Video: Hawaiian official corroborates Obama COLB … again
posted at 11:36 am on July 28, 2009 by Ed Morrissey
What does it say about the Birther issue when Fox News covers its debunking while CNN continues to stoke the controversy? Yesterday, Dr. Chiyome Fukino issued a second definitive statement that Barack Obama was born in Hawaii, as his Certificate of Live Birth states, after having seen the records in the Department of Health for herself. A second Honolulu newspaper produced a birth announcement for Obama in August 1961 as well:
In an attempt to quash persistent rumors that President Obama was not born in Honolulu on Aug. 4, 1961, Hawaii’s health director reiterated this afternoon that she has personally seen Obama’s birth certificate in the Health Department’s archives.
“I, Dr. Chiyome Fukino, director of the Hawaii State Department of Health, have seen the original vital records maintained on file by the Hawai’i State Department of Health verifying Barrack Hussein Obama was born in Hawaii and is a natural-born American citizen. I have nothing further to add to this statement or my original statement issued in October 2008 over eight months ago….”
On Oct. 31, Fukino originally tried to put an end to the belief among so-called “birthers” that Obama was not born in the United States and thus was ineligible to run for the office of president.
Last July, a Hillary Clinton supporter doing oppo research on Obama dug up a birth announcement in the Honolulu Advertiser from August 1961 that noted Obama’s birth in Hawaii. The Honolulu Star-Bulletin has also found one in its own archives from that month:
Theories that Obama was born abroad abounded during the presidential campaign, even after an official Hawaii birth certificate was produced, along with August 1961 birth notices from two Honolulu newspapers. Numerous lawsuits and emergency appeals were lodged challenging Obama’s eligibility to be president, and all were rebuffed.
People wonder why Obama doesn’t demand that Hawaii release the original records to put an end to the Birther nonsense. The biggest reason? It wouldn’t work. The same people who believe that Obama forged a Certificate of Live Birth twice corroborated by the state that issued it will insist that Obama got someone to forge any new records produced by Hawaii as well. It’s the same reason that having Palin produce her gynecological records won’t satisfy Andrew Sullivan and why producing the phone records from United 93 families to prove that they haven’t been in contact with the supposedly still-alive-but-hiding passengers on the 9/11 flight won’t change Truther minds. The conspiracy theorists have far too much invested in their argument to retreat.
Obama has a valid COLB attesting to his Hawaiian birth, two statements from the state Department of Health explicitly noting his birth in Honolulu, and not one but two contemporaneous reports of his birth there. He’s a natural-born American citizen. I realize that this evidence won’t convince the fringe true believers, but maybe it’s enough to get the rest of America to ignore them to the same extent we ignore the Truthers and the Trig Truthers. Hopefully that will be soon, so we can build conservative credibility to fight the real battles — ObamaCare, cap-and-tax, and other attempts to socialize the American economy.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: « Previous 1 … 13 14 15 16 Next »
UnderstandingisPower on July 29, 2009 at 9:27 AM
And demanding documents he’s not legally entitled to. There’s lots of stuff I’d like to see, especially his transcripts. There’s a difference between wishing I could see them and asserting an imaginary right to see them, over and over and over and over.
Pablo on July 29, 2009 at 9:31 AM
Um, the “birthers” aren’t “asking questions”, they want the guy in the Oval Office to show he has the legal right to be there. If you want to continue wetting your panties over that oh so controversial demand, go right ahead.
clearbluesky on July 29, 2009 at 9:31 AM
Now cut and paste that.
Jim Treacher on July 29, 2009 at 9:32 AM
LOL. Lather, rinse, repeat is too sophisticated for the Oborg.
alliebobbitt on July 29, 2009 at 9:34 AM
For what, Jim? I already know it. You might want to print it and hang it on your refrigerator for handy reference.
Pablo on July 29, 2009 at 9:34 AM
Like I said on one of the other threads regarding this issue…is the strategy here to post article after article in order to get people to STOP talking about something?
powerpro on July 29, 2009 at 9:34 AM
No, that’s to make the hit counter sing.
Pablo on July 29, 2009 at 9:34 AM
I already know you’ve asserted it. Just trying to save you some time.
Jim Treacher on July 29, 2009 at 9:35 AM
I have a simple question for you, Good Lt. It should be easy to answer, and there is no good reason that I can see for you not to answer it directly.
Do you believe that in EVERY CASE, that whatever birth location is shown on someone’s Hawaii Certification of Live Birth matches where that person was actually born… with NO EXCEPTIONS?
It’s a yes-or-no question, and it’s very relevant to pointing out one of the vital distinctions in this matter. Understanding this issue might illumate why some people are interested in seeing an archival image of the the unedited long-form birth certificate for BHO, which should include a
doctor’s signature if he was born in a Hawaii hospital as claimed (the COLB doesn’t mention if he was born in a hospital, it just says “Honolulu” for location).
VekTor on July 29, 2009 at 9:36 AM
His citizenship where?
In America?
FAIL.
I listen to Mark Levin, too. Not everything done to refute a conspiracy theory – or rather, to ask a birther to support claims with evidence – is “an Alisky move.”
That’s only an issue to Birthers, not to officials who have either seen it or who are going on record verifying it’s authenticity.
Ah. So a child born to an American mother in America is not a natural born citizen.
CHECK.
You know, McCain wasn’t born on American soil. Guess he wasn’t a natural born citizen either.
Or something.
Good Lt on July 29, 2009 at 9:36 AM
The tactics employed here by you anti birther’s still avoids the real question…
Why won’t he release the documents? I guess we’ll find out in court…can’t wait…
The seriousness of the charges warrants an investigation….oh wait…
No, yea… just taking a page from Alinskys’ rules…
Modified appropriately of course…
jerrytbg on July 29, 2009 at 9:36 AM
There are several issues with this statement. First, to which “vital records” does Dr. Fukino refer? This is important because as we have stated numerous times now in 1961, a COLB could be obtained even for persons who were not born in Hawaii. Obama’s sister, for example, was born in Indonesia and has a COLB.
Secondly, though Dr. Fukino can state as a Hawaiian official that the documents she has seen confirm Obama’s birth in Hawaii, (which is interesting as that information was supposedly sealed by order of the Governor AND the President of the United States), she did not stop there. She went on to say that he “is a natural-born American citizen.”
