Constitutional Lawyer Herb Titus: "Born In Hawaii Doesn't Make Obama Natural Born"

Agreed. They are too uneducated to respond to his specific statements regarding the 14th and why "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof '' is not enough to confer natural born citizen status to a individual that Article 2 Section 1 calls for. Nowhere in the 14th is Natural Born Citizen discussed nor are those words mentioned in its text. There is a reason and Titus explains it.

 

And he is wrong....

 

Thanks for adding........nothing.

 

Why? Please explain.

 

Oh yes thats right, the rapture that is happening next week or something. And this is the guy Apuzzo cites as his end-all be-all evidence? LOLOLOLOL

 

His argument is BS. There are tons of precedents that say the 14th amendment says what it says about birth citizenship. This guy is a right wing, Christo-fascist crank from an unaccredited law school. He has no substance.

But as long as he gives false hopes to the loonytoon birthers, I guess he can't be all bad.

 

Hahaha, yep Titus is wrong.. that's why he was the Dean of Rapture Ready University...

 

Please point to where specifically I said Titus was the end-all be- all evidence. What is your take on Titus's specific thoughts on the 14th pertaining to slaves and the difference to anchor baby's citizenship status of their illegal parents country?

 

What are your credentials compared to Dr. Titus in the OP?

 

1. He admits that "the prevailing view" is that anybody born on US soil is a natural born citizen.

2. He admits that this is not a justiciable issue for the courts, but instead a political issue that should be resolved by congress... thus agreeing with almost every court that ever threw out a Birther case.

3. He further acknowledges that the "prevailing view" has its origin in English common law... which as we all know was also the position of the US Supreme Court in the case of Wong Kim Ark.

4. He also suggests that it is not a "high crime or misdemeanor" and is therefore not an impeachable offense.

5. His preferred definition ignores place of birth completely. He feels that there is no jus soli component of NBC status at all. His sole criterion is the citizenship of parents.

6. But his definition also does not exclude dual citizens... only children of non-citizens. After all, children born of two citizens can still be dual citizens.

7. He asserts that the definition must be determined by "context and purpose." Unfortunately, the only "context and purpose" he actually describes regarded the electoral college, not the NBC clause.

All in all... he actually presented no case for his opinion. He merely expressed one.

The only genuinely interesting part of the whole interview was his claim that he tried to get a Congressman from Oklahoma to challenge Obama's eligibility when Congress certified the Electoral College vote back in January of 2009. As we all know, all it would have taken for a challenge to take place was for a single Congressman and a single Senator to agree.

No such challenge took place.

 

Legal or illegal immigrants are still under US jurisdiction while they are in the US.

Foreign students on student visas are under US jurisdiction.

Obama's father was under US jurisdiction.

Bobby Jindal's parents were under US jurisdiction.

 

Good old precedence. Judicial laziness.

The fact of the matter, aside from judicial malpractice, is that a person is only born a US citizen if they are born free of citizenship in any other country. Just as we require a naturalized citizen to be free of citizenship in their former country, so must a born citizen also be.

 

Ya gotta admit it shorn beats the hay oughta the lame spiels
we git from them thar Libbies.
I mean,at least Dr.Herb was intuitive and formalized.

 

The 14th Amendment's birth citizenship clause refers to anyone born on our soil, except where treaties override it, as in the case of children of diplomats. His logic is tortured.

 

Yep, and the only case where a person born here were not free of citizenship of any other country, is by treaty regarding diplomats. But go ahead, and rant the twisted logic of Obama not really being a birth citizen because some loon who works for Pat Robertson's law school says so.

 

I don't think its all that tortured. I just think its xenophobic.

 

Article 9 of the Jay Treaty recognizes British citizens born on US soil.
Obama's father was British as I recall. That would mean that obama was also born with British citizenship. Of course, obama himself admits that fact.

 

He is wrong...

 

Well, that clears things up.
You don't need to post any more to this thread.
We'll just be in here cleaning things up. Just ignore the commotion.

 

You're wrong too....

 

Oh?

Here is Article 9 of the jay treaty:

Where does it say anything about anybody born anywhere?

Yep. He was born a dual citizen. Just like tens of millions of other natural born Americans.

 

So why didn't the language of the 14th say "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are natural born citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside" instead of just citizens?

 

Hey Appuzzo...don't know if you saw this, but I thought you might be interested...don't have time to check the facts though...gotta run.

Two Serious Errors in Obama’s
Bogus “Certificate Of Live Birth”
By Robert Scott
May 9, 2011

I will tell you right now that I had never given this "birther" issue any credit. I watched the hype and the crazies come out. I completely dismissed the entire ordeal altogether. In fact, it was not until the White House released the birth certificate that it had gained my attention.
I am the studious sort of guy, and I have plenty of time on my hands. So, I took a close look at this document. While I would have thought that this issue would have been closed for good (and, got the crazies to crawl back into their holes), I found two extremely strange inconsistencies that merit some attention.
1. First of all, the birth certificate that the White House released lists Obama's birth as August 4, 1961. It also lists Barack Hussein Obama as his father. No big deal, right? At the time of Obama's birth, it also shows that his father is aged 25 years old, and that Obama's father was born in " Kenya , East Africa ". This wouldn't seem like anything of concern, except the fact that Kenya did not even exist until 1963, two whole years after Obama's birth, and 27 years after his father's birth. How could have Obama's father have been born in a country that did not yet exist? Up and until Kenya was formed in 1963, it was known as the "British East Africa Protectorate". But, this is not the only thing that I found that just does not jive.
2. The other item that I looked into was the hospital that Obama was born in. On the birth certificate released by the White House, the listed place of birth is "Kapi'olani Maternity & Gynecological Hospital". This cannot be, because the hospital(s) in question in 1961 were called "KauiKeolani Children's Hospital" and "Kapi'olani Maternity Home", respectively. The name did not change to Kapi'olani Maternity & Gynecological Hospital until 1978, when these two hospitals merged. How can this particular name of the hospital be on a birth certificate dated 1961 if this name had not yet been applied to it until 1978?
Go ahead, look it up. I am not talking crazy talk, these are the facts. Like I said, I thought that this was a non-issue until the actual certificate was released. Now that it has been released, of course I had to look into it. I have found these issues, now I know that something is up. If you doubt me, just look at the following resources:
Sure the hospital part is true, as you can read about the 1978 merger here.

http://www.kapiolani.org/women-and-children/about-us/default.aspx

Who did he payoff now with our TAX Dollars to print this Bogus Certificate??

 

because naturalized citizens arent natural born, but born ones are.

 

Because naturalized citizens are not natural born.