obama birth certificate: yes or no

[KenyanBornObama]

Birthers do love them their Youtube.....

Meanwhile back to real sources
Vital Records Frequently Asked Questions about Vital Records of President Barack Hussein Obama II
Frequently Asked Questions about Vital Records of President Barack Hussein Obama II
On April 27, 2011 President Barack Obama posted a certified copy of his original Certificate of Live Birth.

Hawai„i Health Director Loretta Fuddy said.
“
I have seen the original records filed at the
Department of Health and a
ttest to the authenticity of the certified copies the
department provided to the President that further prove the fact that he was born in
Hawai„i.

Photo of certified copy of original birth certificate taken by Savannah Guthrie

That's the forgery! And even if it WERE real, Obama is still not a natural born citizen EVEN if he was born here. TOO BAD!

Not a forgery- and Too Bad- no one cares about your nutty theories.

Not the voters.
Not the Electoral College
Not Congress
Not Chief Justice Roberts
Not any judge who has looked at the issue.

7 years of Presidency - and one 1 year to go- Birthers still stomping their feet and threatening to hold their breath.

LOLOL they are not THEORIES, when you have the evidence to prove your claims DOH. \Perhaps you THINK that if all you and your loser friends gang up on me that it will make my evidence not legit, but that's not gonna happen because NONE of you can't dispute the evidence!

So take your Alinsky tactics and STICK EM!

 

[KenyanBornObama]

Doesn't matter any more. He served almost 8 years so whats the purpose either way?

Because when he's proven ineligible, anything with his name on it, including Supreme Court appointments & Obamacare, are all NULL & VOID. They won't even have to be repealed, then will just be void, as if it never happened, while Obama is put behind bars!

Won't happen. Put your passion towards the future on positive things, not fist waving at shit 8 years old.

LOLOL fist waving. Perhaps you don't CARE that we have an illegal President, BUT I DO and so do millions of others!!

By definition we don't have an illegal President- he was legally elected by the Electoral College and confirmed by the U.S. Congress- twice.

No one who matters believes your nutty theories.

Nope, he was not legally elected, because he was never eligible to be on the ballot, IN ANY STATE! TOO BAD!

 

[KenyanBornObama]

does one exist ?? or does it just exist in the digital world...

we as a country will eventually need to know..

Obama Jokes About Birth Certificate During Kenya Visit

Who cares. He's the Pres. Live with it.

NO, he's the Usurper. He's not eligible to be Pres! Wake up and do some research!

And what exactly do you think you can do about it?

Well considering I've taken my case all the way to the Supreme Court and they denied it. Justice Thomas admitted they were evading the issue in this video (and they all laugh hahaha):


I've been to Congress about a dozen times to drop of my evidence and have hit at least 200 offices. I personally handed my evidence to Trey Gowdy & Jason Chaffetz, so they have it. Not sure why they do nothing!

Because they all think you are a nut- and they are all laughing at you like the Supreme Court did.

They do nothing because no one agrees with your nutty theories or your nutty cause.

You think you know more than the voters, and Congress and the Supreme Court- and that is pretty much guaranteed to be delusional.

I could really give a sh!t what anyone thinks of me. Regardless of what you think of me, my evidence still proves you wrong, doesn't it! I see you all got your panties in a bunch and are trying everything possible to make people think that I am crazy, but they only need to look at me evidence here: Obama Eligibility to see that the evidence 100% backs up my claims beyond ANY DOUBT!

 

[westwall]

Doesn't matter any more. He served almost 8 years so whats the purpose either way?

Because when he's proven ineligible, anything with his name on it, including Supreme Court appointments & Obamacare, are all NULL & VOID. They won't even have to be repealed, then will just be void, as if it never happened, while Obama is put behind bars!

Won't happen. Put your passion towards the future on positive things, not fist waving at shit 8 years old.

LOLOL fist waving. Perhaps you don't CARE that we have an illegal President, BUT I DO and so do millions of others!!

By definition we don't have an illegal President- he was legally elected by the Electoral College and confirmed by the U.S. Congress- twice.

No one who matters believes your nutty theories.

Nope, he was not legally elected, because he was never eligible to be on the ballot, IN ANY STATE! TOO BAD!

And yet he's POTUS. Face it dude, no matter how loud you scream, no one is going to care.

 

[Faun]

There was never any disagreement. He has a half sister who didn't know what hospital he was born in and named the wrong one when asked. No big deal really... I can't even tell you the name of the hospital my siblings, or my parents, were born in.

No, but if you were given a multiple choice question with two possible answers I bet you would get it right every time.

Not only was his half sister confused, he's also got a grandmother and cousin in Kenya who could have sworn they were present when he was born, --bad memories in that family

Huh? When was his half sister given multiple choices?

 

[KenyanBornObama]

does one exist ?? or does it just exist in the digital world...

we as a country will eventually need to know..

Obama Jokes About Birth Certificate During Kenya Visit

Who cares. He's the Pres. Live with it.

NO, he's the Usurper. He's not eligible to be Pres! Wake up and do some research!

And what exactly do you think you can do about it?

Well considering I've taken my case all the way to the Supreme Court and they denied it. Justice Thomas admitted they were evading the issue in this video (and they all laugh hahaha):


I've been to Congress about a dozen times to drop of my evidence and have hit at least 200 offices. I personally handed my evidence to Trey Gowdy & Jason Chaffetz, so they have it. Not sure why they do nothing!

Because they all think you are a nut- and they are all laughing at you like the Supreme Court did.

They do nothing because no one agrees with your nutty theories or your nutty cause.

You think you know more than the voters, and Congress and the Supreme Court- and that is pretty much guaranteed to be delusional.

I don't think I know more than anyone, I just know that the evidence I have, proves that I know exactly what I am talking about. You can ignore the evidence all you want, but that doesn't make it disappear. It's STILL there and it proves you WRONG! Not my problem, that's your problem!

 

[KenyanBornObama]

Because when he's proven ineligible, anything with his name on it, including Supreme Court appointments & Obamacare, are all NULL & VOID. They won't even have to be repealed, then will just be void, as if it never happened, while Obama is put behind bars!

Won't happen. Put your passion towards the future on positive things, not fist waving at shit 8 years old.

LOLOL fist waving. Perhaps you don't CARE that we have an illegal President, BUT I DO and so do millions of others!!

By definition we don't have an illegal President- he was legally elected by the Electoral College and confirmed by the U.S. Congress- twice.

No one who matters believes your nutty theories.

Nope, he was not legally elected, because he was never eligible to be on the ballot, IN ANY STATE! TOO BAD!

And yet he's POTUS. Face it dude, no matter how loud you scream, no one is going to care.

I'm not a dude and no he's not POTUS, he's USURPER. Only a qualified candidate can be POTUS and Obama is not qualified!

