Posted on 03/05/2008 4:17:45 PM PST by kaehurowing
Ensuring McCain’s Citizenship - What’s in it for Obama?
By Leon Siu, 3/5/2008 8:15:12 AM
The developing story involving presidential candidate, John McCain’s citizenship also has ramifications for presidential candidate Barack Obama. As you know, the question regarding McCain’s foreign-born status has been gaining traction recently.
It seems the U.S. Constitution has this pesky requirement that a president of the United States must be a “natural-born Citizen.” That used to mean a person physically born within the borders of the U.S.
The question raised regarding McCain is, could “natural-born” be construed to include children born to U.S. citizens who happen to be residing in a foreign country? The question is moot…unless either the U.S. Supreme Court is asked to make a determination, or Congress passes legislation to allow it.
On Thursday, Feb. 28. 2008, U.S. Sen. Claire McCaskill (D-Mo.) introduced a bill to ensure that John McCain can become president, even though he was born in Panama.
Sen. Barack Obama, a close political ally of Sen. McCaskill immediately announced he would co-sponsor the legislation.
According to Obama, "Senator McCain has earned the right to be his party's nominee, and no loophole should prevent him from competing in this campaign."
The questions are: 1) Why does Obama’s close political ally McCaskill, a Democrat, care about McCain’s eligibility and 2) Why would Obama, a Democrat, be so keenly interested in making sure that his likely opponent is not disqualified by the “natural-born Citizen” requirement stipulated in the U.S. Constitution? What’s in it for him?
Here’s the answer: Obama was also born in a foreign country — Hawaii.
Numerous actions and admissions by the U.S. government since 1893 indicate that Hawaii is not a lawful territory or state of the U.S. and that Hawaii is actually a foreign country under hostile occupation by the U.S. Therefore, the claim that Hawaii is a state of the U.S. is fraudulent.
In recent years, the fraud began to unravel and in recent months, the pace has accelerated considerably. Court decisions and public policy making in Hawaii are running into the brick wall of the inconvenient truth: the Hawaiian Kingdom still exists!
Though severely impaired by the illegal occupation by the U.S., the sovereignty of the independent, neutral nation, the Hawaiian Kingdom, was never extinguished. Therefore, the Hawaiian Kingdom has existed in continuity since its founding in 1810 as a self-governing, independent nation.
That means Obama was born not in the U.S., but on the foreign soil of the Hawaiian Kingdom. Obama shares McCain’s predicament of constitutional ambiguity with regard to the citizenship qualification for the presidency. Obama, like McCain is foreign born.
Obama’s co-sponsoring of the bill to accommodate McCain’s citizenship qualifications for U.S. president is not an outpouring of magnanimity toward McCain. It is a calculated, self-serving, pre-emptive measure to ensure that his own (Obama’s) foreign-born status would be likewise accommodated, should the question arise of his Hawaiian birth.
Obama’s sponsorship of the bill reveals that there are those in his camp, and perhaps Obama himself, who know that the Hawaiian Kingdom still exists as a nation foreign to the U.S.
Most likely the bill will pass to allow McCain’s citizenship quirk to qualify him for president; it would likewise ensure Obama’s candidacy.
Nevertheless, Obama’s curious co-sponsorship (possibly instigation) of the “natural-born Citizen” bill indicates that he takes the implications of Hawaii’s stature as an independent nation seriously enough to cover his bases. Malama pono.
Leon Siu, a Hawaiian entertainer, can be reached at mailto:leon@hits.net
http://www.hawaiiankingdom.org/apology.shtml
It is at this point that the article moves firmly into wingnut territory...
It’s just gamesmanship. If Obama were such a great legal scholar he would have researched the matter before saying anything. There is no issue of his citizenship by birth, because he was born to US citizens, there is legislation going back to 1790 making children born overseas to two US citizens “natural born citizens”. That isn’t the only legisation either.
If the Republicans have any sense they will oppose this as unneccessary legislation.
If we wanted to annex Cuba, we could. If no one stops us, it could be the 51st state. Might makes right!
This is the most pathetic thing I’ve heard since an election was lost because the opponent was called a “practicing homo sapiens.” Are cesarean section babies also ineligible because they never passed through the birth canal?
Read this recent opinion by our wingnut Hawaii Supreme Court:
http://www.courts.state.hi.us/page_server/LegalReferences/73DFB8859867A628EAE7AB3DC5.html
concluding the State does not have good title to its “stolen” public lands.
Thats the category I fall under-I was born in Japan on an army base to natural born citizens. There has never been any question about mine, my brother's or my sister's citizenship. Well, except from the slack jaws who ask, "You were born in Japan? How come you aint got dem eyes they got?"
It's worse than that. It is much more resrictive than the existing legislation.
It’s just gamesmanship. If Obama were such a great legal scholar he would have researched the matter before saying anything. There is no issue of his citizenship by birth, because he was born to US citizens, there is legislation going back to 1790 making children born overseas to two US citizens “natural born citizens”. That isn’t the only legisation either.
Our forefathers put this clause in because so many monarchies in Europe (incl Great Britain) were led by foreigners...due to all the royals intermarrying with others. No one wants to be ruled by a non-native despot
And our forefathers foresight was uncannily accurate...Napoleon was born in Corsica (then ruled by Italy)...Stalin was a native of Georgia (not part of USSR when he was born)....and Hitler was an Austrian....none of them were “natural born”
That's not "natural born".
Thats the category I fall under-I was born in Japan on an army base to natural born citizens. There has never been any question about mine, my brother’s or my sister’s citizenship. Well, except from the slack jaws who ask, “You were born in Japan? How come you aint got dem eyes they got?”
However, I was born in 1964 and I had to be naturalized....I have the papers to prove it (I am documented...LOL). Fortunately for passport purposes....I no longer need to provide the document for proof of citizenship....HOWEVER...I did require to have the form for naturalization
Title 8, Section 1401 of the US Code:
The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth:
(a) a person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof;
(b) a person born in the United States to a member of an Indian, Eskimo, Aleutian, or other aboriginal tribe: Provided, That the granting of citizenship under this subsection shall not in any manner impair or otherwise affect the right of such person to tribal or other property;
(c) a person born outside of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents both of whom are citizens of the United States and one of whom has had a residence in the United States or one of its outlying possessions, prior to the birth of such person;
(d) a person born outside of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is a citizen of the United States who has been physically present in the United States or one of its outlying possessions for a continuous period of one year prior to the birth of such person, and the other of whom is a national, but not a citizen of the United States;
(e) a person born in an outlying possession of the United States of parents one of whom is a citizen of the United States who has been physically present in the United States or one of its outlying possessions for a continuous period of one year at any time prior to the birth of such person;
(f) a person of unknown parentage found in the United States while under the age of five years, until shown, prior to his attaining the age of twenty-one years, not to have been born in the United States;
(g) a person born outside the geographical limits of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is an alien, and the other a citizen of the United States who, prior to the birth of such person, was physically present in the United States or its outlying possessions for a period or periods totaling not less than five years, at least two of which were after attaining the age of fourteen years: Provided, That any periods of honorable service in the Armed Forces of the United States, or periods of employment with the United States Government or with an international organization as that term is defined in section 288 of title 22 by such citizen parent, or any periods during which such citizen parent is physically present abroad as the dependent unmarried son or daughter and a member of the household of a person
(A) honorably serving with the Armed Forces of the United States, or
(B) employed by the United States Government or an international organization as defined in section 288 of title 22, may be included in order to satisfy the physical-presence requirement of this paragraph. This proviso shall be applicable to persons born on or after December 24, 1952, to the same extent as if it had become effective in its present form on that date; and
(h) a person born before noon (Eastern Standard Time) May 24, 1934, outside the limits and jurisdiction of the United States of an alien father and a mother who is a citizen of the United States who, prior to the birth of such person, had resided in the United States.
It’s simple if he can gin up enough controversy with the law he’s proposed he can then have his surrogates use it to attack McCain’s eligibility to be elected and their trial lawyers will drag it though the courts using the fact “that this law was necessary” as evidence that McCain isn’t eligble to be President. They’ll also challenge the law as an ex post facto law which is also unconstitutional. As a result the only eligible candidate would be the one who came in second (assuming that he or Hillary came in second.)
However, the contstitution does give the congress the power to write naturalization laws. The Naturalization Act of 1790 says that children born overseas to two US citizens are "natural born" citizens. There are later laws that say that you only need one parent who is a US citizen and who has resided in the US.
Was his father a citizen at the time he was born? I thought his father was Kenyan?
BTW is someone conceived by in vitro fertilization a “natural born citizen”? Nothing natural about in vitro fertilization. What about those who were delivered by c-section. Again that’s not “natural.” Both are perfectly legal and ethical but neither are strictly “natural”
His mother was a US citizen, he was born in the US, and he was subject to the jusrisdiction of the US.
Doesn't matter; he was born in the US.
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.