To Birther or Not To Birther, That is the Question


Recommended Posts

Well, Obama is probably better than the last Bush who fueled his foreign policy respecting the Middle East if not elsewhere with his fanatical born-again religious beliefs. They've become co-complicit on spending, but Bush got it all going big-time--that and Barney Frank and Alan Greenspan = the economic disaster falling down on our shoulders in slow motion going on four years now. The big war is yet to come. When it does, I'd bet now it will be under a Republican Administration.

--Brant

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 165
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

I am not going to do a screenshot, but I will mention something.

Corsi's book, which is set for release on May 17, 2011, has hit No. 2 in Amazon sales.

This thing isn't going to go away until the bottom is reached.

I think it has passed the tipping point.

If Obama is playing poker with this, he better do a good job of timing and form and what he says when he releases the document, otherwise I believe the result will surprise him.

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

(5) that any hare-brained fantasy harbored by anyone else who opposes Barack Obama is reason for hope and will likely topple the evil Obama so that he may be replaced by someone significantly less evil (see points 3 and 4, above).

With Clinton we had Whitewater, Vince Foster, Gennifer Flowers, the one with the huge nose, and finally Monica. GWB had the “stolen election”, his military career, and his alcohol/drug history. There’s always something for the partisans of either losing party to latch onto and blow hot air over.

One thing I’d like to add here, if there was anything to the birther story, Hillary Clinton’s goons would have dug it out during the primary. Q.E.D.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

(5) that any hare-brained fantasy harbored by anyone else who opposes Barack Obama is reason for hope and will likely topple the evil Obama so that he may be replaced by someone significantly less evil (see points 3 and 4, above).

With Clinton we had Whitewater, Vince Foster, Gennifer Flowers, the one with the huge nose, and finally Monica. GWB had the "stolen election", his military career, and his alcohol/drug history. There's always something for the partisans of either losing party to latch onto and blow hot air over.

One thing I'd like to add here, if there was anything to the birther story, Hillary Clinton's goons would have dug it out during the primary. Q.E.D.

A voice of sanity!

JR

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If Obama is playing poker with this, he better do a good job of timing and form and what he says when he releases the document, otherwise I believe the result will surprise him.

I don't get a vote, and I have no influence whatsoever on anyone else's vote, but . . . "the document."

Can anyone who has done his or her research tell us what "the document" is?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If Obama is playing poker with this, he better do a good job of timing and form and what he says when he releases the document, otherwise I believe the result will surprise him.

I don't get a vote, and I have no influence whatsoever on anyone else's vote, but . . . "the document."

Can anyone who has done his or her research tell us what "the document" is?

William:

It is the long form birth certificate which is different from the Certificate of Live Birth which is merely "called in by a relative or other individual."

Folks:

The "natural born citizen" section of the US Constitution is not clear, like a number of other small sections which is why the amendment process exists. Hell, the VP used to be the second vote getter in the electoral college which inherently led to split administrations.

Can you imagine President Lydon Baines Johnson as President and Barry Goldwater as Vice President?

Or Reagan as President and Carter as Vice President?

Its intent was to insure that a President would not owe his loyalties to another nation state.

As far as I am concerned, his mother was an American citizen and therefore he is also one being born from her.

This is why I cannot understand why O'biwan has spent over two (2) million dollars in legal costs to prevent the release of this "document."

The document that ND posted is the certificate of live birth which is testimonial in nature and is not the certifiable birth certificate which, for example, I had to get at the Board of Health in NYC which certifies that the "name and birth facts," such as the attending physician, height, weight, hospital, time etc, are "on file in the Office of Vital Records, Department of Health and Mental Hygiene, City of New York."

It is called: THE CITY OF NEW YORK

VITAL RECORDS CERTIFICATE

Just does not make sense.

Now, his Social Security No. which purports to come from Connecticut is being challenged because allegedly neither he nor his father had any connection to Connecticut in the 1970's when the SS number was acquired.

I will say that it is unusual that his college and law school grades and records have been kept from the public.

The weight of all this secrecy can do nothing but increase suspicion in our conspiracy laden world.

Sad.

This was my post #19 of this thread - in honor of Phil, I did not use the quote function!

