US State Dept Confirms: Obama “NOT” a US Citizen Prior to & in 1968

ConstitutionallySpeaking ^ | 9/24/2010 | ConstitutionallySpeaking

[patlin]

proof positive that Obama was ”NOT” a US citizen prior to & in 1968...Sept. 24, 2010

Dear Sen. Thune,

As a member of the Armed Forces Committee & member of the sub-committee on Personnel, I am imploring you to please take this seriously & take immediate action...

[curiosity]

where's your proof of that?

Public statements from the colleges. Here's one from

Occidental: http://www.oxy.edu/x7992.xml

Note that he attended as a full-time for two years. Non-matriculated can't do that.

Here's another one from Columbia:

http://www.college.columbia.edu/news/barack-obama-83-becomes-first-college-alumnus-to-win-presidency

[patlin]

This is what you call official records? Try & use it as concrete prima facia evidence in a court of law & see how far you get. If the article as it says it is, then why not just release the official records as Bush & McCain did?

[patlin]

It came out of a book called “The Obama Timeline” written by a Chicagoan who had been following Obama’s rise in the Chicago scene since he 1st landed there.

[LorenC]

I've gotta be quick, but the source for that quote is actually this page, a 2000 report from the State Department. Of course, it's describing the law as of 2000, not the late 1960s, and this 2001 site for expats paints a somewhat more lenient picture for foreign children.

[Cyropaedia]

And if he received, or even filled out an application for foreign student aid, that, in itself, would be enough to jump start an investigation into his birth records to verify his actual natural born status. Period.

[usmcobra]

Amazing....

I note how people will rarely cut and paste links into their browsers and now you are making it necessary for them to do it to read what you want to show them.

[curiosity]

Thanks!

[curiosity]

This is what you call official records?

There is nothing "official" about private university records. If you want to know whether someone matriculated at a given college, all you have to go on is the word of the administration. Transcripts, diplomas, etc. are just the word of the administration put down on paper. That's why the testimony of an administrator would be perfectly acceptable evidence in court that a given person attended a college.

Administrators from Columbia and Occidental have both said Obama was a matriculated student there, and Columbia has confirmed he recieved a degree. That would be good enough in any court, unless you have some evidence to the contrary.

[mac_truck]

No one...was suggesting that his father's Kenyan citizenship made him ineligible by proxy, even as they were thinking about his eligibility and his father's citizenship.

Yep.

Again this seems like it should be a simple factual determination. Either Obama's father being a foreigner makes him ineligible or it doesn't.

What does the law say in this matter?

[little jeremiah]

If it had been established that he actually had registered a foreign exchange student in college during the '08 campaign, it would've ended his quest for the oval office.

Perhaps, but that train has already left the station.

-----------------------------------

According to that logic, anyone who has committed fraud, or any other crime, and it has not been detected until later, they're in like flynn! Ha ha! Got away with it!

[curiosity]

According to that logic, anyone who has committed fraud, or any other crime, and it has not been detected until later, they're in like flynn!

Yup. It's called a statute of limitations. Good luck finding someone to prosecute a case of college application fraud that allegedly took place in the early 1980's.

[little jeremiah]

You’re an idiot. It’s not that he may have committed fraud in the ‘80s - he may indeed have been (or may be yet for all we know) an Indonesian citizen. The fraud was lying about his eligibility, if he was an Indonesian citizen.

[LorenC]

In a way, the question is somewhat like asking whether women are eligible for the Presidency. The Constitution consistently describes the President using masculine language, the Founders naturally didn't envision a female President (remember, the Constitution didn't even allow women to *vote* for President), no woman has ever been elected and neither of the two major parties have ever nominated a woman for the highest office, and the Supreme Court has certainly never handed down a ruling stating that women can Constitutionally be President.

No, it's simply a given that women can be President. There have been female Presidential candidates as early as 1872. We don't need the Supreme Court to adjudicate the "question," just because it's capable of being asked. I could certainly pretend that there's a dispute here that the Court should settle, and make all kinds of arguments to that end, but it's just not an issue that anyone with a legal and historical education would ever take seriously.

