'I can't spend all of my time with my birth certificate plastered on my forehead' (how much, foreign)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The Constitution clearly defines that there are 2 types of citizens through Article 2 and the 14th Amendment...
The 14th amendment defines citizens, not natural born citizens.
Bingham, father of the 14th amendment makes the meaning of natural born citizen perfectly clear:
Quote:
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 is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen; but, sir, I may be allowed to say further, that I deny that the Congress of the United States ever had the power or color of power to say that any man born within the jurisdiction of the United States, and not owing a foreign allegiance, is not and shall not be a citizen of the United States.
It is really quite simple. If the founders wished the qualification to simply be "native born citizen", as you insist, the Constitution would state such.
You are advancing a theory inconsistent with the actual writing, which spells out the qualification for president to be a person who is a "natural born citizen".
The Canal Zone was a US Possesion, that and the fact the birth took place at a military hospital makes the records available under the Freedom of Information Act (which is a federal law).
Quote:
Originally Posted by Katiana
These transcripts were "obtained".
Quote:
"For better or worse, voters have taken an interest in candidates' grades since 1999, when the New Yorker published President Bush's transcript at Yale and disclosed that he was a C student."
May I introduce you to a concept called chronological time?
Those records were obtained 1999, before the first primaries were even held and before Bush or Gore were officially nominated to represent their respective parties.
Neither Bush nor Gore had the opportunity to voluntarily release their transcripts, since someone pre-empted that opportunity for them.
Still, Clinton, Carter and Reagan (and even Bush) did voluntarily release their transcripts and did not take legal action to prevent their release. I do have an interest when someone takes legal action to block the release of their records, as that should send up "red flags" especially when that individual ran on a platform of "change" and stated repeatedly that his administration would be the most open administration ever.
And then that same president turns around and takes legal action to block the release of White House visitor logs (on the basis of, um, "national security").
Quote:
Originally Posted by Katiana
The McCain campaign has declined to release his transcript, saying that his performance at the academy can only be viewed in the context of his larger military career.
In other words, his performance at the academy sucked.
If that were true, he would not have graduated.
I'm not hung up on the "A-B-C" thing and I view "C" as average. Very few people got an "A" in the classes I taught, maybe only 5 or 6 students out of 30 to 100 (depending on the class I got saddled with).
You seem to have a problem differentiating between someone who does not release their transcripts and someone who takes legal action to ensure that they are never released.
One of those things is not like the others...
(that's the song they sing on Sesame Street)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Katiana
He didn't get a masters, he got a JD.
Yes and he was supposedly elected editor of the Harvard Law Review and yet apparently he is the first editor ever that never published anything.
This is an excerpt from a paper I presented at several symposiums:
Quote:
The United States has consistently maintained that habeas corpus does not apply to alien enemy combatants, and that the United States does not exercise sovereignty over U.S. Naval Station Guantánamo Bay, Cuba. However, U.S. federal courts have held in Haitian Ctrs. Council, 823 F. Supp. at 1042, et al, that the two-year confinement of an alien at Guantánamo established substantial connection to the United States to give rise to due process rights.
4.3 THE UNITED STATES HAS FAILED TO COMPLY WITH THE 3RD AND 4TH GENEVA CONVENTIONS.
In the ******** Letter, the United States Attorney General outlined an argument proposing that the detainees be denied the protections of the treaty because Afghanistan was a “failed state.†This argument falls short because neither Afghanistan nor the Taliban were ever on the United States State Department list of Terrorist States, Terrorist-Sponsoring States, Terrorist Organizations or Terrorist Sponsoring Organizations. Furthermore, the United States repeatedly engaged in negotiations through July 1, 2001, with the Taliban on behalf of the UNOCAL Corporation to build the CentGas oil pipeline through Afghanistan. Thus, the United States clearly recognized the Taliban as the legal government of Afghanistan, rather than a “failed state.â€
Ashcroft’s second line of reasoning is that Taliban detainees should be denied protections as “unlawful combatants.†This argument fails, because Article 5 of the 3rd Geneva Convention requires that all persons be afforded protections until such time as an evaluation by a competent authority to evaluate each individual detainee’s status. The United States failed to convene a prompt hearing to determine the status of each detainee for more than two years. Of particular importance is the distinction noted between “armed conflict†and “armed violence.†Where terrorism is concerned, humanitarian law does not apply to “armed violence.†However, “armed conflict†automatically invokes the protections of the Geneva Conventions.
Another issue involves the definitions of the two types of armed conflicts, international and internal. The conflict in Afghanistan ceased to be an international conflict on December 21, 2001, the day that Hamid Karzai became the leader of the interim government. Since al-Qaeda is not a State, its members are automatically governed by Common Article 3.
