Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Rock Slinger

Obama's birth certificate

308 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

SoCrazes

Title 8 of the US Code as currently published by the US Government reflects the laws passed by Congress as of Jan. 3, 2007, and it is this version that is published here. AHA, we forgot to see when the law was written. Now is it retroactive? Maybe the need for a clarification bill?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SoCrazes

I did find this as part of Part 8 of the US Code section 1401:

honorably serving with the Armed Forces of the United States, or

Edited by SoCrazes

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
AzTide
Title 8 of the US Code as currently published by the US Government reflects the laws passed by Congress as of Jan. 3, 2007, and it is this version that is published here. AHA, we forgot to see when the law was written. Now is it retroactive? Maybe the need for a clarification bill?

I'm pretty sure if it was a problem it would have been addressed already.... lol

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SoCrazes
I'm pretty sure if it was a problem it would have been addressed already.... lol

Then what is it you're exactly debating here? I find the topic of the debate interesting and I am trying to help. Please explain the need for a "Clarification Bill" in the senate if it has been addressed already.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
questionmark
I look over the following again and have reduced the qualifications to those that might apply to the military situation that is discussed. I don't see a need for another law (namely, S. 2678: Children of Military Families Natural Born Citizen Act). What is missing that would be the catalayst for Senate Bill 2678?

Title 8 of the U.S. Code fills in those gaps (of the Constitution). Section 1401 defines the following as people who are "citizens of the United States at birth:"

Any one born outside the United States, both of whose parents are citizens of the U.S., as long as one parent has lived in the U.S.

Any one born outside the United States, if one parent is a citizen and lived in the U.S. for at least one year and the other parent is a U.S. national

Any one born in a U.S. possession, if one parent is a citizen and lived in the U.S. for at least one year

Any one born outside the United States, if one parent is an alien and as long as the other parent is a citizen of the U.S. who lived in the U.S. for at least five years (with military and diplomatic service included in this time)

Anyone falling into these categories is considered natural-born, and is eligible to run for President or Vice President. These provisions allow the children of military families to be considered natural-born, for example.

That the Senate could decide this either way, I have no link for this but there was a very interesting article in the Yale Law Journal a few years back:

Jill A. Pryor, Note, The Natural-Born Citizen Clause and Presidential Eligibility: Resolving Two Hundred Years of Uncertainty, 97 Yale L.J. 881 (1988).

where the author comes to the conclusion that there is no difference between natural and naturalized citizens born of US parents, but that the law could be applied either way at the discretion of the Senate, therefore a new law or constitutional amendment was needed to end this uncertainty.

The S. 2678: Children of Military Families Natural Born Citizen Act would enable the eligibility for naturalized citizens born of military personnel abroad to become president. Which as of now is only possible by an act of the senate.

That does not mean that military brats would automatically become natural citizens, but would have their rights.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
AzTide
Then what is it you're exactly debating here? I find the topic of the debate interesting and I am trying to help. Please explain the need for a "Clarification Bill" in the senate if it has been addressed already.

Question Mark is bringing that up I'm attempting to prove the laws exist already and is points are already covered by laws or constitutional rights.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
AzTide
That the Senate could decide this either way, I have no link for this but there was a very interesting article in the Yale Law Journal a few years back:

Jill A. Pryor, Note, The Natural-Born Citizen Clause and Presidential Eligibility: Resolving Two Hundred Years of Uncertainty, 97 Yale L.J. 881 (1988).

where the author comes to the conclusion that there is no difference between natural and naturalized citizens born of US parents, but that the law could be applied either way at the discretion of the Senate, therefore a new law or constitutional amendment was needed to end this uncertainty.

The S. 2678: Children of Military Families Natural Born Citizen Act would enable the eligibility for naturalized citizens born of military personnel abroad to become president. Which as of now is only possible by an act of the senate.

That does not mean that military brats would automatically become natural citizens, but would have their rights.

That's not the Spirit of the law that's the interpretation of the law by someone.

If it were the Spirit of the Law the Senate Bill would be passed to fix it in a heartbeat. You can bet McCain would have seen to that 10 years ago.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
AzTide

And you used a Yale Law students paper. Isn't That like using a Graduates Thesis as an example.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
danielost

Why is this thing 16 pages long.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
AROCES
If Barack Obama was actually born in Kenya, and it could be proven, I'd be protesting in the streets.