Edited by Selene
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't get a vote, and I have no influence whatsoever on anyone else's vote, but . . . "the document."

Can anyone who has done his or her research tell us what "the document" is?

It is the long form birth certificate which is different from the Certificate of Live Birth which is merely "called in by a relative or other individual."

[ . . . ]

The document that ND posted is the certificate of live birth which is testimonial in nature and is not the certifiable birth certificate

This is quite curious, and I am curious. Where did the 'Certificate of Live Birth' come from? why is it not 'certifiable'? Certifiable by whom? -- or rather certifiable in what way?

And . . . where did this quote 'called in by a relative or other individual' come from? Correct me if I am wrong, but can I call in somewhere (Hawaii?) and get Obama's 'Certificate of Live Birth'?

Is the 'Certificate of Live Birth' useful for anything?

-- I ask this because when I first got my passport I had to send in a fresh Birth Certificate. I forget if I had to send in any other certification (i.e., parent's birth certificates). But that birth certificate (the one in my wallet) is card-sized, and has no information about the Doctor, Hospital, etcetera (who would care?).

Someone who knows, and who has done the research can perhaps explain this 'long form' and 'non-certified' call-in certificate in clearer detail.

Sorry to be so dense -- I haven't paid any attention to this issue before.

Will I find out something from Hawaii's equivalent of Vital Statistics?

(one other peculiar item I came across in listening to Trump was his suggestion that his investigators might find out Obama was a Muslim by some mysterious means -- meaning born a Muslim. That did not make any sense whatsoever to me. I was apparently christened in an Anglican Church, which presumably would mean someone could call me an Anglican. But nobody asked me my religion at age 6 months. I don't like the idea of being assigned a religion or being 'born' into a religion and considered a baby Anglican before I could speak or walk. That part of Trump's talk didn't make sense, so I supposed neither did the rest of it. But now I am intrigued.

Also, I thought 'natural born' is fairly well understood in common-law [as opposed to naturalized/adopted]. Isn't there any jurisprudence in America that has settled this?)

Edited by william.scherk
Link to comment
Share on other sites

William,

To make a long story short, there's a public records vault over in Hawaii that claims it has the original birth certificate of Obama, but nobody can request it but Obama.

So they issued the equivalent of a receipt instead and said, "Trust us."

Also, they presented some newspaper clippings that came out about a week or so after he was born.

So far, Obama has refused to request the original document and has spent gobs and gobs in legal fees to keep others from doing so.

Smells fishy to many folks.

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There's a Snopes page on this. This makes me think of the Richard Gere gerbil story, how much energy should he put into denying it? OTOH, ignoring it serves to keep the right wing fringe occupied with something that makes them look ridiculous. Obama has played this one well.

http://www.snopes.co...certificate.asp

Here is more info from this thread.

birth.jpg

Edited by Selene
Link to comment
Share on other sites

To make a long story short, there's a public records vault over in Hawaii that claims it has the original birth certificate of Obama, but nobody can request it but Obama.

So they issued the equivalent of a receipt instead and said, "Trust us."

This confuses me even more. So there is a public records vault in Hawaii (I will look it up and see if I can find something like what you mean -- it could possibly be what we in British Columbia call Vital Statistics) run by . . . I guess, the state of Hawaii.

But this part -- 'they issued the equivalent of a receipt' -- they meaning The Vault? Is this the thing that Adam said was 'not the certifiable birth certificate' that ND posted (and where did ND post this non-certifiable birth certificate?)?

What is wrong with your system that The Vault releases a 'non-certifiable birth certificate' or 'equivalent of a receipt'? The Vault released something, but to whom?

Hopelessly confused.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To make a long story short, there's a public records vault over in Hawaii that claims it has the original birth certificate of Obama, but nobody can request it but Obama.

So they issued the equivalent of a receipt instead and said, "Trust us."

This confuses me even more. So there is a public records vault in Hawaii (I will look it up and see if I can find something like what you mean -- it could possibly be what we in British Columbia call Vital Statistics) run by . . . I guess, the state of Hawaii.

