Obama's birth certificate: The story that refuses to go away
ltlee1
-------------------------
Rep. Deal wants Obama to prove citizenship
By Bob Keefe
The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
6:45 p.m. Friday, November 6, 2009
WASHINGTON -- Republican gubernatorial candidate and U.S. Rep. Nathan
Deal says he wants the president to prove he is an American citizen.
Deal says he has "no reason to think" that President Barack Obama is
not a legal U.S. citizen but enough questions have been raised that he
plans to write a letter to the president asking him to produce a birth
certificate showing he was born in the United States.
"I have looked at the documentation that is publicly available and it
leaves many things to be desired," Deal said in an interview Friday.
Deal's statement came a day after he noted in an online chat that he
would join other U.S. House members in writing the president and
asking that he release a copy of his birth certificate.
The position is a reversal for Deal. In the past, he has said he was
assured that Obama was born in Hawaii two years after it became a
state, and therefore was fully qualified to be president.
Friday, Deal indicated his change of heart was the result of continued
questions about Obama's citizenship. He stopped short of saying he was
a proponent of the so-called "birthers" movement that has questioned
the legitimacy of Obama's citizenship.
A spokeswoman for Obama said the White House had no comment on Deal's
statements other than what it has said in the past when refuting
claims questioning Obama's citizenship.
In June 2008, Obama's campaign office released a digitally scanned
image of his birth certificate -- a "certification of live birth" --
that shows he was born in Honolulu, Hawaii on Aug. 4, 1961. Government
officials in Hawaii have verified that the document is official, as
have several news organizations.
Yet Deal and others say they still have doubts.
"What I have seen -- and I think it is the only thing that has been
put out -- is a certification of live birth, and it just does not
contain the type of information that most state birth certificates
would contain," Deal said. "It obviously does not have the signature
of a doctor. Most birth certificates or even certificates of live
birth have those kinds of verifications."
Some of Deal's colleagues in Congress said they are disappointed and
puzzled about why the Gainesville Republican is raising the
citizenship issue.
"I'm sorry to hear that Nathan, who's a very decent person, is raising
that question," said Democratic U.S. Rep. John Lewis of Atlanta, a
strong Obama supporter. "I don't think there's any question, any
doubt, that the president was born in America, in Hawaii."
Deal's opponents in the race for Georgia governor also criticized the
congressman's comments.
Republican gubernatorial candidate John Oxendine said he believes
Obama is a legal U.S. citizen.
"Any serious adult running for governor of Georgia needs to understand
that we have a responsibility to do business with the president of
United States," Oxendine said. " Questioning his citizenship after he
has been elected to the highest office in our land is disrespectful."
Ben Fry, a spokesman for Republican gubernatorial candidate Eric
Johnson said, "We take the government of Hawaii at its word when they
say the president is eligible to serve."
Said Republican candidate Karen Handel's spokesman Dan McLagan, "I
think its pretty kooky and probably not very helpful for our water
negotiations and other issues with the administration."
Chris Carpenter, a spokesman for Democratic gubernatorial candidate
Roy Barnes characterized Deal's statements as "great silliness."
In Washington, Lewis said he thought it was time to end questions
about Obama's citizenship.
"This is an issue that needs to be put to rest," he said. "I don't
believe the president of the United States of America, knowing you
must be a citizen born in America, would even consider, even think of
running for president," if he were not a citizen.
Ralph Ellis, Jim Galloway and Aaron Gould Sheinin contributed to this
report.
---------------------------
PreCog
where's the birth cert?
ltlee1
Only Obama can answer this question.
The significance of the new development is that Rep. Deal
does not have to worry being embarrassed.
1. Questioning
Obama about his birth certifcate is accepitable although
many Americans still assume Obama has a valid bc.
2. If Obama is to answer the question about his bc, he
would have done it long ago.Probably Obama will continue
stonewalling. This tactic, however, will backfire sooner or
later.
> - Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
ltlee1
<hugh.g.rect...@richardcranium.tv.su> wrote:
> He already did. You folks are just way too fucking stupid and ignorant to
> realize it.
>
Not according to Rep Nathan Deal.
> >> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
ArmyOfDorkness
"ltlee1" <ltl...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:7ff1de3a-abdc-42f8...@w19g2000yqk.googlegroups.com...
> On Nov 7, 6:14 am, Hughbert G. Rection
> <hugh.g.rect...@richardcranium.tv.su> wrote:
>> He already did. You folks are just way too fucking stupid and ignorant
>> to
>> realize it.
