Answer. The difference between Maya Soetoro’s Certification of Live Birth and Obama’s Certification of Live Birth is that Maya, who was born in Indonesia, has a Hawaiian Certification that says on it “born in Indonesia,” while Obama’s Hawaiian Certification of Live Birth says “born in Honolulu.”

Yes, you can get a birth certificate in Hawaii if the child was born outside of Hawaii. (You could NOT do that when Obama was born; the law was passed later.). But, no, it cannot lie about the place of birth.

Re: “If the American people (even a small amount of us) want to see the records, we should be shown the records.”

Obama has posted the only birth record that Hawaii issues. I know that there were original birth certificates, but Hawaii does not issue them to people asking for their birth certificates. They have repeatedly told me by e-mail that they only issue the computer-generated certification of live birth. So, unless Obama has kept a copy of his original, and has not lost it, the only document that he can post is the certification of live birth.

But not to worry, the Certification of Live Birth CANNOT legally say anything that is different from what appears in the files with regard to the place of birth. So, since the Certification of Live Birth says “born in Honolulu” the original must say that too.

So why doesn’t he post the original?

Because:

1. Unless he has the original and has not mislaid it, he cannot get it—unless he sues to get it, or asks for a special favor (and they might not give it to him even if he asked for it as a special favor. The government of Hawaii is under a Republican governor.)

2. The COLB is a legal document, accepted by the US state department for issuing passports.

3. If Obama could post the original, the opponents would not accept it. They would claim that it also is forged.

4. It would make the opponents happy, and Obama has no desire to make them happy.

5. It is possible for opponents to get the information they seek in another way. For example, if they believe that Obama was born in Kenya, what can prove or disprove that is to get records (if there are any) of the US government issuing a visa or a passport to baby Obama in Kenya to get him from Kenya to Hawaii. If there is no visa nor passport, then Obama could not have been born in Kenya.

6. Information about the issuing of a visa or passport to Obama, if such a thing were done, would be available at the US State Department and could be obtained under the Freedom of Information Act.

At first blush, it is case closed. A closer examination of the facts, however, reveals that Mr. Obama failed to point out on his website that his posted “Official Birth Certificate,” as he called it, is actually a 2007 computer-generated, laser-printed summary document of his 1961 birth record on file with the Hawaii State Department of Health. To date, he has refused to produce his 1961 birth record, despite numerous lawsuits (Keyes v. Bowen, Berg v. Obama, Donofrio v. Wells, and Wrotnowski v. Bysiewicz).

To understand what this 1961 birth record is that he refuses to produce, one needs to understand Hawaiian “Birth Certificates.” An analysis of Hawaiian Birth certificates is made in the Keyes v. Bowen lawsuit. Paragraph 75 of the Keyes complaint reads, in part:

In Hawaii, a Certificate of Live Birth resulting from hospital documentation, including a signature of an attending physician, is different from a Certificate of Hawaiian Birth. For births prior to 1972, a Certificate of Hawaiian Birth was the result of the uncorroborated testimony of one witness and was not generated by a hospital. Such a Certificate could be obtained up to one year from the date of the child’s birth. For that reason, its value as prima facie evidence is limited and could be overcome if any of the allegations of substantial evidence of birth outside Hawaii can be obtained. The vault (long Version) birth certificate, per Hawaiian Statute 883.176 allows the birth in another State or another country to be registered in Hawaii. Box 7C of the vault Certificate of Live Birth contains a question, whether the birth was in Hawaii or another State or Country.

Therefore, the only way to verify the exact location of birth is to review a certified copy or the original vault Certificate of Live Birth and compare the name of the hospital and the name and the signature of the doctor against the birthing records on file at the hospital noted on the Certificate of the Live Birth.

To sum it up, Mr. Obama produced a 2007 computer-generated, laser-printed Certification of Live Birth (a summary), and posted it on his website. He called it his “Official Birth Certificate,” but did not disclose that it derives from a 1961 birth record on file with the Hawaii State Department of Health. Furthermore, it is not yet publically known whether this Certification of Live Birth derives from a 1961 Certificate of Live Birth (resulting from hospital documentation, including a signature of an attending physician), or a 1961 Certificate of Hawaiian Birth (result of the uncorroborated testimony of one witness and was not generated by a hospital, and could be obtained up to one year from the date of the child’s birth). Moreover, Mr. Obama refuses to release this 1961 birth record to clear this up, despite numerous lawsuits asking him to do so. Furthermore, neither the FEC, the DNC, the RNC, nor any court in the United States has subjected his birth certificate evidence to any level of scrutiny. For all intents and purposes, they have just accepted the 2007 computer-generated, laser printout of the summary document Certification of Live Birth as conclusive evidence that he meets the Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 of the U.S. Constitution’s requirement that a President be a natural born citizen.