But this part -- 'they issued the equivalent of a receipt' -- they meaning The Vault? Is this the thing that Adam said was 'not the certifiable birth certificate' that ND posted (and where did ND post this non-certifiable birth certificate?)?

What is wrong with your system that The Vault releases a 'non-certifiable birth certificate' or 'equivalent of a receipt'? The Vault released something, but to whom?

Hopelessly confused.

William:

You should be able to see it in my edited post #86 - agh I have caught the Phil disease!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

(and where did ND post this non-certifiable birth certificate?)?

Follow the link to the Snopes article. I didn't post it, I linked to it.

Hmmmm. The page says "Claim: A Certification of Live Birth document provided by the Obama campaign is a forgery."

So . . . the Obama campaign provided a Certification of Live Birth in 2008. And some folks say it was a forgery? Yikes.

Adams says this Certification of Live Birth is a 'non certifiable birth certificate' and Michael says this is 'the equivalent of a receipt.'

Ah, I see we have a copy of this non-certifiable certification.

Hmmm. It has a state seal (certification?) and it lists more information than is on my frigging birth certificate and it says at the bottom: 'this copy serves as prima facie evidence of the fact of birth in any court proceedings.'

That is good enough for me. This is a certificate of (live) birth from the state of Hawaii that can serve as prima facie evidence of the fact of birth.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What, exactly, is this earnest effort to prove a negative supposed to achieve?

That Obama, for good or ill, was born, to an American mother and from all hithero-produced evidence, in the United States, is incontestable. Beyond the shadow of a doubt, in the mind of any doubter, is Donald Rumsfeld territory, he has still not denied his extraterrestrial cannibalistic origin.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is a long form birth certificate which is the document that these folks are seeking which are:

Long forms, or specialized photocopies (or book copies), are faithful photocopies of the inventive birth record that was geared up by the hospital or attending physician at the point in time of the child's birth. The long form more often than not includes parents' information (address of habitation, race, birth place, day of birth, etc.), additional in sequence on the child's place of birth, and in sequence on the doctors that gave a hand in the birth of the youngster. The long form also more often than not includes the signature of the medical doctor caught up and at smallest amount one of the parents.

In the U.S., the U.S. nationwide Center for Health Statistics generates average forms that are not compulsory for long form birth official document use. On the other hand, states are free to generate their own form and likely to have possession of forms. These "forms" are accomplished by the assistant at birth or a hospital superintendent, which are then forwarded to a restricted or state registrar, who stores the documentation and subjects certified copies when apply for.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

William,

The Wikipedia article is a good overview so far: Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories.

I took the following PD images from there. Here is what a 1961 birth certificate looks like:

1961-Birth-Certificate-Hawaii.jpg

Here is the "receipt"-like certificate I mentioned that is being presented for Obama:

Barack-Obama-Birth-Certificate-Hawaii-short.jpg

I would need to check the laws to be sure, but the second does not carry the full weight of legitimacy as the first. It is, in essence, a receipt or declaration that the first is on file--but without formally calling it that. The second is basically a computer print-out of some data that has been entered into the system with no signatures and scant information.

Note that the first is called "Certificate" and the second is called "Certification." (yawn...) If you want to start nit-picking like the blue-blooded birthers do, or rationalize this stuff like the blue-blooded Obama supporters do, you can find all kinds of details, theories, opinions, explanations, speculations, whatever. For me, the lack of signature and how the law treats these two documents are the things that matter.

Here's a quote from the Wikipedia article I linked to that might help explain:

Official response

The director of Hawaii's Department of Health, Chiyome Fukino, issued a statement confirming that the state held Obama's "original birth certificate on record in accordance with state policies and procedures".[16][17] Noting "there have been numerous requests for Sen. Barack Hussein Obama's official birth certificate", Fukino explained that the department was prohibited by state law from releasing it to "persons who do not have a tangible interest in the vital record." She stated: "No state official, including Gov. Linda Lingle, has ever instructed that this vital record be handled in a manner different from any other vital record in the possession of the State of Hawaii."[16][38][39] According to CNN's researchers, the original birth certificate no longer exists, as Hawaii discarded all paper birth records in 2001, and the certification of live birth is the official copy.[40]

Contradicting CNN, Janice Okubo, public information officer for the Hawaii DOH, said "We don't destroy vital records."[41] The Health Department's director emphasized the assertion:

I, Dr. Chiyome Fukino, director of the Hawai'i State Department of Health, have seen the original vital records maintained on file by the Hawai'i State Department of Health verifying Barack Hussein Obama was born in Hawai'i 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.
[42]
[41]

Hope that helps.