>>
>
> Not according to Rep Nathan Deal.
>
> "In June 2008, Obama's campaign office released a digitally scanned
> image of his birth certificate -- a "certification of live birth" --
> that shows he was born in Honolulu, Hawaii on Aug. 4, 1961.
> Government
> officials in Hawaii have verified that the document is official, as
> have several news organizations.
>
> Yet Deal and others say they still have doubts.
>
> "What I have seen -- and I think it is the only thing that has been
> put out -- is a certification of live birth, and it just does not
> contain the type of information that most state birth certificates
> would contain," Deal said. "It obviously does not have the signature
> of a doctor. Most birth certificates or even certificates of live
> birth have those kinds of verifications." "
UPDATED: 1:26 pm HST November 1, 2008
HONOLULU -- The state's Department of Health director on Friday released a
statement verifying the legitimacy of Sen. Barack Obama birth certificate.
The state has received multiple requests for a copy of Obama's birth
certificate. State law does not allow officials to release the birth
certificate of a person to someone outside of the family.
There were rumors that Obama was born in Kenya, where his father is from.
The Constitution requires that the president be a natural born citizen of
the U.S.
While many sites and news organizations have released copies provided by the
Obama campaign, the rumors have persisted.
"There have been numerous requests for Sen. Barack Hussein Obama's official
birth certificate. State law (Hawai'i Revised Statutes �338-18) prohibits
the release of a certified birth certificate to persons who do not have a
tangible interest in the vital record," DOH Director Dr. Chiyome Fukino
said.
Fukino said she and the registrar of vital statistics, Alvin Onaka, have
personally verified that the health department holds Obama's original birth
certificate.
"Therefore, I as Director of Health for the State of Hawai'i, along with the
Registrar of Vital Statistics who has statutory authority to oversee and
maintain these type of vital records, have personally seen and verified that
the Hawai'i State Department of Health has Sen. Obama's original birth
certificate on record in accordance with state policies and procedures,"
Fukino said.
Fukino said that no state official, including Gov. Linda Lingle, ever
instructed that Obama's certificate be handled differently from any other
Why doesn't Oily Taint sue these people for fraud?
Sanders Kaufman
> 2. If Obama is to answer the question about his bc, he
> would have done it long ago.
He did. It didn't.
Once again, you're trying to predict events that have already happened.
And once again - it didn't play out the way you said it would.
You must REALLY love getting things wrong.
Sanders Kaufman
> On Nov 7, 6:14 am, Hughbert G. Rection
>> He already did. You folks are just way too fucking stupid and ignorant
>> to
>> realize it.
>
> Not according to Rep Nathan Deal.
He's a no-name legislator from a backwater district full of hillbillies and
Klansmen.
He's just trying to impress half-wits such as yourself - and is doing a
STELLAR job of it!
Charles Bell
> http://www.ajc.com/news/rep-deal-wants-obama-188779.html
> -------------------------
>
> Rep. Deal wants Obama to prove citizenship
> By Bob Keefe
>
> The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
>
> 6:45 p.m. Friday, November 6, 2009
>
> WASHINGTON -- Republican gubernatorial candidate and U.S. Rep. Nathan
> Deal says he wants the president to prove he is an American citizen.
>
The problem with that is the Birth Certificate argument is a red
herring. Although it is true that if Obama was not born on U.S. soil
he may not be a citizen without special application, he needs to be a
natural-born citizen.to be President, and he is not regardless of the
condition that he may have been born in the U.S. by the fact that his
father was never a U.S. citizen.
Article II section 1 paragraph 5 of the U.S. Constitution states:
<< No person except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United
States, at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, shall be
eligible to the office of President; neither shall any person be
eligible to that office who shall not have attained to the age of
thirty five years, and been fourteen Years a resident within the
United States.>>
This is the Eligibility Clause defining the qualifications to hold
the office of the Presidency, and the phrase,"or a citizen at the time
of the adoption of the Constitution", within the Clause is the
Exception Phrase.