First of all, based on case law which is how these things are defined and decided (Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. 393 (U.S. 01/02/1856) and The Venus, 12 U.S. (8 Cranch) 253, 1814), to be natural born means that the child is born here and both parents are citizens. Obama’s father was not.
UnderstandingisPower on July 29, 2009 at 9:37 AM
“illumate” s/b “illuminate”.
VekTor on July 29, 2009 at 9:37 AM
You got it. To move to Indonesia, one had to renounce citizenship of any and all other countries–America included. Obama’s stepfather was Indonesia and moved the family there–in fact, Obama’s sister was born there. To do so at the time meant citizenship of any and all other countries had to be renounced. So was Obama’s?
Here again, we need the paper trail.
UnderstandingisPower on July 29, 2009 at 9:42 AM
1. Because he doesn’t have to.
2. Because they like birthers. Notice that they’ve suddenly decided to pay attention to you as The Won’s poll numbers are tanking. You’re useful idiots.
Pablo on July 29, 2009 at 9:43 AM
Cite?
Pablo on July 29, 2009 at 9:43 AM
Dr. Fukino is a woman. You might want to stop referring to her as “he”.
VekTor on July 29, 2009 at 9:45 AM
Correct. In fact, there was a major issue over just this point during the campaign. McCain produce his original birth certificate saying he was born on an American military base to two parents who were citizens. The Senate based on case law, decided that an American military base no matter where it is located IS American soil. Thus, McCain was allowed to run for the presidency.
As to the mother being an American citizen and the child being born on American soil and the child NOT being natural born… you are right again. Last I checked “two parents” meant “two parents.”
UnderstandingisPower on July 29, 2009 at 9:45 AM
Do you have any ANSWERS?
All you birthers do – just like 9-11 Truthers – is “ask teh questinz.”
You don’t, however, answer them (and when you attempt to, hilarity ensues). This is like a person who claims to be agnostic on 9-11 conspiracy theories, but says “why did the towers collapse at faster-than=free fall speed?” They didn’t, physicists have demonstrated that they didn’t (GOVERNMENT physicists, in many cases, which automatically discredits anything they say, natch), and yet, that’s not good enough for the 9-11 Twoofers. And they move onto the next question (or more hilariously, keep making the same claims over and over despite their debunking and their inability to refute the evidence presented) – forever, ad nauseum. That’s how conspiracy theories work, how they thrive and why they don’t die. People WANT to believe them, and ignore the evidence to the contrary if the belief is strong enough.
Birthers are no different in their “pursuit” of their pet conspiracy theory. It is no coincidence that there is overlap between the 9-11 Truthers (Alex Jones Whack Pack and Philip Berg “Legal” Beagle brigades). The subject matter is different, logical and methodological failures are the same.
Is Obama a legitimate President, or is he illegitimate? He’s been inaugurated, and evidence suggests the former. If you’re claiming the latter, you have to PROVE IT.
Good Lt on July 29, 2009 at 9:51 AM
On the question of Indonesian citizenship (the first one is really good but both apply)…
http://www.baliblog.com/travel-tips/bali-daily/govt-to-allow-dual-citizenship-indonesia.html
http://www.baliblog.com/travel-tips/indonesian-citizenship-law-to-change.html
These laws are CHANGING which means they were in place in 1961. Note particularly this passage:
“The stipulation is that dual citizenship is allowed for children of transnational marriages as well as for children of Indonesian couples born in countries that apply the principle of ius soli (right of soil). Countries with ius soli principles such as the United States automatically give citizenship to anyone born in the country. Indonesia currently uses the ius sanguinis (right of the blood) principle which means that children born here receive the citizenship of their father.”
UnderstandingisPower on July 29, 2009 at 9:54 AM
Noted.
Now refute what she said.
Good Lt on July 29, 2009 at 9:54 AM
Uh, no. The Canal Zone was US Territory when McCain was born there. Bases are not, in and of themselves, US soil. Embassies are, but not bases.
Pablo on July 29, 2009 at 9:54 AM
See Gitmo.
Pablo on July 29, 2009 at 9:55 AM
It wasn’t a MAJOR issue at all.
There was no national discussion on the citizenship of either candidate, unless I slept through the portion of the campaign last year when that happened.
Good Lt on July 29, 2009 at 9:58 AM
Yes. One.
Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. 393 (U.S. 01/02/1856)
[1] UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT
[418] …The natives or natural-born citizens are those born in the country of parents who are citizens…
[419] Again:
[420] …to be of the country, it is necessary to be born of a person who is a citizen, for if he be born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country…
Natural born citizens, “are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens.”
The Supreme Court of the United States, in The Venus, relied upon Vattel’s “Law of Nations” as the authority on citizenship issues.
The Venus, 12 U.S. (8 Cranch) 253, 1814
“Vattel, …is more explicit and more satisfactory on it [CITIZENSHIP ISSUES] than any other whose work has fallen into my hands, [Vattel] says, ‘the citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives, or indigenes, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens.’ ”
Vattel’s Law of Nations: § 212. Citizens and natives
The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens.
Thus, Obama is not qualified to be POTUS.
UnderstandingisPower on July 29, 2009 at 9:58 AM
Then why is he President?
Good Lt on July 29, 2009 at 9:59 AM
You’re right to question this as was the Senate. Questioned, documented, decided.
Now it’s Obama’s turn.
UnderstandingisPower on July 29, 2009 at 9:59 AM
I have a simple question for you, Good Lt. It should be easy to answer, and there is no good reason that I can see for you not to answer it directly.
Interesting that you didn’t actually answer the question.
You also appear to have mistaken me for a “birther” or some other form of conspiracy theorist. I am not. I have not contended that Obama was born outside Hawaii, nor that he is a constitutionally illegitimate president.
But hey, if anyone sees even a shred of a point in some of the current kerfuffle, I guess it’s OK to dump them into the bin with the rest of the loonies, right?
It was a simple question, Good Lt. Why throw up a smokescreen instead of answering it? Are you concerned that admitting that there might be a reason for differences on a long-form certificate and a COLB might give support to the “enemy”?
Why not concede a truthful point, even if it is one that supports an argument offered by those you oppose? Are you more interested in scoring political points than you are in the truth?
Honesty, Good Lt. Check it out, it’ll do you a world of good.
VekTor on July 29, 2009 at 10:01 AM
So a candidate for president being questioned by the Senate as to qualification for that position isn’t major? Or are only those things that are reported on by the MSM deemed “major.” That would be like Michael Jackson and Sarah Palin being able to see Russia from her backyard, right? I mean those got NATIONAL attention, so they must be major.
