422601.post-84886487315882692882009-12-11T13:07:14.379-06:002009-12-11T13:07:14.379-06:00Re: "He may have been born in Canada."
...Re: "He may have been born in Canada."<br /><br />He was born in Hawaii, as the birth certificate shows.<br /><br />The Canada claim is particularly funny. Those of us who remember Canada in the 1960s remember that Canada would not allow pregnant women to visit for fear that they would give birth in Canada. So, who gave you the absurd idea that he was born in Canada?smrstrausshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17130680385818556655noreply@blogger.com