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.
"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;..."
Are you saying that the Founders intended to define "natural-born citizen" as anyone born on American soil, including "anchor babies"?
People really don't understand the other argument though. I believe there is merit to having given up his citizenship via the Indonesian father. If only his parents gave up his citizenship I wouldn't be as certain but if he traveled on an Indonesian passport as an adult, the best he could be is a naturalized citizen. And to be that he would have had to reaffirm his earlier citizenship. I do see an eligibility problem with that.
But the citizenship of his parents is not important as I see it. Residency and place of birth start the natural born ball rolling. As long as he did not later give that up I see no problem.
I personally believe he was born in Kenya. Grandma didn't lie about being at the birth. Its a bit technical that his mom did not meet the resident requirements to pass citizenship but law is the law.
YES. If you read the early writings, their intent was clear. There is no question about what they intended. Of course not all of them believed the same things but I think anyone born here and raised here is natural born and eligible.
Sorry. I've just read too much that refutes that assertion.
Per your reasoning, an anchor baby born of two Mexican parents meets the natural born citizenship standard per the Constitution, and would be eligible to be our President.
I strongly disagree with that, and so did the Founders.
I would invite you to produce a single piece of that writing to us all... I don't think you can produce it. So you are saying that NO first generation baby can be President?
I challenge you to post anything of your reading that supports this assertion. I dare say I can find a President who is first generation American.
I really don't mean to be rude, please don't take it as such, but think about what you are saying. How many generations does someone have to be to be natural born in your world? I'm sorry, but to my knowledge there is not a single solitary written document by a founder or otherwise that would even indicate that a first generation US Citizen is ineligible to be President.
No. They can't be President because they don't meet the standard of "natural born citizen".
They are "native born" citizens with every right that you and I enjoy. They just can't be President, per Article II, Section I of the US Constitution.
To meet that standard, one has to have been born on US soil, of TWO American citizen parents. This was the Founder's intent in crafting the "natural born citizen" requirement.
It's insane that Barack Obama was even allowed to run for the Presidency, because his father was documented to have been a citizen of Kenya. Even if Obama was born on US soil, he fails the constitutional requirement to be "natural born", due to his father's nationality.
Is Obama even a US citizen? That has not even been proven, because he refuses to release his long form birth certificate. If it turns out that he cannot prove he was born in Hawaii, then he fails to qualify for even "native born" citizenship.
I dare say I can find a President who is first generation American.
Good luck. There aren't any, for all the reasons I mentioned.
Go to the link below for some very good background information on the “natural born citizen” requirement, and explanations (including historical references) of what it is.
http://www.theobamafile.com/ObamaNaturalBorn.htm
I have enjoyed our discussion though.
And you never will, because you've got your mind made up, and don't want to be confused by facts.
You challenge me to present supporting evidence for my argument, and when I do, you wuss out, and won't go to the link.
"Extensive knowledge". Sure. You've just created a rep with thousands of people reading this that may haunt you in the future.
But to throw egg in your face I'll tell you that I don't have time to read your material thoroughly, but I have discovered that I could be wrong. My paper and study did not focus upon eligibility to be president and thus was not trying to focus upon Natural vs Native born. The study I did was about citizenship in general.
So despite your rude assertion that I have my mind made up and don't want to be confused by the facts, I may indeed change my mind, despite your assumption. I didn't wuss out, in fact I specifically told you I WOULD go to the link. You simply don't read, or are fond of jumping to poor conclusions. I suggest you look at yourself in this regard. I'm absolutely stunned at your silly remark about "creating a rep that may haunt me in the future." Is this how you "win" an argument? If someone dares to not jump to your side you make veiled threats about their reputation.
I'll finish reading tomorrow if that is ok with your impatience. But whether I agree with you in the end or not, I'm unshaken by your threats about "thousands of people" and what they might think of me. If you knew me, which you obviously don't, you would know how utterly ridiculous that statement is.
Good night Sir, I'm much less impressed with your discussion now.
but...but...I liked it the other way.
:-)
I wonder if there is a place for a foot print on the back?
ex animo
davidfarrar
Dunno. Good point though. I think Chrissy "Tingly" Matthews would probably be able to answer that question. He has looked into this birth cert stuff with precision.
/heavy dripping disgusting sarcasm off
It does use the term "native born" instead of "natural born" in the beginning of the case but in the end of the case there is a long and detailed discussion of the common law principal I was telling you about. The case very clearly lays out the common law principal that states that ANYONE born within an under the jurisdiction of the sovereign is a Natural Born Citizen with only two exceptions: if they were sons of a diplomat or if they were the off spring of an occupying army. Both of the exceptions have to do with being under the allegiance of the sovereign at the time of birth. Aliens, however, are specifically included in those who are under the allegiance of the sovereign and therefore their children, born in the dominion of the sovereign are NATURAL BORN CITIZENS.