UnderstandingisPower on July 29, 2009 at 10:02 AM
Hm. There’s a good question.
UnderstandingisPower on July 29, 2009 at 10:02 AM
No, it wasn’t.
There was no wall-to-wall news coverage, nothing in the debates about it, nothing.
It was only of interest to the few people of whom it was of interest to – the Democrats raising the issue about McCain, and the Birthers raising doubts about Obama’s citizenship.
Now what’s the answer?
Good Lt on July 29, 2009 at 10:04 AM
.
Okay UnderstandingisPower, show us where Obama demanded proof of McCains eligibility. And I do not think it was actually every questioned. In fact Congress quickly made a law to clarify it, to be sure it could not be an issue.
Still wondering if those of you who think someone cant be President unless they have two US citizen parents, is willing to state that adoptees, orphans and anyone whose mother utilized donor sperm, is not eligible to be President either.
firepilot on July 29, 2009 at 10:09 AM
I’m not concerned about this, because there is no evidence suggesting that the COLB is invalid or that it is “forged” or “fake” or “cut and pasted” or any of the other idiocy that has been posited.
Reassurances by relevant officials – regardless of whether Birthers believe them or not – has provided confirmation.
Now the burden is on the Birthers to prove they’re lying or even that they’re incorrect. Or that the COLB is A) not a valid form of documentation ofr citizenship (it is) or B) not valid for eligibility for POTUS status (it is). They’ve done neither but continue to believe they have.
Good Lt on July 29, 2009 at 10:10 AM
Do you believe it is possible that Dr. Fukino could be telling the truth to the best of her ability about what the current vital records say, while at the same time being incorrect about the actual place of birth of Obama?
I think such scenarios are possible. Romeo13 outlined a pretty simple one earlier that requires no “conspiracy theories”, yet is still consistent with everything we see today, including the statements of Dr. Fukino.
Note carefully, I’m not saying that I believe that scenario… I don’t. I’m asking if you think it’s possible, or impossible.
The reason for asking is to point out why some view the long-form certificate as significantly more dispositive than the COLB… largely because they recognize that the data shown on a COLB doesn’t always reflect the underlying reality of a situation.
VekTor on July 29, 2009 at 10:18 AM
On the first point, it was in question:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23415028
On the second point, however, that Obama asked to see “proof” I was mistaken…
http://www.politicsdaily.com/2008/05/01/clinton-obama-sponsor-mccain-citizenship-bill/
However, I do know that in clarifying this question, McCain did present and provide his original BC.
Finally, I don’t know about your last question. That is one of the reasons I really wanted the SCOTUS to take this up… to clarify what is meant by natural-born citizen and how that is to be determined and verified once and for all.
UnderstandingisPower on July 29, 2009 at 10:19 AM
Why won’t he release the documents?
In court he will…
Because very soon they will have no choice…
And yes there #’s are, this issue will be tank them even more …look ahead…
Not in the same vain that Yuri described some of them…
I accept the idiot moniker for not pursuing this last year…
jerrytbg on July 29, 2009 at 10:20 AM
Pablo on July 29, 2009 at 9:43 AM
To add to the tanking …didn’t the House rebuke him for his sighing orders or something yesterday?
Looks to me like they‘re getting ready to through HIM under the bus…poetic justice…
jerrytbg on July 29, 2009 at 10:29 AM
I found this information very interesting. It shows actual birth certificates (long forms) of twins born the day after Obama was born, in the same hospital. The twin’s birth certificates have complete information and they look nothing like the “Certificate of Birth”, which was published, as proof of Barack Obama’s citizenship.
Be sure to scroll down the page to see the photos.
http://www.aipnews.com/talk/forums/thread-view.asp?tid=6560&posts=7
sinsing on July 29, 2009 at 10:29 AM
JS on July 29, 2009 at 7:11 AM
Wouldn’t it be a violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment if McCain was required by Congress to prove his eligibility and Obama was not?
justincase on July 29, 2009 at 10:33 AM
ops throw
jerrytbg on July 29, 2009 at 10:38 AM
I hope that you are not a member of the bar of any state. The cases that you cite in no way state, imply or could it be inferred that “natural born means that the child is born here and both parents are citizens.” Did you even read the cases?
To be fair, Scott v. Sandford does include language (from the pleadings not the decision) that would almost uphold the theory that President Obama is not a citizen though. “Free negroes and mulattoes are not such citizens as were contemplated by the federal or state constitution.” Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. 393, 422 (1856). You may be more familiar with Scott v. Sandford under its commonly known name “Dred Scott Decision” As you might guess, this case is no longer good law on several points.
Similarly, the other case you site, The Venus, does not hold that a natural born citizen requires both : 1) being born in the U.S.; and 2) Having two citizen parents.
Question: were women considered citizens at the Founding? I recall that they had no right to hold property, vote or hold office(depending on the state and the applicable married women’s statute) Therefore, at the founding was it even possible to have two “citizens” as parents.
New_Jersey_Buckeye on July 29, 2009 at 10:41 AM
Rebuked! It’s a start…
jerrytbg on July 29, 2009 at 10:43 AM
The Constitution does not say the you need to publicly display your long-form birth certificate in order to be eligible for the Presidency. It does not even say you have to be born in the US. It says you must be a “natural born Citizen.”
Well, again, you’re right to a point. He has to prove he’s a natural born citizen by showing some evidence for it. And he has done so. You are claiming that the evidence he has presented thus far is insufficient, and that he must meet standards greater than those other Presidents have had to meet. Bush, Clinton, Bush Sr., et al. did not and did not need to display the long form of their birth certificates. Therefore, you are making the controversial claim and the burden of proof rests on you.
JS on July 29, 2009 at 11:00 AM
You insist on quoting the Dred Scott decision (Which you refer to as Scott v. Sanford). Unfortuanately, if you are unaware, that decision is about as overturned as any Supreme Court Case can be. I will cite to the dissent in that case. While dissents do not have precedentail value, I’m failry certain that any court in the land will find the Dissent in Dred Scott infinitely more authoritative and quotable then the majority opinion. The dissent states:
To sum up: You cited Dred Scott as your basis for your proposition. That would get you laughed and derided in any court in the land. Trying to mask Dred Scott under another name was either a)stupidity or b) purposeful action hoping that noone would notice.
