Posted on 12/10/2008 11:13:26 AM PST by limitedgovernment67
Posted at Chuck Baldwin Live, written by Chuck Baldwin. He correctly points out the hypocrisy of most Republicans.
Many conservatives are up in arms regarding the charge that President-elect Barack Obama may not have been born in the United States and is, therefore, not qualified under the U.S. Constitution to be President of the United States.
Article. II. Section. 1. of the U.S. Constitution states, “No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President . . . .” Some accuse Mr. Obama of not being born in the State of Hawaii as claimed, but in Kenya, Africa. Several people have filed various lawsuits challenging Mr. Obama’s U.S. citizenship.
Historically, “natural born Citizen” has always been understood to mean someone born in the United States of America. If Barack Obama was not born in the United States, he is absolutely unqualified to be President. Hawaii’s secretary of state says Obama was indeed born in that state. However, to date, Obama’s actual birth certificate has not been publicly released, which only serves to add fuel to the accusations that he was not born in Hawaii.
Many conservatives seem to be obsessed with this controversy, calling it a “constitutional crisis.” The fact is, however, we have been in a “constitutional crisis” for years! The problem is, most conservatives only get worked up over a potential abridgement of constitutional government when it serves their partisan political purposes. In other words, when a Democrat appears guilty of constitutional conflict, conservatives “go ballistic,” but when Republicans are equally culpable of constitutional conflict, they yawn with utter indifference.
For example, the one man who has the notoriety and political clout to actually bring about some...
(Excerpt) Read more at policyinaction.com ...
Sorry, I see the difference.
Yes.
He was born in the Panama Canal Zone, in a military hospital to two citizens of the US who were eligible by age to transfer citizenship to him. He would a citizen at birth.
Ironically, I just read an email from Congressman Johnson who says that Obama is citizen no matter where he was born because his mother was a citizen. Even though she wasn’t old enough. But somehow McCain’s definitely old enough parents didn’t qualify?
If you are born in France (in a French hospital) and your parents are US citizens, you are a US citizen at birth. What's the difference between that and what you described in Panama.
I’m not sure about non-US citizens giving birth while there...
You just undercut McCain's entire natural-born argument. If every single child born there (regardless of thier parent's citizenship) isn't automaticly an American citizen, then nobody born there is a natrual born citizen.
The child born in France above would be a citizen at birth.
Had that child been born in Virginia insetead of France, they would not only be a citizen at birth, but also a natural-born citizen at birth.
The Canal Zone was not considered U.S. territory for the purpose of establishing U.S. citizenship. If a Panamanian gave birth within the Canal Zone they were not considered a U.S. citizen regardless of the 14th Amendment. If a U.S. citizen gave birth within the Zone then their child was a natural born U.S. citizen. But the same would have been true if they had given birth in Guatamala or any foreign country as well, citizenship status was decided by the citizenship of the parent.
He was born in a civilian hospital in Panama, but was still a natural born citizen because of his parents.
That’s what I said, he would be a citizen at birth.
You know that, and I know that, but the heart of the Donofrio/Baldwin arguement is their belief that nobody not born in the U.S. of two U.S. citizen parents qualifies as a natural born U.S. citizen.
Yes, and that is why as much as I don’t want Obama in, and I want the issue settled once and for all what “natural born” means, I hope it goes on to a case forcing a disclosure of the Birth Certificate to a court of law.
The problem being that federal law does not recognize a difference between citizen at birth and natural born U.S. citizen. By law the two are synonymous. The law recognizes two classes of citizen; natural born citizen or naturalized citizen. There is no third category.
At the time the Canal Zone was part of the United States.
The question has been settled, by law and by Supreme Court decisions. Citizen at birth and natural born citizen are one and the same. That's most likely why the court didn't take the Donofrio case up.
Article after article keep making false statements like this. I've yet to see an Hawaiian offical say that Obama was born in Hawaii, they just verify that he has a Hawaiian BC per Hawaiian law.
If that were strictly true then any Panamanian born in the zone would be a natural born U.S. citizen per the 14th Amendment. But that wasn't the case.
I decided to see what the heck CB was ranting about. The below comes from the State Dept as best I can tell and is the policy as described by CB.
____________________________________________________________
7 FAM 1116.1-4 Not Included in the Meaning of “In the United
States”
(TL:CON-64; 11-30-95)
c. Despite widespread popular belief, U.S. military installations abroad and U.S. diplomatic or consular facilities are not part of the United States within the meaning of the 14th Amendment. A child born on the premises of such a facility is not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States and does not acquire U.S. citizenship by reason of birth.
____________________________________________________________
Much has been said here about how both McCain’s parents were citizens so he is automatically a natural born citizen no matter where he was born. But that is not what the above seems to indicate.
Hopefully someone more familiar with this State Dept policy can explain?
The original intent of the framers was that there would be three types of citizens.
1. Naturalized
2. Citizen at Birth
3. Natural Born Citizen (similar to citizen at birth, but with stricter requirements; a sub-set of citizen at birth.)
IMHO, since the term natural born citizen appears in the Constitution, it would take a Constitutional amendment to change its meaning (a law wouldn’t be enough.)
The 14th amendment only applies to #2, citizen at birth. It makes no mention of natural-born citizen. It didn’t change the meaning of natural-born citizen.
We can argue all day about what the framers though natural-born citizen meant, but the important thing to grasp is that no law or amendment has passed that has changed its meaning.
If a Constitutional restriction gets in the way of a goal of a leftist,
they will simply find a judge that will rule that said restriction doesn’t apply today.
McCain is a natural born U.S. citizen because both his parents were U.S. citizens who had lived in the states for some period prior to his birth. The geographic location of his birth was irrelevant. People have claimed that he would be a natural born citizen because he was born on a military base. That is not true, military bases are not considered U.S. territory for the purposes of passing on citizenship status. If a German national, for example, gave birth on a U.S. military base in Germany then the child would not be a U.S. citizen. If the same German national gave birth in Alabama, then that child would.
If McCain were the President -Elect, would anything be different right now? Would he do anything different that we hear Obama will do? I doubt it. THAT is why we are doomed.
Welcome to the Dark Ages!
You’re saying that the Zone was not part of the United States?
Is Guam part of the United States? What about the U.S. Virgin Islands; are they part of the United States?
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.