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.
That Obama had a British father was without doubt a year ago. Why didn’t conservatives raise the issue then?
That towering intellect Ann Coulter, who wrote a book “The Impeachment of Clinton”, a constitutional lawyer no less, didn’t think anything of it a year ago? Not to mention radio talk show hosts?
That liberals would keep quiet is to be expected - why would far right people go along?
STRONGLY AGREE WITH YOU . . .
Then . . .judging from his treasonous evil acts . . .
is he really even human of human parents or a creature from hell?
But then . . . maybe I’m being unfair . . . or maybe not.
To keep us busy the left introduced a straw man...
They put the citizenship of McCain to the test in congress...
BTW Barry signed off on it agreeing that McCain was eligible to run...
Theres more than one reason why we ended up with McCain...
If we had Romney it would have been the same...
Just like Barry...
Romneys father was not born here either...
He was born in Mexico...
Thank you so much, TQC!!!
Maybe.
What is really interesting to me is that few people seem inclined to acknowledge the "800-pound gorilla in the room."
Which boils down to this: If Obama is an illegitimate president, then EVERY ACT of his in office is "null and void" from the get-go; i.e., is not binding law that the American people must respect. No appointment he has ever made; no signing of any legislative act; no executive order issued under his name. None have any effect under the Constitution; they are not valid laws that can bind the American people.
In effect, if he sits illegitimately, then nothing that he has done since his inauguration has any legal effect under the Constitution. Not only that, but since such would be illegal acts, he cannot legitimately compel the federal taxpayer to pay for them.
How's that for a monkey wrench in the works???
. . . INDEED . . . and just for starters . . .
there’s then all the implications of all those illegal deeds.
We’ve just seen the global warming issue blown wide open by the exposure of the blatant forgery of phony climate data.
I want to see that birth certificate. I don’t see any reason to trust any of these con men.
Truthers? The author is an idiot. The term is "Birthers".
I respect you, Jean S, as a sane, dependable, and rational collaborator hereabouts. I know this from longstanding experience.
Thus your last disappoints me. I for one cannot draw any meaningful distinction between "birthers" and "truthers." I do not care about "doctrinal positions" one way or another.
What I want to know is this: Does President Obama hold his office legitimately or not???
Not to mention that the "idiot author" is me. I do have a stake in this game.
There is a difference. "Truthers" think that the U.S. government or the Jews orchestrated 911. "Birthers" believe that Obama is not a U.S. citizen.
There is a huge difference between the two words.
True.... But your method of expressing yourself leaves much to be desired. Your response is exactly the kind that discredits FR.
Sorry if I offended you.
~~~~~~~~~~
"U.S. Constitution, Article II, §1: No Person except a natural born Citizen, OR a Citizen of the United States, [BUT, NOT A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN] at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; "Methinks that a fruitful line of research might be the birth/parental status of those signers/authors of the Constitution who knowing themselves NOT to be natural born citizens, specifically exempted themselves from the "natural born" requirement.
IOW, if one of our early Presidents (exempted under Article II, §1) was born here, but not of two Citizen parents, We have a clear example of what a natural born citizen is NOT.
...but now that we have, we have no standing to question our elected leaders on anything anymore.
-PJ
Didn't offend me, I just felt like I'd point it out. Starting off your response to somebody with "the author is an idiot" is a good way to try to start a fight with somebody, but not so good at presenting a cogent criticism.
Incidentally, I see it far too often on FR, I see too many flame wars, and have unfortunately allowed myself to get sucked into a few, which is why I don't hang out at FR nearly as much as I used to.
Besides, betty boop is one of my contributors, and I go to bat for my contributors.
However for the following to be true, there needs to be one other part of the formula - JURISDICTION!
The mexican anchor baby, still would not have JURISDICTION, as it’s parents are under Mexican law.
In effect, if he sits illegitimately, then nothing that he has done since his inauguration has any legal effect under the Constitution. Not only that, but since such would be illegal acts, he cannot legitimately compel the federal taxpayer to pay for them.
Thank you so much for your insights, dearest sister in Christ!
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.