New_Jersey_Buckeye on July 29, 2009 at 11:13 AM
I have a post up-thread somewhere laying out the motivations of the DOCUMENTERs. I’ll go find it later, but now a couple of points:
1. This link:
http://www.theobamafile.com/ObamaNaturalBorn.htm
is also found up-thread, but deserves to be provided again. There is compelling evidence that Vattel is the source of “natural born citizen”.
2. I stated up-thread that I am a DOCUMENTER, not a “Birther”. DOCUMENTERs are doing the job the state-run media failed to do.
3. It’s getting hard to differentiate the lefties from the anti-birthers. In both cases, they assert points which are just not true, fail to follow the supportive links, and substitute ad-hominims for facts.
JS: “He has to prove he’s a natural born citizen by showing some evidence for it. And he has done so”. If Vattel is the source of the Constitutional injunction, then Obama has not done so.
4. It is possible that Dr. Fukino is correct that Obama is a natural born citizen. In that case, his father is an American citizen, and therefore someone other than Barack Obama senior.
JackOkie on July 29, 2009 at 12:20 PM
New_Jersey_Buckeye on July 29, 2009 at 11:13 AM:
You are conflating “citizen” with “natural born citizen”. They are not the same thing.
JackOkie on July 29, 2009 at 12:23 PM
JS on July 29, 2009 at 11:00 AM
Obama – as other candidates for president – had to sign a legal document swearing that he is a natural-born citizen.
Unlike Clinton, Bush, etc, questions about the accuracy of that sworn statement arose because other sources came forward with information conflicting with the story Obama had told about his life.
The same thing happened with McCain. So he provided his legal documentation to Congress and they dealt with it.
When the questions came forward regarding Obama – based on statements from his grandmother, a school registration form saying he was an Indonesian citizen under a different name, his own accidentally-recorded-and-made-public admission that he had traveled to Pakistan earlier, etc Obama responded by using the internet.
First Daily Kos posted a COLB image which was later admitted to be a Photoshopped fake. Then Obama’s own campaign website posted a scan of a COLB just like the one on Daily Kos, on which there were no visible authenticating marks. When Obama was called on that there sprung up scans of photos on the Factcheck website. Factcheck claimed that Obama had allowed them to see his 3D COLB and take photos of it.
Unfortunately, the “seal” they showed didn’t bend when the page it was on folded and was placed at an angle. The relief shot of that “seal” was on a paper that didn’t have the same lines of print as Obama’s COLB. And though the “seal” and registrar’s stamp were valid for a 2007 COLB – matching the date stamped on the document – the border only came into use in 2008 (AFTER this document was allegedly printed). (There are also other numerous signs of forgery) This brought up the question of why he posted a forgery if he had a valid COLB. The issue of forgery and government agency complicity in forgery also came up when his alleged selective service registration form showed it had been tampered with.
Factcheck also came out with a statement arguing that Obama was a dual citizen at birth because of his father’s British citizenship, but that his American citizenship would have prevailed since he didn’t specifically denounce it as an adult. That brought up the issue of whether a dual citizen at birth is a “natural born citizen” as required by the Constitution.
When challenged in court to have either the DNC or the secretaries of state whose laws require it certify Obama’s eligibility, Obama refused to produce the needed documentation, arguing that it was nobody’s business. Since then judges have agreed with Obama that it’s nobody’s business or, when it went to the SCOTUS the SCOTUS ignored the question saying (allegedly) that it was wasn’t important enough for them to think about (compared to much more pressing issues such as cigarette taxes, which they agreed to investigate).
But when asked about the 6 or 7 cases the SCOTUS had allegedly dismissed, Justice Scalia seemed ignorant of them all. There had been discrepancies in the filing and in the docket of SCOTUS all along the process of several of these cases and to this point it isn’t known exactly what the SCOTUS was told about these cases.
Now, there have been 2 judges who say that yes, it does matter whether the people who are supposed to certify eligibility have accounted for all the known information we have. Those cases will be moving forward shortly.
In addition, at least one US Senator has requested a FBI investigation into the question of whether Obama perjured himself when he signed those documents. The last I knew the FBI was failing to follow up on the requested investigation.
In all this, privacy laws were cited as the reason that Hawaiian officials could not comment on the documentation. For over a year Hawaiian officials argued that they could not release any information without Obama’s consent. Then suddenly Fukino said she had looked at the documents (didn’t say which ones) and verifies that he was born in Hawaii and a natural born citizen (never minding the issue of dual citizenship). She never said that Obama had released the information and indeed, when Worldnetdaily tried to get information from Hawaii officials later in the day they were once again given the argument that they could not give information because Obama had not released it.
So now that Fukino has apparently suddenly broken the very law she cited for a year as reason for not giving information, everything is supposed to be hunky-dory and we’re supposed to ignore all the other evidence to date which has never explained, accept that the person who is responsible for verifying eligibility is a director of a state Dept of Health giving a non-sworn public statement that her own law prohibits, never question whether dual citizenship and the potential renouncing of US citizenship as an adult matter in the “natural born citizen” requirement, and just shut the heck up.
justincase on July 29, 2009 at 12:31 PM
New_Jersey_Buckeye on July 29, 2009 at 11:13 AM
Just out of curiosity, when was Dred Scott overturned?
justincase on July 29, 2009 at 12:32 PM
JackOkie on July 29, 2009 at 12:20 PM
Like the difference between Trekkers and Trekkies?
You aren’t concerned that he isn’t a natural born citizen, you just want proof… Because Obama hasn’t released anything… Even though he has.
I’m happy to see that the commenters are pushing back against birthers and birther lites (documenters). There is hope.
Krydor on July 29, 2009 at 12:36 PM
New_Jersey_Buckeye on July 29, 2009 at 10:41 AM:
From Vattel’s Law of Nations, defining citizenship in general, not just U.S. citizenship:
“The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens.”
Note that the franchise is not mentioned.
I think one problem we have today discussing the Founding is that terms and sources which would have been familiar then are now obscure. Most of us today understand what a trip to “Mickey D’s” entails, but give it a couple hundred years and it’s “google time” (or AI time).
JackOkie on July 29, 2009 at 12:43 PM
One other thing I should add: Government complicity in records fraud was also shown when members of the State Dept and US Postal Service were caught in an identity fraud racketeering scheme involving around 200 people. The fraud had to do with passport information.
