Posted on 12/05/2009 11:07:08 AM PST by betty boop
President Obama under the Lens of the Citizenship Question
By Jean F. Drew
The Preamble to the Constitution of the United States of America declares:
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
So, who are these “People,” beyond the fact that they are the sovereign power that “ordained and established” our fundamental rule of law? In other words, in what is their sovereignty actually rooted that is capable of legal cognizance? And how are people in succeeding generations — “our Posterity” — to be qualified as members of this sovereign People?
Such questions draw us to the meaning of citizenship, and how citizenship has been defined and understood over the course of U.S. history. Taking stock now, we find that citizenship is something intuitively understood by most Americans; i.e., a citizen is a fellow member of the We the People of the Preamble. A person could be a member of this class by virtue of American birth or via the naturalization process. Precise legal guidance at the definitional level is still insufficient, since the Constitution itself does not explicitly address these particulars. We feel this lack of explicit guidance most keenly today in the question of whether the currently sitting president is a “natural-born citizen of the United States,” as he is required to be under Article II, Section 1, Clause 6 of the U.S. Constitution.
For the Framers, U.S. citizenship admits from only two possible classes: natural born or naturalized. The first class pertains to citizenship acquired from the moment of birth; the second to natural-born citizens of a foreign state who have satisfied the statutory eligibility requirements of becoming a United States citizen.
What remains ambiguous is whether “natural born” status depends on the geographical place of one’s birth (doctrine of jus soli — the “law of the ground,” or “of the soil”), the citizenship status of the parents one is born of (jus sanguinis — the “law of the blood,” or of natural inheritance), or some combination thereof.
The Constitution itself nowhere defines “natural born.” Our earliest nationalities act — the Naturalization Act of 1790 — is the only instance of statutory “natural born” language that we have. Just five years later, the term “natural born” was removed, with passage of the Nationalities Act of 1795. This act recognizes foreign-born children of two American parents as citizens of the United States from the moment of birth. This would be an application of the doctrine of jus sanguinis. Thus, John McCain was a citizen of the United States from the moment of his birth. Even though he was born on foreign soil, i.e., in the Panama Canal Zone, he is a natural-born citizen of the United States, by virtue of his double American-citizen parentage. This contrasts with the cases of, for example, ex-Secretary of State Henry Kissinger, a natural-born citizen of Germany who became a U.S. citizen in 1943; or of California’s current governor, Arnold Schwarzenegger, a natural-born Austrian citizen who became a U.S. citizen in 1983. Or of the case of my favorite modern philosopher, the natural-born German Eric Vöegelin who, having fled Hitler in 1937, became a naturalized American citizen in 1942.
Under the original Constitution, it was up to each of the several sovereign states to determine who its own citizens were. Indeed, the very idea of state sovereignty would be diminished, were this not the case.
The great complication of state sovereignty in determining citizenship was, of course, that some states refused to acknowledge the citizenship of the “three-fifths-of-a-person” persons born within their respective geographical boundaries. Then, on July 9, 1868, the Fourteenth Amendment was ratified — taking care of that problem by nationalizing U.S. citizenship. In so doing, there was an effective move away from the doctrine of jus sanguinis, to that of jus solis: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.”
Now the federal government determines who a state’s citizens are, and forbids the states to transgress the privileges or immunities of these newly-minted citizens of the United States. In short, the Fourteenth Amendment turned tradition on its head.
Thus the emphasis shifts from “natural born” — birth to American citizen parents (as formerly determined by the states), jus sanguinis — to “native born” — the geographical location of one’s birth (i.e., within U.S. territory), jus solis.
With the result that today a poor expectant Mexican woman has every incentive to illegally enter the United States for the purpose of bearing her child in an American hospital (at public expense), on American soil — which instantly confers U.S. citizenship on her child. And thus the widespread phenomenon of the “anchor baby” occurs. This issue is beyond the scope of the present article. We merely note here for present purposes that this anchor baby has zero U.S.-citizen parents.
More to the point would be to ask: What kind of citizen is President Barack Hussein Obama? It does not appear that he is “natural born,” at least not under the original understanding of that term, as being the child of two American-citizen parents, irrespective of physical location of birth. For we know his father, Barack Obama, Sr., was a natural-born Kenyan, and a British citizen under the British Nationalities Act of 1947.
