Birth Certificate: Obama's lawyer says forgery so obvious it cannot be used to deter

[M.D. Rawlings]

This is the problem, cases applied to others in different circumstances may not apply to a presidential candidate who must meet the Constitutional requirements.
There is a bill in the House that was introduced in 2009 that hopefully spells out whole process, but the bill HR1503, has been buried in the Republican dominated House. Why?

It's buried because there is no need for such a law. Under current constitutional, case and statutory law, all persons born in the U.S. and subject to the jurisdiction thereof are citizens at birth, which includes persons born of illegals. The State Department is charged with the responsibility of verifying the citizenship status and documentation of persons running for the Office of President, including those born abroad of U.S. citizens. The constitutional requirement is that they be citizens at birth. Period. The uniform rule/code of naturalization covers the specifics of citizenship acquisition. Bills like HR1503 are mere political food for the confused and redundant.

 

[washamericom]

That is a minority conclusion with no basis in law, Al.

Obama is indeed a citizen and qualified to be president under the Consitution.

That is fact.

Is that so. It comes down to the definition of what natural born means. For the first 230 years of this countries existence, it meant your father had to be an Amerian citizen. Not only does this make sense, not only is this reasonable, not only is it historially true, but any other intrepretation of this definition trivializes the concept and makes the wording of our Constitution superflous. Every word in our Constitution as great import and meaning. We all know this is true, but yet you come along and argue that these words are the exception and as you do so you toss 230 years of our nation's history into the shitter.

Come on now, let's be serious! Are you really an Amerian?

You are not the authority on this issue.

Those who are the authorities have spoken, and they do not accept your opinion.

this is rich... are you .... an authority on this subject jake ??

 

[JakeStarkey]

Not any more or less than you, wash. The difference between us is that I can clearly distinguish between fact and fiction. You can't, because you can't face the truth.

 

[washamericom]

Not any more or less than you, wash. The difference between us is that I can clearly distinguish between fact and fiction. You can't, because you can't face the truth.

the issue has been laid to rest.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Yes, it has: Obama is president, that won't change except the right way, at election time. Birferism will not sway the issue an iota.

 

[washamericom]

Yes, it has: Obama is president, that won't change except the right way, at election time. Birferism will not sway the issue an iota.

it's all but faded away jake, except for the people still talking about it. and working on it.

 

[JakeStarkey]

All three of you.

 

[washamericom]

All three of you.

google it jake

 

[JakeStarkey]

Google it, wash, and then we can all laugh at the absolute foolishness of birferism.

 

[washamericom]

it's not foolish, it's the country we're worried about. not you or obama.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

More nonsense from the black hole of ignorance.

Many of you understand?

LOL!

Who would that be?

C_Clayton_Jones with his obviously dunderheaded notion that Title 8, Sec. 1401 only applies to so-called “immigration law” and his inability to comprehend the distinction between case law and statutory law? But that’s not all. He unwittingly concedes with his citations that (1) he attributed an observation to me that I did not make and that (2) the Court, not the 14th Amendment, settled the matter, at least with regard to the offspring of legal foreign nationals.

jillian’s incessant dismissive prattle, albeit, without any substance whatsoever, no citations, no arguments? And now your nonsense, again without any substance, no citations, no arguments.

In the meantime, however, we have my scholarship, backed by reams of constitutional, case and statutory citation, history and expertise: Prufrock's Lair: Righting the Confusion of Citizenship and Nationality: The Facts, The Myths and Other Riddles

You’re post merely demonstrates that you do not know the historical order of events and legal precedents, that you are utterly unaware of the debate among legal scholars and that until 1952, Congress flatly rejected the notion that it was compelled to grant citizenship to the offspring of illegals precisely because the ratio decidendi in Wong Kim Ark did not emphatically touch on the question.

Fact! The 14th Amendment alone provided no such thing prior to Wong Kim Ark as the extant uniform rule/code of naturalization required that the father be a U.S. citizen. Obviously, the Court had to have intervened in order to have changed Congress', the State Department's and U.S. Custom's understanding of "the jurisdiction thereof".

What don't you understand about Wong Kim Ark vs. the United States nearly 30 years after the ratification of the 14th Amendment and the fact that the citizenship and nationality law of the time emphatically stated that only the offspring of U.S. citizens were "subject to the jurisdiction thereof?

ROTFLMAO!

Wong Kim Ark is the historically pivotal occurrence, not the ratification of the 14th Amendment.

Shut up!