 

[KenyanBornObama]

When any citizen born in Hawaii requests their birth certificate, they receive exactly what the President received. In fact, the document posted on the campaign website is what Hawaiians use to get a driver’s license from the state and the document recognized by the Federal Government and the courts for all legal purposes. That’s because it is the birth certificate. This is not and should not be an open question.
President Obama s Long Form Birth Certificate The White House

We've posted the certification that is given by the state of Hawaii on the Internet for everybody to see. People have provided affidavits that they, in fact, have seen this birth certificate. And yet this thing just keeps on going.
Remarks by the President whitehouse.gov

• Claims #10 and 11, birth certificates. The claim that Obama’s birth certificate is “sealed” is pure nonsense. Copies of both the so-called “short” and “long” certificates have been released, and state officials in Hawaii have said repeatedly that Obama was born there in 1961 and is a “natural born American citizen.”
• Obama s Sealed Records

"We've had every official in Hawaii, Democrat and Republican, every news outlet that has investigated this confirm that, yes, in fact, I was born in Hawaii August 4th, 1961, in Kapiolani Hospital. We've posted the certification that is given by the state of Hawaii on the Internet for everybody to see. People have provided affidavits that they, in fact, have seen this birth certificate. And yet this thing just keeps on going.
Obama releases birth certificate PolitiFact

Not if they were born in another country like Obama, then they get one like this, with the birthplace at the bottom:

Too bad for your delusions, line 23 is blank on Obama's actual birth certificate.

Obama's actual birth certificate, we'll use that term loosely..

i'm glad they finally agreed on which hospital.

There was never any disagreement. He has a half sister who didn't know what hospital he was born in and named the wrong one when asked. No big deal really except to birthers who cling to anything they can. I can't even tell you the name of the hospital my siblings, or my parents, were born in.

The hospital is irrelevant, because even if it were proven that he was born here, he's still and never was a natural born citizen as his father was never a citizen!

 

[KenyanBornObama]

Yes, it exists. He was born in Hawaii.

But that will never, never, never matter to the birfers. Ever. You could put them in a time machine and take them back to the Kapiʻolani Medical Center on August 4, 1961 and shove their faces down into Ann Dunham's crotch as Barack emerges, and they will swear on a stack of Bibles they are in Kenya.

Even though Ann Dunham never visited Kenya. Not before, during, or after Barack Obama's birth.

We're talking about some seriously hardcore willful delusion here.

So fuck 'em. Wipe your ass with a book publisher's circular and call it a day.

What else are you so confident about I wonder?

Yes, I am seriously hardcore willfully delusional. So are people who believe rocks turn into humans.

Yes you are.

You have seen actual evidence that Barack Obama was born in Hawaii.
You have not seen any evidence that Barack Obama was not born in Hawaii.

By 'evidence' I mean anything where the originals could be presented in court as actual evidence- as opposed to speculation or innuendo.

Of course that means you believe the speculation and innuendo- not the evidence.

LOADS of evidence here to prove you 100% wrong:
Obama Eligibility

Christ, I debunked that bullshit years ago.

How do you debunk Supreme Court Precedent? How do you debunk the intent of the 14th Amendment citizenship clause, when we have the authors intent ON RECORD? How do you debunk Federal Law, when we have a copy of the statutes? Not too bright are you? Most libtards aren't!

 

[KenyanBornObama]

there is a lot of disagreement... maybe cause snopes and the obama campaign site got them mixed up.

then there is that letter, and dr. corsi getting pitched...

i'd like to see a copy of the newspaper with the announcements.

baskin robbins... a picture of neil walking with grandpa and little b.

and who wouldn't want to have a peek into that vault. don't know if geraldo is available for that... wouldn't be any more controversy though.

There is no more controversy. It's already been proven that Obama is not a natural born citizen.

 

[KenyanBornObama]

there you go again,somehow a foreigner running our country is far more important to you than our government institutions murdering 3000 of its own citizens.

A foreigner running our country means we NO LONGER HAVE A COUNTRY, WAKE UP!

 

[KenyanBornObama]

there you go again,somehow a foreigner running our country is far more important to you than our government institutions murdering 3000 of its own citizens.

Oh look - a left wing moon bat conspiracy theorist arguing with a right wing moon bat conspiracy theorist. How very ironic.

I'm sure you aren't talking about me, didn't think so!

 

[westwall]

Won't happen. Put your passion towards the future on positive things, not fist waving at shit 8 years old.

LOLOL fist waving. Perhaps you don't CARE that we have an illegal President, BUT I DO and so do millions of others!!

By definition we don't have an illegal President- he was legally elected by the Electoral College and confirmed by the U.S. Congress- twice.

No one who matters believes your nutty theories.

Nope, he was not legally elected, because he was never eligible to be on the ballot, IN ANY STATE! TOO BAD!

And yet he's POTUS. Face it dude, no matter how loud you scream, no one is going to care.

I'm not a dude and no he's not POTUS, he's USURPER. Only a qualified candidate can be POTUS and Obama is not qualified!

That's funny, he keeps ordering drone strikes. Wonder why no one is listening to you?

 

[westwall]

there you go again,somehow a foreigner running our country is far more important to you than our government institutions murdering 3000 of its own citizens.

A foreigner running our country means we NO LONGER HAVE A COUNTRY, WAKE UP!

Then by all means start the revolution. You should last all of a minute.........well, maybe a 30 seconds.

 

[KenyanBornObama]

does one exist ?? or does it just exist in the digital world...

we as a country will eventually need to know..

Obama Jokes About Birth Certificate During Kenya Visit

Personally, I'd like to see his college transcripts. You know. The ones he won't release.

That would tell everyone exactly where he came from. Who paid for college and why.

I've never been a birther but the fact he won't release those transcripts makes people wonder why the hell doesn't release them.

Is there something in them that he doesn't want anyone to see??

I suspect that he may have lied about being a Kenyan, possibly to receive aid as a foreign student.

Another example of how Birthers rely upon lies, speculation and innuendo.

Instead of facts.

How are these not facts?

The earliest mention of “natural born Citizen”, by two of the most instrumental Founders, is in the Constitutional Drafts. The original draft contained different qualifications for the President (shown below) than the final copy that we know today. This change came about after correspondence between General George Washington and John Jay (President of the Continental Congress, who later became the first Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court), in which they were worried about foreign influence being admitted into the administration and national government. These letters and events are dated and read as follows:

June 18th, 1787 – The “Original” Draft of the Constitution suggests in Article IX, Section 1 that: “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.” (Works of Alexander Hamilton: Miscellanies, 1774-1789, page 407).