I. Why no foreigners and why the exception?
Consider a subject on which Hamilton and Jefferson, at odds over most
things, both agreed:
Thomas Jefferson:
<<Yet from such [absolute monarchies], we are to expect the greatest
number of emigrants. They will bring with them the principles of the
governments they leave, imbibed in their early youth; or if able to
throw them off, it will be in exchange for an unbounded
licentiousness, passing as is usual, from one extreme to another. It
would be a miracle were they to stop precisely at the point of
temperate liberty. Their principles with their language, they will
transmit to their children. In proportion to their numbers, they will
share with us in the legislation. They will infuse into it their
spirit, warp and bias its direction, and render it a heterogeneous,
incoherent, distracted mass.>>
("Notes on Virginia," 1782)
Alexander Hamilton:
<<The opinion advanced [by Jefferson, ] is undoubtedly correct, that
foreigners will generally be apt to bring with them attachments to the
persons they have left behind; to the country of their nativity, and
to its particular customs and manners. They will also entertain
opinions on government congenial with those under which they have
lived; or, if they should be led hither from a preference to ours, how
extremely unlikely is it that they will bring with them that temperate
love of liberty, so essential to real republicanism? There may, as to
particular individuals, and at particular times, be occasional
exceptions to these remarks, yet such is the general rule. The influx
of foreigners must, therefore, tend to produce a heterogeneous
compound; to complicate and confound public opinion; to introduce
foreign propensities. In the composition of society, the harmony of
the ingredients is all-important, and whatever tends to a discordant
intermixture must have an injurious tendency.">>
("Examinations of Jefferson's Message to Congress of December 7th,
1801," Jan. 12, 1802)
George Washington:
<<My opinion, with respect to emigration, is that except of useful
mechanics and some particular descriptions of men or professions,
there is no need of encouragement, while the policy or advantage of
its taking place in a body...may be much questioned; for, by so doing,
they retain the Language, habits, and principles (good or bad) which
they bring with them.>>
(Letter to John Adams, Nov. 15, 1794)
Alexander Hamilton suggested the following Presidential qualifications
appearing in the first draft of the Constitution:
<<No person shall be eligible to the office of President of the United
States unless he be now a Citizen of one of the States, or hereafter
be born a Citizen of the United States.>>
However, John Jay wrote in a letter to Washington:
<<Permit me to hint, whether it would be wise and seasonable to
provide a strong check to the admission of Foreigners into the
administration of our national Government; and to declare expressly
that the Commander in Chief of the American army shall not be given to
nor devolve on, any but a natural born Citizen.>>
What is the meaning of "natural born citizen"?
Benjamin Franklin in a letter to Charles W.F. Dumas, December 1775
wrote:
<< I am much obliged by the kind present you have made us of your
edition of Vattel. It came to us in good season, when the
circumstances of a rising state make it necessary frequently to
consult the /Law of Nations/. Accordingly, that copy which I kept
(after depositing one in our own public library here, and send the
other to the College of Massachusetts Bay, as you directed) has been
continually in the hands of the members of our congress, now sitting,
who are much pleased with your notes and preface, and have entertained
a high and just esteem for their author.>>
The English version of Emmerich de Vattel 1759 Laws of Nations
Chapter One, 19, section 212:
Of the Citizens and Natives. (Des Citoyens et Naturels)
<< 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. As the
society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the
children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the
condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights. The
society is supposed to desire this, in consequence of what it owes to
its own preservation; and it is presumed, as matter of course, that
each citizen, on entering into society, reserves to his children the
right of becoming members of it. The country of the fathers is
therefore that of the children; and these become true citizens merely
by their tacit consent. We shall soon see whether, on their coming to
the years of discretion, they may renounce their right, and what they
owe to the society in which they were born. I say, that, in order to
be of the country, it is necessary that a person be born of a father
who is a citizen; for, if he is born there of a foreigner, it will be
only the place of his birth, and not his country.>>
However, one must realize a mistranslation from the original French:
"Des Citoyens et Naturels": [ . . .Les Naturels, ou Indigènes, sont
ceux qui sont nés dans le pays, de Parens Citoyens . . .] "Indigènes",
or alternatively in French "originaire", is not "natives" but rather
literally in English "indigenous" as in original people over
successive generations. This was not as important then as it would
become over a century later when "native citizen" in American English
meant having been born on U.S. soil irrespective of parentage.
The Exception Phrase meant that before the time of the adoption of the
Constitution, that is before there was a United States of America, no
citizen could be a natural born citizen even though he be born on the
land that would become the U.S.A. and all such were by British law
natural-born British subjects, a condition, by English Common Law,
could not change even by individual election. The Exception Phrase
itself proves a clear distinction between a "citizen" and a "natural
born citizen."
