Birther bill hits Congress

Politico ^ | 3/13/2009 | Ben Smith

[AJ in NYC]

Rep. Bill Posey, a freshman Republican from Florida, introduced a bill yesterday mirroring proposed state legislation in Missouri and elsewhere that stems from fringe doubts about Obama's eligibility for office.

The full bill text isn't yet available, and Posey's spokesman didn't immediately respond to a request for comment, but here's a summary:

H.R. 1503. A bill to amend the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 to require the principal campaign committee of a candidate for election to the office of President to include with the committee's statement of organization a copy of the candidate's birth certificate, together with such other documentation as may be necessary to establish that the candidate meets the qualifications for eligibility to the Office of President under the Constitution; to the Committee on House Administration.

Though Posey's spokesman wasn't available, a Feb. 13 letter from Posey to a constituent on the subject appears on a website pushing the story in which Posey noted that courts and Hawaii officials had rejected the claims, but didn't state his own view on the subject.

[cripplecreek]

I would imagine it made them natural born. Seems like they would have already been considered citizens.

[so_real]

Fringe doubts my arse.Informed citizens is more like it.

Ditto that.

[stockpirate]

PING

[LucyT]

Thanks, pissant and stockpirate.

Birther bill hits Congress.

[mcshot]

Here!

[pissant]

Yes, McCain is natural born. Both parents US citizens, father working abroad for his country.

[NC28203]

>>>Yes, McCain is natural born. Both parents US citizens, father working abroad for his country.

He would not be under the argument put forth in in Donfrio v Wells:

Being a “natural born Citizen” here requires meeting both of these two criteria: (1) citizenship must be passed on by the constitutionally pertinent principle of natural law, which assumes that citizenship is inherited from one’s father’s citizenship, and (2) citizenship must be granted by means of being born in the actual territory of the United States. Accordingly, to maintain the original intention of the Constitution’s framers, a U.S. President is to be free of competing allegiances with other nations, from birth onward.
According to this case, Barack H. Obama II is not qualified, because his father, Barack H. Obama I, was a citizen of the United Kingdom as a Kenyan. Kenya was a British colony at the time of Obama II’s birth in 1961. This citizenship was conferred to Obama II by U.K. law. Further to this case is the apparent fact that Obama II became a citizen of Indonesia, when he lived there as a child with his mother and adoptive father, Lolo Soetoro. This would mean Obama’s U.S. Citizenship status was revoked, since Indonesia had no dual-citizenship provision with the U.S.A.
According to this case, John McCain is not qualified, because he was born on a military base in the Panama Canal Zone, which was a protectorate of the United States and has never been a territory of the United States, even though his parents were U.S. Citizens.

[pissant]

That’s why I never have given much credence to Donfrio’s case.

[NC28203]

>>>That’s why I never have given much credence to Donfrio’s case.

Still, I think it shows that someone is going to have to define what natural born citizenship is: Congress or the courts. Until that is done, how does anyone determine elegibility under the Constitutiion.

[Polybius]

Did the law make children of military personnel natural born citizens, or just citizens?

Are you seriously suggesting that it was the intention of the Founding Fathers to exclude from the Presidency the children of those who were overseas defending America?

Here is what that generation deemed a "natural born citizen".

"The children of citizens of the United States that may be born beyond Sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born Citizens". ...... The Naturalization Act of 1790

By the suggesting that McCain's geographical place of birth disqualifies him, you imply that the son and grandson of U.S. Navy Admirals who was born overseas because his father was on active duty orders overseas is not worthy of the Presidency but the son of a married couple of al Qaeda terrorists planning a New York City terror bombing is eligible to be President of the United States if his mother pops him out in New York City the day after his parents blow up the Brooklyn Bridge.

[pissant]

The statutes written by the State Dept and the INS over the years are what has typically been used to determine it. That is why Obama, if born abroad, does not qualify.

