White House Releases Obama's Birth Certificate

[SportsGuy41017]

It didn't take long ...

 

Infowars.com

It's just hate! And the fact they can't accept that Obama, a black man, is our president! ALL they are doing with their wacko statements is making sure he is re-elected! Did you read some those comments on that site? VERY strange people!

[Bluegrasscard]

For those who what some specifics on the (ancient) history of this maddening subject...I offer a timeline of the major government milestones (Federal and Hawaii) with no editorial comment

 

 

April 30, 2008

 

Senate Resolution 511 passed - legally nonbinding. But allowed Senate to 'declare' McCain a "natural born Citizen". References Immigration Act of 1790. Also includes this statement: "Whereas previous presidential candidates were born outside of the United States of America and were understood to be eligible to be President."

 

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=sr110-511

 

 

June 9, 2008

 

This may have been the trigger point for the the current issues with an article by Jim Gerahty at National Review...

 

http://www.nationalreview.com/campaign-spot/9490/obama-could-debunk-some-rumors-releasing-his-birth-certificate

 

 

 

June 12, 2008

 

Posting of digital images of a COLB with redacted certification number at the blogs/advertising sites Daily KOS, Fight the Smears, and Politico. This is the flashpoint start date.

 

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/6/12/11012/6168/320/534616

 

August 21, 2008

 

Factcheck publishes 'Born in USA' posting. Authors are Joe Miller (currently working at Congress Budget Office) and Jess Henig (status unknown since leaving Factcheck in December or January)

 

http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/born_in_the_usa.html

 

 

 

October 31, 2008

 

Hawaii DOH issues statement

 

http://hawaii.gov/health/about/pr/2008/08-93.pdf

 

 

 

July 27, 2009

 

Senate passes resolution celebrating Hawaii 50th Anniversary and declaring Obama born there. Later that day Hawaii DOH issues additional statement as follow up to October 31, 2008 statement.

 

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-5193422-503544.html

http://hawaii.gov/health/about/pr/2009/09-063.pdf

[woodsrider]

No, it was "supporters of Clinton" ... it says nothing about Hillary Clinton actually broaching the subject, especially in a public forum.

 

While Hillary may not have directly broached the subject do you really believe the Clintons were not behind it?

 

"whose being naive, Kay?"

[Hatz]

For those who what some specifics on the (ancient) history of this maddening subject...I offer a timeline of the major government milestones (Federal and Hawaii) with no editorial comment

 

 

April 30, 2008

Senate Resolution 511 passed - legally nonbinding. But allowed Senate to 'declare' McCain a "natural born Citizen". References Immigration Act of 1790. Also includes this statement: "Whereas previous presidential candidates were born outside of the United States of America and were understood to be eligible to be President."

 

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=sr110-511

 

 

June 9, 2008

 

This may have been the trigger point for the the current issues with an article by Jim Gerahty at National Review...

 

http://www.nationalreview.com/campaign-spot/9490/obama-could-debunk-some-rumors-releasing-his-birth-certificate

 

 

 

June 12, 2008

 

Posting of digital images of a COLB with redacted certification number at the blogs/advertising sites Daily KOS, Fight the Smears, and Politico. This is the flashpoint start date.

 

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/6/12/11012/6168/320/534616

 

August 21, 2008

 

Factcheck publishes 'Born in USA' posting. Authors are Joe Miller (currently working at Congress Budget Office) and Jess Henig (status unknown since leaving Factcheck in December or January)

 

http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/born_in_the_usa.html

 

 

 

October 31, 2008

 

Hawaii DOH issues statement

 

http://hawaii.gov/health/about/pr/2008/08-93.pdf

 

 

 

July 27, 2009

 

Senate passes resolution celebrating Hawaii 50th Anniversary and declaring Obama born there. Later that day Hawaii DOH issues additional statement as follow up to October 31, 2008 statement.

 

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-5193422-503544.html

http://hawaii.gov/health/about/pr/2009/09-063.pdf

 

 

First, I appreciate the timeline. :thumb:

 

Why would the Senate do that for McCain in 2008, when the same man ran in 2000 but finished second in the GOP primary? Why was there no need for it in 2000 but a need for it in 2008? :confused:

[Bluegrasscard]

First, I appreciate the timeline. :thumb:

 

Why would the Senate do that for McCain in 2008, when the same man ran in 2000 but finished second in the GOP primary? Why was there no need for it in 2000 but a need for it in 2008? :confused:

 

SR 511 was actually introduced by Democrats

 

From the link above here is who brought this resolution into the Senate:

 

"Mrs. MCCASKILL (for herself, Mr. LEAHY, Mr. OBAMA, Mr. COBURN, Mrs. CLINTON, and Mr. WEBB) submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary"

 

Coburn is the only Republican in that group. The rest, including the sponsor were Democrats.

 

As I posted in another thread. The NYTs ran articles bringing up McCain's eligibility in February of 2008.

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/28/us/politics/28mccain.html

 

They ran articles in July of 2008

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/11/us/politics/11mccain.html

 

And in December of 2008 (after the election) they ran an article on the subject:

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/28/world/americas/28iht-28mccain.10514626.html

 

While John McCain did not directly release his 'long form BC' it has become public and is generally accepted as authentic.

 

http://www.scribd.com/doc/9934044/John-McCain-Birth-Certificate

 

In shows he was not born on the base and was born at the Colon (Panama) Hospital.

