Posted on 07/20/2009 7:40:35 PM PDT by FreeAtlanta
flurry of articles on news sites. Google News - Obama Constitutionally Eligible?
(Excerpt) Read more at news.google.com ...
“Natural born citizen” at the time of the writing of the Constitution meant born to parents who are citizens under the jurisdiction of the country of their citizenship. This has never been overwritten nor abolished by statute.
Arguments from 18th century English common law aren’t ever simple. Few if any of the references specify that both parents must be citizens; the references to “fathers” won’t be upheld in gender-specific form by modern courts.
Well, with all due respect, if the Court holds that he flunks the natural born citizen eligibility requirement of the Constitution, his election as president (by ratification of the Electoral College vote by the house) is void and he just isn't president.
The military may decide that; overriding forces may convince the House to reconsider its vote on the subject.
Impeachment is probably not the remedy.
It is the only legal option.
If the USSC said he was not eligible to hold office, would we need impeachment?
You need a real lawyer to tell you how it works and why it works that way--best of luck.
Please provide a link because I'd like to read up on it.
By a supreme court order backed by the military or capital police maybe?
All I know is... “if” this ineligibility issue winds up being true, it’s highly probable that the very thing that we have hoped and wished for all this time (ousting a usurper) could very well trigger the chaotic societal events that most of us have long feared, but hopefully prepared for. A good portion of the left will not view this a “valid ousting of a usurper”, they will view it as the “ousting of the first black POTUS by the man”.
Think about it...if the small-in-comparison Rodney King debacle can trigger the LA riots etc..., then one can only imagine what can possibly happen here.
It’s almost like a movie...
It makes me shiver to think of how far down that row and beyond Washington DC it would go.
May God help us if all Hell breaks loose...
“22. Plaintiffs ask this Court to declare and adjudge that the framers of the constitution used, and that this Court must therefore apply in this case of first impression, the definition of the Natural Born Citizen contained in “The Law of Nations or, Principles of the Law of Nature, applied to the Conduct and Affairs of Nations and Sovereigns” by the Swiss philosopher and jurist Emmerich De Vattel:”
HUH?!?! WHY WOULD THE “BIRTHERS” DEMAND A COURT BASE ITS DECISION ON THE REASONING OF A FOREIGNER?!? That’s the dumbest thing. SCOTUS decision in Wong Ark used *AMERICAN* rulings, laws and case law, and the American laws roots, English common law.
If you are trying to overturn Wong Kim Ark SCOTUS ruling, you need something stronger than that!
“The problem is that his father wasn’t a US citizen.”
That is not a problem. Under current law he’d be a citizen at birth due to his mother being a citizen, even if he was born overseas in Africa, but his birth in US (Honolulu, Hawaii) also clearly lends to being natural-born citizen under SCOTUS Wong Kim Ark ruling, held in 1898, which made clear that being born in US to alien residents of the US made one a ‘natural-born citizen’.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Wong_Kim_Ark
Key quotes from the ruling: “There is no common law of the United States, in the sense of a national customary law, distinct from the common law of England as adopted by the several States each for itself, applied as its local law, and subject to such alteration as may be provided by its own statutes. . . . There is, however, one clear exception to the statement that there is no national common law. The interpretation of the Constitution of the United States is necessarily influenced by the fact that its provisions are framed in the language of the English common law, and are to be read in the light of its history.”
“V. It was contended by one of the learned counsel for the United States that the rule of the Roman law, by which the citizenship of the child followed that of the parent, was the true rule of international law, as now recognized in most civilized countries, and had superseded the rule of the common law, depending on birth within the realm, originally founded on feudal considerations.
But at the time of the adoption of the Constitution of the United States in 1789, and long before, it would seem to have been the rule in Europe generally, as it certainly was in France, that, as said by Pothier, “citizens, true and native-born citizens, are those who are born within the extent of the dominion of France,” and
mere birth within the realm gives the rights of a native-born citizen, independently of the origin of the father or mother, and of their domicil;
and children born in a foreign country, of a French father who had not established his domicil there nor given up the intention of returning, were also deemed Frenchmen, as Laurent says, by “a favor, a sort of fiction,” and Calvo, “by a sort of fiction of exterritoriality, considered as born in France, and therefore invested with French nationality.” Pothier Trait des Personnes, pt. 1, tit. 2, sect. 1, nos. 43, 45; Walsh-Serrant v. Walsh-Serrant, (1802) 3 Journal du Palais, 384; S.C., S. Merlin, Jurisprudence, (5th ed.) Domicile, § 13; Prefet du Nord v. Lebeau, (1862) Journal du Palais, 1863, 312 and note; 1 Laurent Droit Civil, no. 321; 2 Calvo Droit International, (5th ed.) § 542; Cockburn on Nationality, 13, 14; Hall’s International Law, (4th ed.) § 68. The general principle of citizenship by birth within French territory prevailed until after the French Revolution, and was affirmed in successive constitutions from the one adopted by the Constituent Assembly in 1791 to that of the French Republic in 1799. Constitutions et Chartes, (ed. 1830) pp. 100, 136, 148, 186. [p667] The Code Napoleon of 1807 changed the law of France and adopted, instead of the rule of country of birth, jus soli, the rule of descent or blood, jus sanguinis, as the leading principle; but an eminent commentator has observed that the framers of that code
appear not to have wholly freed themselves from the ancient rule of France, or rather, indeed, ancient rule of Europe — de la vielle regle francaise, ou plutot meme de la vielle regle europienne — according to which nationality had always been, in former times, determined by the place of birth.
