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

how about next time you spend 5 minutes researching this so you dont waste everyones time.

The word Kenya', /ˈkɛnjə/, originates from the Kikuyu, Embu and Kamba names for Mount Kenya, "Kirinyaga", "Kirinyaa" and "Kiinyaa". The English meaning of the words, in all three languages, is "place with ostriches" – in reference to the black and white plumage of male ostriches. When viewed from a distance the snow-capped peak of the mountain is like the white feathers of a male ostrich. Prehistoric volcanic eruptions of Mount Kenya (now extinct) may have resulted in its association with divinity and creation among the indigenous Kikuyu-related ethic groups who are the original native inhabitants of the vast agricultural land surrounding Mount Kenya.

In the 19th Century, the German explorer Ludwig Krapf recorded the name as both Kenia and Kegnia believed by some to be a corruption of the Kamba version.[8][9][10] Others say that this was—on the contrary—a very precise notation of a correct African pronunciation /ˈkɛnjə/.[11] During the colonial period, the name was pronounced /ˈkiːnjə/. That pronunciation has been abandoned since independence in favour of the African version

The word Kenya', /ˈkɛnjə/, originates from the Kikuyu, Embu and Kamba names for Mount Kenya, "Kirinyaga", "Kirinyaa" and "Kiinyaa".

so its been called Kenya since....forever? lol

In 1931, its name was changed to the Kapiʻolani Maternity and Gynecological Hospital.

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

I did, and yes you were

 

Wrong. All natural born citizens are citizens but all citizens born in the U.S. aren't all natural born. The 14th Amendment doesn't use the words natural born like Article 2 Section 1 does. John Bingham, the author and creator of the 14th Amendment defined a natural born citizen as this:

“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.” (Cong. Globe, 39th, 1st Sess., 1291 (1866))

Obama's father owed allegiance to the British Crown negating Baracks natural born citizen status at birth.

 

Wrong. The Republic of Kenya did not exist until 1963.

But "Kenya, East Africa" (as shown in the birth certificate) existed since at least 1895. It was first a British protectorate and then a Crown Colony. But it was called "Kenya" that whole time.

Wrong.

The name "Kapi'olani Maternity & Gynecological Hospital" is identical to that on the Nordyke certificates, created within day's or Obama's.

 

Wrong.

Anybody born on US soil who is not the child of a foreign diplomat or alien army in hostile occupation is a natural born US citizen.

That's because it includes naturalized citizens. Look. It says so right there.

 

why would the 14th say natural born when its talking about naturalized citizens also?

I answered your question....the other nonsense has nothing to do with it.

the 14th references 2 kinds of citizens...one group is not natural born....thus they refer only to citizens.

 

birthers are mentally ill, hands down

 

I think you mean birther. As far as I can tell, Apuzzo is the only one left.

 

It's fascinating. You'd have thought that this great Constitutional scholar would have mentioned the "two citizen parents" theory back in November of '08 when he was being interviewed by WND.

But alas... he never mentioned it. Of course that's probably because that other great Constitutional scholar/poker player/band leader/ herald of Christ's second coming Leo Donofrio had not invented it yet.

 

The article was about the electors. He does mention this; "The whole notion of a natural-born citizen is designed for the purpose of making sure that the chief executive would not have politically divided loyalties," he said. Common sense will tell you he meant born to 'two' U.S. citizen parents with born sole allegiance 'only' to the United States.

Keep in mind that WE ALREADY KNOW THE UNAMBIGUOUS LEGAL DEFINITION OF THE TERM-OF-ART “natural born Citizen”!! It was put into the law of this land by the United States Supreme Court decision in the 1875 Minor v. Happersett case and has never been overturned (but even has been recognized and confirmed in other cases since that time). At the time of the decision in Minor it was almost 100 years after the nation’s founding and even now 230-plus years later it still means the same thing. One simplified way of stating this is “born in the US of 2 US citizen parents”.

The actual 1875 Supreme Court opinion in Minor v Happersett:

“The Constitution does not in words say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. “ (emphasis added)

Again, this means the simple “born in America of 2 citizen parents” still is the active, pertinent law of our land.

 

No it doesn't. You are the most ignorant and uneducated person Ive seen in a while. Though your stupid posts and stupid opinions on the law are amusing.

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3t2rfDZPPWk"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3t2rfDZPPWk[/ame]

 

You should have just remained silent and not removed the doubt.

 

You should have just remained silent and not removed the doubt.

 

He never mentioned it. It is the centerpiece of his current spiel, but in November of 08 it appears to have never even crossed his mind.

Instead, he blamed it on god.

Of course we do. It has (at this point) over 500 years of history in Anglo-American common law. Its definition has never been in doubt.

Anybody born on national soil who is not the child of a foreign diplomat or alien Army in hostile occupation is a natural born citizen.

This was the only definition that existed in the entire English language at the time the Constitution was written.

 

Wow, can't believe you and Montoya actually agree about something

 

The voting populace already said your theories are bogus.

 

Why do you feel compelled to lie about this?

"Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents."

Minor recognizes right here that anyone born in the U.S. may be a natural born citizen.

 

his thoughts on the 14th amendment are as meaningless as your thoughts on natural born citizenship.

this is what the 14th amendment means..............

and this is what "subject to the jurisdiction" means............

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Wong_Kim_Ark

this is what reality looks like. I know you birthers have a severe allergy to it, but there it is none the less.

 

and then back here in reality, the courts have consistently called bull(*)(*)(*)(*) on your interpretation.

 

"The provision is, that 'all persons born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens.' That means 'subject to the complete jurisdiction thereof.' What do we mean by 'complete jurisdiction thereof?' Not owing allegiance to anybody else. That is what it means. " - Sen. Lyman Trumbull

No better explanation than from the source.

 

I can give a (*)(*)(*)(*) what the courts think. They are not elected and are not charged with writing our laws.
If you want to discuss the 14th Amendment then the words of its writers are your source. Not the erroneous interpretation of an appointed judge.

 

I love it when you birthers don't read, or outright ignore things you post.

emphasis mine.

 

I know, that's why I posted what "subject to the jurisdiction" actually means. The SCOTUS says YOUR definition is bull(*)(*)(*)(*).