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 know this: in one of the earlier cases (Berg?) the Øbama lawyers objected on the grounds that the release of Øbama's history (BC) would result in "embarrassment"!
~~~~~~~~~~
An intriguing "Catch-22" for Øbama:
If (as described in his books) he is not "natural born" -- he is not eligible to be POTUS.
If (by showing US citizen paternity [FMD, MX]) he proves he is "natural born" -- then his books (and his entire life) are proven fraudulent!
What to do... What to do?
'-)
You've GOT to be kidding!!! What kind of legal defense is that???
Love your "'Catch-22'" for Øbama" scenario! LOLOL!!! I could see (maybe) FMD as father; but how did you make the connection to MX???
If he never renounced his citizenship (and if such citizenship existed by reason of his father's legal domicile) then he probably owes back taxes to the U.K.
And unlike trying to get a judicial hearing which requires "legal standing" and time and money and can be easily derailed on technicalities - complaints of tax evasion or avoidance (at least in the U.S.) trigger an automatic and official investigation.
It would be ironic for Chicago rooted Obama to be brought down to earth by the same technique used against Chicago rooted Capone. Capone had all the usual criminal bases covered up, but he didn't allow for the IRS.
But, of course, I do not know if England's tax collection authority is as powerful, autonomous, mindless and brutal as our own IRS.
I wonder if the difference reflects the very issue of legal domicile which in international law goes to the father?
Several of the misrepresentations were set out in the original, timely filed, reply brief done by John Hemenway. More were recently set out in the motion that he filed for oral argument.
And wouldn't it be ironic if "Chicago-rooted Obama [were] to be brought down to earth by the same technique used against Chicago-rooted Capone."
That would be entirely fitting, dearest sister in Christ!
Thank you oh so much for your fascinating insights!
AV, do you have any links handy? I’d like to look into this further.
Try this link:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/2398759/posts
and also this one:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2391363/posts
The briefing was rescheduled after the problems of coordination surfaced.
A real Kool-aid drinker going by the name "Democrat21" had this to say in reply:
You guys lost.That's the mentality of a BHO Stepford Wife — and it's "all of a piece":: Just consider the remarks re: the Middle East....Your only chance was in January 2009 at the Electors’ Confirmation Hearing by the joint session of Congress. You should have objected. Cheney did not even asked the constitutionally required question (Is there any objection?). That was your only chance.
McCain was history at that point. The GOP would have lost nothing and possibly gain a lot. A perfect political opportunity. You guys blew it. You did not object. That would have been the only way to force SCOTUS to rule on merit. Basically the GOP sided with us democrats to put us in charge. Thank you GOP.
We now control the media, not only through the reporters and editors but through the owners as well. The Constitution is a living document, not a frozen outdated piece of paper, and with the new Supreme Court appointment we will be even more in charge to make sure that some ridicules [sic] parts of it become unenforceable. Some predictions:
Rush, Hennity [sic] and colleagues are already silenced through the owners of their radio stations and they will continued to be silenced as they deserve for using their hateful language.
None your lawsuits will be heard on merit, because you will never get the minimum 4 votes necessary to hear the cases on merit. We will be dominating SCOTUS.
The GOP will be non-existent in a few years.
A third party will emerge and we Democrats will crush them.
We will make sure that Moslems will totally dominate the Middle-East, as they deserve and by understanding them we will make them our friends.
Give up friends, and join us promoting the wonderful change that is transforming our country.
I'm positively disgusted....
Thank you so much, AV!!!
Well, we will see. I understand from John Hemenway that he has other plans. If he receives support in the same manner that attorneys such as Dr. Taitz have received support I believe that he will be able to do something about. Albeit small, his victories are the only ones so far.
Well, we will see. I understand from John Hemenway that he has other plans. If he receives support in the same manner that attorneys such as Dr. Taitz have received support I believe that he will be able to do something about. Albeit small, his victories are the only ones so far.
Isn't it!!! It boggles the mind, simply staggers the imagination....
This "Democrat21" sounds like a character straight out of Robert Musil's stupendous novel, The Man without Qualities....
And then there was the alleged "Saudi connection/influence" cited in the body of the letter....
Whut the HAIL is going on here?
But because his parents were citizens, Romney is a natural born citizen. (Assuming he was born in the US, which I believe he was)
Romney's father was a citizen by law, because his parents were citizens, although his father was not natural born, because he was born outside the country, an unlike McCain, not while his father was in the service of the country. Romney's grandfather had established residency in Mexico, while McCain's parents were merely stationed outside the US proper.
The children of citizens born outside the country being citizens at birth has been part of US Immigration and Naturalization law since the very first one. In most (but not all) cases even having a single citizen parent will suffice, although that is more recent, and is subject to more, and frequently changing limitations. If Barry was born outside the country, and his parents were married, then he was not a citizen at birth. But if born in the country, he's a citizen by the terms of the 14th amendment, but still not a natural born one, unless he's lied about who his father was.
All but one were born "here" but not of two citizen parents. Except for that one, Martin Van Buren, their parents were not citizens of the US when they were born, nor were they, because there was no US to be citizens of, they were British Subjects Van Buren was born in 1782, before the ratification of the Constitution but after the Declaration of Independence (1776), and the passage of the Articles of Confederation(1781), and thus was the child of citizens, and natural born, but also was a citizen of the US before ratification of the Constitution. He was doublely eligible, unlike Zero who is Zeroly eligible.
Several Presidents have had foreign born mothers, but in those days a woman automatically became a citizen upon marrying a citizen, although the same did not apply to men who married US citizen women.
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.