Mr. Obama’s birth certificate does indeed call into question his eligibility to be President. However, the most important foundation question is what is any candidate’s burden of proof that he meets the Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 of the U.S. Constitution’s requirement that a President be a natural born citizen? In determining which standard of proof applies, it important to remember that the goal is to set a stable standard of proof that ensures that, we the people, will get a qualified presidential candidate, no matter who he is, no matter which party he is from, no matter what political climate dominates the times, and no matter in which election year he runs for office.

Turning now to the foundation question of what is any candidate’s burden of proof that he meets the Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 of the U.S. Constitution’s requirement that a President be a natural born citizen? Burden of proof refers to both the burden of production, and the burden of persuasion. Burden of production is the obligation to come forward with evidence to support a claim. The burden of persuasion is the obligation to persuade the trier of fact of the truth of a proposition.

The answer to this burden of proof question lies with who has this burden of proof, the candidate, or the people? Allocating the burden of proof, ‘is merely a question of policy and fairness based on experience in the different situations.”Keyes v. Sch. Dist. No. 1, 413 U.S. 189 (1973). The burdens of pleading and proof with regard to most facts have been and should be assigned to the plaintiff who generally seeks to change the present state of affairs and who therefore naturally should be expected to bear the risk of failure of proof or persuasion. 2 J. Strong, McCormick on Evidence §337, 412 (5th ed. 1999). Moreover, in most cases, the burden of proof rests on those who claim something exists.

It seems apparent that a presidential candidate is seeking to change the present state of affairs by wanting to become the new President. The candidate is also the one who is claiming that something exists, which in this case, is that he is a natural born citizen. Furthermore, he is also applying for a job. As such, the burden of proof rests on him.

It takes no stretch of the imagination to understand that it has been a commonly accepted and expected fair practice for any candidate applying for a job to produce evidence that he meets its eligibility requirements. Typically, he produces a resume, certified copies of education transcripts, documents his work history and residences since age 18, and, in cases of classified government jobs, submits to and produces without reservation, documentary evidence such as a birth certificate for use in an extensive and thorough background check. Since the greater includes the lesser, it follows then that a more important job, like being President, would include at least the aforementioned production of documentary evidence of sufficient persuasion. Arguably then, it follows that a presidential candidate has a similar burden of production and persuasion that he meets the eligibility requirements for President. To create a presumption of eligibility that shifts the burden of proof to the People would otherwise defeat the search for the truth about the candidate’s eligibility. This is especially true when the candidate locks down the evidence of his eligibility.

Once some evidence has been produced, the question becomes does the evidence submitted persuade the trier of fact that a candidate meets the natural born citizen requirement of Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 of the U.S. Constitution? The degree of proof required depends on the circumstances of the proposition. In this case, the standard that applies should ensure that the candidate meets the eligibility requirements to be President of the United States.

The President of the United States is one of the three branches of government. He is the Executive branch. The nation speaks to all people through one voice, the President’s. The President can make treaties, grant pardons, sign and veto legislation, appoint a Cabinet, as well as Supreme Court Justices. In addition to these duties, the President knows the nation’s most important and secure secrets, and as the Commander in Chief of the military, has the military’s nuclear launch codes at the ready, and who can arguably, either take steps to weaken the nation or even destroy it. In the words of Vice President Dick Cheney, “The president of the United States now for 50 years is followed at all times, 24 hours a day, by a military aide carrying a football that contains the nuclear codes that he would use and be authorized to use in the event of a nuclear attack on the United States. He could launch the kind of devastating attack the world has never seen. He doesn’t have to check with anybody. He doesn’t have to call the Congress. He doesn’t have to check with the courts. He has that authority because of the nature of the world we live in.”

So which burden of persuasion should apply to the evidence submitted by a President elect given the job for which he is qualifying? There are at least three major burdens of persuasion – preponderance of the evidence, clear and convincing, and beyond a reasonable doubt. Let’s examine each standard and choose the one that is best suited to ensure that only a qualified President elect becomes President.

Preponderance of the Evidence – (lowest level) This is the lowest standard of proof that uses a more likely than not test. The standard is met if the proposition is more likely to be true than not true. Effectively, the standard is satisfied if there is greater than 50 percent chance that the proposition is true. It is used in civil cases, e.g., personal injury lawsuits.

If this standard is accepted, then arguably the President elect will get the opportunity to prove that he meets the requirements to be President by a little more than the odds of a coin toss. Using this standard also seems to equate the importance of a candidate meeting the Constitutional requirements to become President with giving the right private litigant a chance at winning a lawsuit. The ramifications and consequences of being wrong in each one are at opposite ends of the spectrum. This standard therefore does not seem high enough.

Clear and Convincing Evidence – (medium level) The person must convince the trier of fact that it is substantially more likely than not that the thing is in fact true. This standard of proof is used in termination of parental rights, and restraining orders, among other civil actions. This standard also does not seem high enough.