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In an attempt to point out, once and for all, that it is not the place of birth which matters, I not at all humbly submit this:

<<<"Vattel’s Influence on the term a Natural Born Citizen

What is a natural born citizen? Where did the framers come up with this term? Where was it used before? So many questions, and the answers are right there if anyone wishes to search out the truth.

The term Natural born Citizen appears in our Constitution, in Article 1, Section 2, with these words, “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.”

Before the Constitution the closest reference we have to Natural Born Citizen is from the legal treatise “the Law of Nations,” written by Emerich de Vattel in 1758. In book one chapter 19,

§ 212. Of the 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. 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.”

"Please note that the correct title of Vattel's Book I, Chapter 19, section 212, is “Of the citizens and naturals”. It is not “Of citizens and natives” as it was originally translated into English. While other translation errors were corrected in reprints, that 1759 translation error was never corrected in reprints. The error was made by translators in London operating under English law, and was mis-translated in error, or was possibly translated to suit their needs to convey a different meaning to Vattel to the English only reader. In French, as a noun, native is rendered as “originaire” or “indigene”, not as “naturel”. For “naturel” to mean native would need to be used as an adjective. In fact when Vattel defines "natural born citizens" in the second sentence of section 212 after defining general or ordinary citizens in the first sentence, you see that he uses the word "indigenes" for natives along with "Les naturels" in that sentence. He used the word "naturels" to emphasize clearly who he was defining as those who were born in the country of two citizens of the country. Also, when we read Vattel, we must understand that Vattel's use of the word "natives" in 1758 is not to be read with modern day various alternative usages of that word. You must read it in the full context of sentence 2 of section 212 to fully understand what Vattel was defining from natural law, i.e., natural born citizenship of a country. Please see the photograph of the original French for Chapter 19, Section 212, here in the original French if you have any doubts. Please do not simply look at the title as some have suggested that is all you need to do. Vattel makes it quite clear he is not speaking of natives in this context as someone simply born in a country, but of natural born citizens, those born in the country of two citizens of the country. Our founding Fathers were men of high intellectual abilities, many were conversant in French, the diplomatic language of that time period. Benjamin Franklin had ordered 3 copies of the French Edition of “Le droit des gens,” which the deferred to as the authoritative version as to what Vattel wrote and what Vattel meant and intended to elucidate.".

If not Vattel, then where did they arrive at this term. Many of those who ridicule us like to quote Blackstone as authoritative that the United States adopted English Common Law. They like to state that Blackstone’s natural born subject is equivalent of a natural born citizen. There is no doubt that the Founding Father’s were influenced from Blackstone’s Commentary. However, the Framers of the Constitution recognized that it was Blackstone, who argued that the Parliament and King could change the constitution at will. Blackstone was increasingly recognized by the Americans as a proponent of arbitrary power. In fact, the framers rejected the notion that the United States was under English Common Law, “The common law of England is not the common law of these States.” George Mason one of Virginia’s delegates to the Constitutional Convention.

As to what is a natural born subject, Blackstone went on to say that any person, freeman or alien, except those of diplomats who were born in the realm of the King of England was a natural born subject. There is a problem with a simple substitution of citizen in place of subject, that some people think are synonymous. In England, not all natural born subjects of the Crown can become the King. This is reserved for a very small subset of natural born subjects called the royalty. This is drastically dissimilar to the American concept that any Natural Born Citizen can become President. Under Blackstone’s subjects only a very, very small subset of Natural Born Subjects could rise to be King, the American Presidency is drawn from the largest class of citizens, the natural born. Like the analogy of a field of clover, the Founding Fathers were not looking for that elusive genetic mutation of a four-leaf clover, they were looking for the common, naturally occurring three-leaf clover to be President.

