Obama's Citizenship

[nameadvertising.com]

I don't like Free Republic either. It's either their way or the highway.

Whether we are Repubs or the Dems, upholding the constitution is paramount.

You are very passionate in your arguments John. I'd have to say that.

Thanks for the conversations.

[jberryhill]

Whether we are Repubs or the Dems, upholding the constitution is paramount.

Of the two of us, one of us has sworn an oath to do that.

It's the reason why I know more about your own arguments than you do. You might chew on that for a while.

[nameadvertising.com]

That's enough John. I chew on nothing. I made it clear ample times that I am asking questions with references to what is out there and not being accusatory.

If you deem to know more, so be it. It seems you have digested all the facts well.

[jberryhill]

First:

Obama could be born in Kenya for all I care. As long as he does his job.

Then:

Whether we are Repubs or the Dems, upholding the constitution is paramount.

Make up your mind. It either matters or it doesn't. Thus far, the only fact you've put forth concerning the birth certificate is contradicted by the Hawaii Department of Health.

[biggedon]

barack's birth could have been video taped live on FOX and CNN and there would still be controversy!

[nameadvertising.com]

John, I am amazed you even practice law of any kind.

Obama could be born in Kenya and still could be eligible to be president per the constitution. Just like McCain was.

[Gerry]

barack's birth could have been video taped live on FOX and CNN and there would still be controversy!

Psst...

want to buy the secret videos?

I have an offer from Entertainment Tonight.



How about the umbilical cord?

Great for DNA sampling.

Spike Lee and Oprah are hot after this little gem.

[jberryhill]

Obama could be born in Kenya and still could be eligible to be president per the constitution.

No, that is not correct. Now, it would be true. In 1961, it would not have been true. Currently, anyone born overseas to a US citizen will be recognized by the US as a citizen. In 1961, the person would have had to have been born to a US citizen who resided in the US for at least five years after the age of 16. Stanley Ann Dunham was not yet 19 at the time he was born, and thus if born in Kenya, Barack Obama would not have been recognized as a citizen under the law as it was in 1961.

Of course, the fact that Barack Obama never immigrated to the US, as that would leave quite a paper trail, should indicate that he was not born in Kenya, but the wingnuts manage to overlook that.

This provision made it convenient for upper class families to send their pregnant teenagers to convents abroad to have their children, and to have the assurance that the kid wouldn't show up inconveniently in the US in the future.

John, I am amazed you even practice law of any kind.

Why on earth would an IP lawyer be familiar with immigration law? I am familiar with the birth and citizenship requirements, as they were in 1961, solely because of having looked at this nonsense in depth. I've certainly never studied nor practiced immigration law.

So, explain the surprise. You are surprised that you are wrong again?

If you are serious about it, the relevant statute you are looking for is 8 USC 1401:

http://law.onecle.com/uscode/8/1401.html

That is the current version - not the 1961 version.

If you'd like to know what the law was in 1961, then you have to look here:

http://www.aca.ch/joomla/index.php?o...d=51&Itemid=80

The relevant provision in force in 1961 was:

"(g) A person born outside the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is a citizen of the United States who, prior to the birth of such person, has had ten years' residence in the United States or one of its outlying possessions, at least five of which were after attaining the age of sixteen years, the other being an alien: Provided, That in order to retain such citizenship, the child must reside in the United States or its outlying possessions for a period or periods totaling five years between the ages of thirteen and twenty-one years: Provided further, That, if the child has not taken up a residence in the United States or its outlying possessions by the time he reaches the age of sixteen years, or if he resides abroad for such a time that it becomes impossible for him to complete the five years' residence in the United States or its outlying possessions before reaching the age of twenty-one years, his American citizenship shall thereupon cease.

Do you see the "at least five of which were after attaining the age of sixteen"? His mother was 18 years old. How do you get five years after the age of sixteen from an 18 year old?

The current law is also not retroactive, as you will note from Montana v. Kennedy (366 U.S. 308 (1961)). The court ruled that a child born abroad prior to May 24, 1934, to an American citizen mother did not acquire American citizenship at birth, since at that time citizenship at birth was transmitted only by a citizen father. Although subsequent legislation conferred upon American women the power to transmit citizenship to their children born abroad, such legislation was not retroactive and did not bestow citizenship on persons born before the enactment of such legislation

A related issue frequently raised by the Birthers has to do with a 1981 Hawaiian law relating to the registration of births abroad to Hawaiians. Without going into depth, since you haven't raised it yet, the fact that it is a 1981 law is usually overlooked, whether intentionally or not, as is the fact that the place of birth is still noted on certificates of birth issued to US citizens born abroad to Hawaiian parents.

[nameadvertising.com]

No, that is not correct. Now, it would be true. In 1961, it would not have been true. Currently, anyone born overseas to a US citizen will be recognized by the US as a citizen. In 1961, the person would have had to have been born to a US citizen who resided in the US for at least five years after the age of 16. Stanley Ann Dunham was not yet 19 at the time he was born, and thus if born in Kenya, Barack Obama would not have been recognized as a citizen under the law as it was in 1961.

Yes it is NOT...

Per the CT article below, the last paras explains why I am right.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/n...,1742172.story

[jberryhill]

But, really, I don't get the "amazed that you practice law" part. Could you explain that?

Yes it is NOT...

Per the CT article below, the last paras explains why I am right.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/n...,1742172.story

No, they don't explain "why you are right". They quote an opinion by Prof. Volokh.