If BHO was in fact born in Hawaii, then at best he would be “native-born.” But even this is uncertain; the alleged records attesting to his Hawaiian birth are under seal. A Certificate of Life Birth allegedly issued by the State of Hawaii was posted on his campaign website last year. But had to be quickly taken down, after it was discovered to be a forgery. His school records from Indonesia characterize him as a citizen of Indonesia. He has Kenyan family members who are on record as saying they were present at his birth — in Kenya. A Kenyan birth certificate has surfaced; to the best of my knowledge, its authenticity has not been verified. It’s all terribly confusing; and the Obama Administration is expending tremendous amounts of taxpayer funds ($1.4 million and counting) on lawyer fees, trying to keep these matters as “dark” as possible. So much for the campaign promise of “transparency” from this administration.
The so-called “Truthers” are all over Obama’s supposed origins in Hawaii, on which his “natural-born-status” seemingly wholly depends in their minds. But this is to follow a course leading down into a rabbit hole that offers nothing definitive at the end of the search. The reason being: Hawaii issues Certificates of Live Birth (COLB) to any person born within its geographical jurisdiction, without regard to, or taking any position on, the parental citizenship of the child, or what the child may naturally inherit therefrom such to be qualified as a natural born citizen of the United States. The Hawaiian birth record — if it exists — can only attest to the geographical location of Obama’s birth; it cannot address issues regarding whether he acquires citizenship from his father (British) or from his mother (American) or both. Hawaii — post Fourteenth Amendment — has no power to determine the citizenship status of our sitting President.
In Schneider v. Rusk, 377 U.S. 163 (1964), the Supreme Court held “We start from the premise that the rights of citizenship of the native-born and of the naturalized person are of the same dignity and are coextensive. The only difference drawn by the Constitution is that only the ‘natural born’ citizen is eligible to be President.”
And thus presumably, the native-born anchor baby will never be eligible to be President, on “natural born” grounds. For he is the child of non-citizens.
Now let us presume that what the Hawaiian Secretary of State has under seal (i.e., Obama’s “long-form” birth record) really exists. So what? It, by itself, cannot speak to the question of whether BHO is a “natural born citizen.” It could only attest to native-born status.
Of course, what the Framers were mainly worried about was captured in a 1789 letter John Jay sent to George Washington, who was then presiding over the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia:
“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.”
Especially in the case where we clearly have an inordinately “internationally-minded” POTUS in office right now, I for one would like to know exactly what kind of citizen he is. But he and his team are doing everything in their power to prevent me from finding out. Which just naturally leads to the question: WHY?
The question is particularly urgent, for President Obama is on record as saying he finds the U.S. Constitution —which he (twice) swore an Oath to preserve, protect, and defend — wanting. He finds it wanting because it is not a statement of positive federal government powers, but is rather a negative prescription of what government may not do. That being the case, as an “activist-minded individual,” evidently he simply ignores it, and seemingly violates it every day before breakfast as if it were a matter of principle with him.
Of course, if he is not a “natural born citizen,” and knows it, then he violated his presidential oath of office in the very act of taking it.
If he is not a “natural born citizen,” then we need to recognize that his successful acquisition of Presidential Office has been aided and abetted by the Democratic National Committee, which certified his eligibility for office; and by Nancy Pelosi, who again certified him, before the Electoral College.
We the People of the United States of America have a few questions. And we want answers. Maybe a good place to start would be to examine the “due diligence” records of the DNC and Ms. Pelosi, which led to their respective certifications of Obama’s eligibility to serve.
If we can’t get answers from the Obama people, maybe we need to start querying the DNC and/or Ms. Pelosi: What did they know, and when did they know it?
Just some food for thought.
I'm not sure it ever did, dearest sister in Christ. And it really wouldn't matter whether it did or not, as far as the "natural-born" criterion is involved. This is the problem: His father was not an American citizen. Neither was his stepfather.
His mother Stanley Ann was. But whether she had the ability to transfer American citizenship to her son at the time of his birth (because she was not of legal age to do so under the relevant naturalization statutes of the time) is the crux of the issue.
But even if Obama's claim to citizenship stems from his mother, still he would not be a "natural-born citizen of the United States" because of the citizenship status of his father(s).
At least, this would be how I'd define the problem before us.
Maybe the Treasury of the United Kingdom should take a look at back taxes owed by our sitting POTUS? Or maybe the Indonesian fiscal authorities?
When you lay it out as an X-Y matrix, is it obvious that there is an amazingly large set of possible combinations...
syc1959, your jurisdiction element certainly needs to be added as another defining condition (column). (ACK! More possible combinations...!)
