Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Is Obama a natural-born U.S. citizen?
Jay Bookman blog, Atlanta Journal Constitution ^ | October 1, 2009 | David Farrar

Posted on 10/01/2009 5:44:33 AM PDT by DavidFarrar

I had been discussing the meaning of the phrase "natural-born" U.S. citizen in Al, Sll, C5 of the U.S. Constitution with my learned friend, Loren Collins, when it suddenly occurred to me...

(Excerpt) Read more at blogs.ajc.com ...


TOPICS: Education; Government
KEYWORDS: birthcertificate; birther; birthers; certifigate; naturalborn; obama
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-68 next last
...I may have succinctly stated the case against Barack Obama in my last paragraph rather well. Well enough that is to merit its reproduction here on these pages where the true test of its mettle can be measured.

"Clearly, the writers of the U.S. Constitution had in mind something more than a citizen when they inserted the term “natural-born” citizen into Article I, Section II, Clause IV of the U.S. Constitution. While the place of birth can confer U.S. citizenship, it would take the citizenship of the father to establish a “natural-born” U.S. citizenship."

ex animo

davidfarrar

1 posted on 10/01/2009 5:44:34 AM PDT by DavidFarrar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: DavidFarrar

“FREE THE LONG FORM!”


2 posted on 10/01/2009 5:46:11 AM PDT by Dryman ("FREE THE LONG FORM!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DavidFarrar

I don’t think he was “natural born”. He hasn’t tried walking on the water yet (that probably will be announced soon) but “The One” could not have come to us in the normal fashion. Hence ... “Not Natural Born”.


3 posted on 10/01/2009 5:51:30 AM PDT by ThePatriotsFlag (The Patriot's Flag at http://www.thepatriotsflag.com/ - Starbucks or McDonalds)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DavidFarrar

As many of us have been saying all along: It ain’t where, but to WHOM.
Bammy ain’t kosher because of his father being Kenyan.
However, if his dad truly was Frank Marshall, then all bets are off.
But we never will know, will we?


4 posted on 10/01/2009 5:55:07 AM PDT by ozark hilljilly (Ignore us at your peril.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DavidFarrar

5 posted on 10/01/2009 5:56:53 AM PDT by Safrguns
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DavidFarrar

He wasn’t born, He was hatched.


6 posted on 10/01/2009 5:57:52 AM PDT by 70th Division (I love my country but fear my government!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DavidFarrar

So it really comes down to who his father is. He could show the birth certificate, and if Obama Sr. isn’t his father, the whole thing goes away. But then he’s revealed to everyone to be the liar most of already know he is - either way he loses. Sweet.


7 posted on 10/01/2009 5:58:13 AM PDT by smalltownslick
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DavidFarrar
"Clearly, the writers of the U.S. Constitution had in mind something more than a citizen when they inserted the term “natural-born” citizen into Article I, Section II, Clause IV of the U.S. Constitution."

You’re absolutely right that they did mean something more than “a citizen”, but you’re wrong as to what they had in mind. They meant to exclude NATURALIZED citizens. Your Arnold Schwarzeneggers, Jennifer Granholms, or Henry Kissingers. The modifier “natural born” serves to exclude persons who were not born U.S. citizens. The Constitution does not have any distinction between “natural born” and “native born,” as you said. To the contrary, the federal government has historically used the terms as synonyms.

The idea that “natural born” implies “two citizen parents” is an interpretation that simply is not supported by two plus centuries of American law and practice. Ask a Constitutional law professor. Consult a textbook. If “two citizen parents” was an absolute requirement, the professors would know and the textbooks would include that in the definition.

What is your argument for why “two citizen parents” is the CORRECT interpretation of “natural born citizen” in the U.S. Constitution? What reliable legal sources support that view? Because, as I pointed out before, the overwhelming majority (by which I mean ‘almost universal majority’) of them do not support it.

