ROGER HEDGECOCK SHOW - interview with Philip Berg regarding Obama birth certificate

FYI #39

My apologies for the bad link. It's to Wikipedia

At any rate, here is the gist of the entry addressing "Natural Born Citizen".

***************************************************
US constitutional definition
The United States Constitution does not define the term "natural born citizen"; however, it does confer on Congress the power: "To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization."

Section 1 of Article II of the Constitution contains the clause:

“ 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; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States. ”

Additionally, the 12th Amendment to the Constitution states that: "[N]o person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States."

It is thought the origin of the natural-born citizen clause can be traced to a letter of July 25, 1787 from John Jay to George Washington, presiding officer of the Constitutional Convention. John Jay wrote: "Permit me to hint, whether it would be wise and seasonable to provide a strong check to the admission of Foreigners into the administration of our national Government; and to declare expressly that the Commander in Chief of the American army shall not be given to nor devolve on, any but a natural born Citizen." There was no debate, and this qualification for the office of the Presidency was introduced by the drafting Committee of Eleven, and then adopted without discussion by the Constitutional Convention.

The 2003 Equal Opportunity to Govern Amendment, a proposed amendment to the US Constitution, would, if adopted, have removed the prohibition against naturalized citizens holding the office of the President.

US presidential candidates born outside the US
"The constitutional wording has left doubts about whether those born on foreign soil are on an equal footing with those whose birth occurred inside the country's borders, and whether they have the same rights."[1] Though every president and vice president to date (as of 2008) has either been a citizen at the adoption of the Constitution, or else born in a U.S. state or Washington D.C.[2], a number of presidential candidates have been born elsewhere.[3]

Barry Goldwater, who ran as the Republican party nominee in 1964, was born in Arizona while it was still a U.S. territory. Although Arizona was not a state, it was a fully organized and incorporated territory of the United States.[4]

George Romney, who ran for the Republican party nomination in 1968, was born in Mexico to U.S. parents. Romney’s grandfather emigrated to Mexico in 1886 with his three wives and children after Utah outlawed polygamy. Romney's parents retained their U.S. citizenship and returned to the United States in 1912. Romney was 32 years old when he arrived in Michigan.

John McCain, who ran for the Republican party nomination in 2000 and is the presumptive Republican nominee in 2008, was born at the Coco Solo U.S. military base in the Panama Canal Zone to U.S. parents. Although the Panama Canal Zone was not considered to be part of the United States,[5] federal law states that "Any person born in the Canal Zone on or after February 26, 1904, and whether before or after the effective date of this chapter, whose father or mother or both at the time of the birth of such person was or is a citizen of the United States, is declared to be a citizen of the United States".[6] The law that conferred this status took effect on August 4, 1937, one year after John McCain was born — albeit with retrospective effect, resulting in McCain being declared a U.S. citizen.[7] However, the question as to whether or not he is a citizen from birth cannot be answered by this law because (1) it took effect after his birth and (2) it does not state that the person's citizenship was acquired at birth, only that they are a citizen by means of the law's establishment (and, hence, at the time the law takes effect). Indeed, the law in 1936 stated that all persons born to US citizens outside the "limits and jurisdictions of the United States" but the problem is that the Panama Canal Zone was within the limits and jurisdictions of the United States. Thus, the status of Mr. McCain remains unsettled.[8]

US legislation and legal arguments
The requirements for citizenship and the very definition thereof have changed since the Constitution was ratified in 1788. Congress first recognized the citizenship of children born to U.S. parents overseas on March 26, 1790, under the first naturalization law: "And the children of citizens of the United States that may be born beyond sea, or outside the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born citizens."[9][10]

The Fourteenth Amendment mentions two types of citizenship: citizenship by birth and citizenship by law (naturalized citizens): "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside."

All persons born in the United States, except those not subject to the jurisdiction of the U.S. government (such as children of foreign diplomats) are citizens under the Fourteenth Amendment. Persons born in the United States, and persons born on foreign soil to two U.S. parents, are born American citizens and are classified as citizens at birth under 8 USC 1401. There is some debate over whether persons who were born US citizens and are classified as citizens at birth under U.S. law should also be considered citizens "by birth," whether they should all be considered to be "naturalized," or whether they should be considered "statutory citizens." There is also some debate over whether there is a meaningful legal distinction between citizens "at birth", citizens "by birth" and "statutory citizens" since U.S. law makes no such distinction, nor does the Fourteenth Amendment use the term "at birth." Current U.S. statutes define certain individuals born overseas as "citizens at birth."[11] One side of the argument interprets the Constitution as meaning that a person either is born in the United States or is a naturalized citizen. According to this view, in order to be a "natural born citizen," a person must be born in the United States or in an incorporated territory, so as the US Virgin Islands; otherwise, he is a citizen "by law" and is therefore a "statutory citizen," because naturalization implies a pre-requisite of foreign citizenship.[12] Current State Department policy reads: "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."[13] However, the State Department is of the opinion that this does not affect those who are born abroad to U.S. citizens and who otherwise meet the qualifications for statutory citizenship.[14]

US case law
Although the U.S. Supreme Court has never specifically addressed the meaning of "natural born citizen," there are several Supreme Court decisions that help define citizenship:

Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. 393 (1857): In regard to the "natural born citizen" clause, the dissent states that it is acquired by place of birth (jus soli), not through blood or lineage (jus sanguinis): "The first section of the second article of the Constitution uses the language, 'a natural-born citizen.' It thus assumes that citizenship may be acquired by birth. Undoubtedly, this language of the Constitution was used in reference to that principle of public law, well understood in this country at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, which referred citizenship to the place of birth." (Much of the majority opinion in this case was overturned by the 14th Amendment in 1868.)

