Support Free Republic!
Donate Now!
THE MAIN ISSUE IS THE CITIZENSHIP OF OBAMA's FATHER AT THE TIME OF HIS BIRTH REGARDLESS OF WHERE HE WAS BORN.
Comments/Disagreements welcome
“harping on this issue ( especially Obama’s birth certificate, which I personally think is irrelevant )”
We could tell that already, by your use of the word “harping”...
It’s obvious and clear what it means. It means born a citizen, not a naturalized citizen. That’s why McBain can’t be president, but his kids could. Everyone knows that.
But, then you have to begin the questioning of who Stanley Anne Dunham opened her legs for that fateful evening when she conceived a child?
Was it Mr. Obama, Mr. Soerto, Mr. Davis, or who knows, or if she even knew?
Support Free Republic!
Donate Now!
The first is the issue of natural born as raised by the author of the article. It has never been tested in the courts, especially SCOTUS. I feel strongly that it should be based on the citizenship of Obama's alleged father.
The second issue revolves around Obama's long form birth certificate to verify exactly who his birth father really was and to determine if he was born abroad. In order to challenge whether Obama was "natural born," we would have to verify from a primary source document that Barack Obama Sr. was his real father. And if there is an indication that Obama was born abroad (COLBs in Hawaii have been issued to children born abroad) then he would clearly not be eligible to be President unless his mother was unmarried and she alone conveyed citizenship abroad. A Consular certification would be used to do that. There is no doubt that Obama is a citizen and presumably had a US passport when he travelled to Indonesia when he was six years old. If he had been born overseas, he would have been added to his mother's passport in order to enter the US for the first time.
This is a great summary, but confused me at the end with this quote: “Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, James F. Wilson of Iowa, confirmed this in 1866: “We must depend on the general law relating to subjects and citizens recognized by all nations for a definition, and that must lead us to the conclusion that every person born in the United States is a natural-born citizen of such States, except that of children born on our soil to temporary sojourners or representatives of foreign Governments.”
Unlike Bingham’s formulation, which clearly required birth in the U.S. to citizen parents, the Wilson formulation could be construed to mean that a U.S.-born child of alien parents permanently residing in the U.S. (even if they had not yet attained U.S. citizenship or even had plans to) could be considered natural born citizens. That is, if the parents are permanent U.S. residents, they can’t be characterized as “temporary sojourners.” This would seem to undercut the clarity of the author’s argument up until the Conclusion in which the Wilson quote appears.
The author appears to be unaware that distinctions between those rights derived from the father and from the mother are unlikely to be accepted in today's America.
I realize things were different in the 18th century, but if it is intended to maintain them today, an argument should be made why this is appropriate, rather than just ignoring the issue.
This is bs
Bump for later.
The long form BC is paramount because on it we will see who his father is. Before you can rule out Obama because his father was not a citizen, you have to be SURE who his LEGAL father is. What PROOF do you have to show that Barrack Obama was the father of Barack Obama? The same COLB that we know to be photo-shopped and forged?
First things first. Let's get the official, LEGAL, Birth Certificate that includes ALL the birth information. If he can't produce one, then it's over for him.
Agreed with this only added— Neither the 0’s mother— nor his father were citizens of the US at the time of his birth. The only way he can claim to even be native born is if he was actually born in the USA that he HATES so much (or hated until he became President)
“Could a natural-born citizen perhaps be synonymous with the British term “natural-born subject”?
It is very doubtful the framers adopted the doctrine found under the old English doctrine of “natural-born subject.”
-— SeekAndFind
“The Constitution nowhere defines the meaning of these words, either by way of inclusion or of exclusion, except insofar as this is done by the affirmative declaration that “all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States.” In this as in other respects, it must be interpreted in the light of the common law, the principles and history of which were familiarly known to the framers of the Constitution...
...The Supreme Court of North Carolina, speaking by Mr; Justice Gaston, said:
Before our Revolution, all free persons born within the dominions of the King of Great Britain, whatever their color or complexion, were native-born British subjects; those born out of his allegiance were aliens. . . . Upon the Revolution, no other change took place in the law of North Carolina than was consequent upon the transition from a colony dependent on an European King to a free and sovereign [p664] State; . . . British subjects in North Carolina became North Carolina freemen; . . . and all free persons born within the State are born citizens of the State. . . . The term “citizen,” as understood in our law, is precisely analogous to the term “subject” in the common law, and the change of phrase has entirely resulted from the change of government. The sovereignty has been transferred from one man to the collective body of the people, and he who before as a “subject of the king” is now “a citizen of the State.”
-— US Supreme Court
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0169_0649_ZO.html
As a citizen adopted as an infant by an American military family, I took keen interest in citizenship issues in grade school in the 60s and 70s. This was an era when “anyone could become President”, but I knew I could not. There is no doubt that the Civics classes in that era taught that NBC meant A) born in the U.S. and B) of two people who were American citizens.