8 posted on 10/01/2009 6:43:45 AM PDT by LorenC
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: LorenC

Makes sense to me. And it seems that he was, in fact, born in Hawaii, so the whole issue is retarded. This energy could be spent much more wisely by showing America what a disaster he and his policies are. This “birther” movement is counterproductive, to say the least.


9 posted on 10/01/2009 6:57:12 AM PDT by Flightdeck (Go Longhorns)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: DavidFarrar
The Birth Certificate, or lack thereof, probably shouldn't be the key concern. It's obvious by his legal actions and those of Speaker of the House Pelosi that 1) there is indeed something to hide, and 2) it's not going to be made public under any circumstances. Time to try a different tack.

Perhaps the focus should shift to the underlying constitutional requirement, simply stated in Article II, Section 1: A presidential candidate must be a natural born citizen of the United States; must be at least 35 years of age; and must be a resident of the United States for fourteen years.

I'd suggest that there is a "choke point" for defining and verifying that any candidate, and specifically Barack Obama, must pass to ensure compliance with the "natural born" constitutional requirement. And that choke point is in Tallahassee, Florida, at the Secretary of State's office.

Under the Florida Department of State, the Division of Elections must qualify all federal candidates before they can appear on a ballot. The process is currently not much more than a rubber-stamp approval[1], but can be readily changed to become a bit more challenging to folks who might, ahem, have something to hide.

In Florida, a presidential candidate must affirm a Federal Office Loyalty Oath that states, "I am qualified under the Constitution and the Laws of Florida to hold the office to which I desire to be nominated or elected."[2]

Please note the key phrase "and the Laws of Florida". To appear on the ballot in Florida, the candidate must be qualified under any and all applicable state laws. So to clear up all this confusion about what a "natural born citizen" is, the Florida Legislature could: 1) Require that the candidate be a "natural born citizen" as stated in the Constitution; 2) Define what constitutes a "natural born citizen" under Florida law; and lastly, 3) Define what constitutes proof of such natural born citizenship. (Remember, these would be state laws, applicable only to an individual state's election processes. A presidential election is still comprised of 50 unique state elections. The Feds would (in theory) not be involved.)

And why Florida? Well, Florida currently has a special status. It went Democrat in 2008, sending Barack Obama to the White House. Winning a presidential election without Florida is virtually impossible. And Florida currently has a Republican Legislature and Governorship, the only probable conditions under which state election laws could be changed to enforce the "natural born citizen" requirements. (A few other states, including Texas, Georgia, North Dakota, South Carolina, and Utah have Republican control, but went Republican in 2008 election, so do not have that "must win" choke point status that Florida enjoys.)

In short, to win a second term Obama has to appear on the ballot in Florida in 2012, and Florida could determine, under their own state laws, what is required to appear on their ballot. So, how about it Florida? Here's your chance to gain the spotlight one more time, and to restore the inviolability of the Constitution of the United States of America.

My thoughts anyway. Worth every penny you paid for them!!

References:
[1] Page 2, Federal Qualifying Handbook, which has as its introduction, ironically, Article II Section 1 ("...natural born citizen...") as its introductory text.

[2] Federal Office Loyalty Oath, Form DS-DE 18A, President and Vice President Candidate Petition
10 posted on 10/01/2009 7:04:02 AM PDT by frankenMonkey
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: smalltownslick

Don’t we already know who his father is? We all heard Qaddafi say Obama is his son.


11 posted on 10/01/2009 7:09:02 AM PDT by Ironfocus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: LorenC
What is your argument for why “two citizen parents” is the CORRECT interpretation of “natural born citizen” in the U.S. Constitution?

Natural-born has NEVER meant non-naturalized. See this thread which presents the Oxford English Dictionary definitions for natural-born and native-born. Note that native-born is presented because the OED suggests that the definition for natural-born be compared with it. This is normally done to highlight the distinction between two words (or phrases) which are very similar in meaning.

ML/NJ

12 posted on 10/01/2009 7:16:21 AM PDT by ml/nj
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Flightdeck
You sound concerned. I am intrigued to know how you know he was born in Hawaii. Have you seen his birth certificate? You are clearly much better connected than the rest of us.
13 posted on 10/01/2009 7:20:40 AM PDT by IntolerantOfTreason (The Republican Party - the Anti-Constitution party (see Section 1, Article 2))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: frankenMonkey

Great post and points. Posey is a congressman in Central Florida, I believe Merritt Island. He has proposed a bill that would require something along these lines. Have you heard about that?

I don’t know the status; haven’t heard much lately.


14 posted on 10/01/2009 7:23:32 AM PDT by spacejunkie01
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: ml/nj

I can’t help but notice that one of those definitions of “natural born” in the Oxford English Dictionary specifically mentions “natural born American citizen.” To wit:

“Every one who first saw the light on the American soil was a natural-born American citizen.”

Born on U.S. soil makes you a natural born citizen. No parental citizenship requirement stated or implied.


15 posted on 10/01/2009 7:23:57 AM PDT by LorenC
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: frankenMonkey

Interesting idea. I would point-out that #2 is tricky since it gets dangerously close to the State of Florida setting additional requirements on presidential qualifications. Don’t think that would pass a constitutional challenge.

OTOH, I think all States should tighten their ballot requirements re: proof of eligibility. Wouldn’t it be interesting to see Obama making some lame excuse for not running for re-election?


16 posted on 10/01/2009 7:36:21 AM PDT by Tallguy ("The sh- t's chess, it ain't checkers!" -- Alonzo (Denzel Washington) in "Training Day")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: IntolerantOfTreason

“You sound concerned.”

Don’t know what you mean by that... No, I haven’t seen his birth certificate, but I have spent the few minutes of study required to understand what the fuss is about. One fact that doesn’t fit with theories of him born outside Hawaii is the birth announcement in the Honolulu newspaper a couple days after he was supposed to have been born. It is available in their archive, and it seems a bit of a stretch to claim his mother submitted fraudulent information overseas immediately afterward.

So you can go with the “natural-born” angle, but as the more knowledgeable poster above me wrote, it’s not going very far.


17 posted on 10/01/2009 7:38:33 AM PDT by Flightdeck (Go Longhorns)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: LorenC
I can’t help but notice ....

It helps to understand what the OED is. It is more a history of the usage and meaning of English words than it is a conventional dictionary. Each one of those usage examples you see represents the earliest known usage of the word with the sense being exhibited. So that example in 1876 where natural-born essentially is used exactly the same way native-born could be used is the first known time it was used that way. Before that (like when the Constitution was written) it did NOT have that meaning.

ML/NJ

18 posted on 10/01/2009 7:39:24 AM PDT by ml/nj
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Tallguy

I think that anything than moves the discussion further into the public realm is a good thing. Forget the birth certificate, let’s talk Constitution!


19 posted on 10/01/2009 7:49:16 AM PDT by frankenMonkey
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Flightdeck

“One fact that doesn’t fit with theories of him born outside Hawaii is the birth announcement in the Honolulu newspaper a couple days after he was supposed to have been born. It is available in their archive, and it seems a bit of a stretch to claim his mother submitted fraudulent information overseas immediately afterward.”
Those announcements were sent out by the DoH rather than submitted by parents. It is likely that Zero’s mother registered his birth with the DoH in order to make sure her son would appear to have automatic citizenship rather than needing to naturalise him (as he was born abroad).

There is no proof that he was actually born on the date claimed; back then, you could just turn up, and say that your child was a home birth and make up a date, with no verifying information.


20 posted on 10/01/2009 7:55:29 AM PDT by IntolerantOfTreason (The Republican Party - the Anti-Constitution party (see Section 1, Article 2))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-68 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson