You are viewing an obsolete version of the DU website which is no longer supported by the Administrators. Visit The New DU.
Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Reply #118: By "their case", I'm assuming you mean Donofrio's [View All]

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU
jberryhill Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-06-08 10:30 PM
Response to Reply #115
118. By "their case", I'm assuming you mean Donofrio's
Edited on Sat Dec-06-08 10:38 PM by jberryhill
Which is by no means some sort of "private" information.

On the merits, there is nothing "powerful" about it.

The Donofrio case admits that Barack Obama was born in Hawaii, so the issue of his place of birth or parentage is not even on the table. Donofrio's case relies in toto on the whole cloth creation of a new class of citizenship never seen before, i.e. "born a citizen, but not a natural born citizen". The other formulation used by Donofrio is "citizen at birth, but not citizen by birth". It is stupid beyond belief, particularly in view of the fact that the 14th Amendment expressly states two types of citizens - "born or naturalized". Obama was never naturalized, and Donofrio admits he was born here. End of story.

The other non-Donofrio-theory cases rely on either of two theories. The first theory is that he was not born in Hawaii. However, the State of Hawaii has certified that he was born in the city of Honolulu on the island of Oahu on August 4, 1961. The question ends there, as the State of Hawaii's certification of that fact is the final say on that question. An interesting footnote as to why that is so is Dred Scott v. Sanford. Dred Scott was not overturned, but parts of it were rendered moot by the Reconstruction Amendments. However, the part of Dred Scott addressing state citizenship is still the law.

The second theory is that Obama "lost" his citizenship prior to the age of 18, by acts performed by his parents. That theory is beyond stupid. Prior to the age of 18, a citizen by birth in this country does not have legal capacity to renounce his or her citizenship. Period. End of story. In practice, this is a very important principle in international child custody and parent abduction cases.

As noted, Barack Obama returned to Hawaii alone as a child, and did so on his own US passport. It was crazy people in search of support for these crackpot theories which was behind the breach of his passport records at State during the primaries in the first place. Guess what - they found nothing.

The other common "stupid supporting fact" is that Barack Obama traveled to Pakistan in 1981. A common freeper myth is that US citizens "were not allowed" to travel to Pakistan in 1981, and that Obama travelled on a mythical "Indonesian passport". Of course, US citizens were perfectly allowed to travel to Pakistan in 1981. There was a State Department advisory about it - as there are about many other countries including Thailand, from which I recently returned, and most assuredly on my US passport.

The US cannot stop you from traveling to or returning from another country. Take Cuba, for example. You can fly there from Canada, Jamaica, Mexico, and a number of places. The Cubans will welcome you in. Upon your return to the US, you are entitled to enter the US, because you are a US citizen. Now, you will be subject to penalties for having conducted economic activity there (inherent in visiting) unless you had permission to go. However, the US cannot stop you from going, and cannot bar your re-entry into the US. Even if there was some sort of "you are not allowed to go to country X" rule in the US, the US does not control the borders of country X. If country X wants to let you in, you're in. And, again, the US can't keep you out of the US when you return. As a US citizen, you have the right to enter the US. The only thing the US can do is to impose some sort of penalty on you when you return. The freepers, however, think we live in the old Soviet Union or some sort of kingdom, where citizens can be exiled or banished.

Finally, there is this whole "dual citizenship" thing that is dreadfully and commonly misunderstood. Any number of countries in the world may consider you to be a citizen. The only thing that matters in the US is whether you are a citizen of the US. US law does not care what other countries may consider you a citizen. Many Irish Americans are US citizens who have incidentally perfected citizenship recognized by Ireland. Many Jewish Americans are citizens of Israel. If you have something like $200K lying around, you can buy a citizenship in Dominica. It doesn't affect your US citizenship status one iota.

In sum, there are two ways to become a US citizen, and they are noted in the 14th Amendment. One was is to be born in the US. The other way is to be naturalized under US immigration laws. There is no other class or category of US citizenship. None. Zero. Zip.