But Blackstone is confusing on this issue. Blackstone also writes, “To encourage also foreign commerce, it was enacted by statute 25 Edw. III. st. 2. that all children born abroad, provided both their parents were at the time of the birth in allegiance to the king, and the mother had passed the seas by her husband’s consent, might inherit as if born in England: and accordingly it hath been so adjudged in behalf of merchants. But by several more modern statutes these restrictions are still farther taken off: so that all children, born out of the king’s ligeance, whose fathers were natural-born subjects, are now natural-born subjects themselves, to all intents and purposes, without any exception; unless their said fathers were attainted, or banished beyond sea, for high treason; or were then in the service of a prince at enmity with Great Britain.” This use of Blackstone gave Great Britain claim over US Citizens, which lead to the war of 1812, when Britain went about impressing American sailors into their navy because English law did not recognize the right of our Founding Father’s naturalizing themselves into our new country. “Once an Englishman, always an Englishman,” was the reason the British used to impress our citizens into service for the Crown. This law and concept of claim to the subjects to the Crown, regardless of place of birth is still in effect in Great Britain, and had the effect of Congress passing a law that required all the officers and three fourths of the seamen on a ship of the United States be natural born citizens. (Journal of the House of Representatives of the United States, February 9, 1813) Further, the Crown passed a law that made it treason for former British subjects, even though they were now American citizens to participate on the side of America during the war of 1812. (Journal of the Senate of the United States of America, February 23, 1813) to If the Founding Fathers accepted Blackstone’s definition of a natural born subject, then impressments of American-British citizens into the Royal Navy would not have been a casus belli, for the War of 1812. The fact that Madison included the impressments of American Citizens as a reason for a state of War clearly indicates that they rejected Blackstone’s definition of a natural-born subject.

John Jay’s letter to Washington address this dual and permanent loyalty to England that Blackstone introduces. To George Washington, President of the Constitutional Convention, Jay writes “Permit me to hint whether it would not 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 command in chief of the American army shall not be given to, nor devolve on any but a natural born citizen.” Jay not only knew of Vattel, , as can be seen from his correspondence with James Madison in 1780 during treaty negotiations with Spain, but he was also a proponent of Vattel as well.

What further discredits Blackstone as being the author of the Natural Born Citizen clause, is the first immigration act passed by our First Congress in 1790. In chapter III we find direct references to Vattel’s assertion that citizenship is derived from the father, in that citizenship was prohibited to children whose fathers have never gave intent to permanently reside of the Untied States. Interestingly in this same act, we also find the clarification of a Natural Born Citizen, as being one “And the children of citizens of the United States, that may be born beyond sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born citizens: Provided, That the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been a resident in the United States:” Residency was defined in that same act as someone under oath declaring that they wished to remain and live in the Untied States. It should be noted that the Supreme Court was tasked with defining several phrases in this law, and since Jay was the first Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, and had reviewed the immigration law of 1790. If Jay was in favor of Blackstone’s definition, he remained silent.

To add further proof to the intent of the Founding Fathers literal meaning of Vattel’s definition of a natural born citizen being born of two citizens, and in the country itself, and wanting a natural born citizen having no other claim to his loyalty except that of the United States of America, in 1795 the Congress amended the Naturalization Act of 1790. The Naturalization Act of 1795, which was also signed by George Washington, recognized Blackstone’s commentaries on English Common Law, making children born overseas in the lands under British rule, British Subjects. Even if their parents were American. This act removed the words natural born from children born overseas of American parents, so that no other potentate could lay claim to this person, and thus establish “a presence of influence” in the Executive Branch. It was the intent of our Founding Fathers to “naturalize at birth” these children, but not give them the status “natural born citizens.” Also in this act of 1795, we see the importance of complete allegiance to the United States for all people naturalized, as this is the first appearance of the oath of allegiance “to renounce forever all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty whereof such alien may at that time be a citizen or subject.” This oath is still in effect today.