It was found that an employee with a security clearance in the company headed by the guy who is now the National Security Czar had accessed Obama’s passport 3 separate times and Clinton’s and McCain’s once. Supervisors in the company had overlooked strict protocols to ignore these breaches of security. The person who breached security was not fired.
However, the civilian who had worked with US Postal Service and State Dept to do the fraud cooperated with investigators until he was soon found shot dead outside a church. No investigation of his death has explained why he was killed.
Now I know I’m going to be called a “conspiracy theorist”, but we already have proof that the State Dept, US Postal Service, and the company managed by our now-National Security czar engaged in illegal behavior involving identity fraud and the passport of Barack Obama. We also know that the person knowledgeable about the case who was cooperating with investigators was shot dead before the investigation could go further.
And as I mentioned before, we also know that a FOIA request was answered by a document from the agency responsible for selective service registration which showed tampering.
Now tell me I’m crazy for thinking we can’t always trust our government bureaucrats and that maybe due diligence would be a good thing.
justincase on July 29, 2009 at 12:45 PM
are you implying that citizen and natural born citizen are one of the same ?
runner on July 29, 2009 at 12:45 PM
Krydor:
If you tell me that you have provided links up-thread to Obama’s proof (notice I didn’t put scare quotes around it), then I will start digging. Otherwise, please provide links. The “proof” I have seen so far has all been debunked. (Please see my post of 12:20 PM re assuming facts not in evidence).
JackOkie on July 29, 2009 at 12:47 PM
AND this passport breach happened right around the time that Berg filed his suit requesting Obama’s passport records to verify whether he traveled under an Indonesian passport.
We also know that when Senator Obama traveled to Russia he was detained by the Russians for something related to his passport.
justincase on July 29, 2009 at 12:49 PM
We also know that the Obama administration has used scare tactics in the private sector – with the media and IRS as the lapdogs he threatened to sic on anyone against him. We also know that he has disproportionately closed down auto dealerships whose owners didn’t support him. And we know that he made public statements suggesting that Arizona could lose stimulus funding if the Arizona Senators didn’t stop criticizing Obama’s policies.
So now that Fukino suddenly broke her own law the day after Abercrombie (who is responsible for getting federal money to Hawaii for pet projects) sponsored a bill saying Obama was born in Hawaii…. we’re all supposed to assume that everything is fine.
People, it is not crazy to suggest that we should check whether Obama is acting the same way we’ve seen him act all over the place.
justincase on July 29, 2009 at 12:57 PM
We also know that there are currently several dozen social security numbers associated with someone named some variation of Barack H Obama or Barry Soetoro – all of them which list dates of birth listing Obama’s exact date of birth.
It’s a good thing the bureaucrats in the social security offices do such thorough documentation that we can never even entertain the thought that a conspiracy could be enabled or even POSSIBLE by their high standards /sarc
justincase on July 29, 2009 at 1:04 PM
Congressman Neil Abercrombie gave Kapiolani Hospital a document with Barack Obama’s signature, on White House stationery with a raised seal, saying he was born at Kapiolani – contradicting Snopes and media sites which said they had documented that Obama was born at Queens Hospital.
According to documents posted online, twins born at Kapiolani the day after Obama have serial birth certificate numbers that come BEFORE Obama’s. If all these online documents are genuine and Obama was born at Kapiolani, then Kapiolani would have had to have given their birth numbers out of sequence.
When Abercrombie “read” the letter in an online video he used different words than in the letter the hospital has on file now. The hospital has been using that letter for fund-raising purposes and hid the letter online (in a way where they could easily make it appear or disappear) as soon as World Net Daily reported on these discrepancies.
The FBI has said that if the letter is not genuine it would be evidence of charity fraud on the part of Abercrombie and/or Kapiolani. If the letter is genuine and signed by Obama and Obama was not born at Kapiolani, then Obama would be guilty of perjury.
The White House refuses to say whether they sent the letter.
But according to some here, it would be “unreasonable” to suggest that Abercrombie would do anything unethical involving Obama’s birth and/or money – such as might happen if he pressured Fukino to break her own laws and make a very specific hearsay claim benefitting Obama while never citing the specific source of information she based it on, giving her plausible deniability if called on it legally.
Amazing.
justincase on July 29, 2009 at 1:21 PM
So did Obama pay off the judges?
Black Yoshi on July 29, 2009 at 1:22 PM
Ah, because this time, the suit is going to work. With counsel like this, how could it go wrong? Everyone should pitch in and do their part by becoming her friend on Facebook.
Pablo on July 29, 2009 at 1:27 PM
One of the judges threatened the plaintiffs with having to pay all legal expenses of the defendant for filing “frivolous charges” based on the extensive Twittering already done on the issue.
That judge was one of the “Magnificent Seven” judges in the Washington DC Circuit who were appointed by Clinton and met privately with each other monthly, violating judicial ethics. This group’s leader bypassed the requirement that cases be assigned randomly by computer, instead giving all the cases involving Clinton to these Clinton appointees – cases decided in favor of Clinton and many of which were subsequently overturned on appeal.
So I’m not even so sure that Obama would have had to pay them. Maybe wouldn’t even have to threaten them as he has been caught privately threatening others who stood against him.
But then, I’m a conspiracy theorist so what do I know. lol.
justincase on July 29, 2009 at 1:29 PM
When was one of those challenges upheld and in what court? Is there a court ruling that Obama is in contempt of?
You can challenge anything in court. I can file a suit demanding that you prove you’re not Venutian. That doesn’t mean you have to do it.
Pablo on July 29, 2009 at 1:30 PM
Are you really asking when Dred Scott was overturned? You are asking when the SCUS case holding that ruled that people of African descent imported into the United States and held as slaves, or their descendants – whether or not they were slaves — were not protected by the Constitution and could never be citizens of the United States.
If this is a serious question, it was in general the Civil War, and in particular the 1866 passage of the 13th, 14th and 15th amendments.
I am not conflating “citizen” with “natural born citizen”. The quote I provided was this: “The first section of the second article of the Constitution uses the language, ‘a natural-born citizen.‘ It thus assumes that citizenship may be acquired by birth.” Id. at 576(Justice Curtis Dissent) Those are the words of Supreme Court Justice Curtis in his dissent on the Dredd Scott Decision.
Unfortunately, your understanding of the process of legislative and constitutional interpretation is ill-informed. To go to outside contemporary sources for interpretations of words or phrases in the constitution, you first need to prove that the word or phrase is ambiguous. Without proving ambiguity, you can not seek definitions or interpretations outside the four corners of the document.