Yes - Barack Obama would be considered a citizen at the time the law was made retroactive.

One of the oddities of the phrase "natural born citizen" in Article II is that, to an extent not relevant to this discussion, it hasn't been fleshed out all that much in case law.

Volokh's view is that it means "anyone who would now be considered a citizen at birth". The competing view is is "anyone who would have been considered a citizen at the time they were born".

The fact that the Chicago Tribune quotes one person who takes the first view of an unresolved issue (which again is not relevant in the larger picture), does not make you, or Volokh, "right".

The point is that the later law was made retroactive and extended citizenship to a class of persons who would not have been previously considered citizens. It did not, and cannot, change the circumstances of birth of those persons.

But, man, I'm going to have to get a refund from my Advanced Constitutional Law professor - Joe Biden.

[nameadvertising.com]

The point is that the later law was made retroactive and extended citizenship to a class of persons who would not have been previously considered citizens. It did not, and cannot, change the circumstances of birth of those persons.

- - - - Exactly! It does not change the original circumstances. Similar fate is extended to illegal immigrants under subsequent laws to allow them to gain lawful citizenship.

Again, Obama's qualification to be president is not the dispute of this thread. Clarity of his origin is.

To ask questions, is not to condemn or be judgmental. To ask questions does not make one right or wrong, or insultingly held in contempt to be a liar like you accused me of.

Simply because you provide reasons or proof does not merit that it has been provided to everyone's satisfaction just as the reasons provided by participants in the news article does not satisfy you as being accurate but rather something of an opinion rather than facts.

[jberryhill]

The point is that the later law was made retroactive and extended citizenship to a class of persons who would not have been previously considered citizens. It did not, and cannot, change the circumstances of birth of those persons.

- - - - Exactly! It does not change the original circumstances.

Which means that retroactive extension of citizenship is tangential to what Article II means by "natural born citizen". You don't use a statute to alter the meaning of a Constitutional phrase.

Again, Obama's qualification to be president is not the dispute of this thread. Clarity of his origin is.

And the basis on which there is any lack of clarity that Barack Obama was born in Hawaii is... what?

You've repeated the absurd claims of the pseudonymous "Rod Polarik", which have been thoroughly refuted.

You have claimed that Obama has "refused" to produce a birth certificate, despite the fact that he has provided a certified copy of same to several media organizations.

You have claimed that his birth certificate is "sealed" by some order which you don't seem to be able to identify - and based solely on the intentionally distorted article about Gov. Lingell, who merely referred to the law which prevents access to birth records by random looky-loos.

You have claimed that the racial identification on Hawaiian birth certificates is based on something other than the parents' self-identification. Your rule of evidence there is that an anoymous YouTube video trumps a statement by an identified official of the relevant office of the government of Hawaii.

You seem to have picked up a wealth of "facts" in your quest for "clarity" which are simply not true, and then turn around and say you want clarity.

At the same time that you express concern that Obama has "refused" to release whatever it is you are after, you also state that Obama is not a trustworthy source of what it is he is "refusing" to release.

The only lack of "clarity" is in the immense wall of BS being intentionally peddled by a core of extremists who have their own reasons for firing up gun-toting "patriots" to take a shot a the "illegitimate" president. That's what this is all about, and that's what this has always been all about. That's why it started at "white power" central - Stormfront.org - in the first place.

And, yes, if your point is a quest for "clarity", then I am absolutely going to call you out on mis-statements of fact, such as the non-existent "court order" you mentioned above. The reason why is that part of the "unclarity" machine thrives on whisper-down-the-lane type repeatings of things that someone "read on a blog somewhere".

I'm shocked you didn't go for the "no US citizens could visit Pakistan in 1981" part, since that opens up one of the more interesting backwaters of this particular swamp. It is an entirely made-up fact, repeated and recycled through blogs, which is used to support an ancillary proposition in the entire circus.

What, in your mind, would clear up this mystery for you?

participants in the news article does not satisfy you as being accurate but rather something of an opinion rather than facts

A legal conclusion on a non-adjudicated issue is never a "fact", it is an opinion. Given a choice between two competing non-adjudicated theories, a practicing attorney goes with the more stringent theory in order to provide a reliable opinion. Volokh's theory is more permissive than the more restrictive alternative. I guess now you are going to teach me basic rules of legal interpretation.

[Gerry]

Inspiration comes from the damnest of places.

This thread and a couple more regarding "reliable sources" have inspired me to finally create a logo for a long held domain name and one that I have turned down many offers for.

Thank you all and the Happiest and Safest of Holidays to you!

[jberryhill]

That would be a copyright infringement there, Doc.

[Gerry]

That would be a copyright infringement there, Doc.

Indeed.

would vs. would not

I found it on the internet so it must be true, factual, and safe to use.

[jberryhill]

First:

The eligibility of a President to hold the office never goes away. If ineligible today, ineligible even if he takes the oath of Office. Obama has obstinantly refused to produce a $10.00 certified copy of his birth certificate.

Then:

Again, Obama's qualification to be president is not the dispute of this thread. Clarity of his origin is.

Chris, the first words of your original post were about eligibility to be president.

I might add that the thread is entitled "Obama's Citizenship".

Okay, but that was not the point of the thread... mmmm-hmmm...

Oh and "obstinately refused". I think my first question was when did he do that and to whom?