Beyond a Reasonable Doubt – (highest level) The proposition being presented must be proven to the extent that there is no “reasonable doubt” in the mind of a reasonable person. This standard has been traditionally applied to criminal defendants to ensure that an innocent person is not deprived of his life or liberty. True, the Presidential candidate is not a criminal, but the justifications for applying the beyond a reasonable doubt standard are not for proving the guilt of a criminal defendant, but rather to ensure that an innocent person does not lose his life or liberty. Ensuring that these freedoms of life and liberty are given the highest protections rings throughout the justifications for the beyond a reasonable doubt standard being applied to presidential candidates so that the citizens do not lose their lives or liberties at the hands of an unqualified President. For the highest office in the land, and for arguably the most powerful leadership position in the world, it follows that the highest burden of proof that he is qualified to be President of the United States of America should be required of him.

At this point, I would like to conclude that the beyond a reasonable doubt standard should apply to the President elect, but unfortunately, I do not get to decide this issue. Who then, should determine which standard applies? Moreover, who gets to interpret it?

Should the states get to decide this question? If you look to state law for deciding which burden of persuasion applies, then a problem arises because one might foresee not all states using the same burden of persuasion. One might also expect to find up to 50 different interpretations for each of the three burden of persuasion standards. This could result in as many as 150 different interpretations for the three standards. It’s arguable then, that having as many as 3 different standards with up to 50 different interpretations of each one could lead to 150 different possible ways to qualify a presidential candidate. Arguably, this outcome would favor some candidates over the others, with each election year providing for unequal treatment of the candidates depending upon from which state’s record each candidate seeks to establish his birth (or age), and resulting in unequal risk to the nation that an unqualified President would be elected.

Imagine if one state uses a preponderance of the evidence standard while the other state uses beyond a reasonable doubt standard. Who has the advantage here and what are the risks to the nation and its citizens? Let’s assume that two states require clear and convincing evidence, but one state interprets clear and convincing to mean less than the other state’s interpretation. The end result would be unequal treatment of the candidates resulting in different states having the power to gain an advantage over the other state’s candidate by lessening or lowering the burden of persuasion and weakening its interpretation. Furthermore, there would be an increased opportunity for planting fraudulent birth records in the states with the weakest burden of proof that have the highest incidents of uncontrolled illegal immigration.

So where does this leave us? Should each state decide what is their native candidate’s burden of persuasion? Or should each state agree to have one standard for all candidates? Who gets to decide which standard applies, and who gets to interpret the standard?

Perhaps we should look to the federal courts to establish a standard instead? Keep in mind that the constitutional requirement to be a natural born citizen is a federal one. Article VI of the U.S. Constitution makes federal law the supreme law of the land. Furthermore, the office of President is one of the three federal branches of government. Perhaps that as such, there should be a federal standard of proof that ensures that only a candidate who meets the Natural Born Citizen requirement of the U.S. Constitution could become President.

Once again, problems arise. There are 13 federal circuit courts in the U.S. Each one could cause the same selection and interpretation problems that were just discussed with the states. Only this time, the candidates would get their advantage or disadvantage by being born in a particular circuit, thus making circuits more or less appealing to the candidates and their respective parties. Furthermore, circuits with a history of identification document fraud by foreign nationals might be more likely to erroneously qualify a foreign born national to be a Presidential candidate. Again, different circuit standards would result in unequal treatment of the candidates, and unequal risks to the nation that an unqualified candidate would become President.

Should we leave it to the Federal Election Committee (FEC)? No. The FEC filed a motion to dismiss in the Berg case admitting that it has no oversight over the Constitution’s Presidential Qualifications Clause.

What about leaving it to the candidate’s respective party? Should such a bias organization decide the issue of their candidate’s eligibility? Allowing such a process would be tantamount to the fox guarding the henhouse.

What about leaving it to the Electors? Are they any less bias than their respective parties?

What about the United States Supreme Court? The first paragraph of their own website makes the following promise to the American People – “As the final arbiter of the law, the Court is charged with ensuring the American people the promise of equal justice under law and, thereby, also functions as guardian and interpreter of the Constitution.”

If the Court has this duty to function as guardian and interpreter of the Constitution, then when must it act to qualify the President elect? Before, during or after the election? Should it be barred from deciding this issue because of timing, i.e, the candidate has already won the election, so it’s too late? Perhaps we should turn to the 20th Amendment for guidance.

“If, at the time fixed for the beginning of the term of the President, the President elect shall have died, the Vice President elect shall become President. If a President shall not have been chosen before the time fixed for the beginning of his term, or if the President elect shall have failed to qualify, then the Vice President elect shall act as President until a President shall have qualified; and the Congress may by law provide for the case wherein neither a President elect nor a Vice President elect shall have qualified, declaring who shall then act as President, or the manner in which one who is to act shall be selected, and such person shall act accordingly until a President or Vice President shall have qualified.”

