Courts can remove ineligible chief executive - Precedent cited in appeal (certifigate)

WND ^ | 2/1/10 | Bob Unruh

[pissant]

In the United States, courts can, in fact, remove a chief executive officer of a government if that officer is found to be ineligible, according to a court precedent cited in an appeal of a California lawsuit that challenges Barack Obama's legitimacy in the White House.

A multitude of cases have been brought over the issue of Obama's eligibility. Some are by critics who have doubts about whether he was born in Hawaii in 1961 as he has written, and others are from those who question whether the framers of the Constitution specifically excluded dual citizens – Obama's father was a subject of the British crown at Obama's birth – from being eligible for the presidency.

The disputes revolve around the Constitution's demand that the president be a "natural born citizen."

Now in an appeal of a state court case in California that named as a defendant California Secretary of State Debra Bowen, attorney Gary Kreep of the United States Justice Foundation is arguing that there already are two precedents that should be applied: one in a court case in which state officials removed from the ballot a nominee for president simply because he did not meet the Constitution's eligibility requirements.

"In 1968, the Peace and Freedom Party submitted the name of Eldridge Cleaver as a qualified candidate for president of the United States. The then-Secretary of State, Mr. Frank Jordan, found that, according to Mr. Cleaver's birth certificate, he was only 34 years old, one year shy of the 35 years of age needed to be on the ballot as a candidate for president," the brief, being filed this week, argues.

[EnderWiggins]

"You believe that the framers intended to consider someone born with foreign citizenship (foreign entanglements) a NBC of the US.""

I don't think that the issue of dual citizenship ever crossed their minds. Thomas Jefferson was even a naturalized citizen of France when he became President, and that didn't seem to bother anybody.

[rxsid]

"I've not refused to do any such research. I've yet to find the proof. You, claim it, yet can't provide it."

You know exactly what to so.

-------------------------

As do you. Enjoy the rest of your day. Ciao.

[pissant]

Nope. He’ll be dragged out by his ears if we find him to be there illegally. As it should be.

[EnderWiggins]

"So Mr. Jefferson was naturalized in France and there made a French citizen, and had he gone there would have been entitled to all the rights there of an adopted citizen, but he certainly retained all his relations to the United States, his rights and duties as a native citizen, and was in fact after such naturalization, elected President of the United States. "

Nathan Dane, A general abridgment and digest of American law: with occasional notes and comments, Volume 4, pg. 713 (1824)

[STE=Q]

Welcome to Free Republic!

STE=Q

[BP2]

Therefore, Barry...even IF born in HI, would have been born with citizenship from two different country's. He would have been a dual national at birth. No chance the framers would consider such as person (post grandfather clause) to be a NBC of the US with such dual allegiance owed at birth (especially when one allegiance is to a crown).

Precisely.

To which countries is Obama loyal?

As an infant born under the Royal Crown is unable to defend himself, he is dependent upon the Royal Crown for his very life. The King owes his Subjects his protection; the Subjects owe the King their subservience and loyalty.

This "agreement" between the King and the Subject is irrevocable, unless either party specifically wishes to end that agreement, by oath or decree. Such has been the understanding in principle & practice for the British for hundreds of years.

Clearly, Obama IS a dual-citizen with dual allegiance to the US and the UK, with lingering loyalties to Kenya and Indonesia.

As I see it — based upon Common Law and/or existing law (in the case of Indonesia and Kenya) — the citizenship breakdown for Obama is:

Kenya: December 12, 1963 - August 4, 1982 ¹
Indonesia: circa 1966 - December 1971 ²
America: August 4, 1961 - present ³
United Kingdom: August 4, 1961 - present ⁴

¹ Kenya: Per the Kenyan Constitution (sections 87, 97 and 98), Obama is a Kenyan citizen from the time of Kenya's independence until Obama's 21st birthday. They do recognize Dual Citizenship.
² Indonesia: Per Hukum Nasional which governed the marriage rules of Muslims in Indonesia, a child automatically assumes Indonesian citizenship if he/she assumes the surname of the father, e.g., the adoption of Barry Soetoro. Otherwise, the child automatically assumes Indonesian citizenship after 5 years of residency (INA 1952). Note: Indonesian law did not recognize Dual Citizenship until 2006; therefore, in the eyes of the Indonesian government, Obama lost other all other citizenships when "became" an Indonesian ⁶, until/unless he re-assumed the citizenships by oath when he returned to the US, either as a child or an adult.
³ America: Although the US State Department did not formally recognize Dual Citizenship until 1992, in practice one cannot lose their US Citizenship, although there are a handful of exceptions on this. I believe this persistence of US Citizenship (NOT "Natural-born citizen"-ship) is as a result of a Wong Kim Ark, but certainly under the Hague Convention of 1930 (of which Indonesian Muslims were not signatories).
⁴ United Kingdom: Well-established British law and precedence. "The American born child of an English native subject domiciled in America is a subject of both countries" (Cranworth LC in Dawson v Jay 3 De Gex M & G 764 772 1853). "A man may at the same time enjoy the rights of citizenship under two governments." (Rutledge CJ in Talbot v Janson 3 Dall 138 169 1 L Ed 543 556 HAMMOND).

Just like American citizenship, being a British subject is "cradle to grave" and does not expire at the age of 21 as the Kenyan Constitution dictates for Kenyan Citizens ... despite the spin Obama has tried to place on his status.⁵

⁵

“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.”

