Evidence reveals Obama's "official " birth certificate was actually photo-shopped! #2

Actually you refuted nothing. Your reply was something about "ELG". I didn't not give you a case that had anything to do with ELG, the case I gave you was Elk v. Wilkins.

But nice try!

 

LOLOL, that's because you can't. You have no way of disputing my facts, so now you don't want to debate..wah wah wah!

 

First of all, state court decisions have no bearing on Federal law, nor does it trump it! Indiana can not change the definition of natural born without an amendment to the Constitution.

Secondly, The Indiana Court quoted something from WKA, that was not in WKA! LOLOL

Ankeny clearly states in the footnotes on page 17
http://www.in.gov/judiciary/opinions/pdf/11120903.ebb.pdf

"14 We note the fact that the Court in Wong Kim Ark did not actually pronounce the plaintiff a “natural born Citizen” using the Constitution‟s Article II language is immaterial. For all but forty-four people in our nation‟s history (the forty-four Presidents), the dichotomy between who is a natural born citizen and who is a naturalized citizen under the Fourteenth Amendment is irrelevant. The issue addressed in Wong Kim Ark was whether Mr. Wong Kim Ark was a citizen of the United States on the basis that he was born in the United States."

hahahaha you lose again!

 

I'm not asking you to prove anything to me. I am the one proving it to you and because you can not dispute my facts, then they stand until they are refuted!

I can't help it that you people don't like facts, that's your problem!

 

Could you name them please!

 

SHOW ME THE TEXT!

hahahahaha you can't!

What an imbecile!

 

Because you can't show me anything that proves what you claim!

hahahahaha

 

NBC in the Constitutional drafts:

June 18th, 1787 - Alexander Hamilton suggests that the requirement be added, as: "No person shall be eligible to the office of President of the United States unless he be now a Citizen of one of the States, or hereafter be born a Citizen of the United States."
http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampag...law:1:./temp/~ammem_7RJR::#0030633&linkText=1

July 25, 1787 (~5 weeks later) - John Jay writes a letter to General Washington (president of the Constitutional Convention): "Permit me to hint, whether it would be wise and seasonable to provide a strong check to the admission of Foreigners into the administration of our national Government; and to declare expressly that the Commander in Chief of the American army shall not be given to nor devolve on, any but a natural born Citizen." [the word born is underlined in Jay's letter which signifies the importance of allegiance from birth.]
http://rs6.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/r?ammem/hlaw:@field(DOCID+@lit(fr00379)):

September 2nd, 1787 George Washington pens a letter to John Jay. The last line reads: "I thank you for the hints contained in your letter"
http://books.google.com/books?id=z0...r the hints contained in your letter"&f=false

September 4th, 1787 (~6 weeks after Jay's letter and just 2 days after Washington wrote back to Jay) - The "Natural Born Citizen" requirement is now found in their drafts.
Madison's notes of the Convention.
http://www.nhccs.org/dfc-0904.txt

 

1862 Representative John Bingham, author of the 14th Amendment (Cong. Globe, 37th Congress, 2nd Session, pg 1639):
“All from other lands, who by the terms of [congressional] laws and a compliance with their provisions become naturalized, are adopted citizens of the United States; all other persons born within the Republic, of parents owing allegiance to no other sovereignty, are natural born citizens. Gentleman can find no exception to this statement touching natural-born citizens except what is said in the Constitution relating to Indians.”
http://memory.loc.gov/ll/llcg/059/0600/06811639.gif

The Civil Rights Act of 1866 failed to pass in the Senate until Lyman Trumbull proposed an amendment to the bill adding the words "That all persons born in the United States and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed, are hereby declared to be citizens of the United States;"
http://www.digitalhistory.uh.edu/reconstruction/section4/section4_civrightsact1.html

The bill then went to the House where Representative John Bingham (author of the "future" 14th amendment), confirms the understanding and construction the framers used in regards to birthright and jurisdiction while speaking on civil rights of citizens in the House on March 9, 1866, in regards to Trumbull's amendment to the bill:
"I find no fault with the introductory clause [S 61 Bill], 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"
MIDDLE COLUMN 3RD PARAGRAPH:
http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llcg&fileName=071/llcg071.db&recNum=332