;-}
BTW, is anyone aware of an American [born] citizen who is the offspring of a foreign [male] diplomat and a U.S. "natural born" wife? (That is the closest analogy of Øbama's situation [assuming he can prove Hawaiian {soil} birth] I have been able to come up with -- so far...)
Then, I guess it would be up to us to blazon the fraudulent nature of his books -- and the sealing of his other life documents -- to the U.S. voting public...
Simple answer: NO. No example immediately comes to mind. (That doesn't necessarily mean there are NO examples, just that I can't think of one.)
But Barack Hussein Obama SENIOR does not even come close to this description. He was a "foreign-exchange student," not a diplomat.
I hope you will share your "X–Y Matrix" with us when you get it "done," dear brother in Christ! Thank you ever so very much for writing!
Forgive me for being slow on the uptake here, but: what are the "FMD" and "MX" surprises?
I'm not catching the acronyms....
What is perplexing to me is that Judge Robertson does not feel the federal courts have any role in answering the question, "Were I, as a retired Air Force Colonel [Col. Hollister] and thus subject to perpetual presidential recall to duty, to receive orders from this president so to do, would I have to obey such an order, given the uncertainty surrounding the authority and eligibility of this president to issue such orders to me in the first place? Where so many questions remain on the legitimacy issue, what would be my constitutional duty in this regard, which I swore to in taking my own Constitutional Oath?"
Evidently Judge Robertson found this question "unreasonable," since the "citizenship test" of the president had been amply ventilated on the Internet over the past year or so.
O Goodie. The Internet is now the American standard of law and our court of justice. Okey-dokey. But then, Judge Robertson: Why do we need YOU? Maybe we ought to encourage all federal judges to retire, and leave American constitutional law and justice to determinations on/by the Internet?
Whatta jerk.
I would most desperately like to know what is in the Berg "sealed case"....
Thank you ever so much, AmericanVictory, for your provocative and perceptive insights!
Frank Marshall Davis — and — Malcolm X...
The fact remains that the question of why Colonel Hollister should not be able to have the election of Soetoro a/k/a Obama declared only to have made him a president de facto and not de jure if Coastguardsman Ryder was able to have the appointment of the Coast Guard appeals panel members so declared? Is the One too big to be held to have acted above the law and thus fail as the constitutional fraud that he appears to be?
Dear AmericanVictory, methinks I have an uncanny source in you RE: our current particulars....
Further details would be MOST welcome!
More and more people are paying attention to such questions now. Please keep your eyes peeled, and fill us in on the emerging details? And let me know if I can help in any way?
He might be native born, and that is what he represents himself to be, kinda sorta. But what he is definitely not, unless he's lying about who his father was, is a Natural Born citizen, since his father was not a citizen, ever.
Another section of LoN states:
§ 217. Children born in the armies of the state.
For the same reasons also, children born out of the country, in the armies of the state, or in the house of its minister at a foreign court, are reputed born in the country; for a citizen who is absent with his family, on the service of the state, but still dependent on it, and subject to its jurisdiction, cannot be considered as having quitted its territory.
Thus it does not matter where McCain was born, Panama on the Coco Solo naval station in the zone, he is a natural born citizen, since his father (and grandfather) were in the sevice of the state, and subject to its jurisdiction, as Naval Officers.
Obama does not qualify as Natural Born.
Not in general true. The father could have been naturalized prior to the birth of the child. In that case the child would be a natural born citizen. It would require a copy of the naturalization papers of the parent(s) to prove natural born status
Of course BHO Sr. was never naturalized, and was never even a permanent legal resident of the US, he was merely a visitor here on a student visa.
Only if he was born outside the US, and to a mother *legally* married to a foreign national. If not legally married, then it's one year, IIRC. But if he was born in the US, he is a citizen, per the 14th amendment to the Constitution. But still not a Natural born citizen.
The only way he might be natural born is if the long form BC shows no father, or a US citizen father.
They did. No court would grant "standing" to examine the issue. No court has to this day, AFAIK.
Agree.
Totally agreed El Gato! My conclusion exactly.
Thank you ever so much for writing!
AFAIK, Frank Marshall Davis and Malcolm X were both American citizens.
Thanks TXnMA!
That is indeed the question now before the American people.
It's interesting that at first Obama's legal team showed little interest, and then "opposed with some serious misrepresentations." Do you know what those "misrepresentations" were?
I would just love to know what is in Berg's "sealed" case....
Indeed, AmericanVictory, "The case is well worth watching." Yet the wheels of justice grind sooooooo sloooooooowly.... Sigh.
Thank you so very much for your outstanding essay/post!
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.