All of Obama's Legal Cases

US Courts System ^ | 2/10/2009 | US Courts

[mlo]

"Your buddy posed the question."

Yes, he was asking you for an answer. You dodged it.

[allmendream]

A natural born citizen is one who, at birth, is conferred citizenship status and thus didn't have to become a “naturalized” citizen. There is no requirement that the person be born on U.S. soil or that both parents be U.S. citizens. Here are the requirements for having citizenship conferred at birth according to U.S. law passed by Congress under Constitutional authority to define citizenship.

http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode08/usc_sec_08_00001401——000-.html

Title 8: Section 1401 defines the following as people who are “citizens of the United States at birth:”

Anyone born inside the United States *
Any Indian or Eskimo born in the United States, provided being a citizen of the U.S. does not impair the person's status as a citizen of the tribe
Any one born outside the United States, both of whose parents are citizens of the U.S., as long as one parent has lived in the U.S.
Any one born outside the United States, if one parent is a citizen and lived in the U.S. for at least one year and the other parent is a U.S. national
Any one born in a U.S. possession, if one parent is a citizen and lived in the U.S. for at least one year
Any one found in the U.S. under the age of five, whose parentage cannot be determined, as long as proof of non-citizenship is not provided by age 21
Any one born outside the United States, if one parent is an alien and as long as the other parent is a citizen of the U.S. who lived in the U.S. for at least five years (with military and diplomatic service included in this time)
A final, historical condition: a person born before 5/24/1934 of an alien father and a U.S. citizen mother who has lived in the U.S.

[DMZFrank]

You say tomatoe and i say tomahto. All this argument is why we need a formal adjudication for Hussein’s case. We should at least have a precedental ruling for the future, if nothing else. We don’t even know if he was born in the USA because we can’t get to the legal documents which establish that fact. His proferred COLB is clearly fraudulent, he is the most inveterate liar that I have EVER seen, and I aint gonna take his word anything. I have documented a list of 158 lies that he told on the campaign trail that are at variance with the factual record, and that he surely must have known were.

[DMZFrank]

That wasn’t the law in 1961 when he wasd born.

[allmendream]

What section was not yet passed? Do you have a source for this?

[Red Steel]

I answered it. You lack understanding.

[El Gato]

I don't know how you figure that one. How can you have proof if you dont' even have evidence?

You can't. But evidence is not the same as proof. You can have "evidence tending to show", and that would likely be sufficient to get a court order or search warrant as appropriate, in order to obtain more evidence, or even proof. A single piece of evidence could be proof, but then again a whole pile of evidence (for example circumstantual evidence) could still not be sufficient legal proof of something.

If you can't understand that, I can't help you.

But, in the situation in question, there is evidence, but not yet proof.

[DMZFrank]

U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark’s importance is that it is the first case decided by the Supreme Court that attempts to explain the meaning of “natural born citizen” under Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 of the U.S. Constitution. Natural born citizen is similar to the meaning of what a natural born subject is under Common Law in England. That is one of the reasons why the framers specifically included a grandfather clause (natural born Citizen OR a Citizen of the United States, at the time of adoption of this Constitution). The founding fathers knew that in order to be president, they had to grandfather themselves in because they were British subjects. If they didn’t, they could not be President of the U.S. The holding in U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark states that Wong Kim Ark is a native born citizen. If you look at the fact of Wong Kim Ark being born in San Francisco, CA, of Chinese parents, that holding is correct.

In U. S. v Wong Kim Ark, the court thoroughly discussed “natural born citizen,” and in doing so, Justice Gray quoted directly from the holding in a prior Supreme Court case, Minor v. Happersett. The following passage is a quote from Minor as quoted by Justice Gray in Wong Kim Ark:

“’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. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case, it is not necessary to solve these doubts. It is sufficient, for everything we have now to consider, that all children, born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction, are themselves citizens.’ Minor v. Happersett (1874) 21 Wall. 162, 166-168.”

[allmendream]

This is the section most ‘birthers’ cling to, based upon the assumption that he was not born in Hawaii, but in Kenya; and because his mother was not yet 21, and his father was most assuredly an alien.

“Any one born outside the United States, if one parent is an alien and as long as the other parent is a citizen of the U.S. who lived in the U.S. for at least five years (with military and diplomatic service included in this time)”

[Bubba Ho-Tep]

So a quirk of foreign law does determine who is and isn’t a “natural born” US citizen, regardless of where you’re born, where your parents are born, and where your grandparents are born.

[nufsed]

The constitution requires the candidate to be quailified. He has not proven that he is and by your own admission no one has required him to do so. So I am asking him to do it. I have a right to know that the election was legitimate. The fact that you don’t stand up and demand the same is scarier to me than what he is doing.