The only other interesting point in the non-Donofrio "not born in Hawaii" theories is based upon a deliberate mis-reading of Hawaiian birth record laws which are the way they are as an artifact of there being a lot of people living today and in the 1960's who were born in Hawaii prior to statehood in 1959. But again, most assuredly, every record of birth issued by Hawaii states the place at which the subject was born - as does Barack Obama's.

There is utterly nothing persuasive about any of the cases, and I've only touched on the major points of all of them, because most of the minor points are even sillier than the major ones.

The fact that you even raise the "nobody can testify about where they were born" thing in the context of a discussion of the Donofrio case is a major indication that you either do not know the first thing about it, whether by PM or otherwise, or you are being deliberately obscurantist.

What all of this does mean is that Freepers will give up their support of Bobby Jindal since, although he was born in the US, neither of his parents were naturalized or born US citizens at the time of his birth. So they'll just have to give up on Jindal even though he too is a natural born US citizen.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
  -Winning the Direct Attack on Democracy & Obama (Sup Ct Bush v Gore Pt. II decision due Friday 12-5) Land Shark  Dec-04-08 02:59 AM   #0 
  - K&R for democracy! nt  2 Much Tribulation   Dec-04-08 03:16 AM   #1 
  - Stop fear-mongering. Every filing submitted to the Supreme Court is considered.  zlt234   Dec-04-08 03:27 AM   #2 
  - This is not "fear mongering" this says "go on offense" and it also says...  Land Shark   Dec-04-08 03:33 AM   #3 
  - Someone uninformed about legal issues might look at your article and reasonably worry  zlt234   Dec-04-08 03:18 PM   #30 
     - Your missing the parts about what happens when Obama runs the table perfectly  Land Shark   Dec-04-08 04:16 PM   #35 
        - You've convinced me - you're not a lawyer.  jberryhill   Dec-05-08 12:52 AM   #101 
  - If someone fires a bullet at your head, you know it missed by a mile, so talking about it is "fear"?  Land Shark   Dec-04-08 03:40 AM   #4 
     - it seems obvious that they are not seen that way...  tomp   Dec-04-08 06:30 AM   #5 
        - anticipated that. There you go again, telling yourself "not to worry"  Land Shark   Dec-04-08 06:45 AM   #6 
        - actually this fits with my theory that obama is in office (soon)...  tomp   Dec-04-08 09:52 AM   #15 
        - Did you consider the risk that an uprising is precisely what they want?  Land Shark   Dec-04-08 09:42 AM   #13 
        - It "got to the supreme court" by being laughed out of every other court along the way  jberryhill   Dec-04-08 07:46 PM   #63 
  - Legal establishment taking these cases seriously, not laughing it off. see  Land Shark   Dec-04-08 08:00 AM   #7 
  - The right wing  H2O Man   Dec-04-08 09:04 AM   #9 
  - Article argues lawsuits would lack standing under Article III, not the political question doctrine.  Renegade08   Dec-04-08 09:23 PM   #79 
     - True, that's just one example of a wider body of scholarship referencing PQ  Land Shark   Dec-04-08 09:42 PM   #81 
        - Here's the deal - the Supreme Court DID hear Bush v. Gore.  Renegade08   Dec-04-08 09:52 PM   #83 
           - it gets worse, it may NEVER be able to be overturned, because they  Land Shark   Dec-04-08 09:57 PM   #85 
           - Okay, but, the point is, the political question doctrine is not the slam dunk  Renegade08   Dec-04-08 10:01 PM   #88 
              - It's an option, PQ doctrine is. An unappealable option for SCOTUS.  Land Shark   Dec-04-08 10:05 PM   #89 