July 25, 1787 (5 weeks later) – John Jay writes a letter to General Washington saying: “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.] (Records of the Federal Convention of 1787 [Farrand’s Records, Volume 3] LXVIII, page 61. John Jay to George Washington)



September 2nd, 1787 (5 weeks later) George Washington pens a letter to John Jay. The last line reads: “I thank you for the hints contained in your letter”. (Records of the Federal Convention of 1787 [Farrand’s Records, Volume 3] page 76.)



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. The proposal passed unanimously without debate. (Madison’s notes of the Convention – September 4th, 1787)



A Natural Born Citizen is a “citizen by nature” or a citizen “according to Natural Law”, hence the word “natural” and that is where the Founders/Framers got their definition, which I establish below. Natural Law defines a natural born citizen as someone who is born in a country of citizen parents and is described in Book I, Section 212, of Vattel’s Law of Nations. The full definition is below:

Vattel’s Law of Nations §212. Citizens and natives:
“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 natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. As the society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights. The society is supposed to desire this, in consequence of what it owes to its own preservation; and it is presumed, as matter of course, that each citizen, on entering into society, reserves to his children the right of becoming members of it. The country of the fathers is therefore that of the children; and these become true citizens merely by their tacit consent. We shall soon see whether, on their coming to the years of discretion, they may renounce their right, and what they owe to the society in which they were born. I say, that, in order to be of the country, it is necessary that a person be born of a father who is a citizen; for, if he is born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country.”

There is indisputable evidence that Vattel’s treatise, THE LAW OF NATIONS OR PRINCIPLES OF THE LAW OF NATURE APPLIED TO THE CONDUCT AND AFFAIRS OF NATIONS AND SOVEREIGNS, was used in writing our founding documents (Constitution & The Declaration of Independence). The initial piece of evidence that confirms America adopted Natural Law, also known as the “Laws of Nature”, is the first line of The Declaration of Independence where it states:

“When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.”.

Secondly, we have the 1775 letter from Benjamin Franklin himself (below), thanking Charles Dumas for the 3 copies of Vattel that he had recently sent to America. Ben Franklin’s Actual letter from the Congressional Records. The letter below proves beyond doubt that the Founders consulted Vattel’s Law of Nations, while writing the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution.



We also have Congressional records from March 10, 1794 confirming that Congress again ordered more copies of Vattel’s Law of Nations. This order states:





Furthermore, the 28th Congress (which met from 1843 to 1845), recorded in the Index of the Appendix of the Congressional Debates, that we are to look to “Vattel” for the definition of “natural Allegiance”, as shown below:





The next instance of “natural born citizen” is in 1862 and is also from the Congressional Record. This definition of natural born citizen confirms Vattel’s definition and is given by Representative John Bingham, who would later author the 14th Amendment. Bingham’s recorded definition reads as:

“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.” (Congressional Globe, House of Representatives 37th Congress, 2nd Session, pg 1639)




Section 1 of the Civil Rights Act of 1866 clearly defines “who are citizens” and it validates Vattel’s definition. The “citizenship clause” shown below, was not in the original bill and was added in as an amendment to help in its passage and it states:

”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”.



When the Civil Rights Act went over to the House, Rep. John Bingham of Ohio, Father of the future 14th amendment, is on record (shown below) in the House and 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 and addressing Trumbull’s citizenship clause amendment to the Civil Rights 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” (1866 Congressional Globe, House of Representatives, 39th Congress, 1st Session, pg 1291)



After the Civil Rights Act of 1866 had been enacted into law over President Andrew Johnson’s veto, some members of Congress voted for the 14th amendment in order to eliminate doubts about the constitutionality of the Civil Rights Act of 1866, or to ensure that no subsequent Congress could later repeal or alter the main provisions of that Act. Thus, the Citizenship Clause in the 14th Amendment parallels citizenship language in the Civil Rights Act of 1866, and likewise the Equal Protection Clause parallels non discrimination language in the 1866 Act.

Some people think that the 14th Amendment changed the Civil Rights Act definition of a citizen, however the author of the citizenship clause to the 14th Amendment, Jacob Howard clearly states in the 14th Amendment Debates that the citizenship clause addition to the 14th Amendment was only “declaratory of existing law” (Civil Rights Act) and is on record stating:

“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.” (Congressional Globe, Senate, 39th Congress, 1st Session, pg 2890)

During the 14th Amendment debates, several Senators questioned as to the meaning of the phrase “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” and Lyman Trumbull, author of the Civil Rights Act and the one who inserted the citizenship clause into the 14th amendment along with it’s author Jacob Howard, states on the record:
“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.” (Congressional Globe, Senate, 39th Congress, 1st Session, pg 2893).




Trumbull’s words prove without any doubt, that “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” means the exact same thing as “not owing allegiance to any foreign power” and that the 14th Amendment changed nothing regarding the definition of a citizen. Moreover, 5 years after the enactment of the 14th Amendment, the Civil Rights Act definition of citizen is enacted into the 1873 Revised Statutes, confirming again that the 14th Amendment made no such change! Sec. 1992 of the United States Revised statutes of 1873.



The Annotated Statutes of Wisconsin (1889) enacted a full 20+ years after the 14th amendment clearly agrees, as it states “Who are Citizens” and uses the same exact phrase from the 1992 statute of the 1873 Revised Statutes listed above, which cites the Civil Rights Act as its source for the definition.



The West Virginia Supreme Court tells us to “Look to Vattel on Citizenship” (pg 191) as shown below:


The cite by Vattel from the screenshot above lists “page 101, section 212 of his “Law of Nations, Or, Principles of the Law of Nature, Applied to the Conduct and Affairs of Nations and Sovereigns”, which is the same text that I referred to above from Vattel and precisely reflects the Civil Rights Act & Rep. Bingham’s definition.

SUPREME COURT PRECEDENT RELATING TO NATURAL BORN CITIZEN AND NATURAL LAW.

Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162 (1874)
“The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. 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. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case it is not necessary to solve these doubts. It is sufficient for everything we have now to consider that all children born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction are themselves citizens.”

Elk v. Wilkins 112 U.S. 94 (1884)
“The distinction between citizenship by birth and citizenship by naturalization is clearly marked in the provisions of the constitution, by which ‘no person, except a natural-born citizen, or a citizen of the United States at the time of the adoption of this constitution, shall be eligible to the office of president;’ and ‘the congress shall have power to establish an uniform rule of naturalization.’ Const. art. 2, 1; art. 1, 8. By the thirteenth amendment of the constitution slavery was prohibited. The main object of the opening sentence of the fourteenth amendment was to settle the question, upon which there had been a difference of opinion throughout the country and in this court, as to the citizenship of free negroes, Scott v. Sandford, 19 How. 393 and to put it beyond doubt that all persons, white or black, and whether formerly slaves or not, born or naturalized in the United States, and owing no allegiance to any alien power, should be citizens of the United States and of the state in which they reside. Slaughter-House Cases, 16 Wall. 36, 73; Strauder v. West Virginia 100 U.S. 303 , 306

This section contemplates two sources of citizenship, and two sources only: birth and naturalization. The persons declared to be citizens are ‘all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof.’ The evident meaning of these last words is, not merely subject in some respect or degree to the jurisdiction of the United States, but completely subject to their political jurisdiction, and owing them direct and immediate allegiance.”

The Venus, 12 U.S. 8 Cranch 253 (1814)
Chief Justice Marshall (partial concur partial dissent)
“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 writers on 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.”

As you can see, the judge is citing Vattel, author of THE LAW OF NATIONS, OR PRINCIPLES OF THE LAW OF NATURE for his definition of natural born citizen, which is exactly where our Founder’s got their definition.

SUPREME COURT PRECEDENT CONFIRMING THAT NATURAL LAW AKA THE “LAW OF NATIONS” IS THE LAW OF THE LAND.

The Nereide – 13 U.S. 388 (1815)
“It is not for us to depart from the beaten track prescribed for us, and to tread the devious and intricate path of politics. Even in the case of salvage, a case peculiarly within the discretion of courts because no fixed rule is prescribed by the law of nations, Congress has not left it to this department to say whether the rule of foreign nations shall be applied to them, but has by law applied that rule. If it be the will of the government to apply to Spain any rule respecting captures which Spain is supposed to apply to us, the government will manifest that will by passing an act for the purpose. Till such an act be passed, the Court is bound by the law of nations which is a part of the law of the land.”

Banco Nacional de Cuba v. Sabbatino 376 U.S. 398 (1964)
As early as 1793, Chief Justice Jay stated in Chisholm v. Georgia that, “Prior . . . to that period [the date of the Constitution], the United States had, by taking a place among the nations of the earth, become amenable to the law of nations.” 2 U. S. 2 Dall. 419 at 2 U. S. 474. And, in 1796, Justice Wilson stated in Ware v. Hylton:
“When the United States declared their independence, they were bound to receive the law of nations, in its modern state of purity and refinement.” 3 U. S. 3 Dall. 199 at 3 U. S. 281.
Chief Justice Marshall was even more explicit in The Nereide when he said:
“If it be the will of the Government to apply to Spain any rule respecting captures which Spain is supposed to apply to us, the Government will manifest that will by passing an act for the purpose. Till such an act be passed, the Court is bound by the law of nations, which is a part of the law of the land.” 13 U. S. 9 Cranch 388 at 13 U. S. 423.
As to the effect such an Act of Congress would have on international law, the Court has ruled that an Act of Congress ought never to be construed to violate the law of nations if any other possible construction remains. MacLeod v. US, 229 U. S. 416, 229 U. S. 434 (1913)

 

[Faun]

Bullshit. I don't care how Liberal the media is, they're in the business to make money. And they would make a fucking fortune if it were proven Obama was born in Kenya. Compared to now where they're making practically nothing off of the birther idiocy. Not to mention, not all of the media is Liberal. There's Fox, there are plenty of conservative websites, there's AM radio, and even no e of them could prove that Obama was born in Kenya. Even Trump, with all of his money and resources, couldn't prove Obama was born in Kenya. There's a reason birthers are among the craziest in the nation.

sorry, guy, I strongly beg to differ.

If you want to include internet news sites then there are hundreds of articles which take the time to investigate, sight all of the incongruities and faults with that which you are so sure is the truth.

No, your president is a phony and a liar. He was never born in Hawaii. I have read more than enough, but I have no zeal to make my case once again.

You could start with this inexplicable. A tale of two birth certificates

But if you really have an interest, WorldNetDaily.com is as thorough as all of your cowardly, fawning liberal mainstream media news sites combined X 100. This particular link lists over a hundred articles on the subject. I do not expect positive results in changing your mind, unfortunately.
Is Obama constitutionally eligible to serve

You can differ all you want -- no one has been able to prove Obama was born in Kenya and no one has been able to prove his Hawaiian birth record is anything less than authentic.

Sorry but...
No one can prove that he was born in Hawaii. There is much more evidence that proves he was born in Kenya then Hawaii. If he was born in Hawaii, why did he have to forge a birth certificate!

No one can prove to you that Obama was born in Hawaii- but you are a Birther- therefore an idiot- and won't believe anything that is not fed to you by WND or convicted con men.

But for rational persons- we rely upon facts- from reliable sources
Vital Records

Frequently Asked Questions about Vital Records of President Barack Hussein Obama II
On April 27, 2011 President Barack Obama posted a certified copy of his original Certificate of Live Birth

View attachment 46098

The index data regarding President Obama is:

Birth Index
Obama II, Barack Hussein
Male

View attachment 46099

I rely upon the actual people in charge of maintaining official records- you rely upon convicted con men- such as this gem you refer to in your post:

What you don't seem to get is that EVEN IF he WAS born in Hawaii, he's still not eligible. To be a natural born citizen, BOTH parents must be citizens and Obama's father was never a citizen.

SO, I will GIVE you the Hawaiian Birth and the birth certificate, but how you gonna get past that Natural Born Citizen issue, YOU CAN'T!

Nonsense. You already quoted a Supreme Court case which stated it's unsettled. And of course, we've already had at least two people like that become president.

 

[KenyanBornObama]

Elk v. Wilkins 112 U.S. 94 (1884)
“The distinction between citizenship by birth and citizenship by naturalization is clearly marked in the provisions of the constitution, by which ‘no person, except a natural-born citizen, or a citizen of the United States at the time of the adoption of this constitution, shall be eligible to the office of president;’ and ‘the congress shall have power to establish an uniform rule of naturalization.’ Const. art. 2, 1; art. 1, 8. By the thirteenth amendment of the constitution slavery was prohibited. The main object of the opening sentence of the fourteenth amendment was to settle the question, upon which there had been a difference of opinion throughout the country and in this court, as to the citizenship of free negroes, Scott v. Sandford, 19 How. 393 and to put it beyond doubt that all persons, white or black, and whether formerly slaves or not, born or naturalized in the United States, and owing no allegiance to any alien power, should be citizens of the United States and of the state in which they reside. Slaughter-House Cases, 16 Wall. 36, 73; Strauder v. West Virginia 100 U.S. 303 , 306

This section contemplates two sources of citizenship, and two sources only: birth and naturalization. The persons declared to be citizens are ‘all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof.’ The evident meaning of these last words is, not merely subject in some respect or degree to the jurisdiction of the United States, but completely subject to their political jurisdiction, and owing them direct and immediate allegiance.”
.

This section contemplates two sources of citizenship, and two sources only: birth and naturalization. The persons declared to be citizens are ‘all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof.’

Elk recognized only two kinds of citizenship Natural born and Naturalized.

Since people born in the United States are not naturalized citizens- they are natural born citizens.
As Elk points out.