Or for a non-Presidential-related issue, take the "question" of whether gold fringe on a U.S. flag puts a courtroom under admiralty jurisdiction. The Supreme Court's never ruled on that either, not because they're afraid of it, but because it's pseudo-legal nonsense.

One way to check whether there's any validity to the "question" is what the historical precedent says. Have we elected Presidents who had non-citizen fathers or parents? Yes. Have major parties nominated candidates who were known to have had non-citizen parents? Yes. When candidates with immigrant parents ran for President, was there any inquiry into their parents' citizenship at the time of their birth (either by the opposition, the states, or the public)? No. In other words, there have been plenty of opportunities for the children of non-citizens to be challenged in court, and such challenges have simply never been brought or taken seriously by the judicial system.

If you go pose the "question" to a respected Constitutional law professor, they'll tell you that there's no parental citizenship requirement. If you pose the "question" to anyone who's written a legitimate law review article on the subject, they'll tell you there's no such requirement. If you talk to ConLaw experts at any think tank or legal advocacy group from the Federalist Society to the Heritage Foundation to the Cato Institute, they'll tell you there's no parental citizenship requirement.

This is why you don't see Birthers citing living, breathing ConLaw experts who agree with them. Because there aren't any. (Or rather, no more than you can find who'll tell you that gold fringe is legally significant, or that there's a secret Constitutional amendment that forbids lawyers from holding political office.) It's why you don't see them citing any law review articles or legal textbooks or hornbooks that say 'The President must have two citizen parents.' Because there aren't any. This is why Birthers instead rely on their own amateur research through the University of Google, and why they rely on quotes they've mined from dead guys. On the occasions they *have* received an opinion on the "question" from a legitimate ConLaw expert (e.g., Ron Rotunda, the Indiana court), the expert inevitably disagrees with the Birther position, and the Birthers then simply dismiss the expert as being wrong.

All in all, that's part of how we know there's simply no merit to the claim that being born of a foreigner makes one ineligible for the Presidency.

[curiosity]

You’re an idiot. It’s not that he may have committed fraud in the ‘80s - he may indeed have been (or may be yet for all we know) an Indonesian citizen.

Even if he were an Indonesian citizen (and we know for sure he wasn't), it would be irrelevant to his eligibility.

The fraud was lying about his eligibility, if he was an Indonesian citizen.

Nope. Holding dual citizenship with Indonesia would be irrelevant to his eligibility (even though we know he never held such citizenship).

[curiosity]

remember, the Constitution didn't even allow women to *vote* for President

I don't think that is true. Prior to ratification of the 19th Amendment, the Constitution was silent on the matter, leaving it to the states to decide whether women could vote. Thus some states allowed women to vote even as early as the revolution, while others did not until forced to by the ratification of the amendment.

[mac_truck]

Have we elected Presidents who had non-citizen fathers or parents? Yes.

Are there any examples besides Obama?

[patlin]

Administrators from Columbia and Occidental have both said...

Heresay, heresay, heresay....from Obama insiders. Yeah, you just keep believeing in the tooth fairy too.

[LorenC]

Chester Arthur. His father was Irish. Which is why Birthers then turn to special pleading and make up reasons why Arthur shouldn't count. There's also reason to doubt that James Buchanan's father was a citizen when he was born, but that's less clear-cut.

My favorite example among major Presidential candidates was John Charles Fremont, the first Republican candidate for President. Not only was his father French, but his father's nationality was *very* well-known.

Another good recent example is Ralph Nader. His parents were known to be immigrants, and his campaign had a huge impact on the 2000 election. If eligibility always required two citizen parents, it's curious that *no one* ever asked Nader for proof of his parents' citizenship, considering that there would have been such a huge benefit to one party if he'd been disqualified.

[mac_truck]

Thanks again for the information.

Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passion, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence -John Adams

[PA-RIVER]

SAD was told by the consulate to put his name down and strike it to indicate he was being removed because he had Indonesian citizenship. She followed the clear instructions on the form, keeping the name visible. Obama had exclusive Indonesian citizenship in 68.