[azishot]

Thanks for the ping, LucyT.

Way to go Florida! I can’t get the article to open so I didn’t read the whole thing but aren’t there other states persuing this?

Wonder if this will be covered by the MSM? Seems important to me.

[MHGinTN]

The meaning of the phrase must be clarified by the SCOTUS, to follow strict constitutional process. But the Roberts subpreme court has already shown they do not see that moldy Constitutional contract as sacrosanct and have lent their credulity to raise this affirmative action lying fraud to the office of president.

[Las Vegas Ron]

all should support this simply because it’s a good idea.

Amen. I wonder if we can make it retroactive like they do with taxes and other various punitive laws they come up with.

[Pilsner]

According to this case, Barack H. Obama II is not qualified, because his father, Barack H. Obama I, was a citizen of the United Kingdom as a Kenyan.

By that logic, if BO is a Kenyan, because his daddy was Kenyan, then his children are also Kenyans, and not Americans, because their daddy is Kenyan. And should BO have a son, his grandchildren by that son would also be Kenyans, not Americans.

Of course by that logic, if Nationality is inherited from the paternal line, I'm a Scotsman, notwithstanding the fact that my paternal ancestors came here in the early 1700s.

Don't look for me to mail my US passport back to the State Department anytime soon.

[NC28203]

>>>Here is what that generation deemed a “natural born citizen”.

“The children of citizens of the United States that may be born beyond Sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born Citizens”. ...... The Naturalization Act of 1790

In 1795, Congress removed the words “natural born” from the law; the Naturalization Act of 1795 says only that foreign-born children of American parents “shall be considered as citizens of the United States.”

[MHGinTN]

Um, you need to update your talking points:

[[ "However, in 1795 the Congress passed the Naturalization Act of 1795 which removed the words "natural born" from this statement to state that such children born to citizens beyond the seas are citizens of the U.S., but are not legally to be considered "natural born citizens" of the U.S. This was done to clarify for those living at that time who was and who was not a "natural born citizen" per the framers intent at that time, since the 1790 Act had introduced confusion into that subject in regards to the use of those words in the Constitution. George Washington was also President in 1795, and thus he was aware of this change. And if he disagreed with the clarification and change in the wording in the new act in 1795, he would have vetoed the Naturalization Act of 1795." ]]

[Red Steel]

Still, I think it shows that someone is going to have to define what natural born citizenship is: Congress or the courts. Until that is done, how does anyone determine elegibility under the Constitutiion.

In the strictest sense Donofrio is correct.

However, US officers and military personnel working abroad who have children born abroad are in the sense like an ambassador under the jurisdiction of the United States and receive their US citizenship through jus sanguinis and jus soli (US controlled territory or base).

In many nations where our troops are stationed, there are Status Forces agreements between the host nation and the United States. The only reason to have such agreements is because are troops are not citizens of host nations.

But like you said, SCOTUS needs to define natural born citizenship.

[Kansas58]

“Natural Born Citizen” means something very simple, to all but the dumbest of minds:

Natural Born Citizen is the OPPOSITE of Naturalized Citizen.

You either became a citizen due to a court or legal process, or you were recognized as a citizen, under US Law, from the moment of birth.

John McCain IS a Natural Born Citizen. John McCain's US Citizen Parents were old enough, and met all qualifications, to pass citizenship to John McCain, at birth.

Bobby Jindal is a Natural Born Citizen. He was born in the United States.

Neither McCain nor Jindal ever had to have any legal process completed, by their parents or by any court, to obtain citizenship.

This Congressional bill is a very good idea. We need legislation, at both the Federal level and the State level.

This will force Obama to be “embarrassed” in a few years, when he wants on all of the State ballots again. As for the one parent or both parent questions that you ask, please consult the US State Department:

[Las Vegas Ron]

The Naturalization Act of 1790

Ah....thank you. I've been trying to remember the name of that act for some time now. I could have used it many times.