In the case at hand natural-born citizen is not ambiguous. As shown by Justice Curtis, it is obvious from the term “natural-born citizen” that citizenship is acquired from birth. The clear meaning of the phrase does not require that the parentage of a child be reviewed to determine the citizenship of a baby. Instead, it matters only whether or not the child was a citizen at birth.
Therefore, because there is no ambiguity in the phrase, seeking outside sources is not required. Therefore, it doesn’t matter what some frenchman wrote decades before the framing of the Constitution.
New_Jersey_Buckeye on July 29, 2009 at 1:32 PM
So, I keep reading that the possibility of Obama not being born in Hawaii has been debunked. Anyone care to explain that debunking?
PC14 on July 29, 2009 at 1:44 PM
Rather than making this about Obama, I’d like to offer up a point of discussion about the general principle of what should constitute “sufficient proof” for meeting compliance with the “natural born citizen” provision of the Constitution.
In order to do so, I’d like to offer up a hypothetical scenario, based on actual events involving the Hawaiian system of documenting births.
Let’s start with actual events. Sun Yat Sen, the man who would eventually serve as President of Republic of China in 1912, was actually born on 12 November 1866 to a Hakka family in the village of Cuiheng, Xiangshan (later Zhongshan) county, Guangzhou prefecture, Guangdong province (26 km or 16 miles north of Macau). However, we also know from official Hawaiian records that the same Sun Yat Sen had an official Certificate of Hawaiian Birth. That certificate lists his date of birth as the 24th of November, 1870, and his location of birth as Waimanu, Ewa, Oahu (one of the Hawaiian Islands). That certificate was issued on March 14, 1904 by the Secretary of Hawaii, based on an applciation for that certificate and the testimony of two witnesses, who stated that Sun Yat Sen had been born in that location at that time.
Now, given those facts, consider the following hypothetical. Let’s assume that the same circumstances obtained, but transpose them forward in time about 90 years or so. In such a circumstance, our hypothetical Sun Yat Sen could apply to the Hawaii State Department of Health for a copy of his Certification of Live Birth. A printout of this document would show, in full accordance with the original vital records maintained by the Hawaii State Department of Health, that he was actually born in Waimanu, Hawaii. If asked to testify to that effect, the Director of the Hawaii State Deartment of Health could reasonably (and with respect to the records on hand) state that Sun Yat Sen was born in Hawaii, and is thus a “natural born citizen” of the United States.
Based on that, my question for this hypothetical is this: In such a circumstance, should the data on the Certification of Live Birth for Sun Yat Sen be sufficient for us to conclude that he is a “natural born citizen”, if he sought to run for President of the United States?
I content that it should not. The reality of the situation shows that there are cases where the data on a COLB does not accurately reflect the underlying truth, and it is clear from an examination of reality that Sun Yat Sen could not possibly meet the “natural born citizen” intent of the founders (namely, that candidates should be free of divided loyalties to another country).
Sun Yat Sen simply cannot meet that standard, but if the “burden of proof” is nothing more than a COLB, we would have to permit him as a candidate for the Presidency of the United States, should he have chosen to run.
A COLB is simply not dispositive of the truth of birth circumstances in all cases. Accordingly, the standard should be, IMO, that all underlying foundational birth records and supporting documentation for all candidates should be publicly revealed in all future presidential elections.
I also believe that there should be legislation vesting some position at the federal level with the responsibility and duty to check such documentation and vet that it meets the criteria outlined within the Constitution.
Similar legislation should be in effect at the state level, and that may be the mechanism that helps to break the apparent “logjam” which is preventing resolution of this issue. I believe legislation to that effect is already being drafted in at least one state.
None of this should be construed as an endorsement by me of the position that Obama was born anywhere other than Hawaii. I do not believe that to be the case.
Personally, I suspect that there is some other piece of data on the foundational documents which Obama would consider embarrassing, were it to be publicly known.
While I’m curious about that, my curiosity is not a license to demand a revelation of such data. However, I think the standard I outline above is an entirely reasonable one to ensure that candidates meet compliance with the constitutional requirements for the office. For an office so public and vital, it is not too much to ask that some small measure of privacy such as this be given up by any candidate seeking the office.
Hopefully, the hypothetical I outline above shows why I consider a Certification of Live Birth to be an inadequate standard to use in this matter.
VekTor on July 29, 2009 at 1:54 PM
New_Jersey_Buckeye on July 29, 2009 at 1:32 PM”:
Unfortunately, the Constitutional Convention occurred a few years before the Dred Scott decision.
There is nothing in Justice Curtis’ quote that equates “citizen” with “natural born citizen”. Being a citizen at birth is not the same thing as being a natural born citizen.
Please see this link, which helpfully differentiates between “citizen” and “natural born citizen”, as well as providing documentation for the source of the term “natural born citizen”.
http://www.theobamafile.com/ObamaNaturalBorn.htm
While a dissenting opinion written 50 years after the Constitution was created is interesting, it is hardly definitive. And you are misconstruing it anyway.
http://www.theobamafile.com/ObamaNaturalBorn.htm
JackOkie on July 29, 2009 at 2:05 PM
New_Jersey_Buckeye on July 29, 2009 at 1:32 PM
Which amendment declared Black persons to be legal persons according to the Bill of Rights?
justincase on July 29, 2009 at 2:09 PM
are you implying that citizen and natural born citizen are one of the same ?
runner on July 29, 2009 at 12:45 PM
Or, you know, distinction without difference. Saying he isn’t a natural born American and saying “I think he is, just show me more proof than has already been provided” is not different in the slightest. Both groups do not think, for a second, that Obama was born in Hawaii or in the USA.
And PLENTY has been provided. Those that say nothing has been provided fall into one of the following categories:
1) Liar
2) Willfully Ignorant
3) Racist
That’s it, that’s all. Birthers are worse than the idiots who still tout the TANG memo as real.
Krydor on July 29, 2009 at 2:13 PM
New_Jersey_Buckeye on July 29, 2009 at 1:32 PM
Someone asked what would happen if the Constitution had a phrase guaranteeing the right to “life, liberty, and gaity”.
There would have been no ambiguity then.
There would be no ambiguity now.
But what we think it means now would not mean what they thought it meant then. The only way you would know there was a conflict between the current understanding and that of the Founders is if you actually read what the Founders meant by that term.