4.4 THE UNITED STATES HAS FAILED TO COMPLY WITH THE ICCPR.
Although ICCPR provides limited derogations from certain rights under the convention, the Special Rapporteur noted that the “United States has not notified any official derogation from ICCPR, as requested under article 4 (3) of the Covenant, or from any other international human rights treaty.†The ICCPR makes no distinction between “armed violence†and “armed conflict.†It is in full force and effect at all times and specifically prohibits the derogation of certain articles regardless of circumstance, including the directive that, “No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.â€
See Official Statement of the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) dated 21 July 2005 regarding “The relevance of IHL in the context of terrorism†(available at http://www.icrc.org/web/eng/siteeng0.nsf/html/terrorism-ihl-210705?OpenDocument>). Quoted in U.N. ESCOR, 62nd Session, Prov. Agenda Items 10 & 11, U. N. Doc. E/CN.4/2006/120 (2006) at p.29.
Sloss, David L., Rasul v. Bush. 124 S.Ct. 2686, The American Journal of International Law, Vol.
98, No. 4. (Oct., 2004), pp. 788-798.
U.N. ESCOR, 62nd Session, Prov. Agenda Items 10 & 11, U. N. Doc. E/CN.4/2006/120 (2006) at p.6.
ICCPR art. 4, para. 2
I'm not a lawyer, but I'm more knowledgeable than Obama is, and at least I've had things published, not to mention I worked rather diligently to get those incarcerated at Guantanamo a fair hearing in compliance with international treaties and US public laws to determine their status.
I also note that in spite of the campaign rhetoric spewed forth by the "great humanitarian and peace-maker" people are still languishing at Guantanamo. That doesn't really say much about Obama.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Katiana
So I said. We now have an all-volunteer army. I don't really know what you're getting at; of course that list of yours was a cut and paste, word for word from some stuff posted by a number of people two years ago.
Nice deflection.
Yes, I know we've had an all volunteer army since 1976, being intimately familiar with it.
I also know that all males over the age of 18 must register for Selective Service, and at the time, that included Obama.
Males born prior to December 31, 1959 are exempt from registration.
Those are federal records supposedly available under the Freedom of Information Act and the questions are:
1) Did Obama comply with the law and register?
2) If he did register, then what is his status?
3) If he is not an "A" class registrant then what documentation did he file?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Katiana
I know of no other president or candidate that ever released their full medical records. Sarah Palin certainly didn't.
Do you have some kind of fasinacition with Sarah Palin? I don't.
You claim to have been around since Nixon, yet you don't remember McGovern in 1972? Medical records have been released for years, although they have often been doctored.
This is one reason why:
Quote:
In 1992, former Massachusetts Sen. Paul Tsongas was campaigning for the Democratic presidential nomination. He said the non-Hodgkin's lymphoma he had in the 1980s was completely cured and wouldn't have any effect on his ability to lead the nation. His physicians said he was healthy enough to serve. After Tsongas dropped out of the race, he admitted that his doctors had obscured the truth when they'd declared him free of cancer. His lymphoma returned and Tsongas died in 1997 at age 55.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Katiana
So what other president released their prior schedules. What are you getting at anyway?
Again, you don't seem to be able to make the distinction between someone not releasing their records and someone taking legal action to block the release of those records.
Once again...
One of those things is not like the others...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Katiana
Some churches have some records, some don't keep such records. Some, like hospitals, toss the records after a certain length of time. Why are you so interested in his baptism record anyway, or, maybe I should ask, why was the person who wrote this e-mail so interested in this, b/c this is not an original work of yours.
That's a combination strawman/red-herring argument.
Whether it is an original work of mine is irrelevant.
What is relevant is that with few exceptions, everyone born since 1960 in the US has a birth certificate and are able to produce theirs, except Obama.
To clarify, we're talking about the original birth certificate, and by definition there can only be one original and by virtue of the fact that he was born in 1960, that original cannot be a computer generated document, since no states used computers to records births in 1960.
The fact that he is using tax payer money, instead of his own private money to take legal action to prevent the disclosure of alternative records that would reveal information similar to the information on a birth certificate should raise red flags everywhere.
Obama could also voluntarily release redacted medical records, or even redacted university records, but then if the portions redacted are related to his place of birth, then that would only exasperate the situation, wouldn't it?
Your political position is obviously clear, yet if Obama would be a Republican you would be screaming bloody murder about the fact that he hadn't made the original copy of his birth certificate available.
My political position is not so clear and you have obviously mistaken me for a Republican, and while I am an ultra-conservative, I am neither a Republican nor registered as a Republican on my voter registration form.