[DMZFrank]

Note that Obama’s web site says he is a “native” born citizen. It does not say he is a “natural” born citizen. The truth is, Barack Obama was born in the state of Hawaii in 1961, a native citizen of the United States of America. But note that that very same page gives two indications that Obama was born a British subject: “When Barack Obama Jr. was born on Aug. 4,1961, in Honolulu, Kenya was a British colony, still part of the United Kingdom’s dwindling empire. As a Kenyan native, Barack Obama Sr. was a British subject whose citizenship status was governed by The British Nationality Act of 1948. That same act governed the status of Obama Sr.‘s children. Since Sen. Obama has neither renounced his U.S. citizenship nor sworn an oath of allegiance to Kenya, his Kenyan citizenship automatically expired on Aug. 4,1982.” The land now known as Kenya was a British colony when BHO II was born. His father was a British subject who passed British citizenship to his son. When Kenya became independent of Great Britain, both BHO Sr. and BHO II had their British citizenship converted to Kenyan citizenship. It really is irrelevant whether or not BHO II’s Kenyan citizenship “automatically expired on Aug. 4,1982″. What is relevant is that AT BIRTH BHO II was a British subject - PRECISELY the type of person our founders intended to disqualify from holding the office of President of the United States and Commander-in-Chief of our Armed Forces. Hence, the “natural” born requirement. Being a British subject at birth means that BHO II is not a “natural” born citizen of the United States, even if he was born in the United States and is a “native” born citizen. Natural-born citizens are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. Again, note that “Fight the Smears” does not claim that Obama is “natural” born, only “native” born. But guess what? Obama swore under oath that he is a “natural” born citizen.

[DMZFrank]

In the matter of NBC, yeah

[BP2]

Questioning his divided loyalty is *certainly* appropriate. But it's a political issue.

No, that's what's at the heart of the whole NBC issue! It's NOT some stodgy, old, white-man's rule to keep foreigners from holding the office of President.

The Founders wanted the President to be a NBC to ensure that the ONE person sitting at the top of the Executive branch had UNQUESTIONABLE, UNWAVERING loyalty to the United States, first and foremost.

At one point, the delegates writing the Constitution in 1787 considered THREE "presidents" in the Executive for "checks and balances." They considered a NBC clause for Senators as well. Debating those issues, they felt that a NBC clause for Senators would limit the pool of possible candidates and could cause bad feelings with immigrants needed to "jump start" the newly-formed republic.

In the end, the Framers compromised that Senators be required to be US residents for 9 years, while striking the NBC clause for the office.

The Framers also compromised on ONE Executive vs THREE. But to ensure "checks and balances," the Framers inserted in Art II, Sect. 1, Clause 5: "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..."

The NBC clause was NOT an accident, nor was it an inane rule to be restrictive to immigrants, and it certainly isn't just a "political" issue ... LOYALTY to the US is the reason the NBC clause was inserted into the Constitution for the POTUS.

[allmendream]

“it was never doubted that all children born in a country, of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. “

Absolutely, but this doesn't create an exclusive class of who were natural born.

“These were natives or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners.”

One who is not both born to citizen parents, and inside the USA is not an alien or foreigner; the judge is establishing that those who were both most certainly were natural-born or natives. Thus Senator John McCain would not be denied natural born status and called an “alien or foreigner” because he was born outside the USA, neither would a child born to a US citizen inside the USA whose other parent was not a US citizen.

“Some authorities go further, and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction, without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case, it is not necessary to solve these doubts.”

Here the Judge doesn't even advocate these “doubts” and explicitly says this judgment doesn't settle the matter.

[DMZFrank]

Look at the date below- NOV 14 1986

Through birth abroad to one United States citizen
For persons born on or after November 14, 1986, a person is a U.S. citizen if all of the following are true:[4]

One of the person’s parents was a U.S. citizen when the person in question was born;
The citizen parent lived at least 5 years in the United States before his or her child’s birth;
A minimum of 2 of these 5 years in the United States were after the citizen parent’s 14th birthday.
A person’s record of birth abroad, if registered with a U.S. consulate or embassy, is proof of his or her citizenship. Such a person may also apply for a passport or a Certificate of Citizenship to have a record of his or her citizenship. Such documentation is often useful to prove citizenship in lieu of the availability of an American birth certificate.

Different rules apply for persons born abroad to one U.S. citizen before November 14, 1986. United States law on this subject changed multiple times throughout the twentieth century, and the law is applicable as it existed at the time of the individual’s birth.

[allmendream]

If he was born in Hawaii then Obama is a natural born citizen of the USA despite any ruling of any foreign body concerning citizenship.

[Bubba Ho-Tep]

For the purposes of this case, it is not necessary to solve these doubts.

And for Ark it was necessary. What's your point?

[Bubba Ho-Tep]

What other US laws are you comfortable with foreign powers deciding? Interestingly, if Britain had a similar law to Italy’s, Ronald Reagan would have been disqualified in your eyes.

[DMZFrank]

OK.

I see that you just want to ignore any factual evidence that contradicts your opinion. That is your right.

I have accepted that it is entirely possible that no one in this government has the courage to do their constitutional duty. If so, so be it. Conversely, be prepared for a surprise should there be those who Do see what their duty is and force this usurper to prove his constitutional eligibility.