1 Demolombe Cours de Code Napoleon (4th ed.) no. 146.
The later modifications of the rule in Europe rest upon the constitutions, laws or ordinances of the various countries, and have no important bearing upon the interpretation and effect o the Constitution of the United States. “
IN SHORT: THE ARGUMENT WAS RAISED IN 1898 AND DISPOSED OF BY THE SUPREME COURT AT THE TIME.
This is the conclusion of the Supreme Court:
http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/United_States_v._Wong_Kim_Ark/Opinion_of_the_Court
“The foregoing considerations and authorities irresistibly lead us to these conclusions: the Fourteenth Amendment affirms the ancient and fundamental rule of citizenship by birth within the territory, in the allegiance and under the protection of the country, including all children here born of resident aliens, with the exceptions or qualifications (as old as the rule itself) of children of foreign sovereigns or their ministers, or born on foreign public ships, or of enemies within and during a hostile occupation of part of our territory, and with the single additional exception of children of members of the Indian tribes owing direct allegiance to their several tribes.”
By Wong Kim Ark ruling, children born in the US to resident aliens are citizens at birth, ie natural-born citizens.
You cannot seriously expect a court to overturn a Supreme Court decision that has held for over 100 years on the mere basis of what a Swiss guy said 300 years ago, *Prior* to said SCOTUS decision, and which the SCOTUS looked at and said “That’s not valid; Europe’s laws are based on soil as well, and such laws are not controlling interpretation of the Constitution.” Jeez, no wonder these cases get tossed.
“I do not see the term “natural born citizen” written anywhere in the text. It’s of no use for Obama.”
Natural-born citizens are those who are citizens from the time of birth. You can see that from this SCOTUS ruling and he quotes from other cases they cite:
http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/United_States_v._Wong_Kim_Ark/Opinion_of_the_Court
So “citizen of the United States at birth” is another way of saying “natural-born citizen”.
The birth announcement in the Honolulu advertiser indicates that a filing with State of Hawaii was made, as the announcements were gotten via the state records office:
http://whatreallyhappened.com/IMAGES/ObamaBirthStarBulletin.jpg
“a long resident neighbor said he doesn’t remember” - I dont remember much about neighbors from 47 years ago either.
“Another REAL problem for Obama is his multiple citizenships.”
Obama has a US passport. No other citizenship for Obama has been shown to exist.
“According to what scant public records we have, Obama/Soetoro has apparently been a citizen of Britain”
- not shown
“ (before Kenyan independence), Kenya” nope
“, Indonesia” nope
“ and possibly the U.S.” not possibly, definitely. He couldnt have visited germany last year without his US passport.
- not shown
“ (before Kenyan independence), Kenya” nope
You're either breathtakingly uninformed or lying. Obama admitted Kenyan citizenship himself, in writing, on the now-defunct "Fight The Smears" website; he even went so far as to claim it "expired" at age 21. His British citizenship at birth is also incontrovertible, because it is a matter of law, governed by The British Nationality Act of 1948, which said that children born of British citizens are themselves British, and remain British subjects no matter what their citizenship might be.
So, try again. Some of us aren't so easily Bam-boozled.
Wong Kim Ark can only address naturalization. The specific, Constitutional term "natural-born citizen" was not addressed in that ruling, and could not have been, barring a Constitutional Convention, which is the only way the meaning of the term could come to mean what you claim.
The same is true for the 14th Amendment. It can only address naturalization under the Constitution, since the specific, Constitutional term "natural born citizen" remained in effect, was not altered or even addressed by the amendment.
“It’s pretty much a done deal that the COLB is a forgery so she didn’t issue it.”
Not at all. It’s almost certain the COLB is not a forgery.
” All she said was there was a record of Hussein’s birth.”
They would not have issued a press release like that if the public COLB was a forgery out there in the public and contradicted the state records it was purported to represent:
http://www.swamppolitics.com/news/politics/blog/2008/11/obama_hawaaianborn_citizen_for.html
“I heard an attorney on a talk show here in Phoenix mention that if 0bama was fraudulently elected POTUS knowing full well he is inelgible it would be high treason punishable by death. “
If Obama wilfully decieved about his birthplace in Honolulu in order to appear eligible, then the crime committed would be fraud and violations of election laws. Treason is very specifically defined and that would not be it. It certainly would be sufficient to impeach and remove him (hello President Biden!), but that “punishable by death” statement is nonsense. Why is barking moonbat nonsense like this repeated?
For tax reasons, all our kids got social security #s at age one. Its the way of the world nowadays.
“Dude, NATURAL BORN CITIZEN versus CITIZEN. They are NOT, I repeat, NOT the same. “
There are 2 ways to acquire citizenship in the US: At time of birth, and via legal naturalization process.
“Yes, he is obviously a “Citizen”, but he is NOT a NATURAL BORN CITIZEN. “
The question is WHEN did he become a citizen? At birth or via naturalization?
Natural-born citizen is another name for citizen at time of birth. See for example:
http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/United_States_v._Wong_Kim_Ark/Opinion_of_the_Court
If Obama was a US citizen at birth then he is a natural-born US citizen. QED.
There are no 1st and 2nd class citizens, as a citizen you have all the rights of any other citizen, and any attempt to promulgate such categorization is against the 1866 Civil Rights law and the 14th Amendment.
“His citizenship was denounced in Indonesia to get Indonesian citizenship.”
However, this never happened.
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.
