How Can This Guy Run For President?

[ferrous]

It would seem, that their are a few unanswered questions concerning Sen. Obama's qualifications in running for President.

One that keeps coming up and has yet to be answered is:

Is Barack Obama a natural born citizen?

[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.]

[According to the state laws in Hawaii that were in effect at the time of Obama’s birth, a child must be born to “TWO” U.S. Citizen parents (this law was in effect from “December 24, 1952 to November 13, 1986,“ which means it applies to Barack’s birth.]

[…If only one parent was a U.S. Citizen at the time of your birth, that parent must have resided in the United States for at least ten years, at least FIVE of which had to be after the age of 16.” ]

[It appears that Obama’s mother was only 18 when Obama was born, which means she was shy of the 21 years of age required by the law. In other words, she was not old enough to qualify her son for automatic U.S. Citizenship. At what point was Barack Obama Jr., son of Barack Obama Sr., recognized by the U.S. Government as an American citizen? ]

[mrroqout]

Well it would appear on the surface that he CANNOT LEGALLY run for President.

But shhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh

Don't tell this to the mainstream media...They will TOTALLY Ignore it.

OR They will call you names like "racist" for figuring it out....

LOL

[The Big Dog]

Far be it from me to jump to Barack's defense, but when Hawaii was admitted as a state, would not any territorial laws (the example was passed in 1952 when Hawaii was still a terrotory and not a state be vacated? Even though they might have remained on the books, territorial law would have been superceded by federal law concerning citizenship, which once Hawaii was admitted as a state would have been governed by the case law of US v. Wong Kim Ark which dates to the 1800's....

In the case of United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898), the Supreme Court ruled that a person who:

* is born in the United States
* of parents who, at the time of his birth, are subjects of a foreign power
* whose parents have a permanent domicile and residence in the United States
* whose parents are there carrying on business and are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity of the foreign power to which they are subject

becomes, at the time of his birth, a citizen of the United States, by virtue of the first clause of the 14th amendment of the Constitution.

Hawaii was admitted as a state on August 21, 1959. Barack was born on Hawaiian soil on August 4, 1961. His mother was a US citizen by birth and his father was legally resident alien at the time. He is, without question, a United States citizen by birth.

This is, IMHO, just as big a red herring as the stories circulated periodically by the left over the years that Senator McCain's birth in the Panama Canal Zone (in a US military hospital on a US military base to parents who were both born citizens and one of whom was an active duty member of the US Navy) some how made him not a citizen.

[ferrous]

All very well and true, if Obama was born, say in San Francisco... but he wasn't.

He was born in Hawaii, and to this day, their are standing protests by Hawaiian nationals that the United States overthrew the constitutional government of the Hawaiian Kingdom and siezed the Hawaiian Islands from the Royal Family.

hawaiiankingdom.org/us-occupation.shtml

Sorry, but United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898), might not be an accurate example to quote "jus soli" (right of soil) as to "jus sanguinis" (right of blood.)

BTW, I hope no one is taking any of this stuff seriously.

If they are, here's Barry's supposedly forged COLB

[The Big Dog]

So don't take it seriously? Or debate it? I'm now officially confused.

The birth certificate issue... now that's different. The document presented by the campaign is questionable at best. But until it can be definitively ruled a forgery and fact enters into the record that demonstrates Barack was born off American soil, he's still a citizen and eligible.

The Hawaiian nationalist movement, while interesting historically, is not germane to the law. At least not at this point.

Right of soil is, whether we like it or not, what makes the anchor babies of illegals citizens. It is well recognized and settled law. Presuming that Barack was actually born in the State of Hawaii, he is by that measure a US citizen.

[ferrous]

Although the document is supposedly a real document issued by the state of Hawaii, it appears to have been altered or modified.

In the early 60's, blacks were not referred to as Africans but as Negroes.

An original photocopy of the birth record with the mothers original signature would have ended all doubts.

As for Barack a natural citizen, if he was born on Oahu in 1961 he is a Natural Born US citizen.

The only question mudding this is why was the state law in effect until 1986?

[mrroqout]

Well Ferrous, while not taking this too seriously...

I did some other research on this, and the web is abuzz with the speculation that he was actually born in Indonesia. And that the above referenced document is in fact a forgery, people have picked that document to shreds. And none of the speculation re: The Document itself seems all that far fetched.

It's missing a signature , no embossed state seal, and the date bleeding through the back doesn't jive with when the Obama campaign says it was released.

These may seem minor inconsistencies but lacking a veifiable signature and an embossed state seal, this document wouldn't get you a drivers license at the DMV. Let alone a run at the US Presidency.

There IS definitely IMO something funny here, it may be crappy clerical work, it may be something else..

[The Big Dog]

Aug 7, 2008 8:20:02 GMT -5 ferrous said:

The only question mudding this is why was the state law in effect until 1986?

The vagrancy statute is still in the California Penal Code even though it was declared unconsititutional by the Supreme Court quite a while before I first swore in close to 30 years ago. Superceded or voided laws remain on the book until the legislative body in control of the book passes something to repeal and remove it.

The 18th Amendment is still in the Constitution, after all.