If it was not Blackstone who they relied on for defining the term Natural Born Citizen, then the only remaining source is from Vattel. Many of these detractors say we are reaching to extremes to use Vattel, as the source of a Natural Born Citizen clause. Some of there arguments are that the Law of Nations is a obscure mention to an idea, found in Article I, Section 8. What they fail to mention that this phrase is capitalized, if it was an inference to a general idea, it would not have been capitalized. School children know well the rules of capitalization, and the use of the capitalized Law of Nations would indeed make it uses consistent with a title of a publication. Let us take this and consider if indeed Vattel was a source of inspiration for the Founding Fathers and the Framers of our Constitution. The question we need to understand is were the founding fathers truly influenced by Vattel, or not.

The answer to this lies with none other than Thomas Jefferson, who penned Virginia’s Citizenship statue in 1779, “Be it enacted by the General Assembly, that all white persons born within the territory of this commonwealth and all who have resided therein two years next before the passing of this act, and all who shall hereafter migrate into the same; and shall before any court of record give satisfactory proof by their own oath or affirmation, that they intend to reside therein, and moreover shall give assurance of fidelity to the commonwealth; and all infants wheresoever born, whose father, if living, or otherwise, whose mother was, a citizen at the time of their birth, or who migrate hither, their father, if living, or otherwise their mother becoming a citizen, or who migrate hither without father or mother, shall be deemed citizens of this commonwealth, until they relinquish that character in manner as herein after expressed: And all others not being citizens of any the United States of America, shall be deemed aliens.” As can be seen Jefferson is equating citizenship of the child to that of the parents, and not the land.

For further proof on the question of Vattel’s influence we only need to look at Benjamin Franklin. In 1775, he observed, the importance of the Law of Nations, on the Founding Fathers and he then ordered 3 copies of the latest editions. The Library Company of Philadelphia which holds one of the three copies, lists the 1775 reference to this book, as “Le droit des gens,” from the publishing house of Chez E. van Harrevelt in Amsterdam, Holland, with a personal note to Franklin from the editor of this edition, C.G.F. Dumas. The fact that this particular volume that Franklin ordered is in French is significant, for at that time French was considered by the “family of nations” to be the diplomatic language, and the 1775 edition was considered the most exact reference of Vattel’s Law of Nations.

There is no doubt that the Founding Fathers did not exclusively use the English translation, but relied upon the French original. On December 9th of 1775, Franklin wrote to Vattel’s editor, C.G.F. Dumas, “ 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. has been continually in the hands of the members of our congress, now sitting. Accordingly, that copy which I kept 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.”

Samuel Adams in 1772 wrote, “Vattel tells us plainly and without hesitation, that `the supreme legislative cannot change the constitution” Then in 1773 during a debate with the Colonial Governor of Massachusetts, John Adams quoted Vattel that the parliament does not have the power to change the constitution. John Adams as so taken by the clear logic of Vattel that he wrote in his diary, "The Idea of M. de Vattel indeed, scowling and frowning, haunted me.” These arguments were what inspired the clause that dictates how the Constitution is amended. The Framers left no doubt as to who had the right to amend the constitution, the Nation, (that is the individual States and the people) or Legislature (which is the federal government.)

In the Federalist Papers number 78, Alexander Hamilton also echoed Vattel, and both of the Adams, when he wrote, "fundamental principle of republican government, which admits the right of the people to alter or abolish the established Constitution, whenever they find it inconsistent with their happiness." Then in 1784 Hamilton arguing for the defense in the case of Rutgers v. Waddington extensively used Vattel, quoting prolifically from the Law of Nations. The Judge James Duane in his ruling described the importance of the new republic abiding by the Law of Nations, and explained that the standard for the court would be Vattel. He ruled that the Statues passed under the color of English Common Law, must be interpreted from the standpoint of its consistency with the law of nations. This concept of Vattel lead to the creation of the Judiciary branch of our government to insure that Congress could never legislate away the provisions of the Constitution.

In 1794, then President Washington was faced with the first threat to his Neutrality Proclamation of that same year by the Ambassador of France, Citizen Edmond-Charles Genêt to honor their treaty and support France’s wars with England and Spain. In a very rare agreement both Jefferson and Hamilton using Vattel’s Law of Nations they were able to give Washington the international legitimacy not to commit the United States to war in 1793. Genêt wrote to Washington, “you bring forward aphorisms of Vattel, to justify or excuse infractions committed on positive treaties.”

At this point there can be little doubt that the Framers of our Constitution considered both Blackstone and Vattel, and they choose Vattel over Blackstone. The Founding Fathers placed into Constitutional concept that the loyalty of a Natural Born Citizen is a loyalty can never be claimed by any foreign political power. The only political power that can exclusively claim the loyalty of a natural born citizen is that power that governs of his birth. Vattel by including the parents and place removes all doubt as to where the loyalties of the natural born citizen ought to lie, as Vattel’s definition removes all claims of another foreign power by blood or by soil, and is the only definition that is in accord with Jay’s letter to Washington.

">>>

And here, tucked in at the end, so as not to prejudice the reader at the start, is the link to the source of the above:http://www.birthers.org/USC/Vattel.html

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To make a long story short, there's a public records vault over in Hawaii that claims it has the original birth certificate of Obama, but nobody can request it but Obama.

So they issued the equivalent of a receipt instead and said, "Trust us."

WSS,

Yup, that's how things are often done in the United States.

To take a different example, under the laws of many of the states (Texas, for example), death certificates are kept by the state or by the county, and only certain persons (typically, members of the immediate family) are allowed to see them or obtain official copies of them.

So there is almost certainly a piece of paper pertaining to Barack Hussein Obama that looks a lot like the California birth certificate from the same era that is displayed on Wikipedia, not like the "Certificate of Live Birth" also displayed there, and that only Barack Hussein Obama and certain Hawai'i state officials are allowed to see.

The state of Hawai'i is acting according to its laws by showing just the receipt to persons other than Barack Hussein Obama.

But Barack Hussein Obama is allowed to obtain an official copy of the actual certificate (if he hasn't done so already).

And he, in turn, can show the copy to anybody he wants to show it to.

For whatever reason, he doesn't want to show it to anyone else.

What's on the original birth certificate may be utterly unremarkable.

I continue to think that Obama expects to derive political advantage from his opponents demanding to see the birth certificate and his not producing it.

Robert Campbell

Link to comment
Share on other sites

GG,

Thank you for the tutorial on Vattel.

It appears to follow that in 1790 or 1795 the answer to a question about a child born in the United States, whose parents were born in the United States but were also slaves, was:

(1) this child is not a citizen of the United States, because slaves are non-citizens;

(2) therefore, this child is not a natural born citizen.

Since the 14th Amendment, a child born in the United States to parents who were slaves has had to be considered a citizen.

The 14th Amerndment didn't revisit the "natural born" part, though.

Robert Campbell

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The 14th Amerndment didn't revisit the "natural born" part, though.

Robert Campbell

At the time the 14th was passed it probably never occurred to anyone that a person of melanin would ever become POTUS.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Christianity Lite has just weighed in using the same tone of voice I believe normal everyday folks are using about Obama's birth certificate.

Rev. Franklin Graham in an interview with Christiane Amanpour responded to a question with an answer I am sure did not agree with her. (You can almost see her smirk as she asked it.)

He can solve this whole birth certificate issue pretty quickly...

I was born in a hospital in Nashville, North Carolina, and I know that my records are there. You can probably even go and find out what room my mother was in when I was born.

I don't know why he can't produce that.

So, I don't know, but it looks like an issue he could answer pretty quickly.

Here's the video:

<iframe title="YouTube video player" width="480" height="390" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/xHO6NwsLFKQ?rel=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Looking at this from a persuasion technique angle, the issue here is trust.

Let's suppose there is no problem at all with the birth certificate (which is what I find most probable). The only reason I can fathom for why Obama will not produce the birth certificate is that he is waiting for more and more of his political opponents (especially Republicans) to jump on the bandwagon, then in a dramatic flair:

Ta-daa!

He produces it.

The intention of that would be to discredit his opponents. Obama would be relying on using that moment to point to when he starts pulling the trust trigger. ("I am dependable. They are not. Look at the mess they made with a simple birth certificate!")

If it happens this way, I believe the effect will be the opposite. A persuasion trigger only works if people are not aware of the fact that they are being manipulated. Once they become aware of it, the effect usually fizzles and--more often than not--people get mad.