And that’s precisely what people are saying here. In effect, “That word…. I do not think it means what you think it means….”
How do you know if you don’t check?
justincase on July 29, 2009 at 2:14 PM
I understand that Obama’s sister has a COLB from Hawaii and she was born in Indonesia. So what does that prove?
NNtrancer on July 29, 2009 at 2:16 PM
Pablo on July 29, 2009 at 1:30 PM
It’s none of your business if I’m from Venus, which actually I am. lol. At least my home church is in that township.
But are you saying that it’s none of my business if my secretary of state follows the law, or the man who sits in the White House has perjured himself and isn’t even eligible to be there?
Sure, it’s prerogative to argue that it’s nobody’s business, but on an issue why would he?
There is one case where he KNOWS it’s the person’s business – that they have standing: the case with Major Stefan Cook. So he revoked orders so he could claim in this one lawsuit that the issue no longer existed. But it still exists. Obama is still giving commands that none of his chain of command knows for sure are legal. And he’s probably going to be facing a class-action lawsuit where every plaintiff definitely has legal standing.
What will be his argument then?
justincase on July 29, 2009 at 2:20 PM
Oops, should have been “Sure, it’s his prerogative to argue that it’s nobody’s business, but on an issue this serious and Constitutional, why would he?”
justincase on July 29, 2009 at 2:22 PM
Kydor:
You are starting to flail. Please provide links to the PLENTY that’s been provided. Saying “it’s already been provided” when it has not is a typical leftist ploy. We’re onto it.
Meanwhile, these links frame the distinction between “citizen” and “natural born citizen” fairly well:
http://www.theobamafile.com/ObamaNaturalBorn.htm
http://www.thebirthers.org/USC/Vattel.html
JackOkie on July 29, 2009 at 2:22 PM
once you come out of that childish tantrum you can spend some time reading this link (from above but you chose to ignore it, poor strategy)
unfortunately, I have a feeling that 99.9 % of it will be way, way above your head
runner on July 29, 2009 at 2:27 PM
Kydor:
The reason I am asking for links to the PLENTY that has already been provided is that your “PLENTY” may not be the same as other posters’ “PLENTY”. So to be sure your points are considered, you need to point to evidence that supports them. (Remember footnotes, footnotes! from freshman English?) I asked in an earlier post if you had already posted such links. I am willing to dumpster dive this thread to find them, but alas you did not respond before you started in with “liar” and “racist”. Hence my suspicion that you have neglected to back up your assertions.
JackOkie on July 29, 2009 at 2:28 PM
thanks for the links JackOkie
runner on July 29, 2009 at 2:28 PM
runner:
You betcha!
JackOkie on July 29, 2009 at 2:36 PM
It doesn’t matter how long after the constitution, the supreme court case I cite is. The Supreme Court are the experts on interpreting the Constitution. My cite to the Supreme Court is used to illustrate that at least one of the experts on constiutional interpretation finds it obvious that the plain meaning of natural born citizen is not ambiguous and does not refer to the citizenship of the parent. I provided you with the following interpretation of “natural-born citizen” that was proffered by Supreme Court Justice Curtis. “The first section of the second article of the Constitution uses the language, ‘a natural-born citizen.‘ It thus assumes that citizenship may be acquired by birth.” Dred Scott at 576 (Curtis dissent). To give you background on this case, he was referring to Dred Scott, who was the child of a Slave. Therefore, he is referring to Article II phrase “Natural-born citizen” as the basis for his assertion that Dred Scott is a Citizen. Because Dred Scott’s father was necessarily not a citizen (being a slave), it must follow that the citizenship of the father makes no difference as to whether or not someone is a “Natural-born citizen”.
This is the interpretation of a Supreme Court Justice. You proof of your side are the writings of a french political philosopher. As I said before, this is the dissent opinion of a Supreme Court Justice. But, it is the dissent in Dred Scott, so this dissent carries a huge amount of weight. This is way more weight and authority than your frenchie.
Helpful flow diagram of Federal Law: Constitution –> Constitutional interpretation by SCUS –> Legislative actions –> Judicial interpretation of legislative actions –> pretty much everything else in U.S. law. Unfortunately for you, Foreign law much less foreign writers doesn’t fall very high on the spectrum.
New_Jersey_Buckeye on July 29, 2009 at 2:37 PM
United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898)
elgeneralisimo earlier provided in this thread quotations from this case as to how wrong the obamafile site gets things.
Sometimes it is best to read the actual decision rather than latch onto something you find on the internet that affirms your preconceptions…
elgeneralisimo on July 29, 2009 at 2:41 PM
Really? So his suit will be going forward?
Pablo on July 29, 2009 at 2:41 PM
runner:
Or, less flippantly (for which I apologize), de nada.
The more guys like Kydor and New_Jersey_Buckeye agitate, the more it makes me dig in my heels. Way upstream I posted why I call myself a DOCUMENTER, and that I feel the secrecy itself is an affront to me and my responsibilities as an American citizen (there’s that word again). I’m not asserting anything about Obama’s CV or birth certificate, except that they are conspicuous by their absence.
JackOkie on July 29, 2009 at 2:42 PM
JackOkie on July 29, 2009 at 2:22 PM
No, you go about your business “documenting”. Do you make money exploiting the less educated or do you honestly believe you are doing something constructive?
I made two posts in this thread. In others, I have said that no level of proof is good enough for the likes of you. You know, like this?
It’s good enough for me.
Krydor on July 29, 2009 at 2:42 PM
OT: What’s the deal with the military being involved in H1N1 testing? Transporting and taking samples?
Does anybody else think this is a bit backwards? How is this defense against foreign and domestic enemies? I can see the National Guard being brought in when felled trees need to be removed and order needs to be restored in a place like New Orleans (though I can’t see military being required to go door to door grabbing people’s firearms, as they were told to do in New Orleans). But taking blood samples?
justincase on July 29, 2009 at 2:44 PM
Pablo on July 29, 2009 at 2:41 PM
Yes. It will be filed in both CA and FL and will most likely be a class action suit.
justincase on July 29, 2009 at 2:47 PM
Ummm….. are you serious? The Bill of Rights is the first 10 amendments. At the time of the passage of the Bill of Rights, Slaves and persons descended from slaves (and free blacks that fit into neither category if there were any) were not considered complete legal persons. The constitution considered them 3/5ths persons for the census and allocation of house of reps seats.
