Posted on 07/23/2009 8:07:18 PM PDT by DavidFarrar
I have spent time trying to make sense of the recent debate over Obama's Constitutional qualifications to be President of the United States and have recently come to the conclusion that Obama would be a "natural born" U.S. citizen if his father was Obama Sr., a British subject and Kenyan national at the time of his birth.
It describes what a natural born citizen is, meaning a child born to citizens or two citizen parents and it was the law of the land in the time of our founding fathers and written by them.
It dealt specifically with who would be a citizen and who would not be at the birth of our nation, which is why it is such an important point. Prior to this there was no law that confered citizenship to any US citizen even the minor children of our founding fathers got their citizenship from this one law of the land signed by our first president, and it is the precedent of who is natural born.
Oh no, I’m just trying to figure out why he’s spent so much
money on lawyers who try to quash any inquiry. I wondered
if there could possibly be another reason. That is all.
Get a clue.
Son, you can hurl the childish insults all you want but that is the law, like it or not.
I was going to leave it there, but, the status of natural born citizen is different than citizen by birth which is typically cited as a creature of the 14th Amendment and as modified by Congress over the subsequent years. But, the definition of natural born citizen that applies to the President is from Article II of the Constitution which pre-dates the 14th Amendment by almost a CENTURY thus cannot rely upon this definition to carry its meaning.
The natural born citizen construct developed in Article II is in relation to the individual having no foreign allegiances. Therefore, to be Natural Born is to have no foreign allegiance, and thus dual citizens are not natural born. You can acquire dual citizenship by birth or by heritage thus to be a Natural Born citizen as per Article II is to be born in US of US Citizens.
Perhaps some schooling on Allegiance will help. Look at this.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allegiance
Honestly, this has been discussed to the point of absurdity. Folks who just spout off not knowing what they are even talking about.. need to do their research and not just stop at the first claim they read.
Your theory is very nice, but as I said earlier on this thread, no US court or legislature would ever accept it.
Gotcha. Sorry I shouted in response to your statement. It was just the one I picked from several that keep making that same statement about “citizen” instead of “natural born citizen.” Some people do that innocently enough - as in your case - but many esp the MSM and obamabots are doing it quite intentionally. It drives me nuts.
If you want more information this is not a bad primer on the existing law for a layman.
There is tons of information about this subject on the net. As much as anti-immigration and the illegal immigration people would like to change the concept of "anchor babies" it's pretty firmly rooted in the Constitution. I believe it is abused as we currently stand, but before you spout off about what the framers might or might not have believed, maybe you should read what they extensively wrote about the subject.
And for those who will want to flame me for the Anchor Babies statement, please save it. I know the opposing arguments. Wanting them to be true does not make them so. I somewhat agree with the justice of your ideas but the common law rooted behind what is currently the law is solid back into 1000AD and that's hard to argue with.
And your basis for this statement is your standing on the US Supreme Court?, US Court of Appeals?, Constitutional Scholar?, Lawyer with a cursory knowledge of this matter?, or guy with thumb up his bottom?
Frankly, I would be perfectly satisfied to learn that any Federal Court has looked at the specifics of this case and ruled either way, and the result dealt with appropriately on appeal (Have to allow for the 9th Circuit). I would be just fine with that.
You may not like that fact, you can certainly argue against the fact that it is true, and you can argue about the justice and what the framers thought and all that happy horse hockey, but it's still established law right now.
Further, I won't bore you with the 25 page thesis I wrote on the matter some time ago but suffice it to say it's pretty defensible on constitutional and common law grounds. So I'm not sure where you read extensively but I have to politely disagree.
No, here is the statute.
4. December 24, 1952 to November 13, 1986
If at the time of your birth both your parents were U.S. citizens and at least one had a prior residence in the United States, you automatically acquired U.S. citizenship with no conditions for retaining it.
If only one parent was a U.S. citizen at the time of your birth, that parent must have resided in the United States for at least ten years, at least five of which had to be after the age of 16. There are no conditions placed on retaining this type of citizenship. If your one U.S. citizen parent is your father and you were born outside of marriage, the same rules apply if your father legally legitimated you before your 21st birthday and you were unmarried at the time. If legitimization occurred after November 14, 1986, your father must have established paternity prior to your 18th birthday, either by acknowledgment or by court order, and must have stated in writing that he would support you financially until your 18th birthday.