Further, the Court, once again, did not definitively rule in ratio decidendi that the status of the offspring of illegals was protected! It left that specific question open. Even after that decision, Congress construed the decision to only apply to the offspring of U.S. citizens or foreign nationals residing in the U.S. legally. Further, the immediate issue goes to the moment of citizenship's conferral. Whether or not a person may run for the Office of President is subsequent.

There is nothing laughable about the body of scholarly opinion which holds that Congress is not prevented by case law from passing new legislation declaring that all future anchor babies are not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. There is nothing in the Constitution proper, the 14th Amendment or case law preventing Congress from enacting such a prohibition, as long as (1) it did not apply retroactively and (2) did not apply to the offspring of foreign, albeit, legal residents who are not officially engaged. You just think it’s laughable because of your political bias and one-sided reading, and your ignorance of the legal history pertaining to citizenship and nationality law.

Would such a law be challenge in the courts? Of course. Would it be overturned? Maybe. Probably. But not because the matter, as you ignorantly believe, is definitively settled, but only because the Court would probably clarify the matter in deference to alleged judicial intent relative to years of practice at the state level following on the heals of the decision prior to 1952.

What don’t you understand about the existence of the various proposals over the years?

Some critics of illegal immigration claim the United States' birthright citizenship is an incentive for illegal immigration. Politicians, lawmakers, and activists have expressed interest in altering how birthright citizenship is awarded. Legislative bills that would deny birthright citizenship to children born to illegal immigrants have been dubbed "anchor baby bills" by the news media. Some scholars believe that the Wong Kim Ark precedent does not apply when alien parents of the child are in the country illegally.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anchor_baby

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/111/hr1868

http://noamnesty.hubpages.com/hub/11-More-Signers-of-Birthright-Citizenship-Bill

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

Is that so. It comes down to the definition of what natural born means. For the first 230 years of this countries existence, it meant your father had to be an Amerian citizen. Not only does this make sense, not only is this reasonable, not only is it historially true, but any other intrepretation of this definition trivializes the concept and makes the wording of our Constitution superflous. Every word in our Constitution as great import and meaning. We all know this is true, but yet you come along and argue that these words are the exception and as you do so you toss 230 years of our nation's history into the shitter.

Come on now, let's be serious! Are you really an Amerian?

You are not the authority on this issue.

Those who are the authorities have spoken, and they do not accept your opinion.

this is rich... are you .... an authority on this subject jake ??

No, jake is not an authority, not even close; nevertheless, he is right about the birther nonsense and that under current law persons born of illegals on U.S. soil are citizens at birth and, therefore, eligible to run for the Office of President as natural-born citizens. He just doesn't know the entirety of the matter--the historical and legal whys and hows. He just pretends to and thinks that his smarmy bullshit can overthrow my unimpeachable authority, that his second-hand guess work, his shoeshine, is not obvious to this authority.

C_Clayton_Jones is another shoeshine artist of mindnumbing stupidity.

Prufrock's Lair: Righting the Confusion of Citizenship and Nationality: The Facts, The Myths and Other Riddles

 

[regent]

There is no requirement that a birth certificate be offered as evidence to meet the presidential requirements of the Constitution. In fact, birth certificates were not created by state governments for almost 100 years after the Constitution was ratified. And still another fact, no evidence is required by the Constitution or by federal law that any evidence of natural birth is required, it was an omission by the Congress and since no case has come before the Court, there is no Supreme Court decision. If this case had any significance other than to birthers it would be all over the news.
Was the word "forged" used in the case, or is that a birther thing?

 

[washamericom]

You are not the authority on this issue.

Those who are the authorities have spoken, and they do not accept your opinion.

this is rich... are you .... an authority on this subject jake ??

No, jake is not an authority, not even close; nevertheless, he is right about the birther nonsense and that under current law persons born of illegals on U.S. soil are citizens at birth and, therefore, eligible to run for the Office of President as natural-born citizens. He just doesn't know the entirety of the matter--the historical and legal whys and hows. He just pretends to and thinks that his smarmy bullshit can overthrow my unimpeachable authority, that his second-hand guess work, his shoeshine, is not obvious to this authority.

C_Clayton_Jones is another shoeshine artist of mindnumbing stupidity.

Prufrock's Lair: Righting the Confusion of Citizenship and Nationality: The Facts, The Myths and Other Riddles

jeez, no shortage of ego here.... seriously t.s. elliot ?