The 14th amendment was introduced to render the Civil Rights act constitutional and amend it to the Constitution. It passed in the House, but failed in the Senate until Senator Jacob Howard's amendment to the bill (the citizenship clause) was introduced. In 1866 while while introducing bill H.R. 127 (14th Amendment) Jacob M. Howard (Author of the Citizenship clause) states:
"This amendment which I have offered is simply declaratory of what I regard as the law of the land already, that every person born within the limits of the United States, AND SUBJECT TO THE JURISDICTION THEREOF, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States."
http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llcg&fileName=073/llcg073.db&recNum=11

MEANING that they changed NOTHING with the 14th Amendment, only that they were declaring what was already the law. The LAW he was referring to, was the Civil Rights Act of 1866 which had just recently passed and again states:
"Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That all persons born in the United States and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed, are hereby declared to be citizens of the United States;"
http://www.digitalhistory.uh.edu/reconstruction/section4/section4_civrightsact1.html

Everyone seems to forget the phrase "subject to the jurisdiction thereof", which is why the law/amendment went astray. If you look at the congressional records, while they were debating the Civil Rights Act of 1866 and the 14th Amendment, you will find the truth and see the 14th Amendment has been 100% perverted!

What exactly did "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" mean to the framers of the Fourteenth Amendment? Luckily we have Sen. Lyman Trumbull, Chairman of the Judiciary Committee, author of the Thirteenth Amendment, and the one who inserted the citizenship clause amendment to the bill, so I think he knew what HE meant:
"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."
http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llcg&fileName=073/llcg073.db&recNum=14

So this proves that "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" means the same exact thing as "not subject to any foreign power"

Senator Howard concurs with Trumbull's construction:
"I concur entirely with the honorable Senator from Illinois [Trumbull], in holding that the word "jurisdiction," as here employed, ought to be construed so as to imply a full and complete jurisdiction on the part of the United States, whether exercised by Congress, by the executive, or by the judicial department; that is to say, the same jurisdiction in extent and quality as applies to every citizen of the United States now."
http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llcg&fileName=073/llcg073.db&recNum=16

1814 Supreme Court Case, The Venus, Chief Justice Marshall cites Vattel in saying:
"The whole system of decisions applicable to this subject rests on the law of nations as its base. It is therefore of some importance to inquire how far the writerson that law consider the subjects of one power residing within the territory of another, as retaining their original character or partaking of the character of the nation in which they reside. Vattel, who, though not very full to this point, is more explicit and more satisfactory on it than any other whose work has fallen into my hands, says:"
"The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives or indigenes are those born in the country of parents who are citizens. Society not being able to subsist and to perpetuate itself but by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights."
http://supreme.justia.com/us/12/253/case.html
ORIG: http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampag...law:1:./temp/~ammem_dtRA::#0030633&linkText=1

Supreme Court Minor V. Happerset:
"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."
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=88&invol=162

 

of course I can. I just linked you to the decision in wong kim ark, which is the current legal precedent on natural born citizenship.

 

Meh, not even a good troll...

 

I have read the full WKA case, it is HUGE! I want you to tell me what part proves your claims!

Post the text!

 

No, you're not!

 

WOO HOO

Sheriff Joe Arpaio Press Conference March 31
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uICO4l5PRcs&w=620&h=450"]Sheriff Joe Arpaio Press Conference March 31 - YouTube[/ame]

 

Well, first and foremost, Trumbull was not the "co-author" of the clause. Its sole author was Senator Jacob Howard. So Trumbull's personal opinion is that of one participant, and not necessarily that of the author or the congress when they wrote the amendment or the states when they ratified it.

Second we have very good reason to consider your interpretation of his personal opinion to be in error. We know for example that Trumbull's own understanding of the eligibility clause in Article II does not reconcile with your interpretation here. In 1872, for example, we find him saying this in the Congressional Record (Some emphasis added):

And finally, we know from the explicit decision of the US Supreme Court in the case US v. Wong Kim Ark exactly what the purpose of the jurisdiction actually is:

 

Why would they need to change Article II, Section 1? It doesn't grant or define citizenship. It established the three (and only three) criteria of presidential eligibility. Nothing the 14th Amendment did affected them.

As Senator Jacob Howard, the author of the citizenship clause, said while introducing it in the Senate for the first time (emphasis added):

If it was "simply declaratory" of what was "the law of the land already" then it cannot possibly have altered anything concerning presidential eligibility.