Elk CLEARLY states:
"all persons, white or black, and whether formerly slaves or not, born or naturalized in the United States, and owing no allegiance to any alien power, should be citizens of the United States"

OWING NO ALLEGIANCE TO ANY ALIEN POWER. Everyone knows Obama was born a British Subject, so he was not eligible for citizenship!
)

Elk is an interesting case- regarding whether an Indian born within the United States- and owing allegiance to his sovereign tribe was born a citizen

Elk also clearly states:

Indians born within the territorial limits of the United States, members of and owing immediate allegiance to one of the Indiana tribes (an alien though dependent power), although in a geographical sense born in the United States, are no more "born in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof," within the meaning of the first section of the Fourteenth Amendment,
than the children of subjects of any foreign government born within the domain of that government,
or the children born within the United States of ambassadors or other public ministers of foreign nations.

Note the distinctions there
Children of subjects of any foreign government born within the domain of that government
Obama was not born within the domain of any other government

Note again the distinction here:
or the children born within the United States of ambassadors or other public ministers of foreign nations.

Obama was not born to a foreign diplomat

What is not mentioned by the courts is what you claim- that a person born with citizenship in another country is not a citizen.

Matter of fact- Elk doesn't care about the citizenship of the person's parents at all.

"The Slaughterhouse cases follows Elk and it states:
"The first observation we have to make on this clause is that it puts at rest both the questions which we stated to have been the subject of differences of opinion. It declares that persons may be citizens of the United States without regard to their citizenship of a particular State, and it overturns the Dred Scott decision by making all persons born within the United States and subject to its jurisdiction citizens of the United States. That its main purpose was to establish the citizenship of the negro can admit of no doubt. The phrase, "subject to its jurisdiction" was intended to exclude from its operation children of ministers, consuls, and citizens or subjects of foreign States born within the United States."

"Matter of fact- Elk doesn't care about the citizenship of the person's parents at all."

YES, IT 100% DOES, when it says:
"By the thirteenth amendment of the constitution slavery was prohibited. The main object of the opening sentence of the fourteenth amendment was to settle the question, upon which there had been a difference of opinion throughout the country and in this court, as to the citizenship of free negroes, Scott v. Sandford, 19 How. 393 and to put it beyond doubt that all persons, white or black, and whether formerly slaves or not, born or naturalized in the United States, and owing no allegiance to any alien power, should be citizens of the United States and of the state in which they reside. Slaughter-House Cases, 16 Wall. 36, 73; Strauder v. West Virginia 100 U.S. 303 , 306"

Maybe you missed where it said: "all persons, white or black, and whether formerly slaves or not, born or naturalized in the United States, and owing no allegiance to any alien power, should be citizens"

The ONLY way you can owe no allegiance to an alien power is to not a foreign parent to create that divided allegiance!

And Wong Kim Ark settled that question- you do realize that Wong Kim Ark supercedes Slaughterhouse- right?

As the Court recognized in Wong Kim Ark- reference to the statement from Slaughterhouse:
United States v. Wong Kim Ark US Law LII Legal Information Institute

Mr. Justice Miller, indeed, while discussing the causes which led to the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment, made this remark:


The phrase, "subject to its jurisdiction" was intended to exclude from its operation children of ministers, consuls, and citizens or subjects of foreign States born within the United States.


16 Wall. 73.

This was wholly aside from the question in judgment and from the course of reasoning bearing upon that question. It was unsupported by any argument, or by any reference to authorities, and that it was not formulated with the same care and exactness as if the case before the court had called for an exact definition of the phrase is apparent from its classing foreign ministers and consuls together -- whereas it was then well settled law, as has since been recognized in a judgment of this court in which Mr. Justice Miller concurred, that consuls, as such, and unless expressly invested with a diplomatic character in addition to their ordinary powers, are not considered as entrusted with authority to represent their sovereign in his intercourse [p679] with foreign States or to vindicate his prerogatives, or entitled by the law of nations to the privileges and immunities of ambassadors or public ministers, but are subject to the jurisdiction, civil and criminal, of the courts of the country in which they reside. 1 Kent Com. 44; Story Conflict of Laws § 48; Wheaton International Law (8th ed.) § 249; The Anne (1818), 3 Wheat. 435, 445, 446; Gittings v. Crawford (1838), Taney 1, 10; In re Baiz (1890), 135 U.S. 403, 424.

That neither Mr. Justice Miller nor any of the justices who took part in the decision of The Slaughterhouse Cases understood the court to be committed to the view that all children born in the United States of citizens or subjects of foreign States were excluded from the operation of the first sentence of the Fourteenth Amendment is manifest from a unanimous judgment of the Court, delivered but two years later, while all those judges but Chief Justice Chase were still on the bench, in which

Chief Justice Waite said: "Allegiance and protection are, in this connection" (that is, in relation to citizenship),
reciprocal obligations.
The one is a compensation for the other: allegiance for protection, and protection for allegiance. . . . 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 [p680] 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. Some authorities go further, and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction, without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class, there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case, it is not necessary to solve these doubts. It is sufficient for everything we have now to consider that all children born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction are themselves citizens.

And then the court in Wong Kim Ark said that a person born in the United States of parents with foreign citizenship is born a United States citizen

The fact, therefore, that acts of Congress or treaties have not permitted Chinese persons born out of this country to become citizens by naturalization, cannot exclude Chinese persons born in this country from the operation of the broad and clear words of the Constitution, "All persons born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States."


VII. Upon the facts agreed in this case, the American citizenship which Wong Kim Ark acquired by birth within the United States has not been lost or taken away by anything happening since his birth. No doubt he might himself, after coming of age, renounce this citizenship and become a citizen of the country of his parents, or of any other country; for, by our law, as solemnly declared by Congress, "the right of expatriation is a natural and inherent right of all people," and


any declaration, instruction, opinion, order or direction of any officer of the United States which denies, restricts, impairs or questions the right of expatriation, is declared inconsistent with the fundamental principles of the Republic.


Rev.Stat. § 1999, reenacting act of July 7, 1868, c. 249, § 1; 15 Stat. 223, 224. Whether any act of himself or of his parents during his minority could have the same effect is at least doubtful. But it would be out of place to pursue that inquiry, inasmuch as it is expressly agreed that his residence has always been in the United States, and not elsewhere; that each of his temporary visits to China, the one for some months when he was about seventeen years old, and the other for something like a year about the time of his coming of age, was made with the intention of returning, and was followed by his actual return, to the United States, and


that said Wong Kim Ark has not, either by himself or his parents acting [p705] for him, ever renounced his allegiance to the United States, and that he has never done or committed any act or thing to exclude him therefrom.


The evident intention, and the necessary effect, of the submission of this case to the decision of the court upon the facts agreed by the parties were to present for determination the single question stated at the beginning of this opinion, namely, whether a child born in the United States, of parent of Chinese descent, who, at the time of his birth, are subjects of the Emperor of China, but have a permanent domicil and residence in the United States, and are there carrying on business, and are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under the Emperor of China, becomes at the time of his birth a citizen of the United States. For the reasons above stated, this court is of opinion that the question must be answered in the affirmative.

Every subsequent decision has cited Wong Kim Ark.

Wong Kim Ark doesn't deal with natural born citizenship, but only citizenship and the case of Ankeny v. Governor proves that! Moreover, Justice Gray relied on the 14th Amendment for his citizenship. Natural born citizens are not citizens by ANY law except the Laws of Nature. WOW, do some research, would ya!

 

[Faun]

Birthers do love them their Youtube.....

Meanwhile back to real sources
Vital Records Frequently Asked Questions about Vital Records of President Barack Hussein Obama II
Frequently Asked Questions about Vital Records of President Barack Hussein Obama II
On April 27, 2011 President Barack Obama posted a certified copy of his original Certificate of Live Birth.

Hawai„i Health Director Loretta Fuddy said.
“
I have seen the original records filed at the
Department of Health and a
ttest to the authenticity of the certified copies the
department provided to the President that further prove the fact that he was born in
Hawai„i.

Photo of certified copy of original birth certificate taken by Savannah Guthrie

That's the forgery! And even if it WERE real, Obama is still not a natural born citizen EVEN if he was born here. TOO BAD!

Not a forgery- and Too Bad- no one cares about your nutty theories.

Not the voters.
Not the Electoral College
Not Congress
Not Chief Justice Roberts
Not any judge who has looked at the issue.

7 years of Presidency - and one 1 year to go- Birthers still stomping their feet and threatening to hold their breath.

LOLOL they are not THEORIES, when you have the evidence to prove your claims DOH. \Perhaps you THINK that if all you and your loser friends gang up on me that it will make my evidence not legit, but that's not gonna happen because NONE of you can't dispute the evidence!

So take your Alinsky tactics and STICK EM!

Actually, Obama's 78 months into a 96 month presidency. The one who's stuck (on stupid) -- is you.

 

[KenyanBornObama]

Elk v. Wilkins 112 U.S. 94 (1884)
“The distinction between citizenship by birth and citizenship by naturalization is clearly marked in the provisions of the constitution, by which ‘no person, except a natural-born citizen, or a citizen of the United States at the time of the adoption of this constitution, shall be eligible to the office of president;’ and ‘the congress shall have power to establish an uniform rule of naturalization.’ Const. art. 2, 1; art. 1, 8. By the thirteenth amendment of the constitution slavery was prohibited. The main object of the opening sentence of the fourteenth amendment was to settle the question, upon which there had been a difference of opinion throughout the country and in this court, as to the citizenship of free negroes, Scott v. Sandford, 19 How. 393 and to put it beyond doubt that all persons, white or black, and whether formerly slaves or not, born or naturalized in the United States, and owing no allegiance to any alien power, should be citizens of the United States and of the state in which they reside. Slaughter-House Cases, 16 Wall. 36, 73; Strauder v. West Virginia 100 U.S. 303 , 306

This section contemplates two sources of citizenship, and two sources only: birth and naturalization. The persons declared to be citizens are ‘all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof.’ The evident meaning of these last words is, not merely subject in some respect or degree to the jurisdiction of the United States, but completely subject to their political jurisdiction, and owing them direct and immediate allegiance.”
.

This section contemplates two sources of citizenship, and two sources only: birth and naturalization. The persons declared to be citizens are ‘all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof.’

Elk recognized only two kinds of citizenship Natural born and Naturalized.

Since people born in the United States are not naturalized citizens- they are natural born citizens.
As Elk points out.

Elk CLEARLY states:
"all persons, white or black, and whether formerly slaves or not, born or naturalized in the United States, and owing no allegiance to any alien power, should be citizens of the United States"

OWING NO ALLEGIANCE TO ANY ALIEN POWER. Everyone knows Obama was born a British Subject, so he was not eligible for citizenship!
)

Elk is an interesting case- regarding whether an Indian born within the United States- and owing allegiance to his sovereign tribe was born a citizen

Elk also clearly states:

Indians born within the territorial limits of the United States, members of and owing immediate allegiance to one of the Indiana tribes (an alien though dependent power), although in a geographical sense born in the United States, are no more "born in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof," within the meaning of the first section of the Fourteenth Amendment,
than the children of subjects of any foreign government born within the domain of that government,
or the children born within the United States of ambassadors or other public ministers of foreign nations.

Note the distinctions there
Children of subjects of any foreign government born within the domain of that government
Obama was not born within the domain of any other government

Note again the distinction here:
or the children born within the United States of ambassadors or other public ministers of foreign nations.

Obama was not born to a foreign diplomat

What is not mentioned by the courts is what you claim- that a person born with citizenship in another country is not a citizen.

Matter of fact- Elk doesn't care about the citizenship of the person's parents at all.

"The Slaughterhouse cases follows Elk and it states:
"The first observation we have to make on this clause is that it puts at rest both the questions which we stated to have been the subject of differences of opinion. It declares that persons may be citizens of the United States without regard to their citizenship of a particular State, and it overturns the Dred Scott decision by making all persons born within the United States and subject to its jurisdiction citizens of the United States. That its main purpose was to establish the citizenship of the negro can admit of no doubt. The phrase, "subject to its jurisdiction" was intended to exclude from its operation children of ministers, consuls, and citizens or subjects of foreign States born within the United States."

"Matter of fact- Elk doesn't care about the citizenship of the person's parents at all."

YES, IT 100% DOES, when it says:
"By the thirteenth amendment of the constitution slavery was prohibited. The main object of the opening sentence of the fourteenth amendment was to settle the question, upon which there had been a difference of opinion throughout the country and in this court, as to the citizenship of free negroes, Scott v. Sandford, 19 How. 393 and to put it beyond doubt that all persons, white or black, and whether formerly slaves or not, born or naturalized in the United States, and owing no allegiance to any alien power, should be citizens of the United States and of the state in which they reside. Slaughter-House Cases, 16 Wall. 36, 73; Strauder v. West Virginia 100 U.S. 303 , 306"

Maybe you missed where it said: "all persons, white or black, and whether formerly slaves or not, born or naturalized in the United States, and owing no allegiance to any alien power, should be citizens"

The ONLY way you can owe no allegiance to an alien power is to not a foreign parent to create that divided allegiance!

And Wong Kim Ark settled that question- you do realize that Wong Kim Ark supercedes Slaughterhouse- right?

As the Court recognized in Wong Kim Ark- reference to the statement from Slaughterhouse:
United States v. Wong Kim Ark US Law LII Legal Information Institute

Mr. Justice Miller, indeed, while discussing the causes which led to the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment, made this remark:


The phrase, "subject to its jurisdiction" was intended to exclude from its operation children of ministers, consuls, and citizens or subjects of foreign States born within the United States.


16 Wall. 73.

This was wholly aside from the question in judgment and from the course of reasoning bearing upon that question. It was unsupported by any argument, or by any reference to authorities, and that it was not formulated with the same care and exactness as if the case before the court had called for an exact definition of the phrase is apparent from its classing foreign ministers and consuls together -- whereas it was then well settled law, as has since been recognized in a judgment of this court in which Mr. Justice Miller concurred, that consuls, as such, and unless expressly invested with a diplomatic character in addition to their ordinary powers, are not considered as entrusted with authority to represent their sovereign in his intercourse [p679] with foreign States or to vindicate his prerogatives, or entitled by the law of nations to the privileges and immunities of ambassadors or public ministers, but are subject to the jurisdiction, civil and criminal, of the courts of the country in which they reside. 1 Kent Com. 44; Story Conflict of Laws § 48; Wheaton International Law (8th ed.) § 249; The Anne (1818), 3 Wheat. 435, 445, 446; Gittings v. Crawford (1838), Taney 1, 10; In re Baiz (1890), 135 U.S. 403, 424.

That neither Mr. Justice Miller nor any of the justices who took part in the decision of The Slaughterhouse Cases understood the court to be committed to the view that all children born in the United States of citizens or subjects of foreign States were excluded from the operation of the first sentence of the Fourteenth Amendment is manifest from a unanimous judgment of the Court, delivered but two years later, while all those judges but Chief Justice Chase were still on the bench, in which

Chief Justice Waite said: "Allegiance and protection are, in this connection" (that is, in relation to citizenship),
reciprocal obligations.
The one is a compensation for the other: allegiance for protection, and protection for allegiance. . . . 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 [p680] 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. Some authorities go further, and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction, without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class, there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case, it is not necessary to solve these doubts. It is sufficient for everything we have now to consider that all children born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction are themselves citizens.

And then the court in Wong Kim Ark said that a person born in the United States of parents with foreign citizenship is born a United States citizen

The fact, therefore, that acts of Congress or treaties have not permitted Chinese persons born out of this country to become citizens by naturalization, cannot exclude Chinese persons born in this country from the operation of the broad and clear words of the Constitution, "All persons born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States."


VII. Upon the facts agreed in this case, the American citizenship which Wong Kim Ark acquired by birth within the United States has not been lost or taken away by anything happening since his birth. No doubt he might himself, after coming of age, renounce this citizenship and become a citizen of the country of his parents, or of any other country; for, by our law, as solemnly declared by Congress, "the right of expatriation is a natural and inherent right of all people," and


any declaration, instruction, opinion, order or direction of any officer of the United States which denies, restricts, impairs or questions the right of expatriation, is declared inconsistent with the fundamental principles of the Republic.


Rev.Stat. § 1999, reenacting act of July 7, 1868, c. 249, § 1; 15 Stat. 223, 224. Whether any act of himself or of his parents during his minority could have the same effect is at least doubtful. But it would be out of place to pursue that inquiry, inasmuch as it is expressly agreed that his residence has always been in the United States, and not elsewhere; that each of his temporary visits to China, the one for some months when he was about seventeen years old, and the other for something like a year about the time of his coming of age, was made with the intention of returning, and was followed by his actual return, to the United States, and


that said Wong Kim Ark has not, either by himself or his parents acting [p705] for him, ever renounced his allegiance to the United States, and that he has never done or committed any act or thing to exclude him therefrom.


The evident intention, and the necessary effect, of the submission of this case to the decision of the court upon the facts agreed by the parties were to present for determination the single question stated at the beginning of this opinion, namely, whether a child born in the United States, of parent of Chinese descent, who, at the time of his birth, are subjects of the Emperor of China, but have a permanent domicil and residence in the United States, and are there carrying on business, and are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under the Emperor of China, becomes at the time of his birth a citizen of the United States. For the reasons above stated, this court is of opinion that the question must be answered in the affirmative.

Every subsequent decision has cited Wong Kim Ark.

Your problem is that you have no clue what "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" means, that's why you don't understand anything!

 

[KenyanBornObama]

Elk v. Wilkins 112 U.S. 94 (1884)
“The distinction between citizenship by birth and citizenship by naturalization is clearly marked in the provisions of the constitution, by which ‘no person, except a natural-born citizen, or a citizen of the United States at the time of the adoption of this constitution, shall be eligible to the office of president;’ and ‘the congress shall have power to establish an uniform rule of naturalization.’ Const. art. 2, 1; art. 1, 8. By the thirteenth amendment of the constitution slavery was prohibited. The main object of the opening sentence of the fourteenth amendment was to settle the question, upon which there had been a difference of opinion throughout the country and in this court, as to the citizenship of free negroes, Scott v. Sandford, 19 How. 393 and to put it beyond doubt that all persons, white or black, and whether formerly slaves or not, born or naturalized in the United States, and owing no allegiance to any alien power, should be citizens of the United States and of the state in which they reside. Slaughter-House Cases, 16 Wall. 36, 73; Strauder v. West Virginia 100 U.S. 303 , 306

This section contemplates two sources of citizenship, and two sources only: birth and naturalization. The persons declared to be citizens are ‘all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof.’ The evident meaning of these last words is, not merely subject in some respect or degree to the jurisdiction of the United States, but completely subject to their political jurisdiction, and owing them direct and immediate allegiance.”
.

This section contemplates two sources of citizenship, and two sources only: birth and naturalization. The persons declared to be citizens are ‘all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof.’

Elk recognized only two kinds of citizenship Natural born and Naturalized.

Since people born in the United States are not naturalized citizens- they are natural born citizens.
As Elk points out.

Elk CLEARLY states:
"all persons, white or black, and whether formerly slaves or not, born or naturalized in the United States, and owing no allegiance to any alien power, should be citizens of the United States"

OWING NO ALLEGIANCE TO ANY ALIEN POWER. Everyone knows Obama was born a British Subject, so he was not eligible for citizenship!
)

Elk is an interesting case- regarding whether an Indian born within the United States- and owing allegiance to his sovereign tribe was born a citizen

Elk also clearly states:

Indians born within the territorial limits of the United States, members of and owing immediate allegiance to one of the Indiana tribes (an alien though dependent power), although in a geographical sense born in the United States, are no more "born in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof," within the meaning of the first section of the Fourteenth Amendment,
than the children of subjects of any foreign government born within the domain of that government,
or the children born within the United States of ambassadors or other public ministers of foreign nations.

Note the distinctions there
Children of subjects of any foreign government born within the domain of that government
Obama was not born within the domain of any other government

Note again the distinction here:
or the children born within the United States of ambassadors or other public ministers of foreign nations.

Obama was not born to a foreign diplomat

What is not mentioned by the courts is what you claim- that a person born with citizenship in another country is not a citizen.

Matter of fact- Elk doesn't care about the citizenship of the person's parents at all.

"The Slaughterhouse cases follows Elk and it states:
"The first observation we have to make on this clause is that it puts at rest both the questions which we stated to have been the subject of differences of opinion. It declares that persons may be citizens of the United States without regard to their citizenship of a particular State, and it overturns the Dred Scott decision by making all persons born within the United States and subject to its jurisdiction citizens of the United States. That its main purpose was to establish the citizenship of the negro can admit of no doubt. The phrase, "subject to its jurisdiction" was intended to exclude from its operation children of ministers, consuls, and citizens or subjects of foreign States born within the United States."

"Matter of fact- Elk doesn't care about the citizenship of the person's parents at all."

YES, IT 100% DOES, when it says:
"By the thirteenth amendment of the constitution slavery was prohibited. The main object of the opening sentence of the fourteenth amendment was to settle the question, upon which there had been a difference of opinion throughout the country and in this court, as to the citizenship of free negroes, Scott v. Sandford, 19 How. 393 and to put it beyond doubt that all persons, white or black, and whether formerly slaves or not, born or naturalized in the United States, and owing no allegiance to any alien power, should be citizens of the United States and of the state in which they reside. Slaughter-House Cases, 16 Wall. 36, 73; Strauder v. West Virginia 100 U.S. 303 , 306"

Maybe you missed where it said: "all persons, white or black, and whether formerly slaves or not, born or naturalized in the United States, and owing no allegiance to any alien power, should be citizens"

The ONLY way you can owe no allegiance to an alien power is to not a foreign parent to create that divided allegiance!

And Wong Kim Ark settled that question- you do realize that Wong Kim Ark supercedes Slaughterhouse- right?

As the Court recognized in Wong Kim Ark- reference to the statement from Slaughterhouse:
United States v. Wong Kim Ark US Law LII Legal Information Institute

Mr. Justice Miller, indeed, while discussing the causes which led to the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment, made this remark:


The phrase, "subject to its jurisdiction" was intended to exclude from its operation children of ministers, consuls, and citizens or subjects of foreign States born within the United States.


16 Wall. 73.

This was wholly aside from the question in judgment and from the course of reasoning bearing upon that question. It was unsupported by any argument, or by any reference to authorities, and that it was not formulated with the same care and exactness as if the case before the court had called for an exact definition of the phrase is apparent from its classing foreign ministers and consuls together -- whereas it was then well settled law, as has since been recognized in a judgment of this court in which Mr. Justice Miller concurred, that consuls, as such, and unless expressly invested with a diplomatic character in addition to their ordinary powers, are not considered as entrusted with authority to represent their sovereign in his intercourse [p679] with foreign States or to vindicate his prerogatives, or entitled by the law of nations to the privileges and immunities of ambassadors or public ministers, but are subject to the jurisdiction, civil and criminal, of the courts of the country in which they reside. 1 Kent Com. 44; Story Conflict of Laws § 48; Wheaton International Law (8th ed.) § 249; The Anne (1818), 3 Wheat. 435, 445, 446; Gittings v. Crawford (1838), Taney 1, 10; In re Baiz (1890), 135 U.S. 403, 424.

That neither Mr. Justice Miller nor any of the justices who took part in the decision of The Slaughterhouse Cases understood the court to be committed to the view that all children born in the United States of citizens or subjects of foreign States were excluded from the operation of the first sentence of the Fourteenth Amendment is manifest from a unanimous judgment of the Court, delivered but two years later, while all those judges but Chief Justice Chase were still on the bench, in which

Chief Justice Waite said: "Allegiance and protection are, in this connection" (that is, in relation to citizenship),
reciprocal obligations.
The one is a compensation for the other: allegiance for protection, and protection for allegiance. . . . 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 [p680] 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. Some authorities go further, and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction, without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class, there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case, it is not necessary to solve these doubts. It is sufficient for everything we have now to consider that all children born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction are themselves citizens.

And then the court in Wong Kim Ark said that a person born in the United States of parents with foreign citizenship is born a United States citizen

The fact, therefore, that acts of Congress or treaties have not permitted Chinese persons born out of this country to become citizens by naturalization, cannot exclude Chinese persons born in this country from the operation of the broad and clear words of the Constitution, "All persons born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States."


VII. Upon the facts agreed in this case, the American citizenship which Wong Kim Ark acquired by birth within the United States has not been lost or taken away by anything happening since his birth. No doubt he might himself, after coming of age, renounce this citizenship and become a citizen of the country of his parents, or of any other country; for, by our law, as solemnly declared by Congress, "the right of expatriation is a natural and inherent right of all people," and


any declaration, instruction, opinion, order or direction of any officer of the United States which denies, restricts, impairs or questions the right of expatriation, is declared inconsistent with the fundamental principles of the Republic.


Rev.Stat. § 1999, reenacting act of July 7, 1868, c. 249, § 1; 15 Stat. 223, 224. Whether any act of himself or of his parents during his minority could have the same effect is at least doubtful. But it would be out of place to pursue that inquiry, inasmuch as it is expressly agreed that his residence has always been in the United States, and not elsewhere; that each of his temporary visits to China, the one for some months when he was about seventeen years old, and the other for something like a year about the time of his coming of age, was made with the intention of returning, and was followed by his actual return, to the United States, and


that said Wong Kim Ark has not, either by himself or his parents acting [p705] for him, ever renounced his allegiance to the United States, and that he has never done or committed any act or thing to exclude him therefrom.


The evident intention, and the necessary effect, of the submission of this case to the decision of the court upon the facts agreed by the parties were to present for determination the single question stated at the beginning of this opinion, namely, whether a child born in the United States, of parent of Chinese descent, who, at the time of his birth, are subjects of the Emperor of China, but have a permanent domicil and residence in the United States, and are there carrying on business, and are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under the Emperor of China, becomes at the time of his birth a citizen of the United States. For the reasons above stated, this court is of opinion that the question must be answered in the affirmative.

Every subsequent decision has cited Wong Kim Ark.

LOLOLOL, you posted the following paragraph and had NOT IDEA that you posted the definition of a natural born citizen.

"Chief Justice Waite said: "Allegiance and protection are, in this connection" (that is, in relation to citizenship),
reciprocal obligations. The one is a compensation for the other: allegiance for protection, and protection for allegiance. . . . 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. Some authorities go further, and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction, without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class, there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case, it is not necessary to solve these doubts. It is sufficient for everything we have now to consider that all children born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction are themselves citizens."

WOW, you really are an idiot, aren't you?