           - a shitstain on the law  Nuisance Man   Dec-04-08 11:22 PM   #94 
           - Minor Note  jberryhill   Dec-05-08 12:59 AM   #102 
              - consideration is always limited to 'cases and controversies"  Land Shark   Dec-05-08 01:27 PM   #113 
                 - You have finally convinced me - you are not a lawyer  jberryhill   Dec-06-08 10:44 PM   #119 
  - Chicago Tribune coverage of political ad and Supreme Court Friday docket here  Land Shark   Dec-04-08 08:58 AM   #8 
  - Dude, get a sense of humor. Tinfoilhat nuttery often will bring cases to the SCOTUS  IWantAnyDem   Dec-04-08 09:10 AM   #10 
  - Read the University of Michigan Law review link for analysis well beyond "9th grade civics"  Land Shark   Dec-04-08 09:30 AM   #11 
     - Saw no links in your post  IWantAnyDem   Dec-04-08 09:59 AM   #16 
        - The U of MI link is in the replies. You're making the case here for a new election, in the Congress  Land Shark   Dec-04-08 10:04 AM   #18 
        - Damn, you can't read, can you?  IWantAnyDem   Dec-04-08 10:06 AM   #19 
           - Um, reading is searching for information  Land Shark   Dec-04-08 01:16 PM   #23 
           - Then you reject the constitution  IWantAnyDem   Dec-04-08 04:13 PM   #34 
              - be specific, cite your power and your provision.  Land Shark   Dec-04-08 04:35 PM   #41 
                 - Sure thing  IWantAnyDem   Dec-04-08 07:08 PM   #50 
                    - Easy to take those apart  Land Shark   Dec-04-08 08:07 PM   #65 
           - Ah, but here's my possibly premature question, before reading the rest of the thread....  jberryhill   Dec-04-08 02:02 PM   #26 
              - Here is the answers  IWantAnyDem   Dec-04-08 04:12 PM   #32 
              - please cite the "final authority" on the PRESIDENCY language, not other offices. nt  Land Shark   Dec-04-08 04:43 PM   #44 
                 - Amendment 12, Section 3, specifically sentence 2. n/t  IWantAnyDem   Dec-04-08 07:18 PM   #53 
                    - and where does it say "congress decides" and not states, state legislatures or the people's votes?  Land Shark   Dec-04-08 08:22 PM   #68 
                       - Congress decided the elections of 1800 and 1824  jberryhill   Dec-06-08 10:56 PM   #120 
              - You can't think of any principled distinction between slavery or segregation & electing youngsters  Land Shark   Dec-04-08 04:41 PM   #43 
                 - Where one makes a "principled distinction" depends upon one's principles  jberryhill   Dec-04-08 06:53 PM   #49 
                    - The Constitution binds and restrains the government, not the people, or even corporations  Land Shark   Dec-04-08 08:20 PM   #67 
                       - You should write labels for Dr. Bronner, you know  jberryhill   Dec-04-08 08:48 PM   #70 
                          - The move you perhaps are missing is that some laws are void if they  Land Shark   Dec-04-08 09:03 PM   #73 
                             - "never WARNED THEM"  jberryhill   Dec-04-08 09:59 PM   #87 
                                - You can fail to qualify in the states. And that happens sometimes.  Land Shark   Dec-04-08 10:14 PM   #90 
                                   - I'll take the final question....  jberryhill   Dec-05-08 12:14 AM   #95 
                                      - Boy, it is INCREDIBLY easier to stop candidate from office, than to kick out President w/ power  Land Shark   Dec-05-08 01:38 PM   #114 
                                         - Uh, no, it's just as easy either way  jberryhill   Dec-07-08 12:02 AM   #121 
        - The 20th Amendment does not give congress the power to determine eligibility.  Renegade08   Dec-04-08 09:28 PM   #80 