 

There is no such phrase/clause/sentence since the courts have nasty habit of telling us what is required rather than what is prohibited. Article II for example tells us what a President must be rather than make any effort to provide a list of things a President cannot be. There exists nowhere in any US law, statute, rule, regulation, court decision or constitutional provision a requirement that natural born citizenship requires "full allegiance," whatever that hopelessly ambiguous phrase might actually mean. On the contrary, under Anglo-American common law only temporary or "local allegiance" was necessary to create a natural born citizen.subject.

Lord Coke gives us this example in his discussion of Calvin's Case:

So, your specific demand here is merely the setting up of a straw man.... a launching platform for some intended subsequent quibble.

What we can point to, however, is where SCOTUS defined for us what a natural born citizen actually is. The only real source for such a definition is Wong Kim Ark, accounting for the fact that it remains to this day the only SCOTUS decision that has ever been cited as precedent in any later case for the definition of natural born citizen.

That definition is this:

 

Again, you continue to falsely credit Senator Trumbull with authorship of the citizenship clause... an attribution that you cannot justify. But that is ultimately neither here not there, as the intention of any Constitutional provision is never determined by one man's opinion.

The intention of a legislative author is often very different from the shared intention of the legislature that arises not out of one man's assertion but out of a subsequent process of discussion, debate, compromise and consensus. That process extends all the way through the ratification process... with States sometimes intending something very different from the Congress.

This is why we assign to SCOTUS a responsibility to put actual effort in to understanding original intent and not to glibly quote mine a couple of convenient passages and pretend to have solved the problem. The court in Wong Kim Ark spends around 25 pages to review exhaustively the history of Anglo/Americana citizenship law. They do not glom onto a single quote and pretend for a second that any one legislator's opinion is conclusive.

The simple truth is that the 14th Amendment never mentions allegiance at all. It mentions jurisdiction. And further, anyone deeply familiar with the Wong court's discussion of allegiance would understand that contrary to the modern vernacular usage of "allegiance," under citizenship law it has nothing to do with "loyalty" or personal national affection.

Allegiance is not voluntarily pledged, it is imposed as a state of being. It is not some conscious choice to align with one nation or another, it an obligation owed in return for protection from the government.

In that way, act of treason is not a reassignment of "allegiance," it is the violation of "allegiance." It is a crime against the government to which one owes allegiance.

This is why the 14th Amendment speaks of jurisdiction rather than allegiance. The former determines the latter. If one is born subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, then one necessarily born with the obligation of allegiance to that nation.

And as SCOTUS has told us (emphasis added):

 

This Birther claim has actually never been true. The first Birther case to reach SCOTUS (for example) was Donofrio v. Wells, a case that was not dismissed for reasons of standing and instead decided on its merits. So too were other cases such as Strunk v. Department of State, Taitz v. Astrue and Taitz v. Fuddy. These cases were all heard on their merits, and Birther's still lost.

Of course, this has gotten far worse of late as the newest Birther tactic of ballot challenges has backfired and become the Birther's worst nightmare. We now have no fewer than 12 different cases in which courts or administrative hearings have explicitly declared president Obama a natural born citizen, eligible for the job. I'm happy to provide the string cite if you are interested.

 

Well, ignoring that state decisions actually often have a massive bearing on Federal law, you are getting your reasoning here quite backwards.

Ankeny v. Indiana does not create precedent, it follows precedent. That other courts then cite Ankeny is not for its status as precedent, but as a demonstration on how that precedent (from Wong Kim Ark) is understood by other courts.

It does no such thing.

How do you miss that this footnote is a direct contradiction of the Birther claim that Wong Kim Ark is not relevant to the definition of natural born citizen? The footnote is actually an explicit refutation of the Birther argument that since the case did not formally declare Wong to be a natural born citizen it cannot set precedent.

This footnote calls bullsh*t on that argument.

And nowhere in it does it quote "something from WKA, that was not in WKA."

That part you just made up.

 

Sorry to burst your bubble, but WKA was not about Natural Born Citizenship.

Wong, was wrongly labled a citizen under the Constitution, but not a natural born citizen!

 

Close... but not actually true.

This was never in any "Constitutional Draft." It was never even actually presented to the Constitutional Convention at all.

On Jun 18, 1787, Hamilton gave an oral briefing on one possible plan for a Constitution to the Convention. It did not include any citizenship requirement at all. He later prepared a more detailed written version that included the requirement that the President “hereafter be born a Citizen of the United States,” and that is what you are referring to here. But he never submitted this written proposal to the convention.