My only concern is that the truth is known and the laws are upheld, which should be readily apparent since I would move to the Netherlands so I could walk to the Hague every day to watch Bush's war crimes trial.
1 quote. Probably 10 seconds of thought put into it. First time he addressed the issue in 2 years. And the right is pounding their chest over how easily rattled he is and how he's not focued. Must be a slow day in the RW world.
If he is ligit, then why is he freaking out over it? Why is he rattled over nothing? He's like a 4 year old that when you walk into their bedroom and they have this look on their face of guilt, and say "I'm not doing anything wrong" as you notice the crayon in their hand, and the artwork on the wall........
Obama's LEGAL Birth Certificate was released. Just because you have a problem with Obama, does not make his birth certificate any less legal. There is nothing more to debate, it was released, it shows he was born in Honolulu, and its legal. End of story.
You are incorrect since i did go back to the hospital to find the original birth certificate. You calling me a liar does not change that. Just shows your uncivil nature.
I have no choice but to call you liar. Hospitals do not hold "original birth certificates," and they are not permitted by law to issue certified copies with any legal value. The State Department on their own website says that hospital birth certificates "are not acceptable when presented alone" for getting passports.
Secondary Evidence of U.S. Citizenship (http://travel.state.gov/passport/get/first/first_4315.html - broken link)
Perhaps you are just confused. Perhaps you are deliberately lying. But the result is the same.
He was also the editor of the Harvard Law Review and is apparently the first editor in the history of the periodical to have never published an article.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jill61
Posted Yesterday (Tuesday, August 31), 09:58 PM
First of all, editors don't generally write, they edit. That's a big, fat DUH.
Second of all, he did, in fact write an article that was published in the Review. Obama's article, which begins on page 823 of Volume 103 of the Harvard Law Review, is available in libraries and subscription-only legal databases.
So why don't you do something novel and go to the library.
The 14th amendment defines citizens, not natural born citizens.
As usual, you have either through willfulness of ignorance missed the point. The Constitution defines only two types of citizen, both of which are reflected in the 14th Amendment; naturalized and born.
There is no third.
Quote:
Originally Posted by InformedConsent
Bingham, father of the 14th amendment makes the meaning of natural born citizen perfectly clear:
Quote:
Quote:
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 is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen; but, sir, I may be allowed to say further, that I deny that the Congress of the United States ever had the power or color of power to say that any man born within the jurisdiction of the United States, and not owing a foreign allegiance, is not and shall not be a citizen of the United States.
1. Bingham did not write the citizenship clause of the 14th Amendment. That was written by Senator Jacob M. Howard.
2. Bingham was not even speaking of the 14th Amendment when he said this. He was referring to the earlier Civil Rights Act of 1866.
3. Bingham was not even born when Article 2 of the Constitution was written and ratified. He is no more an authority on the meaning of natural born citizen than Mel Gibson is.
1. McCain did not release that certificate. He has never released his certificate. This certificate was provided by the plaintiffs in the case Hollander v. McCain. It is a forgery.
2. We know it is a forgery primarily because it says that it is issued by The Panama Canal Commission. But it also says that he was born in Colon, Panama. Colon was never in the Panama Canal Zone, and McCain was not born there.
3. McCain was born in the Coco Solo Naval Hospital. It was not in Colon.
Quote:
The Canal Zone was a US Possesion, that and the fact the birth took place at a military hospital makes the records available under the Freedom of Information Act (which is a federal law).
Wrong. Birth records from military hospitals are not available under the FOIA. You really have to stop mking stuff up.
Quote:
Neither Bush nor Gore had the opportunity to voluntarily release their transcripts, since someone pre-empted that opportunity for them.
I will take that as a complete concession that neither Bush nor Kerry voluntarily released their school transcripts.
Thanks for playing. Try again.
Quote:
Still, Clinton, Carter and Reagan (and even Bush) did voluntarily release their transcripts and did not take legal action to prevent their release.
Prove it. Show us where they released their college transcripts.
Quote:
Yes and he was supposedly elected editor of the Harvard Law Review and yet apparently he is the first editor ever that never published anything.
This has already been exposed as a lie. Obama did publish at least one article in the review. You have already been pointed to the exact pages.
Quote:
Those are federal records supposedly available under the Freedom of Information Act and the questions are:
1) Did Obama comply with the law and register?
2) If he did register, then what is his status?
3) If he is not an "A" class registrant then what documentation did he file?
And they were accessed and released via an FOIA request in November of 2008. How can you not know this? It sent you Birthers into a tizzy for months.
If he is ligit, then why is he freaking out over it?
You must not have watched the interview. If that's what you call a "freak out" you must live your life on Quaalude.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