II. Can one be a natural born citizen if not born on U.S. soil?
The first immigration act in 1790 prohibited citizenship to children
whose fathers never gave intent to permanently reside in the United
States and a Natural Born Citizen, was defined as being one “that may
be born beyond sea, or out of the limits of the United States,
provided that the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons
whose fathers have never been a resident in the United States:”
In legal terms, American, contrary to medieval English Common Law,
preference has been as much to jus sanguinis ("right by blood", by
inheritance) as to jus soli ("right by soil", by situation or
location). However, even English Common law was revised as Britain
became a colonial power and passed a law in 1677 granting natural born
citizenship to British subjects born overseas.
III. Can one be a natural born citizen if born on U.S. soil to
foreign parents? What about the Fourteenth Amendment and the Kim Wong
Ark Supreme Court decision of 1898 and and later federal case-law
history?
The principle author of the 1866 Civil Rights Act and contributor to
the 1868 Fourteenth Amendment giving rights of U.S. citizenship to
freed slaves, with the intent to overturn the 1857 Dred Scott
decision, Senator John Bingham spoke in 1866 about the rights of U.S.
citizens:
<< [I] find no fault with the introductory clause which is simply
declaratory of what is written in the Constitution, that every human
being born within the jurisdiction of the United States OF PARENTS NOT
OWING ALLEGIANCE TO ANY FOREIGN SOVEREIGNTY, in the language of your
Constitution itself, a natural born citizen… >> [emphasis added]
At issue in the United States v.Wong Kim Ark (1898):
The 1882 Chinese Exclusion Act prohibited persons of the Chinese race
from coming into the United States or becoming naturalized U.S.
citizens. Chinese immigrants already in the U.S. were allowed to stay,
but were ineligible for naturalization. The effect of this law,
unamended, would be to create a permanent and self-perpetuating class
of people living without U.S. citizenship but also possibly over
generations without access to rights afforded by the Empire of China –
virtual stateless people.
The Fourteenth Amendment states: "All persons born or naturalized in
the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are
citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside."
In the Wong decision the Supreme Court held that the phrase "subject
to the jurisdiction thereof" meant that it did not matter that the
parents of the native-born owed allegiance to a foreign power (as they
actually did) but merely that they not be employed in any diplomatic
or official capacity under a foreign power. The majority opinion held
that in this case medieval English Common law superseded the U.S.
Constitution and that the American Revolution was rather pointless to
the effect of establishing a national government independent of
Britain, and, furthermore, as claimed by the minority opinion, that
the children of citizens of the United States, who have been born
abroad since July 28, 1868, when the amendment was ratified, are
aliens, unless they had on attaining majority, become citizens by
naturalization in the United States; and no statutory provision to the
contrary could be of any force or effect.
However, the Wong decision, held that "If born in the country, [one]
is as much a citizen as the natural-born child of a citizen…" and
rather than obliterating the distinction between a "citizen" and a
"natural born citizen" it affirmed it, but added another kind of
distinction – that of the "native born citizen". These citizens and
naturalized citizens all have identical rights as citizens, but only
one kind meets the eligibility requirements in Article II, section 1,
paragraph 5, the natural born citizen --- a citizen born of citizens.
With respect to the objections of the minority in the Wong decision,
Perkins v Elg (1939) held that natural born status is conferred upon a
person born on U.S. soil by naturalized status of parents who may then
remove the child from the U.S. before her majority and attaining to
foreign citizenship through her parents' original national citizenship
(Swedish) and that through that natural born, not just native-born,
U.S. citizenship does not have to apply for citizenship after her
majority. And in the obverse, in all other situations of the various
permutations of native-born, but not natural born, citizenship, the
courts will decide individually or by a combination of Congressional
statute and judicial precedent (Mandolini v. Acheson (1952),
Longobardi v. Dulles (1953) and others) -- in short, by arbitrary
law.
IV. What about Barack Hussein Obama?
Interestingly, Obama himself, to the extent he has had others speak
for him, holds no pretensions to being a natural born citizen. He
merely claims to be a native-born citizen by right of being born in
Hawaii and the Wong Kim Ark interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment
(once stated on his FightTheSmears.Org website, but now gone). Defense
of his positions include (1) his father was already married to a
Kenyan woman when he married Obama's mother, and therefore his natural-
born status is derived from his birth in Hawaii as a bastard to a
natural born citizen and (2) there is no court decision with respect
to his status as all such cases were dismissed for lack of standing to
sue and (3) without exception, defense of Obama comes in the form of
inserting the words "natural born" in front of "citizen" in the
Fourteenth Amendment as though they were really there. See
http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/citizen.asp , for example, or
using the expression "native-born" as entirely synonymous with
"natural born" while never explaining the etymological difference.