So I am a bit bewildered why you present these cases as something that supports your opinion when it specifically denies your opinion. Here is the heart of the opinion:
The fundamental principle of the common law with regard to English nationality was birth within the allegiance—also called 'ligealty,' 'obedience,' 'faith,' or 'power'—of the king. The principle embraced all persons born within the king's allegiance, and subject to his protection. Such allegiance and protection were mutual,—as expressed in the maxim, 'Protectio trahit subjectionem, et subjectio protectionem,'—and were not restricted to natural-born subjects and naturalized subjects, or to those who had taken an oath of allegiance; but were predicable of aliens in amity, so long as they were within the kingdom. Children, born in England, of such aliens, were therefore natural-born subjects. But the children, born within the realm, of foreign ambassadors, or the children of alien enemies, born during and within their hostile occupation of part of the king's dominions, were not natural-born subjects, because not born within the allegiance, the obedience, or the power, or, as would be said at this day, within the jurisdiction, of the king.
===snip======= In U. S. v. Rhodes (1866), Mr. Justice Swayne, sitting in the circuit court, said: 'All persons born in the allegiance of the king are natural-born subjects, and all persons born in the allegiance of the United States are natural-born citizens. Birth and allegiance go together. Such is the rule of the common law, and it is the common law of this country, as well as of England.' 'We find no warrant for the opinion Page 663 that this great principle of the common law has ever been changed in the United States. It has always obtained here with the same vigor, and subject only to the same exceptions, since as before the Revolution.' 1 Abb. (U. S.) 28, 40, 41, Fed. Cas. No. 16,151.
Please explain to me, in light of the case that YOU PRESENTED to me how it is possible that one must have two citizens who are parents and be born on the land to be Natural Born, instead of what the case says that aliens who have children born in the dominion are Natural Born?
I’m not going to use up JimRob’s bandwidth explaining US case law and historical precedent for the definition of the term, “natural born citizen” for you.
You say that you’re “familiar” with US vs Wong Kim Ark. Well, that just happens to be one of the cases that asserts my position on the definition of “natural born” citizenship.
If you take the time to read what the Framer’s intent was in choosing this exact phrase, you will see that their paramount concern was that any US President have full allegiance to the USA, and bear no divided loyalties to any other nation, hence, born on US soil to TWO US citizen parents.
There was long-standing historical precedence for this concept at the time of the framing of the US Constitution, and the Framers drew from this to define the narrow eligibility limits for the US Presidency.
Again, the link: http://www.theobamafile.com/ObamaNaturalBorn.htm
I read the link you sent out, the US v. Wong case DISPROVES what you are saying. I have not finished the rest of your "evidence" but if it was as poorly read as US v. Wong was I don't think you will prove much.
I don't think you read anything, my posts or your evidence. Read my last post: the quotes came from US v Wong YOUR case.
I'm sorry, but that's just flat out wrong. A person such as you describe would be a "native born citizen", at best.
The US Constitution is senior to all statutory law in this country, and predates all of it. We can all sit around citing case law, but it's all of secondary force to our constitution, which is the senior operating policy of the land.
In fact, there are laws on the books at this very moment that we know to be un-constitutional. The fact that those laws are in place doesn't give them more authority than the US Constitution.
It's absolutely clear that our Founders intended that US Presidents bear 100% allegiance and fidelity to this country and its people, through provenance of the soil and the blood.
There is simply no question about that intent. If judges have rendered statements subsequent to our nation's founding that muddy the Founder's original intent, then those laws and that language should be overturned as un-constitutional.
This is what it all comes down to in our time. Our fundamental freedoms have been slyly and cleverly damaged or eroded by stupid and evil people in positions of authority for far too long. We've come now to a place where the very foundations of this constitutional republic are at risk of crumbling.
The entire message of this very forum is that we must take up the fight against the assault on our freedoms, else we will lose the greatest nation the world has ever known.
So, you want to argue that we might not have a leg to stand on in declaring Barack Obama to be unfit to be our President, by virtue of his lack of US citizen bona fides? Why would anyone do that, when it's become clear that he is not in accord with our nation's founding principles, and wishes to overturn the very basics of America, as constituted?
Barack Obama personifies the exact sort of person the Founders looked to banish from ever holding the reins of ultimate power in America, yet there he is, despite their clear intentions to bar him.
Most people who read here are as furious over this development as the Founders would be. We agree with their intent, and understand that their brilliant design of our founding document is what has given us the great freedoms and liberties we've enjoyed.
I refuse to be forced into confusion and bewilderment by specious arguments regarding the minutiae of case law and statutes. I know what made this country great, and I am in 100% accord with that stated word, and all of the underlying reason and historical precedent which support it.
To hell with anyone who chooses to fight for anything but allegiance to our Constitution and its original intent.
Let me tell you what you wrongly said to me: It doesn't seem that you want to be confused with the facts since you have already made up your mind.
YOUR evidence is against you. Your link puts US v Wong out over and over as PROOF and apparently none of you have read it.
Don't worry, I don't need to convince you of anything.
I still think Obama might not be a citizen but you are just dead wrong about the definition of Natural Born.
THIS WAS EVIDENCE ON THE SITE YOU SENT ME. Did you read what you sent me? I don't think so. You seem arrogant and pushy but you didn't even read what you sent me as evidence.
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.