 

[washamericom]

There is no requirement that a birth certificate be offered as evidence to meet the presidential requirements of the Constitution. In fact, birth certificates were not created by state governments for almost 100 years after the Constitution was ratified. And still another fact, no evidence is required by the Constitution or by federal law that any evidence of natural birth is required, it was an omission by the Congress and since no case has come before the Court, there is no Supreme Court decision. If this case had any significance other than to birthers it would be all over the news.
Was the word "forged" used in the case, or is that a birther thing?

forgery.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

this is rich... are you .... an authority on this subject jake ??

No, jake is not an authority, not even close; nevertheless, he is right about the birther nonsense and that under current law persons born of illegals on U.S. soil are citizens at birth and, therefore, eligible to run for the Office of President as natural-born citizens. He just doesn't know the entirety of the matter--the historical and legal whys and hows. He just pretends to and thinks that his smarmy bullshit can overthrow my unimpeachable authority, that his second-hand guess work, his shoeshine, is not obvious to this authority.

C_Clayton_Jones is another shoeshine artist of mindnumbing stupidity.

Prufrock's Lair: Righting the Confusion of Citizenship and Nationality: The Facts, The Myths and Other Riddles

jeez, no shortage of ego here.... seriously t.s. elliot ?

No. Fact. I am an authority on the matter.

What's wrong with T. S. Elliot?

 

[washamericom]

No, jake is not an authority, not even close; nevertheless, he is right about the birther nonsense and that under current law persons born of illegals on U.S. soil are citizens at birth and, therefore, eligible to run for the Office of President as natural-born citizens. He just doesn't know the entirety of the matter--the historical and legal whys and hows. He just pretends to and thinks that his smarmy bullshit can overthrow my unimpeachable authority, that his second-hand guess work, his shoeshine, is not obvious to this authority.

C_Clayton_Jones is another shoeshine artist of mindnumbing stupidity.

Prufrock's Lair: Righting the Confusion of Citizenship and Nationality: The Facts, The Myths and Other Riddles

jeez, no shortage of ego here.... seriously t.s. elliot ?

No. Fact. I am an authority on the matter.

What's wrong with T. S. Elliot?

how come i've never heard of you, i know all the players in this caper.

is M.D. a stage name ?

nothing except i had to read love songs in high school... ezra pound... hideous. although i like stream of consciousness

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

jeez, no shortage of ego here.... seriously t.s. elliot ?

No. Fact. I am an authority on the matter.

What's wrong with T. S. Elliot?

how come i've never heard of you, i know all the players in this caper.

is M.D. a stage name ?

nothing except i had to read love songs in high school... ezra pound... hideous. although i like stream of consciousness

It's my writer's pseudonym. Michael David Rawlings: it comes off as pretentious to some, and I can see that too. But the truth is, initially, that never occurred to me, as it is in fact the names of by older brothers, Michael and David, KIA in Vietnam, a respectful tribute to them, not to me. Elliott's Love Song is a great poem. I wrote A Dirge for J. Alfred Prufrock: The Last Hurrah (See link; scroll down, left side of the margin: Prufrock's Cave), an obvious literary allusion to that work, albeit, a post-60s political and cultural critique. I like stream of consciousness too, but Ezra Pound puts me to sleep. I find him to be mind numbingly boring. As he is regarded to be a great poet, I guess I'm not sensitive enough or smart enough for him, especially the latter. Where Pound's concerned, I'm a Neanderthal.

 

[washamericom]

No. Fact. I am an authority on the matter.

What's wrong with T. S. Elliot?

how come i've never heard of you, i know all the players in this caper.

is M.D. a stage name ?

nothing except i had to read love songs in high school... ezra pound... hideous. although i like stream of consciousness

It's my writer's pseudonym. Michael David Rawlings: it comes off as pretentious to some, and I can see that too. But the truth is, initially, that never occurred to me, as it is in fact the names of by older brothers, Michael and David, KIA in Vietnam, a respectful tribute to them, not to me. Elliott's Love Song is a great poem. I wrote A Dirge for J. Alfred Prufrock: The Last Hurrah (See link; scroll down, left side of the margin: Prufrock's Cave), an obvious literary allusion to that work, albeit, a post-60s political and cultural critique. I like stream of consciousness too, but Ezra Pound puts me to sleep. I find him to be mind numbingly boring. As he is regarded to be a great poet, I guess I'm not sensitive enough or smart enough for him, especially the latter. Where Pound's concerned, I'm a Neanderthal.

that is indeed a lovely tribute, and thanks to you and your family for your great sacrifce to america. so tell me m.d., stream of consciousness notwithstanding, which way do you think this will go ?

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

I'm not sure what you mean by this. Sorry. Clarification?