It really doesn’t matter WHERE he was born. That’s a bit of a red herring. The problem is that his father wasn’t a US citizen.
From Orly Taitz’s Pleadings in Keyes et al v. Obama et al:
21. Question 10: What sources should be used in support of authoritative construction of the language of the United States Constitution, aside from the statutory law of the United States as enacted by Congress pursuant to the Constitution and the opinions of the Supreme Court, especially when addressing questions of first impression such as those raised in this complaint?
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:
“…natural born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. As the society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights. The society is supposed to desire this, in consequence of what it owns to its own preservation: and it is presumed, as a matter of course, that each citizen, on entering into society, reserves to his children the right of becoming members of it. The country of the fathers is therefore that of the children; and these become true citizens merely by their tacit consent. We shall soon see, whether, on their coming to the years of discretion, they may renounce their right, and what they owe to the society in which they were born. I say, that, in order to be of the country, it is necessary that a person be born of a father who is a citizen; for if he is born there of a foreigner, it will only be the place of his birth, and not his country”.
The Law of Nations or the Principles of Natural Law (1758)
23. This Court should apply the De Vattel definition used by the framers of the constitution, defining “Natural Born Citizen” for following reasons:
24. De Vattel’s treatise existed at the time of the creation of the Constitution, as it was published in 1757 and was readily available to the framers
25. Emmerich de Vattel’s was widely quoted by the framers of the constitution, for example, by Hamilton, Jay, and Madison “Publius” in the Federalist Papers.
26. His book provides an exact and contemporaneous definition for the term used “Natural Born Citizen”
27. De Vattel fully corresponds to the well-known statements by the framers of the Constitution
28. The Vattel definition was used as a basis for the Senate resolution 511 of 2008, when Senator McCain was found to be a Natural Born Citizen, based on the fact that he was born in the zone of the Panama canal, US territory at a time and both of his parents were US citizens.
29. Apparently during the Constitutional Convention, John Jay wrote on July 25, 1787 to George Washington:
“Permit me to hint, whether it would be wise or reasonable to provide a strong check to the admission of foreigners into the administration of 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”
30. In explaining the meaning of Natural Born Citizen, a principal framer of the 14th amendment, which redefined citizenship under the Constitution, John Armor Bingham explained that the phrase referred to “every human being born in the jurisdiction of the United States to parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty”. (Emphasis added).
31. As Obama’s East African father owed (by reason of his birth and as a matter of international law) allegiance to British crown (whether or not he professed any), Obama was not a Natural born citizen and does not qualify for presidency. Dual Nationality is a rather new concept that did not exist at the time of creation of the Constitution and Plaintiffs submit that the definition used and the contemporaneous statements of the framers show a desire to exclude from the group of Natural Born Citizens anyone, with allegiance to other sovereignties at birth.
Case closed.
When Pres. Chester A. Arthur was born, his father was definitely still a citizen of Ireland. It will be interesting to see how this precedent figures into any court cases concerning Obama's natural born citizen status.
Of course since everyone has known for years that Obama's father was born in Africa, it would have been much better to bring up this whole issue before the election.
“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.