True. But what is also important to note is that at the time this letter was penned, the Convention had not yet decided that the president would even be the Commander-in-Chief. This fact should cause one to pay attention to the semi-colon separating what are in Jay's letter two completely different thoughts. He clearly suggest a strong check on the admission of foreigners to all branches of the government. His additional desire that the Commander-in-Chief be "natural born" is offered entirely without elaboration that might explain his objective.

It is also important to note that the only thing Jay objects to is "foreigners," which US law has always explicitly understood to be anybody who is not a US citizen or national. There is no mention of allegiances (split or otherwise) or of "foreign influence." Only of "foreigners" themselves.

Continuing... the first draft of the presidential eligibility clause had yet to be written. That draft was presented on Aug. 22, 1787 by the Committee of Detail. That draft required that the president be no less than 35 years, a citizen of the United States and an inhabitant thereof for twenty-one years. There was no requirement for born citizenship of any flavor.

I note that Washington refers not to a singular "hint," but to plural "hints," reinforcing the idea that Jay was making two different suggestions in his letter separated by the semicolon.

There are in fact only two drafts at all... and this would be the second.

It was provided by the Committee of Eleven, it reduced the residency requirement to fourteen years and added the natural born citizen requirement. It was then adopted as presented with no further discussion.

 

And yet, it is to this day the only SCOTUS decision that has ever been cited by any subsequent court for the definition of natural born citizen.

Its status as reigning precedent is official.

You seem to be making two different arguments here; first that the Wong decision is "wrong" and second that it has nothing to do with natural born citizenship. Both arguments are false on their face.

A SCOTUS decision that has never been reversed by a subsequent SCOTUS decision is by definition "good law." It can no more be called "wrong" than money issued by the government can be called "counterfeit." It is by definition the absolute legal standard of what is legally "right."

And second, as explicitly pointed out in the Ankeny footnote, the failure to formally label Wong a natural born citizen is "immaterial" to Wong's status as reigning precedent for the meaning of natural born citizen. Its repeated citation for that purpose is a direct demonstration that the definition is precedent.

 

hahaha, I love when you obots step in it! You just defeated your own argument!

It was actually 1871, not 1872 but we'll overlook that because you aren't perfect EITHER! Now let's read it a little SLOOOOWWEERRR...

“All persons born in the allegiance of the king are natural born subjects, and all persons born in the allegiance of the United States are natural born citizens."

Hellooo, that's what we have been telling you over and over, Obama was born a british subject and he has admitted this himself, therefore his allegiance was to the King and what you posted here proves it! The founders did not recognize dual citizenship and since Obama, AT BIRTH, was a british subject, the only way for him to become a citizen is to be naturalized and he never did that.

That is why Obama is not a citizen, DOH!

 

WRONG again!
As we can see from Jacob Howard's words on record

Sen. Jacob Howard, Republican of Michigan, proposed the Citizenship Clause and stated on May 30, 1866:

Mr. HOWARD: This amendment which I have offered is simply declaratory of what I regard as the law of the land already, that every person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States. This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons. It settles the great question of citizenship and removes all doubt as to what persons are or are not citizens of the United States.

So you saying that Howard didn't agree with Trumbull was WRONG!

And, as we can see from Supreme Court Precedent in Elk v. Wilkins NOT "ELG", Vattel is quoted:

1814 Supreme Court Case, The Venus, Chief Justice Marshall cites Vattel in saying:
"The whole system of decisions applicable to this subject rests on the law of nations as its base. It is therefore of some importance to inquire how far the writerson that law consider the subjects of one power residing within the territory of another, as retaining their original character or partaking of the character of the nation in which they reside. Vattel, who, though not very full to this point, is more explicit and more satisfactory on it than any other whose work has fallen into my hands, says:"

"The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives or indigenes are those born in the country of parents who are citizens. Society not being able to subsist and to perpetuate itself but by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights."
http://supreme.justia.com/us/12/253/case.html
ORIG: http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampag...law:1:./temp/~ammem_dtRA::#0030633&linkText=1

THOSE CHILDREN NATURALLY FOLLOW THE CONDITIONS OF THEIR FATHERS and we all know that BO Sr, was a british subject!

END OF STORY!