Posted on 04/27/2011 7:28:49 AM PDT by SquarePants
I like the part where they say "makes him eligible to hold the office..." That's BS.
Even if Obama was born in Hawaii, as he claims, there are still numerous issues regarding his eligibility that need to be resolved. Did he have birth citizenship in Great Britain through his father? Is the child of a non-citizen a "NATURAL BORN" citizen, or not? Did Obama have Indonesian citizenship through his adoption by Lolo Soetoro? What kind of a passport did Obama use to enter Pakistan in 1981?...
(Excerpt) Read more at rightwire.net ...
I saw this posted on The Smoking Gun.
Try the following: Save off a copy of the exact PDF file the White House has released as Obama’s birth certificate this morning. Find yourself a copy of Adobe Illustrator (not Photoshop), and load up the PDF file in Illustrator. Then click on the center of the image of the birth certificate, then right-click on the center of the image, and click Release Clipping Mask. Have fun...
Oh, there will be significant scrutiny about this document. And you can be sure it is going to be analyzed to the hilt and potentially introduced in the various eligibilty cases still active in the court system.
He might be a citizen but because his father, an African under British jurisdiction , was not, that puts him in a catagory of dual citizenship unless appropriate actions were taken to clear away one or the other for sole USA citizenship. Citizenship does not give an individual rights of a natural born citizen. Like so many situations in life that are messy this one still has some cleanup to be done. The sanctity of our Constitution, not only for citizens today but also for the intent of the Founding Fathers that POTUSA must not bear any allegience to any foreign power must be clear. Until all the information on Obama is opened and the trash cleared away the matter is neither over even though we will and must move along.
Well if your going to quote an article why don’t you quote the whole paragraph 6 on page 250?
Especially this next line....
“It is surprising that there has been no judicial decision upon this question.”
Maybe now that the O has come forth with his vaunted BC which clearly shows his father...was not a citizen at the time of his birth, could have this question answered in a court of law.
Speaking as a child of immigrant non citizens and some familiarity with other simmilar families I will say that just being born in the USA does not give unquestioned allegience to the USA when non citizen parents have residual feelings/allegience to their native country. WWII exposed a lot of this attitude. The Founding Fathers knew this was possible so the best they could do to mute this foreign allegience was to have the parents swear allegience to the USA by virtue of their own citizenship. My brother (killed on Okinawa) and I a vet of WWII were never in doubt as to our or our parents allegience to the USA , yet we were not eligible for POTUSA.
Barack was not an anchor baby; his father was in the United States legally, was not a diplomat, and was subject to the laws and jurisdiction of the US as a legal alien. This would be wholly different if he was an illegal alien, although the courts might even rule the same way.
As long as the birth cert checks out, Obama is a natural born citizen. The issue has run its course. It served a purpose in showing that Obama administration is far from being open and transparent, but the case is closed.
“It is surprising that there has been no judicial decision upon this question.”
Read in context, he is saying that it is surprising the issue had not come up BEFORE 1844!
If you bothered to read, you would see that the colonies used the British term ‘natural born subject’ to define citizenship prior to the Revolution. After the Revolution, they changed their laws so that ‘natural born subject’ was replaced with ‘natural born citizen’ - so any reasonable person would conclude that natural born citizen was the updated terminology for natural born subject.
And since no one in the colonies doubted that a natural born subject included those born with alien parents, therefor it is reasonable to believe they thought natural born citizen included the same people.
The Supreme Court ruled over a hundred years ago that children of legal and resident aliens born in the United States were citizens at birth.
gunrunner, please don’t make the mistake of equating citizenship at birth with natural born citizenship status.
Congress is free to define all manner of people of having citizenship at birth, but that has no bearing on the constitutional definition of natural born citizenship.
It’s set theory — many people can have citizenship at birth who are not natural born citizens.
“Natural born” does not depend on congressional law at all.
The citizenship of the parents is a key issue.