 

If the components of 'natural born Citizen' require both 'jus soli' and 'jus sanguinis' Mr. McCain would appear to fail the 'jus soli' requirement.

 

But - the immigration act of 1790 made it clear that jus soli was the weaker of the two components. The act allowed you to be considered as a natural born Citizen by being born to American citizens (note: plural) abroad . Meaning jus sanguinis was the dominant factor in the requirements of being at least 'considered as' an natural born Citizen by the first Congress. This act is referenced in SR 511:

 

"Whereas such limitations would be inconsistent with the purpose and intent of the `natural born Citizen' clause of the Constitution of the United States, as evidenced by the First Congress's own statute defining the term `natural born Citizen';"

 

I will indicate I believe the text above is in error as the act did not 'define' natural born Citizen explicitly. It provided the requirements (two American citizen parents) to be 'considered as' a natural born Citizen - even if born overseas.

 

The terminology referencing 'natural born Citizen' was dropped in the immigration act of 1795. Possibly because Congress recognized the error of overriding the Constitution with non-constitutional law. Possibly not. But in any case it was dropped. It is the only time the term 'natural born Citizen' has been in actual codified law.

 

So the NYT was focused on John McCain's jus soli issue. Obama has been challenged on the jus soli issue as well. If you believe the WH release yesterday it is now resolved. But some argue the requirement for natural born Citizen status as defined under Article II, Section 1 also requires jus sanguinis. It is a valid issue to explore. But the NYT (and other major media outlets) did not. They wrote at least 3 articles on John McCain's issue but apparently none on Obama's potential issues. At least during the election cycle.

[Hatz]

SR 511 was actually introduced by Democrats

 

From the link above here is who brought this resolution into the Senate:

 

"Mrs. MCCASKILL (for herself, Mr. LEAHY, Mr. OBAMA, Mr. COBURN, Mrs. CLINTON, and Mr. WEBB) submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary"

 

Coburn is the only Republican in that group. The rest, including the sponsor were Democrats.

 

As I posted in another thread. The NYTs ran articles bringing up McCain's eligibility in February of 2008.

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/28/us/politics/28mccain.html

 

They ran articles in July of 2008

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/11/us/politics/11mccain.html

 

And in December of 2008 (after the election) they ran an article on the subject:

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/28/world/americas/28iht-28mccain.10514626.html

 

While John McCain did not directly release his 'long form BC' it has become public and is generally accepted as authentic.

 

http://www.scribd.com/doc/9934044/John-McCain-Birth-Certificate

 

In shows he was not born on the base and was born at the Colon (Panama) Hospital.

 

If the components of 'natural born Citizen' require both 'jus soli' and 'jus sanguinis' Mr. McCain would appear to fail the 'jus soli' requirement.

 

But - the immigration act of 1790 made it clear that jus soli was the weaker of the two components. The act allowed you to be considered as a natural born Citizen by being born to American citizens (note: plural) abroad . Meaning jus sanguinis was the dominant factor in the requirements of being at least 'considered as' an natural born Citizen by the first Congress. This act is referenced in SR 511:

 

"Whereas such limitations would be inconsistent with the purpose and intent of the `natural born Citizen' clause of the Constitution of the United States, as evidenced by the First Congress's own statute defining the term `natural born Citizen';"

 

I will indicate I believe the text above is in error as the act did not 'define' natural born Citizen explicitly. It provided the requirements (two American citizen parents) to be 'considered as' a natural born Citizen - even if born overseas.

 

The terminology referencing 'natural born Citizen' was dropped in the immigration act of 1795. Possibly because Congress recognized the error of overriding the Constitution with non-constitutional law. Possibly not. But in any case it was dropped. It is the only time the term 'natural born Citizen' has been in actual codified law.

 

So the NYT was focused on John McCain's jus soli issue. Obama has been challenged on the jus soli issue as well. If you believe the WH release yesterday it is now resolved. But some argue the requirement for natural born Citizen status as defined under Article II, Section 1 also requires jus sanguinis. It is a valid issue to explore. But the NYT (and other major media outlets) did not. They wrote at least 3 articles on John McCain's issue but apparently none on Obama's potential issues. At least during the election cycle.

 

Again, good info.

 

My question is not related to the specific reasons or which party did what.

 

My question is "Why would it be necessary by anyone in the Congress to address this question in 2008 on John McCain and not do it in 2000 when he also ran for President?" :idunno:

[Bluegrasscard]

Again, good info.

 

My question is not related to the specific reasons or which party did what.

 

My question is "Why would it be necessary by anyone in the Congress to address this question in 2008 on John McCain and not do it in 2000 when he also ran for President?" :idunno:

 

It would seem possibly to quell Democratic birthers who had latched on to this subject. A number of left leaning blogs picked up on the NYT articles and starting to run with it. Maybe the Democratic machinery wanted that issue shut down since all but one of the sponsors were Democratic. I do not think either party wanted to deal with the implications of Article II, Section 1 in 2008.

[Hatz]

It would seem possibly to quell Democratic birthers who had latched on to this subject. A number of left leaning blogs picked up on the NYT articles and starting to run with it. Maybe the Democratic machinery wanted that issue shut down since all but one of the sponsors were Democratic. I do not think either party wanted to deal with the implications of Article II, Section 1 in 2008.

 

Not picking on you and really this question is for anyone: Why would it be necessary to address the issue in 2008 and not 2000? That's what I don't understand about this Congressional activity.