⁶

[BP2]

I don’t think that the issue of dual citizenship ever crossed their minds. Thomas Jefferson was even a naturalized citizen of France when he became President, and that didn’t seem to bother anybody.

Oh, for Pete’s sake!

Read the Constitution (Article II, Section 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; 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.

Emphasis freakin' added!

[Electric Graffiti]

This is from Barry's own State Dept.:

"The U.S. Government recognizes that dual nationality exists but does not encourage it as a matter of policy because of the problems it may cause. Claims of other countries on dual national U.S. citizens may conflict with U.S. law, and dual nationality may limit U.S. Government efforts to assist citizens abroad. The country where a dual national is located generally has a stronger claim to that person's allegiance. "Source

Do you think the language would have been stronger if they thought that a dual national [In Barry's case a quad-national] would ever become Commander and chief of our Armed Forces? /sarc

Great post.

[BP2]

The words/term “Natural Born Citizen” have not been included in any immigration law since that 1790 act, and they have not been in the law since that 1795 act was passed. Congress has no power to redefine the term anyway.

Right on! Speak the Truth, brotha!

The SCOTUS can define it.

The Congress could define it, but only via the full Constitutional Amendment route.

However, it certainly hasn't stopped them from trying.

Here's one of many examples:

108th CONGRESS

2d Session

S. 2128

To define the term `natural born Citizen' as used in the Constitution of the United States to establish eligibility for the Office of President.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

February 25, 2004

Mr. NICKLES (for himself, Ms. LANDRIEU, and Mr. INHOFE) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

---

A BILL

To define the term `natural born Citizen' as used in the Constitution of the United States to establish eligibility for the Office of President.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the `Natural Born Citizen Act'.

SEC. 2. DEFINITION OF `NATURAL BORN CITIZEN' .

(a) IN GENERAL- Congress finds and declares that the term `natural born Citizen' in Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 of the Constitution of the United States means--

(1) any person born in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof; and

(2) any person born outside the United States--

(A) who derives citizenship at birth from a United States citizen parent or parents pursuant to an Act of Congress; or

(B) who is adopted by 18 years of age by a United States citizen parent or parents who are otherwise eligible to transmit citizenship to a biological child pursuant to an Act of Congress.

(b) UNITED STATES- In this section, the term `United States', when used in a geographic sense, means the several States of the United States and the District of Columbia.

[STARWISE]

~~PING!

[Seizethecarp]

“In the Elg case the court ruled that the fact that she held U.S. and Swedish citizenship did not impact her status as a natural-born U.S. citizen.”

Elg was not a dual citizen at birth. Elg was expatriated to Sweden as a minor by her naturalized US citizen parents. SCOTUS ruled that this expatriation did not negate Elg’s unitary NBC status at birth. Only Elg, herself, by her own action after achieving majority could negate her US citizenship.

[El Gato]

Why does it matter (or why did it matter to the framers) if someone has a foreign national parent at birth?

National Security concerns. They wanted no divided loyalties. A person could have such divided loyalties, even if the country of the parent(s) did not consider them it's citizen or subject.

John Jay put it thus:

Permit me to hint whether it would not 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 command in chief of the American army shall not be given to, nor devolve on any but a natural born citizen.

The founders were much worried about foreign influence and intrigues.

[sweetiepiezer]

ping

[2ndDivisionVet]

PING!!

[El Gato]

If I'm not mistaken, McCain was not born on the soil of the U.S. and therefore would not be considered an NBC of the US.

McCain falls under the same "exception" as children of diplomates. From Vattel, Book 1, section 212 and 217.

...The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens.

...children born out of the country, in the armies of the state, or in the house of its minister at a foreign court, are reputed born in the country; for a citizen who is absent with his family, on the service of the state, but still dependent on it, and subject to its jurisdiction, cannot be considered as having quitted its territory.

IOW, someone born to soldiers (with both parents being citizens) or to a diplomat (again both parents citizens) will not have dual loyalties, just because the parents were *temporarily* outside the country doing it's business. At least no more so than someone born in the US, and then taken overseas by those military or diplomatic parents.

[El Gato]

The SCOTUS can define it.

Well, sort of. They can determine what the definition *was* at the time it was written and ratified, because that is what it still is. So they aren't really supposed to define the terms, but rather to determine what the terms mean. A subtle difference perhaps, but very important.

[BP2]

Great post.

Thanks. We all do what we can ...

Glad to be part of the sizable cadre that's been assisting to
help folks learn more about history and our Constitution,

while kicking the dogsh!t out of after-birther trolls on FR

... just for the fun of it!

[STARWISE]

I’ll say ..

Wong Kim Ark was not premised on his
citizenship status for eligibility to be
Potus and CIC.

As those of us who’ve been researching
this for more than 2 years know, there
has never been a SCOTUS case/finding
for a Potus natural born citizen eligibility
matter.

[Drew68]

Glad to be part of the sizable cadre that's been assisting to help folks learn more about history and our Constitution,

while kicking the dogsh!t out of after-birther trolls on FR

... just for the fun of it!

Yet at the end of each day Obama is still residing comfortably in the White House while every birther lawsuit has been laughed out of court.

[Non-Sequitur]

Congress has no power to redefine the term anyway.

Why not?