  - ". . .Bong hits for Jesus. . .!!!"  stellanoir   Dec-04-08 09:33 AM   #12 
  - The irony is that some of the same wingnuts or their followers are  treestar   Dec-04-08 09:42 AM   #14 
  - They want citizenship to be statutory and not a birthright, making it a political football  Land Shark   Dec-04-08 10:00 AM   #17 
     - Yes, it seems to be one of the extraordinary compendium of tricks they use, or  KCabotDullesMarxIII   Dec-04-08 04:13 PM   #33 
     - Next thing you know...  jberryhill   Dec-05-08 12:19 AM   #97 
  - A couple of questions... And unlike some, I actually read beyond the first paragraph.  jobycom   Dec-04-08 10:20 AM   #20 
  - Thanks for the questions, here are the answers  Land Shark   Dec-04-08 10:38 AM   #21 
  - You are forgetting the statutory high bar to disqualify a President Elect  IWantAnyDem   Dec-04-08 10:48 AM   #22 
  - Statutes can not invade the constitutional structure, they can EXPAND not contract peoples' rights  Land Shark   Dec-04-08 01:18 PM   #24 
     - yeah... tell that to the Bush v. Gore majority  jberryhill   Dec-04-08 02:07 PM   #28 
        - Yeah so do you worship the Bush v. Gore majority, or the higher principles they ignored?  Land Shark   Dec-04-08 04:34 PM   #39 
           - The answer to that question should be apparent in context here...  jberryhill   Dec-04-08 04:41 PM   #42 
              - Ok, I don't ever equate court "majorities" and popular majorities, but I can understand why you did.  Land Shark   Dec-04-08 08:09 PM   #66 
                 - WTF is that supposed to mean? /nt  jberryhill   Dec-04-08 08:51 PM   #72 
                    - You spoke of majorities on courts, i spoke of majorities of voters nt  Land Shark   Dec-04-08 09:09 PM   #76 
                       - No...  jberryhill   Dec-05-08 12:22 AM   #98 
                          - You are right on that point. But that's precisely why I'm pointing similar dynamic  Land Shark   Dec-05-08 12:57 PM   #111 
  - Point 4 sounds like advocacy of "mob rule"  jberryhill   Dec-04-08 02:05 PM   #27 
  - Actually, it sounds like Patrick Henry, Thomas Jefferson, and drafters of the 12th Am.  Land Shark   Dec-04-08 06:12 PM   #48 
  - You take away individual rights by giving too much power to a simple majority.  jobycom   Dec-05-08 01:45 AM   #106 
  - It's a mistake to look just to the constitution to define one's rights, or the american people's  Land Shark   Dec-04-08 01:37 PM   #25 
     - I never did.  jobycom   Dec-05-08 01:56 AM   #107 
  - To simplify  jberryhill   Dec-04-08 02:10 PM   #29 
  - IF the candidate openly proclaimed their real age during the election  IWantAnyDem   Dec-04-08 04:03 PM   #31 
  - The concept here is "issue preclusion" not "the truth of the matter"  Land Shark   Dec-04-08 04:20 PM   #36 
     - Your last sentence....  jberryhill   Dec-04-08 04:34 PM   #38 
     - Again, I disagree. The qualifications are very clear.  IWantAnyDem   Dec-04-08 07:16 PM   #51 
        - It would have been interesting....  jberryhill   Dec-04-08 07:28 PM   #58 
        - And then the Congress should be all removed for colossal fraud on the people: Fake Election  Land Shark   Dec-04-08 08:49 PM   #71 
           - No, it wouldn't -be- an issue before the election  jberryhill   Dec-05-08 12:28 AM   #99 
  - Do the research, it's happened already, 6 times or more with federal office  Land Shark   Dec-04-08 04:29 PM   #37 
     - The joy of asking folks who have done the research  jberryhill   Dec-04-08 04:35 PM   #40 
        - Did you read the OP? First name there is Henry Clay.  Land Shark   Dec-04-08 04:57 PM   #45 
           - Good for him - Have you ever heard of D.B. Cooper?  jberryhill   Dec-04-08 07:19 PM   #54 