Section 3 of the 20th Amendment does allow for the possibility that a President elect might not qualify. The language of the Amendment suggests that the qualification period can come between the period when the candidate wins the election and when he is sworn in. As the guardian and interpreter of the Constitution, it’s arguable that the Court must scrutinize the President elect’s natural born citizen evidence during this time period. If the Court, instead, turns a blind eye to it, then just who will be the judge of “if the President elect shall have failed to qualify,…?” Furthermore, what will be the fate of the Constitution, the Court, and the country if it is later discovered that Mr. Obama is not a natural born citizen? Will every treaty, law, military act become void ab initio? Will the nation be launched into a state of civil unrest and unyielding division?

As of this post, the Court has not granted a writ to hear the Berg v. Obama case. While we are waiting for this historic news, perhaps we should at least look at Mr. Obama’s only submitted evidence of being a natural born citizen – the posted 2007 computer-generated laser-printed “Certification of Live Birth” on his website. So let’s review the facts and his evidence, and then apply the burdens of persuasion. I used my general interpretations of each burden of persuasion since there is no clearly defined one being applied by anyone else, anywhere.

Preponderance of the Evidence – No. What is a computer-generated printout like Obama’s Certification of Live Birth? It is a hearsay document that is susceptible to the perils of computer viruses, trojans, spyware, hackers, and chain of custody issues? Read about Computer Records and the Federal Rules of Evidence on the Department of Justice’s website.

Furthermore, since it is not clear from which 1961 document this printout derives from, the one with the doctor’s signature and other traceable evidence (Certificate of Live Birth), or the one fraught with the potential for fraud, including registering an out of the country birth as an in state birth after the birth (Certificate of Hawaiian Birth), it’s arguable that either source is no more likely than the other, so it does not appear to satisfy this more likely than not standard.

Clear and Convincing Evidence – No. If the Certification of Live birth doesn’t satisfy the lesser burden of persuasion then it follows it can not satisfy this heightened one.

Beyond a Reasonable Doubt – No. One would need to feign ignorance and act with the utmost bad faith to argue that a Certification of Live birth proves that he was born in Hawaii beyond a reasonable doubt. Furthermore, since it doesn’t even satisfy the lesser burden of persuasion then it follows it can not satisfy this heightened one.

This is where the road to the White House should end for Mr. Obama. He can not meet any burden of persuasion for becoming President with only a 2007 computer-generated, laser-printed Certification of Live Birth. Unfortunately however, to date, not one single person or agency in the Executive, Legislative, or Judicial branches of government has subjected his Certification of Live Birth to any burden of persuasion scrutiny to determine if he meets the United States Constitution’s natural born citizen requirement to be President.

I’ll close this post with a quote: “All that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing.”

Copied with permission from http://www.vibe.us

One other thing I forgot (You have to forgive me, as I have gotten older this happens more and more, LOL).

De Vattel’s book was written in 1760. This was long before the American government was even conceived here. The book is the “Laws of Nations” and was written as a political discourse of what a good government should be, how it would interact with other countries, and providing definitions for that interaction. So his statement about parents was not focused on America but on countries in general.

The phrase “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness” has been attributed by a lot of people to Locke. But his statement was actually “life, liberty, and property”. The original statement is more in accordance with De Vattel’s philosophy than with Locke or Blackstone.

The 14th Amendment in effect, defines native born, not natural born. Your whole argument about the idea of accepting British born flies in the face of exactly what the debates for the Constitution pointed out again and again. The Anti-Federalists did not want ‘an’ executive, they wanted a ruling council of executives. The Federalists themselves were afraid of the executive. They were always worried that the executive could abuse his position, grab too much authority and become a dictator, or allow the goverment to be given back to Britain by him. Thus the separation of powers, and thus the natural born clause. They wanted an executive that could not possibly have any allegiance to any country other than the USA and most especially they would not want one that had a British citizenship.

I am also sort of offended by your opening that our dislike of Obama and our dislike of him avoiding the rules is racist in character. You may believe anything you like, that is your right. But I am getting so tired of him and his supporters screaming racism at any slight against him. So much for the uniter, not divider, I guess.

Obama is black. Of course the founding fathers would not want him to be President.

The idea of “tainted British blood” does not make much sense to me – most of the presidents of the USA have been of British or Scottish or Irish descent. The founding fathers would have been much more committed to prevent Asians, Italians, Spaniards, Jews and Indians from getting to the Presidency, considering the spirit of the times. Many among them were of British ancestry or birth. Frankly, I think the founding fathers deserve more credit in this question of blood, exactly for NOT putting forward any restriction. In fact, I could even make the opposite argument and say that, considering the efforts of the founding fathers to support Canadians uprisings against the Crown, they would be more willing in accepting as a citizen someone from a fellow British colony struggling against the “British oppression” than a citizen from Spain or France, for instance.