Certainly, Kenya regarded Obama, Sr. as the legitimate father of
Obama, Jr. having conferred upon the junior Obama Kenyan citizenship
until it expired on his twenty-third birthday in 1984.
PreCog
> ceux qui sont n�s dans le pays, de Parens Citoyens . . .] "Indig�nes",
> or alternatively in French "originaire", is not "natives" but rather
> literally in English "indigenous" as in original people over
> successive generations. This was not as important then as it would
> become over a century later when "native citizen" in American English
> meant having been born on U.S. soil irrespective of parentage.
>
> The Exception Phrase meant that before the time of the adoption of the
> Constitution, that is before there was a United States of America, no
> citizen could be a natural born citizen even though he be born on the
> land that would become the U.S.A. and all such were by British law
> natural-born British subjects, a condition, by English Common Law,
> could not change even by individual election. The Exception Phrase
> itself proves a clear distinction between a "citizen" and a "natural
> born citizen."
>
> II. Can one be a natural born citizen if not born on U.S. soil?
>
> The first immigration act in 1790 prohibited citizenship to children
> whose fathers never gave intent to permanently reside in the United
> be born beyond sea, or out of the limits of the United States,
> provided that the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons
>
> In legal terms, American, contrary to medieval English Common Law,
> preference has been as much to jus sanguinis ("right by blood", by
> inheritance) as to jus soli ("right by soil", by situation or
> location). However, even English Common law was revised as Britain
> became a colonial power and passed a law in 1677 granting natural born
> citizenship to British subjects born overseas.
>
> III. Can one be a natural born citizen if born on U.S. soil to
> foreign parents? What about the Fourteenth Amendment and the Kim Wong
> Ark Supreme Court decision of 1898 and and later federal case-law
> history?
>
> The principle author of the 1866 Civil Rights Act and contributor to
> the 1868 Fourteenth Amendment giving rights of U.S. citizenship to
> freed slaves, with the intent to overturn the 1857 Dred Scott
> decision, Senator John Bingham spoke in 1866 about the rights of U.S.
> citizens:
>
> << [I] find no fault with the introductory clause which is simply
> declaratory of what is written in the Constitution, that every human
> being born within the jurisdiction of the United States OF PARENTS NOT
> OWING ALLEGIANCE TO ANY FOREIGN SOVEREIGNTY, in the language of your
>
> At issue in the United States v.Wong Kim Ark (1898):
>
> The 1882 Chinese Exclusion Act prohibited persons of the Chinese race
> from coming into the United States or becoming naturalized U.S.
> citizens. Chinese immigrants already in the U.S. were allowed to stay,
> but were ineligible for naturalization. The effect of this law,
> unamended, would be to create a permanent and self-perpetuating class
> of people living without U.S. citizenship but also possibly over
> virtual stateless people.
>
> The Fourteenth Amendment states: "All persons born or naturalized in
> the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are
> citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside."
> In the Wong decision the Supreme Court held that the phrase "subject
> to the jurisdiction thereof" meant that it did not matter that the
> parents of the native-born owed allegiance to a foreign power (as they
> actually did) but merely that they not be employed in any diplomatic
> or official capacity under a foreign power. The majority opinion held
> that in this case medieval English Common law superseded the U.S.
> Constitution and that the American Revolution was rather pointless to
> the effect of establishing a national government independent of
> Britain, and, furthermore, as claimed by the minority opinion, that
> the children of citizens of the United States, who have been born
> abroad since July 28, 1868, when the amendment was ratified, are
> aliens, unless they had on attaining majority, become citizens by
> naturalization in the United States; and no statutory provision to the
> contrary could be of any force or effect.
>
> However, the Wong decision, held that "If born in the country, [one]
> rather than obliterating the distinction between a "citizen" and a
> "natural born citizen" it affirmed it, but added another kind of
Obama Pres. is illegitimate. what have the dums done?!
Charles Bell
> Obama Pres. is illegitimate. what have the dums done?!
The question is: what will the GOP do? If they take over the Congress
in 2010 as they did in 1994, will they, by creating effective federal
government and an expanding economy, just make Obama look good enough
to run again in 2012, as they did Clinton in 1996? Or will they AT
LEAST make a show of calling into question the Constitutional
legitimacy of his Presidency ?