           - Mind telling me where you're coming from? You're making fun of the American people  Land Shark   Dec-04-08 08:42 PM   #69 
              - Again with the personal insinuations....  jberryhill   Dec-05-08 12:39 AM   #100 
                 - I asked you to clarify how you feel about the outcomes you seem to be urging  Land Shark   Dec-05-08 01:16 PM   #112 
           - Good for him - Have you ever heard of D.B. Cooper?  jberryhill   Dec-04-08 07:20 PM   #55 
  - Ummm.....yeah. Two words:  BullGooseLoony   Dec-04-08 05:03 PM   #46 
  - Ummmm.... yeah, you don't want to be understood by anyone else?  Land Shark   Dec-04-08 06:05 PM   #47 
     - I understood his point clearly  jberryhill   Dec-04-08 07:44 PM   #62 
  - Clarence Thomas needs to be IMPEACHED - he's a DISGRACE to the Judicial System.  blm   Dec-04-08 07:16 PM   #52 
  - He's not enough of a judicial figure to qualify as a "disgrace"  jberryhill   Dec-04-08 07:22 PM   #56 
     - heheheh.....I will happily stand corrected....  blm   Dec-04-08 07:26 PM   #57 
        - always good to find major points of agreement. :) nt  Land Shark   Dec-04-08 09:11 PM   #77 
  - k/r  Fridays Child   Dec-04-08 07:31 PM   #59 
  - Brilliant post  malaise   Dec-04-08 07:38 PM   #60 
  - Thanks, and thanks for keeping me "brief"! :)  Land Shark   Dec-04-08 09:05 PM   #74 
  - I'm thinking the justices have relatives who will be looking for loans.  aquart   Dec-04-08 07:39 PM   #61 
  - You underestimate the seductiveness of love affairs with The Law /nt  jberryhill   Dec-04-08 07:53 PM   #64 
  - AS your sig says "Democracy is slow and annoying; every voice counts"  Land Shark   Dec-04-08 09:08 PM   # 
  - All of this presumes that Barack Obama was elected. Who can prove it?  Peace Patriot   Dec-04-08 09:08 PM   #75 
  - While you make some points, I think McCain stipulates he lost (or would do so) nt  Land Shark   Dec-04-08 09:53 PM   #84 
     - Well, so much for consistency  jberryhill   Dec-05-08 01:15 AM   #103 
  - Obama was born on American soil.  Renegade08   Dec-04-08 09:18 PM   #78 
  - I'm fine if you want to believe that. The RW has such a huge VOLUME of crap to throw  Land Shark   Dec-04-08 09:51 PM   #82 
     - Uh, how about insisting on Hawaii because Obama was born there?  Renegade08   Dec-04-08 09:59 PM   #86 
        - I've no personal knowledge of where I myself was born. Much less Obama.  Land Shark   Dec-04-08 10:27 PM   #92 
           - Oh please.....  jberryhill   Dec-05-08 01:31 AM   #104 
              - Well I think their case is more powerfully misleading by far than what you say  Land Shark   Dec-05-08 01:46 PM   #115 
                 - By "their case", I'm assuming you mean Donofrio's  jberryhill   Dec-06-08 10:30 PM   #118 
  - Well said. k&r n/t  Laelth   Dec-04-08 10:19 PM   #91 
  - Thanks for the nice mix with the thread's constructive criticism! ;) nt  Land Shark   Dec-04-08 10:56 PM   #93 
     - Not a problem.  Laelth   Dec-05-08 07:56 AM   #108 
  - Kicking and recommended to read tomorrow.  Stand and Fight   Dec-05-08 12:15 AM   #96 
  - Thanks, if I may presume a tad of credit, I'll share with JBerryHill on thoroughness of discussion  Land Shark   Dec-05-08 01:49 PM   #116 
  - too much to digest at the moment  amborin   Dec-05-08 01:43 AM   #105 
  - You're right, the case is complete horseshit  HughMoran   Dec-05-08 07:59 AM   #109 
  - In my experience, people have to go through an evolution of thought on this topic  Land Shark   Dec-05-08 12:52 PM   #110 
  - kick for interesting discussion. nt  2 Much Tribulation   Dec-05-08 04:00 PM   #117 
 

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC