Saturday, November 8, 2008

SMR Strauss on the Birth Certificate Question

Andy Martin comments on the following:

I, of course, have never questioned that he was born in Hawai'i. Until I see evidence to the contrary I will keep my mouth shut (unlike Mr. Berg).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A poster to an earlier blog below, SMRStrauss, indicates that a Virginia Court, basing its decision on the 1952 Immigration & Nationality Act, Title III, Chapter 3, Sections 349 and 355, has held that Obama's Indonesian and Kenyan citizenship do not invalidate his status of natural born citizen. Presumably, President-elect Obama continues to fight revealing his birth certificate for another reason, possibly Andy Martin's explanation that there is an issue involving the identity of President-elect Obama's father. Martin has heard rumor or obtained evidence that Obama's true father is Franklin Marshall Davis. It would seem easier to reveal the birth certificate than to fight revealing in court, and some explanation along these lines seems probable to me. Also, there is the matter of Obama's sealed medical records. I'm not enough of an attorney to comment on the citizenship issue. I think a bigger problem is the unwillingness of the pissant media to probe these questions, but anyone who reads my blog knows this well.

>First, the certification of live birth is a valid document showing that the birth certificate exists in the files. It has now been accepted by at least one court.

Then, on the absurd claim that Obama was born in Kenya:

If Obama had been born in Kenya, there would be a record of his mother arriving in Kenya in the archives of the Kenya government.

The critics of Obama, who allege that he was born in Kenya, have not shown anything like this. All they would have to do is to go to those files in Kenya and show that Obama’s mother had been in Kenya in 1961. But they have nothing.

I listened to the tape, and it is not clear that Obama's grandmother understood the question. The translator (who is also apparently a relative) says repeatedly that Obama was born in Hawaii. In any case, it is not evidence. She could be referring to Barak Obama senior, Obama’s father, who certainly was born in Kenya.

The officials in Hawaii say he was born in Hawaii. They have seen his birth certificate in his file. Thus they are confirming the certification. And, they have no reason to lie.

The certificate (or certification, whatever) of live birth has been accepted as legal proof of Obama's birth in Hawaii by a court in Virginia. (Monday. See: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2123806/posts)

After Berg, several other cases against Obama on the natural born citizen issue were brought in other states.

While most of them just did what the Berg case did, which was to rule that Berg had no standing to sue, some of the others looked at the “evidence” - and concluded that the stuff was absurd. This is important. It is no longer possible to claim that the courts have refused to look at the evidence and merely dismissed the cases on technical grounds. They did look at the evidence, and found it wanting.

In Ohio, for example the judge (magistrate) said:

“(Neal) presented no witnesses but himself. From that testimony, it is abundantly clear that the allegations in [Neal]’s complaint concerning “questions” about Senator Obama’s status as a “natural born citizen” are derived from Internet sources, the accuracy of which has not been demonstrated to either Defendant Brunner or this Magistrate … Given the paucity of evidence… this Magistrate cannot conclude that Defendant Brunner has abused her discretion in failing to launch an investigation into Senator Obama’s qualifications to hold the office of President of the United States. ” See:
http://www.oxfordpress.com/hp/content/oh/story/news/local/2008/10/31/ws103108obamasuit.html

In Virginia, which was just ruled on Monday, the judge went further and said that the certificate of live birth was good proof that Obama was born in Hawaii, and there was NO proof presented that he was born anywhere else.

Here is a report from a web posting that is not official, of course, but it seems accurate mainly because the fellow who posted it was AGAINST Obama. He is disappointed, but accepts the ruling. You can find this post at : (
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2123806/posts)

(Note that sometimes the author correctly puts COLB correctly and sometimes he types it as CLOB, but he means certificate of live birth throughout.)

Quotes:

The Court made the following findings:

1. The Certification of Live Birth presented to the court is unquestionably authentic.

The court noted that the certification had a raised seal from the state of Hawaii, had a stamp bearing the signature of the registrar of vital statistics. The court found “wholly unpersuasive” any of the internet claims that the birth certificate was altered in any way. Furthermore, the document itself was accompanied by an affidavit from the State Health Director (of Hawaii) verifying that the document is an authentic certification of live birth. The court held that there could be no doubt that the document was authentic unless one believed that the state of Hawaii’s health department were in on an elaborate and complex conspiracy – and that there is not a shred of evidence that this is the case.

2. The Certification of Live Birth establishes that Mr. Obama is a natural born citizen.

The affidavit of the State Health Director states that the information on the CLOB is identical to the information on the “vault” copy of the birth certificate, and that both documents establish that Mr. Obama was born in Honolulu. The Court noted that the CLOB is valid for all citizenship purposes. The court noted our argument that the COLB is not valid for determining citizenship, but referred us to Hawaiian law that states otherwise. “There is no difference between a certificate and a certification of live birth in the eyes of the state. For instance, either can be used to confirm U.S. citizenship to obtain a passport or state ID.” The court found that Hawaiian law makes the COLB valid for all purposes with the exception of determining native Hawaiian heritage for certain state and federal benefits. The court held that if Mr. Obama were born elsewhere and the birth registered in Hawaii, the “place of birth” line on the COLB would reflect that fact. The court stated that there could be no doubt that Mr. Obama was born in Hawaii and that any argument to the contrary was fanciful and relied on completely unsubstantiated internet rumors.

3. For that reason, 8 U.S.C. §1401(g), which at the relevant time provided as follows:

“The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth: ***(g) a person born outside the geographical limits of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is an alien, and the other a citizen of the United States who, prior to the birth of such person, was physically present in the United States or its outlying possessions for a period or periods totaling not less than ten years, at least five of which were after attaining the age of fourteen years:…..
is irrelevant to this matter, as Mr. Obama was conclusively born in Hawaii.

4. Mr. Obama did hold dual citizenship in the U.S. and Kenya until he became an adult. When Barack Obama Jr. was born Kenya was a British colony. As a Kenyan native, Barack Obama Sr. was a British subject whose citizenship status was governed by The British Nationality Act of 1948. That same act governed the status of Obama Sr.’s children: “British Nationality Act of 1948 (Part II, Section 5): Subject to the provisions of this section, a person born after the commencement of this Act shall be a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies by descent if his father is a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies at the time of the birth.” In other words, at the time of his birth, Barack Obama Jr. was both a U.S. citizen (by virtue of being born in Hawaii) and a citizen of the United Kingdom by virtue of being born to a father who was a citizen of the UK. Obama’s UK citizenship became an Kenyan citizenship on Dec. 12, 1963, when Kenya formally gained its independence from the United Kingdom. The court noted that Chapter VI, Section 87 of the Kenyan Constitution specifies that:

1. Every person who, having been born in Kenya, is on 11th December, 1963 a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies or a British protected person shall become a citizen of Kenya on 12th December, 1963…

2. Every person who, having been born outside Kenya, is on 11th December, 1963 a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies or a British protected person shall, if his father becomes, or would but for his death have become, a citizen of Kenya by virtue of subsection (1), become a citizen of Kenya on 12th December, 1963.
Thus the court held that as a citizen of the UK who was born in Kenya, Obama’s father automatically received Kenyan citizenship via subsection (1). So given that Obama qualified for citizen of the UK status at birth and given that Obama’s father became a Kenyan citizen via subsection (1), thus Obama did in fact have Kenyan citizenship in 1963.

However, the court further held that the Kenyan Constitution prohibits dual citizenship for adults. Kenya recognizes dual citizenship for children, but Kenya’s Constitution specifies that at age 21, Kenyan citizens who possesses citizenship in more than one country automatically lose their Kenyan citizenship unless they formally renounce any non-Kenyan citizenship and swear an oath of allegiance to Kenya. The court held that there was no evidence that Mr. Obama has ever renounced his U.S. citizenship or sworn an oath of allegiance to Kenya, his Kenyan citizenship automatically expired on Aug. 4, 1982.

The court held that there was no legal requirement that Mr. Obama renounce his Kenyan citizenship or affirm his U.S. citizenship in order to maintain his status as a natural born citizen.

5. Mr. Obama did not lose his U.S. Citizenship based on the acts of his parents, including adoption by an Indonesian citizen. The Court held that no action taken by the parents of an American child can strip that child of his citizenship. The court cited to the 1952 Immigration & Nationality Act, Title III, Chapter 3, Sections 349 and 355, which was in effect in the late 1960s when Obama went to Indonesia, and which stated that a minor does not lose his US citizenship upon the naturalization of his parents or any other actions of his parents, so long as the minor returns to the US and establishes permanent US residency before the age of 21. Thus the adoption of Obama did not serve to strip him of his U.S. citizenship. The fact that Indonesian law does not allow dual citizenship is irrelevant, as U.S. law controls. Furthermore, the Court held that traveling on a foreign passport does not strip an American of his citizenship. The Court noted first that there was no evidence that Mr. Obama traveled on an Indonesian passport (Mr. Berg and others we reached out to for evidence never provided any evidence of this claim or any other of the claims we could have used some proof of.) Nonetheless, the court held that such travel does not divest an American of his citizenship.

The Court makes other holdings and findings that I won’t bother you with here. Needless to say, the decision is wholly against us. The court finds the claims against Mr. Obama’s citizenship “wholly unpersuasive and bordering on the frivolous, especially in light of the complete absence of any first-hand evidence on any critical issue” and further classifies it as “conspiracy theory of the lowest sort, fueled by nothing than internet rumor and those who truly want to believe egging each other on.”

I like the part about “conspiracy theory of the lowest sort.”

Repeat: “The court held that if Mr. Obama were born elsewhere and the birth registered in Hawaii, the “place of birth” line on the COLB would reflect that fact. The court stated that there could be no doubt that Mr. Obama was born in Hawaii and that any argument to the contrary was fanciful and relied on completely unsubstantiated internet rumors.”

4 comments:

smrstrauss said...

Re: “Presumably, President-elect Obama continues to fight revealing his birth certificate for another reason.”

There are three reasons that I can think of that Obama does not show his birth certificate. But first, I question the word “fight.”

As far as I can see only a few bloggers on the web and the law cases, all of which have now been dismissed, ask for him to show anything.

In the Virginia case, which I discussed, he was asked to show something because Virginia is one of the few states that actually require proof of citizenship before you can get on the ballot. As we know, the court took one look at his certificate (or certification, whatever) of live birth and ruled that he was a citizen.

So, what is Obama fighting? He has just won by a majority of voters, some seven million votes more than his opponent, three hundred and something electoral votes. And he has a big job to do, considering the economy. These on-line speculations and the Berg case are not exactly major concerns.

The three reasons are :

(1) It is unnecessary. His certificate of live birth shows that there is a birth certificate from Hawaii in the files. This is proof of having a Hawaii birth certificate much the way that a bankbook was proof of having that amount of money in the bank;

(2) It is unnecessary because no legal body and only a small number of web bloggers and, perhaps, the Berg case (which some say continues, but others say no) has asked to see his birth certificate;

(3) It is unnecessary because there is no proof that he was born anywhere other than in Hawaii.

The Kenya claims are absurd unless the other side can prove that his mother was in Kenya at the time of his birth. The Indonesian assertions have nothing to do with his birth certificate. If dual citizenship were an issue, and it’s not, he could still have been born in Hawaii and have a problem with his citizenship. The dual citizenship issue was addressed in the previous post, which showed that he could not have lost his citizenship by having dual nationality when he was a child.

And let me add (4) It is unnecessary because IF any court with jurisdiction over the case (presumably only the Supreme Court now) were to ask for his birth certificate, he would of course produce it. We know that there is a birth certificate because of the certification of real birth.

As for your comments that perhaps someone else was his real father, that would of course knock the hell out of the Kenyan theory, and it is irrelevant to the constitutional issue in any case.

I think you also said something about his failure to produce college records. I recall that in the last presidential election neither Bush nor Kerry showed their college records for the obvious reason that they both were C students. Obama most likely was an A student.

Anonymous said...

thanks for the analysis. i'm still curious why he won't release the 'long form' birth cert., if only to quash the rumors, if that's all they are. i'm hoping it's untrue for there would be a 2nd civil war, at the same time can we have someone who'd lie about their identity knowing the poss repercussions ... hold the office ?

Mitchell Langbert said...

Reply to SMRSTrauss:

a>"As for your comments that perhaps someone else was his real father, that would of course knock the hell out of the Kenyan theory, and it is irrelevant to the constitutional issue in any case."

b>"I think you also said something about his failure to produce college records. I recall that in the last presidential election neither Bush nor Kerry showed their college records for the obvious reason that they both were C students. Obama most likely was an A student."

Regarding point a, the main issue for me has not been a constitutional matter but one of character. President-elect Obama's repeated lying has been overlooked, and he has lied frequently enough to suggest an underlying psychological pattern. I thought of sociopath, but a noted psychiatrist has suggested narcissistic personality disorder. I hope I am wrong, for the country's sake. But this is the first election I can recall where absolutely no questions were asked about a candidate's character. This is a serious indictment of the pissant media.

Regarding b, you seem to suggest that he is hiding his school records for a reason other than his grades. Again, the media has not asked questions, and this brings it to new lows.

The Constitutional issue was a way to force his revealing the vault birth certificate, but it has apparently failed. Too bad. I hope that there is no hidden agenda in the Obama presidency. If not, I will be grateful. But one thing is for sure, I spend as little as possible on newspapers and magazines, and I have stopped watching TV news. It is a joke.

smrstrauss said...

Re: “the main issue for me has not been a constitutional matter but one of character.’

If so, we have no disagreement. You are entitled to your opinion, and I’d fight to the death for your right to express it.

Still, let us not underestimate a historic fact. The fact is that although you and 56.2 million other Americans thought that there were significant flaws in Obama’s character, 63.5 million Americans thought that his character was just fine – or, at least good enough to vote to make him president. That is a majority of about nine million voters, or close to 7.5%.

It is always wise to remember that Americans have made mistakes in the past. But sometimes they have made wise decisions too. In any case, in our system when a person has won the majority of the electoral vote, as Obama did in this case, he or she is the president – as flawed as he or she may be. Obama won both an overwhelming majority in the electoral vote and a strong majority of the popular vote.

So long as there is no further issue over whether Obama is a US citizen (which some blogs continue to spew), we need not discuss further.

You are welcome to your view that Obama has terrible character, and I will stick with my view that although he is far from perfect, he has strengths – and we should give him the benefit of the doubt.

A side note on the college documents issue. Have you ever considered how lazy it is to imply that there may be something terrible in the documents, since Obama will not release them?

It is the business of the opponents of a candidate to find out the bad things about him, not rely on him to release bad things about himself.

So, I have to assume that some of the people on McCain's staff went through the college files as best they could and talked to former professors and even former admissions officers. And I'd bet they checked old police records and lots of other stuff too.

And they didn't find anything.