Citizens by Birth may still be Dual Citizens by claim to their parent's citizenship, i.e. John McCain who can claim Panamanian citizenship by virtue of this birth on Panamanian soil rather than US even though he was born of US Citizens. Yet, John McCain is a US citizen as well.
With McCain, this was a matter of some controversy getting to the Congress attempting to clarify this by means of a useless resolution.
Obviously, this wouldn't have been an issue if Citizenship only ran by location of Birth, as McCain would just be a Panamanian, end of story.
But this gets right to the heart of Natural Born Citizen as it relates to the President. A person can be a US Citizen born to two foreign parents with complete allegiance to another country and serve as President by your definition, and this is absurd. Just as absurd as John McCain being eligible to be President of Panama, he clearly would have no practical allegiance to Panama, and 100% to the US. The claim by place of birth is only a part of the answer, as one's allegiance or loyalty is set by their parents loyalty and allegiance and citizenship as well as their place of birth, this is what the framers were clearly driving at, and this is why the test is there, otherwise, it is meaningless.
Nope, I have not physically seen these papers and I am only providing what I have seen online. I, as well as you which is a VERY GOOD THING, view these skeptically. However THESE documents are a matter of public record and much easier to verify than his birth certificate, which is NOT public record.
If you wanted, you could walk into the courthouse for the county I lived in and obtain a copy of my divorce papers. They are not sealed and neither are these. It would be harder and stupider to falsify something that can be easily obtained with the cost of a fee to the County Clerk.
But good on you for being skeptical. I’d rather see that than I had see “Obama released his birth certificate. I saw it online”. Forgive me, but I’d rather a JUDGE have it presented as evidence and verify it than a computer document.
I just didn’t know if you wanted to know the information on them. But no, I cannot personally vouch for their authenticity.
I was under the impression that the framers of Art. ll were concerned about the office of the presidency being filled by someone who had allegiance other than to the United States. It seems logical to me then they would have been very concerned with your opinion that “...If NEITHER of his (Obama’s) parents were (U.S.) citizens and he was born here he would be a natural born citizen.”
It is also my understanding that the concept of jus solis as it applies to U.S. citizenship hasn’t actually been before the Supreme Court to date.
I am not sure English Common law can rightfully be used as the legal basis when it comes to the Constitutional construct of the term “natural born” in Art. ll.
Lastly, I do apologize if you took my remarks as insulting to you simply because they disagreed with yours. I respect your opinion even when it disagrees with my own. I ask for nothing more in return.
ex animo
davidfarrar
My original post assumed Barry was born in Hawaii. It assumed his father was Barack Obama Sr. It assumed Barack Obama Sr., was a British subject at the time of Barry's birth. It assumed that Obama Sr. was a polygamist. It assumed that polygmy was illegal in Hawaii at the time of Barry's birth. It assumed Barry's mother was a U.S. citizen at the time of Barry's birth. Under these assumptions then Barry (Barack Obama Jr.) would be a natural born U.S. citizen as it pertains to Art. ll of the U.S. Constitution.
ex animo
davidfarrar
Alot of assumptions. Some aspects I cannot really get into because they don't apply. But, I take it your speculation that illegitimacy blocks the conveyance of the British citizenship to the child is the controversy you were attempting to explore. And this is something I haven't seen discussed in a way that it sticks out in my mind.
However, as you saw the divorce papers posted in this thread, the question of the marriage is moot. The SOB was a bigamist as well as a polygamist.
It is certain that a person born of two U.S. citizens is a "natural born" U.S. citizen as it pertains to Art. ll of the U.S. Constitution.
It is less certain that a person born under the jurisdiction of the United States of one parent is a natural born U.S. Citizen as it pertains to Art. ll of the U.S. Constitution.
I beleieve under to construct of my original post, Obama Jr. is a natural born U.S. citizen as it pertains to Art. ll of the U.S. Constitution.
ex animo
davidfarrar
Again, it does NOT say *child* born to *two* citizen parents — it says *children* born to *citizens*. And that passage which used the words “natural born” refers only to people born outside the United States. Anyone born in the United States is a citizen, regardless of their parents’ citizenship.
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.