On another point, according to what I read, most of the allegations against Arthur were connected to the possibility that he also could have been born in foreign soil (Canada). the fact that his father was not a citizen at the time of Arthur’s birth was not taken seriously as an obstacle.

Keep in mind also that there is a contradiction in your argument. If women could not vote, and therefore their citizenship did not matter, then de Vattel’s emphasis on American parents (plural) does not make sense. If only one parent (male) is enough, then the courts would necessarily update de Vattel’s concept for more enlightened gender relations, and one parent (male or female) would be enough. Furthermore, depending on the foreign country’s law, women may not vote, but they may transmit citizenship. This was the case of Switzerland until 1971. Swiss women could not vote, but if they had a child abroad, this child would have their citizenship.

I insist in my previous points, though. First, if the problem is jus sanguinis (Obama’s ancestrality), then the whole question of birth certificates is absolutely irrelevant. Second, many countries allow the transmission of citizenship for more than one generation. Thus a child of both American-born parents (but with foreign grandparents or greatgandparents) may still have claim to a foreign citizenship – would that preclude her/him from running for President?

Although you are right and the concept natural born citizens is not well defined, the concept of “citizen at birth” is defined in regulations. You are saying that Obama might be a citizen at birth (because he was born in American soil) but not a “natural born American” (because his father was not an American citizen). I doubt this distinction would stand in court.

(At the same time, thank you for answering my questions and doubts. Although I am not convinced by the argument, it is interesting food for thought).

I was re-reading my response to your post. I missed a most significant portion of my response upon reflection.

Yes. If you are to consider De Vattel’s definitions then

1) There are natural born citizns. Those born to parents (plural) on the national ‘turf’.

2) There are citizens. Born to a singularcitizen on the national turf.

3) Citizens born to at least one citizen on foreign turf (McCain?).

4) Naturalized citizens that become citizens of a country only because they want to.

5) Aliens. All of the rest.

Natural born is significant in two ways.

1) The Constitution as written, specifies citizenship requirements for office only for the Congress and the Presidency, I believe. It does not for the judiciary.

2) For Congress, both the Senate and House, the language allows for both foreign born, dual citizenship people to be eligible for office as well as naturalized or natural born citizents.

3) The only pace where the ‘natural born’ phrase makes its appearance is that of the executive. When you read the debates of the executive, there is only one meaning available and that is de Vattel’s.

Not knowing where you are from, all I can say is that Blackstone’s definition of natual born, probably would not be the accespted one since it talks of subjects (those under the protection of the crown) as opposed to citizens (those that elect the government).

After the 2000 election in which SCOTUS found the Florida Supreme court in oppostion to accepted ‘Constitutional’ law by a vote of 7-2. most people think it was another of those 5-4 votes which it definitely was not. The 5-4 vote was on the remedy, not the basic issue. And the most basic issue was never raised. That being that the Florida Supreme Court, other than defining the state’s constitutionality of the legislature’s was in error by changing the laws. The only body mentioned in the Federal Cosntitution is the state legislature. And the only ability the state judicial system had to deny those laws was to declare them unconstitutional, which the Florida legislature never did.

What is funny about this whole issue, is that more has actually been made out of McCain’s problems than Obmama’s. (Just look at websites talking about these issues). But no one knows now what is meant by natural born. Look up the references to Arthur and you would probably feel like a person not naturally born became President. That does not change the law, it only means that someone got beyond it nand should not have. Wilson’s mother, unless I am wrong and some of the websites I have visited are wrong was a citizen at the time of his birth. Also, even if that is wrong, at the time, women had no vote, and therefore their citizenship did not matter. It was the citizenship of the father that did.

The whole natural born clause was inserted in the constitution for a couple of reasons.

1) The founding fathers did not want a person that was not totally ‘American’, (other than themselves) to have the ability to be C-I-C.

2) Maybe even more than that, they never wanted someone tainted with ‘British’ blood to be eligible to be President.

Obmama was born to a Kenyan citizne. At the time of his birth, Kenya was a British protectorate. If there was anyone the founding fathers did not want to be President, it was Obama!!

My point remains, though, and in this point, the distinction between subjects and citizens is irrelevant, since we are following (according to your definition) de Vattel’s requirements of citizenship, with no other possible claim to allegiance. Children and Grandchildren and greatgrandchildren of Italian immigrants could be subjects AND citizens of Italy, even if born in the USA. (I am myself a great-grandchild of a Italian Imigrant to South America and I have an Italian passport as if I had been born in Italian soil). Jews are potentially citizens of Israel. Irish-Americans (up to the third generation) are potentially citizens of Ireland. None of those could be eligible to be the president of the USA. Also in this version, neither could Chester Arthur (whose father was an Irish immigrant)

Andrew Jackson’s both parents were born outside the United States, but he was born before the Constitution was signed, so I supposed the two-parent rule does not apply. Buchanan, however, had at least one of his parents born outside the USA – probably both, I was not able to find out. And he was born after the COnstitution was adopted. Woodrow Wilson’s mother was born in Carslile, Scotland. Herbert Hoover’s mother was also not born in the USA. It is very likely (I don’t know well the American laws) that marriage conferred citizenship upon the foreign-born wives in the nineteenth century, but it is also likely that they would retain their original citizenship as well, at least before their own countries. I found doubtful that, considering these precedents, the supreme court would considered that natural born citizen refers only to children born in the USA to both US citizen parents. Besides, it does create a limbo for all those children of immigrants (and we are talking about a basic element of the AMerican Dream here): if they are not natural born, and they have not gone through a process of naturalization, what are they?? Does the US have a third category of citizen, not-so-natural-born citizens?

You ought to go to the websites that are arguing whether or not McCain is a natural born citizen.

One of the things that everyone seems to miss is that the 14th Amendment, for example, does not say that your are natural born, just by being born here, it merely states that you have citizenship. There is only one place where the phrase natural born is used and that is in Article II, Section 1.

Two of the great influences on the founding fathers were De Vattel and his book “Laws of Nations” and Blackstone’s writings on English Common Law. Their take on defining natural born are night and day. According to Blackstone, mere birth in country makes one natural born. It doesn’t matter what your parents were. De Vattel defines a natural born citizen as one born in the native country to parents who are citizens (notice the plural). Now the problem with Blackstone, which is quoted by the left as the more probable of the two, is that he is not referring to citizenship. He is referring to subjects. you cannot arbitrarily replace the two words and have the same meaning. Look it up and try it. Citizens are NOT subjects. Citizens do not owe allegience because of feudal ties.

So, in my book, and unfortunately, no one wants to take this on, both of Obama’s parents needed to be citizens in order for him to be elibible for the Presidency. This would have been the ‘known’ meaning of the phrase ‘natural born’ at the time.

“What are the rules for people born between December 23, 1952 and November

13, 1986?

Again, children born abroad to two US citizen parents were US citizens at birth, as long as

one of the parents resided in the US at some point before the birth of the child.

When one parent was a US citizen and the other a foreign national, the US citizen parent

must have resided in the US for a total of 10 years prior to the birth of the child, with five

of the years after the age of 14. An exception for people serving in the military was

created by considering time spent outside the US on military duty as time spent in the US.

While there were initially rules regarding what the child must do to retain citizenship,

amendments since 1952 have eliminated these requirements.

Children born out of wedlock to a US citizen mother were US citizens if the mother was

resident in the US for a period of one year prior to the birth of the child. Children born out

of wedlock to a US citizen father acquired US citizenship only if legitimated before turning

21.”

http://www.lexisnexis.com/practiceareas/immigration/pdfs/web704.pdf

I am not an American citizen, but I find weird that laws of other countries regarding transmission of citizenship may define who is a natural born citizen in America and who isn’t. For instance, Italian laws recognize as Italian citizens children born abroad up to the third generation. Would that mean that grandchildren of Italians born in the USA could NOT run for president? Justice Scalia, for instance, because he MAY held dual citizenship, would not be a natural born American?

I find curious that anyone believes that an 18 year old pregnant girl would travel to Kenya, during the independence period, not very calm, mind you, just a couple of months before giving birth. And, according to what I read, it was not hte parents who tell the newspapers about the birth of Obama, but usually it was the hospitals themselves which releases these notes to the press.

I am one ofthose wackos. My son was born in 1968 in an Army Hospital in Germany. I had to drive to Franksort to our consulate there. My wife and I are both American born and raised. He was born on an Army base to US medical doctors. The consulate told us that he had dual citizenship for which we could renounce the German citizenship for him. The also told us at that time that he cold never run for President. I have talked to numerous other vets in similar situations and they were told the same thing.

I never knew McCain was born overseas. It may be true that he is not natural born also. The big difference between us and him, however, is that the canal zone was considered an American possession at the time. I don’t know how that plays into the equation but it is possible that he wasn’t.

However, the biggest difference between McCain and Obama is not the differences in their birth, but in the way they handled the question of their birth. McCain took his documentation before congress. In a bi-partisan, unanimous decision, the Senate passed a Sense of the Seante that he was natural born. Whether this passes legal muster, I don’t know. But Obama is still hiding his.

I don’t need to see it. But it sure would be nice if he turned it over to an authority that was bi-partisan and could speak to the people about it. It could be the Senate Ethics Committee, SCOTUS, whoever.

Until he does this, I will be a “Democrat” in action for the next 4 years. I will never call him ‘my President’. I haven’t decided yet what I will call him. Maybe that Brit, or maybe that Kenyan guy. You know, as opposed to that guy that stole the election. I think I am starting to like Brit though!!

Given that, there is no upside at this point for Obama to do anything other than what he is already doing/not doing. The “birthers” will never be satisfied and the courts will never overturn this election because of this specific issue. NEVER!!! It would be stupid of Obama to do anything else under those circumstances. The only way Obama might do anything different is if this issue starts showing up as something the public cares about.

In any case, a friend of mine who is an attorney, worked for immigration and nationalization for 15 years. He says that under the immigration laws that existed in 1961 and are in effect now, Obama would be a citizen of the United States even if he was born out of the country. “If you were born before November 14, 1986, you are a citizen if your U.S. citizen parent lived in the United States for at least 10 years and 5 of those years in the United States were after your citizen parent’s 14th birthday. Those 5 years do not have to have been before your birth”. That make Obama a citizen. I’m going to trust my friend on that.

I am going to nominate Arnold Swartzenegger for 2012. at least we know the truth about him. And he WILL win. All the little 18 year olds will vote and then we will have Arnold for the Presidentanator.

I am going to nominate Arnold Swartzenegger for 2012. at least we know the truth about him. And he WILL win. All the little 18 year olds will vote and then we will have Arnold for the Presidentanator.

i’ll say it again. trust but verify. i am sure he is a natural born citizen, but i want verification.

That’s all.

You have a number of fallacies in your post.

1) The governor of Hawaii is a Republican and he didn’t hide Obama’s BC. The Hawaiian laws say that it is not public information and only those with valid standing can get that document. His sealing the document was merely following the law and to make his people understand that leaks would not be tolerated. Obama, I believe, had nothing to do with it.

2) Your worry about Bush being allowed to stay on is totally unfounded. The 22nd Amendment would not allow for it. A President is limited to two terms total. If Obama were to be disqualified before the 15th of this month, the eledtors would be free to vote for anyone they want. They could all get together and elect Biden or even Hillary. If Obama is selected by the electors (in other words after 15 December) and were to be disqualified, depending on the decision and how it was reached to disqualify him, wither Joe Biden would be President or the House of Representatives would elect the next President. Either way, I don’t see how either Bush or any Republican could be President.

1) Hawaii DID not verify he was born in Hawaii…only that they had they long form. BTW, Obama had the Governor “seal” the long form when he visited his sick Grandmother shortly before her death.

2) Donofrio did NOT say Obama was born in Kenya! That is Berg! Donofrio’s case is based on the fact that both parents must be U.S. citizens, even naturalized will work, BEFORE the birth! Obama has admitted he was a British Subject at birth! Therefore, he cannot be “natural born.” His own website refers to him as “native born” but NOT natural! As a British subject with a British father, he could not EVER be “natural-born” regardless of being born in Hawaii!

3) He was adopted by his step-father, and renounced his citizenship. I have a copy of his school registration that verifies his Indonesian citizenship and Muslim as his religion which is NOT saying that he isn’t now a Christian either. However, it DOES say that he gave up his citizenship as a child and NO EVIDENCE exists it was ever reinstated correctly!

4) He traveled on an Indonesian passport to Pakistan as an adult for heaven’s sake! He still hides his school records that some school employees have said “anonymously” indicate he went to school in the U.S. as a FOREIGN student who got foreign aid from perhaps two different countries!

In other words, he worked the system and worked it very well. He also hopes that the cases will be all dismissed for “lack of standing” but they won’t be! The American people are finally starting to demand answers to ALL of these citizenship questions. Andy Martin DID sue as a person of the media! There are now 17 cases filed and more pending and this will be a constitutional crisis at some point! His inauguration will NOT make the questions or the law suits disappear and eventually someone will dig out the truth on each issue.

What makes anyone think a Democrat will take over if Obama is not given the electoral vote? THINK people! The banksters and Wall Street gave him over 80 percent of his funds. Bush has already declared another “State of Emergency.” A Constitutional crisis and some rioting in the streets and we will have martial law with Bush staying in office until a “do-over” election is held and probably not immediately either…too much money in a bad economy or some other nonsense excuse.

The saddest part is that Obama has perpetrated this fraud against the American people by refusing to prove who he IS and could very well be the reason that thousands (hundreds of thousands even) of minority voters die if they take to the streets in protest. ALL of the people who filed these suits are aware of this possibility and are doing what they are doing to PREVENT such violence and to defend the law! Read all of the suits in detail! I have. Read all of the court records in detail! I have. Read about Hawaii’s “loop hole” law that enables citizens NOT born in Hawaii to be issued birth certificates if ONE parent is an American citizen! I have, and yes, that is how his half-sister has the exact same COLB that he does! Even though she WAS born in Indonesia.

And if the Christian Bishop who posted here is telling the truth (which I no reason to assume he isn’t) then Obama could actually be a Muslim “ringer” who does not have the best interests of America at heart! WHERE IS THE TRUTH AND THE EVIDENCE OF THE TRUTH THAT ONLY OBAMA CAN SUPPLY?

If he has perpetrated fraud, he should be arrested and jailed. If he sticks us with 2-4 more years of George W. Bush, I hope he gets a life sentence!

Something is very fishy and stinks in Chicago these days.

ACTION REQUEST

FOI REQUEST TO NANCY PELOSI AND BARACK OBAMA FOR OBAMA’S BIRTH CERTIFICATE:

We need to now got to the horse for the information or denial. The various SOS have said it ain’t their job to check qualifications of Presidential candidates. If you have time, please send/fax/email the following FOI (freedom of information letter) to Nancy Pelosi and Barack Obama. http://moniquemonicat.files.wordpress.com/2008/11/obama-south-carolina-sec-of-state-respons.pdf

South Carolina SOS saying it is not her job to check Presidential qualifications and letter signed by Nancy Pelosi certifying Obamas qualifications to be President.

http://countusout.wordpress.com/category/freedom-of-information-act-responses-obama-secretaries-of-state/ Rhode Island SOS has statement signed by Barack Obama and declares he is eligible to be President. Do not use titles or office name and send to all locations by fax, email and mail ( use CERTIFICATE OF MAILING” at post office)(you will have proof of mailing and they won’t know)

After you get a response please post on http://www.obamacrimes.com,

http://www.freerepublic.com,

http://www.peoplespassions.org,

http://americamustknow.com

http://www.rallycongress.com

(and of course http://www.CountUsOut.wordpress.com ) .

1. The address , fax number and email address for everone in Congress is: http://www.visi.com/juan/congress/

2. I like the faxes because they will respond quicker to them. Print off your generic FOI request and past/tape the next name over the top and fax it off. Sit back and wait for answers.

3. GOOD JOB ON THE LAST FOI REQUESTS TO SOS. LET’S FINALIZE THIS THING NOW!!!

____________________________________________________

December 2, 2008

TO: Nancy Pelosi

235 Cannon House Office Building

Washington, D.C. 20515-0508 and Nancy Pelosi 450 Golden Gate Avenue, 14th Floor

San Francisco, CA 94102-3661

sf.nancy@mail.house.gov sf.nancy@mail.house.gov, PH 202-225-4965, FAX 202-225-4188

TO: Barack Obama, 5046 South Greenwood Ave, Chicago, IL 60615 and 201 Russell Senate Office Building , Washington, D.C. 20510-0810 http://obama.senate.gov/contact.cfm

TO: Joe Biden, 1209 Barley Mill Road, Wilmington, Delaware 19807, and 201 Russell Senate Office Building

Washington, D.C. 20510-0801 DC Phone:202-224-5042DC Fax:202-224-0139 http://biden.senate.gov/services/contact/

REF: Freedom of Information Act Request/Privacy Act/ Open Meeting Act, Common Law Request

This is a request under the Freedom of Information Act. Please send the following documents for examining and photocopying:

1. Documents that show that Barack Obama is qualified to be President of the United States , including but not limited to:

a. Original birth certificate

b. Proof that he is a natural born United States citizen

c. Proof that he was born in Kenya

AS you know , the FOIA provides that if a portions of a document are exempt from release, the remainder must be segregated and disclosed. Therefore, I would like to examine all nonexempt portions of the records that I requested and I ask that you justify and deletions by citing specific exemptions of the FOIA

This is a continuing request into the future for 6 months.

If this is not the proper department, please forward to Barack Obama.

I promise to pay reasonable search and duplication fees in connection with this request. (Note: The FOIA permit some fee reduction or waivers).

Please notify me if the charges will exceed ($20.00), so that I can decide whether to authorize a higher amount.

Thank you for your assistance, I look forward to receiving your reply within five business days, as required by law.

Sincerely,

Robert Johnson

123 Main St

Anywhere , CA

Cc: Clerk of the US Supreme Court

One First Street N.E.

Washington, DC 20543

FAX: (209) 479-3021, emai: meritsbriefs@supremecourt.gov

CC:Federal Election Commission Attn: FOIA Requester Service Center Room 408, 999 E Street, NW, Washington, DC 20463 Fax #(202)219-1043, email: FOIA@fec.gov,

WARNING

Should any person try to cover up this request or documents herein, BE YOU HEREBY PUT ON NOTICE: You may be indicted under USC Title 18 Sec. 3. 4, 2381, 2382, 2383, and 2384. Also, 4 U.S.C. & 101, federal law requires all state employees and officers take an oath of office and records kept of such administered oath.