I’m having difficulty understanding where you are going with this one. You limit my answer to only the Bill of Rights. There is nothing in the Bill of Rights that granted Blacks in the United States citizenship. I don’t understand why you are limiting me to just the Bill of Rights, when I have already noted that it is the 14th amendment that granted everyone (slave, decendent of slave, or free person) the rights of citizenship by birth in these United States.
Obviously, at the time of the constitution the Framers would not have considered President Obama to be a person that could assume the mantle of the Presidency. But that had nothing to do with whether or not he was a naturally born citizen and more to do with him being considered not a complete person at all.
New_Jersey_Buckeye on July 29, 2009 at 2:49 PM
You know, like this?
It’s good enough for me.
Krydor on July 29, 2009 at 2:42 PM
>>>>
When you admit that an image made in Photoshop of a document that nobody else is allowed to see is good enough documentation for you in spite of evidence it is a forgery, there’s no need for any of us to say any more. Your own words reveal everything.
justincase on July 29, 2009 at 2:50 PM
New_Jersey_Buckeye on July 29, 2009 at 2:37 PM:
So when do dissenting opinions have the force of law?
From his own words, Justice Curtis’ argument is not that “citizen” and “natural born citizen” are the same, it is that the term “natural born citizen” demonstrates that one can acquire citizenship through birth. He must have had some further reference in mind to use “natural born citizen” as the basis of his argument. What do you suppose it might be?
If I am a resident of Oklahoma City, then I am a resident of Oklahoma. That does not mean that Oklahoma City and Oklahoma are the same thing. Simple, no?
JackOkie on July 29, 2009 at 2:51 PM
New_Jersey_Buckeye on July 29, 2009 at 2:49 PM
The Dred Scott decision was that a Black person doesn’t have standing to sue anybody in a court of law because the language of the Constitution specifically treated them different than “persons”.
When, after Dred Scott, were Blacks given Bill of Rights protections?
You mention the 14th Amendment but it never says anything about Blacks. It mentions “persons”, but as we know from Roe v Wade, “persons” means “legal persons” – that is, those with Bill of Rights protections. So when, before the 14th Amendment, were Blacks given Bill of Rights protections so that the 14th Amendment could even apply to them?
justincase on July 29, 2009 at 2:54 PM
justincase on July 29, 2009 at 2:50 PM
I see you know nothing of Photoshop or other image manipulation software.
Is everyone in on it? Really? US Passport office? Crappy Hawaiian newspapers? Kenya? Indonesia? Fact Check as well? Democratic party? Republicans? CARGILL?
How deep does this rabbit hole go? Follow the money! We’ll get to the bottom of this. I’m glad citizens like yourself are standing tall to make sure Obama is held to account!
Krydor on July 29, 2009 at 2:54 PM
Kydor:
You are filibustering. Oh, I get it! You’re playing the Obama(tm) game. Links? I don’t need to show you no steenking links!
JackOkie on July 29, 2009 at 2:59 PM
JackOkie on July 29, 2009 at 2:59 PM
I provided the link. You morons think it’s a faked document. So, there you go. The document that is good enough for EVERY SINGLE US COURT AT ANY LEVEL doesn’t work for you.
Yes, you Birthers (and that’s all of you with ‘questions’) have no acceptable standard of proof.
Krydor on July 29, 2009 at 3:02 PM
kydor:
This PLENTY of which you speak. I’m wondering. Is it in, like, a horn of PLENTY? Perhaps it’s nautical – was Obama born aboard ship in the Bay of PLENTY? Or is Obama a descendant of the crow chief PLENTY Coups?
Looks like Gershwin presciently wrote about you:
I’ve got PLENTY of nothin’.
JackOkie on July 29, 2009 at 3:06 PM
Are you really arguing that Blacks don’t have Bill of Rights protections or are you merely trying to get me to engage in a debate about Roe v. Wade? Sorry, but Roe v. Wade is pretty far off topic on this one, so I won’t engage.
If you are instead arguing that Blacks don’t have bill of rights protections and/or aren’t considered persons under the 14th amendment, well then I don’t imagine I want to debate with you, or engage in any sort of civil discourse with you.
[Slowly backing away from crazy person]
New_Jersey_Buckeye on July 29, 2009 at 3:10 PM
Krydor, when did you see that document?
Not an alleged photo of it, not a scan of it, but the actual 3D document where you could see the seal on it?
Even better yet, when did anybody in an official capacity or any forensic expert see it?
justincase on July 29, 2009 at 3:11 PM
New_Jersey_Buckeye on July 29, 2009 at 3:10 PM
Why do legal experts say that the 14th Amendment applied to Blacks? Is there anything in the wording which means “Black people”?
justincase on July 29, 2009 at 3:15 PM
kydor:
There are serious issues with that document, and FactCheck.org. But leaving that aside, I couldn’t find on that web site Obama’s college documentation, nor who paid for his education, nor how he traveled to Indonesia when there was a travel ban for U.S. citizens. How about a link?
Now you can trust him all you want, but just based on the differences between what he said he would do as president (post bills five days so all could review, etc) and what he actually done, I’m starting to figure out that he’s one pretty shifty hombre. So I’m going to keep asking questions.
JackOkie on July 29, 2009 at 3:16 PM
New_Jersey_Buckeye on July 29, 2009 at 2:37 PM:
So when do dissenting opinions have the force of law?
JackOkie on July 29, 2009 at 3:19 PM
kydor:
Wow! When did “EVERY SINGLE US COURT AT ANY LEVEL” rule that the image at FactCheck.org was authentic? How about links to that?
And so your PLENTY boils down to one problematic image. Forget that the Obama camp has claimed he was born in two different hospitals (that must have been a fun ride for his mother), forget that his sister was born in Indonesia but has a Hawaiian COLB, forget that Sun Yat Sen was born in China! for craps sake and got a Hawaiian COLB. I, my internet buddy, am not the one who’s deranged.
JackOkie on July 29, 2009 at 3:26 PM
It doesn’t. As i stated several times when I noted that dissents don’t have precedential authority. However, the dissent in Dred Scott has fairly good persuasive authority.
By the way JackOkie, I would be wary of your fellow traveller justincase. He is going off the rails abit.
New_Jersey_Buckeye on July 29, 2009 at 3:26 PM
JackOkie,
the Bates decision defines natural born citizen, doesn’t it ?
runner on July 29, 2009 at 3:34 PM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 … 13 14 15 16 Next »