United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898): A person born within the jurisdiction of the U.S. to non-citizens who "are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity" is automatically a citizen.

Weedin v. Chin Bow, 274 U.S. 657 (1927): A child born outside the U.S. cannot claim U.S. citizenship by birth through a U.S. citizen parent who had never lived in the U.S. prior to the child's birth. (This is still true today, although the specific statutes upon which the Supreme Court's ruling was based have changed since 1927.)

Montana v. Kennedy, 366 U.S. 308 (1961): A person born in 1906, whose mother was a native-born citizen of the United States and whose father was a foreign citizen, who was born overseas and then moved to the United States, was not a citizen of the United States by birth. (Note that the relevant laws have changed considerably since 1906, so this decision does not necessarily apply to later cases.) Schneider v. Rusk, 377 U.S. 163 (1964): The Court voided a statute that provided that a naturalized citizen should lose his United States citizenship if, following naturalization, he resided continuously for three years in his former homeland. "We start from the premise that the rights of citizenship of the native-born and of the naturalized person are of the same dignity and are coextensive. The only difference drawn by the Constitution is that only the 'natural born' citizen is eligible to be President."

Miller v. Albright, 523 U.S. 420 (1998): A child born overseas to an American father and a foreign mother (not married) is not a U.S. citizen unless paternity is established before an established age (in this case 21). This case challenged the law on the grounds that U.S. law requires no explicit acknowledgment of parenthood in the case of a foreign-born child to an American mother and a foreign father (not married).

Nguyen v. INS, 533 U.S. 53 (2001): As in the Miller v. Albright case, the Court holds that a child born overseas to an American father and a foreign mother (not married) is not a U.S. citizen unless paternity is established before an established age (in this case 18). The child was brought to the U.S. before his sixth birthday and raised by his father; however, after a criminal conviction, deportation was ordered but the child claimed U.S. citizenship. His citizenship was denied because paternity had not been established prior to his 18th birthday. The Court upheld the law, once again affirming that Congress has the power to define citizenship outside the citizenship dictated by the 14th Amendment (citizenship by birth).
*******************************************
Without any apparent reason, they've muddied McCain's status (it is Wikipedia, after all). But this seems to cover the Constitutional issue, relevant legislation and case law.

A minor point. You ask “did Barry lose his Canadian citizenship?”. As a Canadian national permanently residing in the USA, it is my understanding that short of petitioning the Canadian courts to rescind my Canadian citizenship, that Canada will always recognize me as a Canadian, even if I obtain American citizenship, by virtue of the fact that I was born in Canada (sorry for the run-on sentence). I therefore doubt that Barry lost his Canadian citizenship if he was in fact born on Canadian soil.

So far DU is blacking out the Phil Berg story.
I searched their site for Phil Berg Obama.
4 threads came up via Google.
3 of them have been deleted by moderator,
and 1 was shunted off to the Sept. 11 topic where it won’t be seen.

Considering they are running a joint fundraiser with the Obama campaign - might that have something to do with it...

I therefore doubt that Barry lost his Canadian citizenship if he was in fact born on Canadian soil.

But what about the Dual or TRIPLE citizenship for Barry O'? He MIGHT be Canadian by birth, which changes to Kenyan when it is no longer in the British Empire or does he ADD Kenyan to Canadian? Then he's Indonesian by virtue of the alleged adoption by Lolo Soetoro. But there's nothing that verifies his US Citizenship.

Did NO ONE check on this before he ran for public office in Illinois?

Did NO ONE check to see if he was eligible as a US Citizen for Affirmative Action? Or did he apply as a foreign born student?

Some one has GOT to get ahold of whoever can do it and demand that Barry O' provide us with proof that he is a US Citizen and considered "Natural Born" AND that his name has been changed to Obama. Otherwise, Barry Junior (or II) Does Not Exist.

IF Barry Soetoro IS legally eligible to run for POTUS and did not Legally Change His Name to BHObama, then EVERY vote cast for him MUST BE A WRITE IN, because Barry O' is not his lawful name and I don't think it's legal to run for office using a false identity.

Of course, Obama bin Biden is going to lose the election by double digits, so it's all moot. BUT, he should be challenged before being allowed back into the Senate.

Not necessarily due to the laws in Hawaii at the time regarding her age.

I think what they are hiding behind now is that when he was adopted by soetoro in Indonesia his Honolulu birth certificate was sealed,that's if he was actually born in Hawaii. It gets a bit confusing.

Great post.

What we still need is a smoking gun that can document, with several impeccable sources, when and where he was born. The unwed mothers home in Canada makes a lot of sense(more sense to me than a Kenyan birth) and would help to further explain the interview with Dunham's friend.

But, Phil Berg is rather insistent and has filed a lawsuit,suggesting a Kenyan birth, of course the suit and his interview on "Coast" was light on documentation. That is still desperately needed as far as answers go in this case,IMHO.

ping