These two supreme court cases might help:
Minor v. Happersett , 88 U.S. 162 (1875)
The Constitution does not in words say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents.
United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898)
At common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children, born in a country of parents who were its citizens, became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners.
Also the supreme court cases habitually cite “The Law of Nations” Book I, Chapter 19, § 212, which in translation says:
§ 212. Citizens and natives.
The citizens are the members of the civil society: bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. As the society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights. . . .
Natural born subject is how the British defined citizenship prior to Independence. When the Constitution was written, that detail of English common law was adapted to natural born citizen. There's no reason to believe that the Founders defined natural born citizen as any different from natural born subject, unless you've read something I haven't. There's no distinction spelled out in the Constitution between someone 'born' a citizen and a natural born citizen. If there is please feel free to point it out.
Obama’s father, as given on the certificate made public, though on USA soil and subject to USA laws was not in any sense a USA citizen instead as a person he was a subject of English heritage at the time of Obama’s birth. As such the father’s allegience to the USA was not established and as future events showed no citizen ship was wanted. The reason the Founding Fathers specified natural born was to embed the need for allegience. It will be interesting on this 4th of July to see if allegience means anything more than fireworks. Recall the photo of Obama with hands folded waiste high during the playing of the national anthem. Allegience was not shown then, he has since been a converted for public showings.
>>Not sure how either of those cases make a distinction.
In two seperate cases, the Supreme Court says the parents citizenship is a key consideration in natural born status.
This means that Obama’s father having british citizenship is a relevant factor in determining Obama’s natural born citizenship status.
What are you confused about in particular?
>>Also not sure how you make the asssertion, “Congress is free to define all manner of people of having citizenship at birth”. The 14th Amendment makes that definition, not Congress.
Once again you have a problem with set theory. When the 14th amendment defines a class of people as having citizenship at birth, that doesn’t prevent congress from granting all sorts of other people citizenship at birth.
You say congress cannot define who has citizenship at birth, but this is clearly wrong, because we see in Title 8 congress doing exactly this. Do you think this is unconstitutional? See the law at:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/8/1401.html
>>>When the Constitution was written, that detail of English common law was adapted to natural born citizen. There’s no reason to believe that the Founders defined natural born citizen as any different from natural born subject, unless you’ve read something I haven’t.
You might start with the Law of Nations, which explains how natural born subject is different from natural born citizen. This key work guided the founding fathers, and is in fact cited by relevant US supreme court cases discussing natural born citizenship. It says:
The citizens are the members of the civil society: bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. As the society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights. . . .
This is cited by the supreme court with several members who sat in the constitional convention:
The Venus, 12 U.S. 8 Cranch 253 253 (1814)
“The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives or indigenes are those born in the country of parents who are citizens. Society not being able to subsist and to perpetuate itself but by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights.”
We again see relevance of parents citizenship in supreme court case Minor v. Happersett , 88 U.S. 162 (1875).
At common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents.
So you say common law grants no consideration to the parents citizenship, but the US supreme court and their evaluation of common law says the opposite, that it is entirely relevant.
To confirm the point, look at the US supreme court again in United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898)
At common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children, born in a country of parents who were its citizens, became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners.
This ruling granted citizenship to everyone born in the country (except those born of foreign diplomats, etc), but did not change or extend the definition of natural born.
The Supreme Court of the United States has never applied the term “natural born citizen” to any other category than “those born in the country of parents who are citizens thereof”.
>>There’s no distinction spelled out in the Constitution between someone ‘born’ a citizen and a natural born citizen. If there is please feel free to point it out.
Sure, the consitutional definition is that set out in common law, as confirmed by the US supreme court repeatedly to mean “those born in the country of parents who are citizens thereof”
Congress is free to define additional classes of people as having citizenship at birth, but this has no bearing on what the constitutional clause “natural born citizen” means.