The only way that game can work in Obama's favor is if he keeps his press corps on a solid message of calling those who harbor doubts as conspiracy nuts, redneck no-nothings, deluded people, and so on. But the message has to stick.

It's already tough enough sticking to Donald Trump. Basically, they are varying this a bit in his case--they are saying this is a publicity stunt, vanity issue, etc., since the idea of "uninformed right-wing sheeple idiot" does not stick to him because of his solid business achievements. That's not a perfect situation, but if Trump doesn't come through with a smoking gun of sorts, it could work.

It's exponentially tougher to get a negative spin on someone like Rev. Franklin Graham since he is so widely beloved by the majority of Americans. (I know he's not beloved here in O-Land, but out there, he is deep in the hearts of almost everyone in a very tender manner.) Once Obama stonewalls him, normal everyday folks will start taking a harder look at Obama and start asking themselves, "Is he playing us even on a simple document?"

Once that question gets asked in earnest by a large number of people, his beleaguered credibility gets shot to pieces so badly that when he finally plays his trump card (no pun intended :) ) and produces his ta-daa! moment, people are going to be very angry. I believe the reaction to the "I am dependable!" attack is going to be "Yeah, right! Who can trust anything you say or do?"

I expect other "pillar of society" type public figures are going to follow suit with what Graham just did.

It's growing.

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The only way that game can work in Obama's favor is if he keeps his press corps on a solid message of calling those who harbor doubts as conspiracy nuts, redneck no-nothings, deluded people, and so on. But the message has to stick.

It's already tough enough sticking to Donald Trump. Basically, they are varying this a bit in his case--they are saying this is a publicity stunt, vanity issue, etc., since the idea of "uninformed right-wing sheeple idiot" does not stick to him because of his solid business achievements.

I'm sure you are aware that some say Trump has no solid business achievements - that it's all smoke, mirrors, hot air, and debt.

As to your delusions about the people of America rising up in wrath at Obama because they realize he's manipulating them - dream on. I expect to see that when I see Godzilla walking through the streets of Manhattan.

JR

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No one has yet rebutted the Certification of Live Birth, and its prima facie evidence that your President was born where his folks said he was born, that the state of Hawaii said, yup, he was born where his folks said he was born. After four years the claims of the birthers have proliferated and but gained no more support. Yes, Republicans by a plurality continue to 'have doubts' -- but the numbers haven't budged over last year or the year before. Donald Trump has had no effect on the stated beliefs.

No political demand nor demand of law forces Obama to do anything but what he has done, produce certification. In no state or province of our two countries is a person required to do more than your President has done. The facts haven't changed, although the political hoopla ebbs and flows. Where it matters, in terms of votes and support, Obama has a much larger plate of worms to deal with, from recession to debt to war to political calculations. If the birther rhetoric rises -- he chuckles, since he probably believes as do I that no political glory attaches to birther campaigns. A Presidential mien, a chuckle, a renomination, a ballot . . . he knows what is coming his way. How did he get on the ballots for 2008? By battling the first wave of birthers?

I tried to imagine what convinced Barack Obama that he was born American. His folks and family stories told gave him his birth details first off, and when it came time for him to get papered up, his American passport, where the US government told him he was born in the USA in 1961.

I imagine that convinced Obama, and that he has no interest in seeing the file-copy of his birth, or the associated attestations. He is convinced. I don't imagine that anything crosses his desk that even vaguely troubles his sense of citizenship and responsibility.

For me, this issue is a sniff test.

I catch a 'truther' cachet, a whiff of kookiepants and crank in Trump and Corsi and their ilk on this issue.

As for allusions to trust and persuasion and manipulation, and a beloved Franklin, a rising tide of anger, this is a pot of beans -- Franklin speaks for himself, he is a crank on the subject of Muslimobama already. He did not inherit the slightly queasy respect given to his father. Here's what was on his mind a year ago:

"I think the president's problem is that he was born a Muslim, his father was a Muslim. The seed of Islam is passed through the father like the seed of Judaism is passed through the mother. He was born a Muslim, his father gave him an Islamic name."

Ick.

Edited by william.scherk
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now