Then for you, your country still comes first before any party. :tu:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
AROCES
And you are not protesting McCain and were not protesting Goldwater because of ......?

While you are full of it, you are the reason why politicians abuse.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
AROCES
Now that a state-issued birth certificate is produced, you try to divert the issue. :lol:

Produced? Where?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
AROCES
Hang on, AROCES. I'm trying to push the paper through this tiny little wire. :rolleyes:

Unless you haven't noticed, this medium is e l e c t r o n i c, much like the site you are complaining about.

*sigh*

I remember the good old days of the interweb, when trolling was an art form. It seems now that it has been reduced to a level a smidgeon lower than... more on that later.

Here in the United States, it's your brain that needs rewiring. ;)

Edited by AROCES

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
AROCES
Ok here it is

This is FAKE!

First, what is the word LASER doing on the bottom of the certificate that was made in 1961?

If this was scanned then it should not be there, you know what scanning is, right?

Seconds, a birth certificate should tell in what Hospital the birth took place.

Third, how come there is no certificate #? Someone worried about it being verified in honolulu?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ninjadude
This is FAKE!

First, what is the word LASER doing on the bottom of the certificate that was made in 1961?

If this was scanned then it should not be there, you know what scanning is, right?

Seconds, a birth certificate should tell in what Hospital the birth took place.

Third, how come there is no certificate #? Someone worried about it being verified in honolulu?

IT is NOT a fake. There is no federal standard for Birth Certificates. It is the legal BC from Hawaii and verified by their department of records. Just because you don't like it's format does not make it a fake. Give it up. This makes you look even more loony than usual.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
AROCES
IT is NOT a fake. There is no federal standard for Birth Certificates. It is the legal BC from Hawaii and verified by their department of records. Just because you don't like it's format does not make it a fake. Give it up. This makes you look even more loony than usual.

Oh no, your obsession with the election is making you believe on obvious fake document.

You wonder why the society is deterioating, look at yourself. :unsure2:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ninjadude
Oh no, your obsession with the election is making you believe on obvious fake document.

You wonder why the society is deterioating, look at yourself. :unsure2:

obvious only to you. I actually heard and saw the actual Hawaiian Department of Records person validate that this BC was true and correct and not a fake. There is no higher authority. You can try to mislead all you want but that does not make it true.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jon Blackstar

IT is quite obvious from the photo that it is an official copy of his birth cert. There is a document # on it. it is not from 1961.many, many people do not have their original BC.Many states do not issue the originals,they give out certified copies.If this was really legit the Macain peeps would have been all over this months ago.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
HKCavalier
If this was really legit the Macain peeps would have been all over this months ago.

QFMFT

It's that simple. Same with Ayers. Same with ACORN.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
AztecInca

Aroces and ninjadude, please do not get personal. Simply discuss the topic at hand, your most recent posts are getting dangerously close to breaking UM rules and that is unacceptable. I do not want to have to take action against either of you or close the thread, however I will if need be.

Edited by AztecInca

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
preacherman76

It isnt fake, they issued the BC to his mother. The question here is, did she lie and say he was born there. His Grandmother striaght says he was born in Kenya. It doesnt matter anyway. He is just a puppet run by our corpritocracy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
questionmark
While you are full of it, you are the reason why politicians abuse.

Ah, I see.. so if it is a Republican and you protest it is abuse...if it is a Democrat you are a good citizen.... thank you for explaining that..almost thought that same rules apply to everyone...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
AzTide
Ah, I see.. so if it is a Republican and you protest it is abuse...if it is a Democrat you are a good citizen.... thank you for explaining that..almost thought that same rules apply to everyone...

It's amazing how that works ain't it QM....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
AlexG
IT is quite obvious from the photo that it is an official copy of his birth cert. There is a document # on it. it is not from 1961.many, many people do not have their original BC.Many states do not issue the originals,they give out certified copies.If this was really legit the Macain peeps would have been all over this months ago.

:tu:

My original BC was lost long ago. I have a certified copy from 1961, and another certified copy I got in 1997. That's what the hospital or the state department of records issues.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
BabelPlatz

So what if he was born in Kenya? He's still a US citizen by virtue of his mother

...then again, if I remember correctly there's some stipulation that a president must be borin in the US proper....anyone?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.