First, explain how US v Wong Kim Ark is relevant since the plaintiffs in question were both resident aliens from China who were barred from citizenship by law whose children were citizens at birth.
Second, explain how your theory applies to Obama since one of his parents WAS a citizen of the United States.
Third, do you think it is probable that at any level in the federal court system, judges or appellate courts would rule that Barack Obama is not a natural born citizen. I want your honest opinion, not how you think they SHOULD rule, but the reality of the situation.
There is no way in hell that any judge in the United States federal court system right now, even with the dubious precedent that you've posted would rule against him. It might be a remote, very remote possibility if both of his parents were resident aliens, but his mother was a citizen.
>First, explain how US v Wong Kim Ark is relevant since the plaintiffs in question were both resident aliens from China who were barred from citizenship by law whose children were citizens at birth.
It is relevant because it discusses the common law definition of natural born citizenship.
You have said the common law definition of natural born citizenship grants no consideration to the parents citizenship.
This supreme court case, along with two others, clearly and directly contradicts you when it says common law shows citizenship of the parents is a key consideration.
The exact quote is, “At common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. “
additionally,
Minor v. Happersett , 88 U.S. 162 (1875).
At common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents.
and finally,
The Venus, 12 U.S. 8 Cranch 253 253 (1814)
“The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives or indigenes are those born in the country of parents who are citizens. Society not being able to subsist and to perpetuate itself but by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights.”
>>Second, explain how your theory applies to Obama since one of his parents WAS a citizen of the United States.
Yes, sure. Reread the 3 supreme court case citations above.
1) “of parents who were its citizens” (clearly two parents need to be citizens)
2)all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also.
(both parents have to be citizens in this reading also, yes?)
3)The natives or indigenes are those born in the country of parents who are citizens (clearly both parents need to be citizens in this reading)
You can make an argument that only one parent needs to be a citizen, but you could at least acknowledge there is a legitimate controversy here when one parent is a british citizen.
>>Third, do you think it is probable that at any level in the federal court system, judges or appellate courts would rule that Barack Obama is not a natural born citizen. I want your honest opinion, not how you think they SHOULD rule, but the reality of the situation.
It is my honest opinion that courts may or may not correctly follow the law.
If you want to say courts will never rule against him that’s fine, that’s an ok argument. It’s possible. Who knows?
But when you say there is no legitimate legal controversy over him having a british citizen father, and that anyone who thinks so is totally crazy and ignorant, then I think that is really wrong.
>>There is no way in hell that any judge in the United States federal court system right now, even with the dubious precedent that you’ve posted would rule against him.
What exactly is dubious about the three US supreme court statements on the subject? Be specific.
>>It might be a remote, very remote possibility if both of his parents were resident aliens, but his mother was a citizen.
I haven’t seen a case anywhere that says natural born status is granted by a single parent having citizenship.
All 3 of the cases I cited mention both parents having to be citizens.
Maybe you’re referring to title 8 congressional law.
I think you understand that congressional law doesn’t override the constitution.
The Constitution nowhere defines the meaning of these words (citizen and natural born citizen), either by way of inclusion or of exclusion, except in so far 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.
It thus clearly appears that by the law of England for the last three centuries, beginning before the settlement of this country, and continuing to the present day, aliens, while residing in the dominions possessed by the crown of England, were within the allegiance, the obedience, the faith or loyalty, the protection, the power, and the jurisdiction of the English sovereign; and therefore every child born in England of alien parents was a natural-born subject, unless the child of an ambassador or other diplomatic agent of a foreign state, or of an alien enemy in hostile occupation of the place where the child was born. III. The same rule was in force in all the English colonies upon this continent down to the time of the Declaration of Independence, and in the United States afterwards, and continued to prevail under the constitution as originally established.
How exactly do you negotiate this with your assertion that Wong Kim Ark "discusses the common law definition of natural born citizenship."
What am I missing here? Wong Kim Ark supports the supposition that Obama is a natural born citizen. Case closed.
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.