President Obama under the Lens of the Citizenship Question

So, who are these “People,” beyond the fact that they are the sovereign power that “ordained and established” our fundamental rule of law? In other words, in what is their sovereignty actually rooted that is capable of legal cognizance? And how are people in succeeding generations — “our Posterity” — to be qualified as members of this sovereign People?

Such questions draw us to the meaning of citizenship, and how citizenship has been defined and understood over the course of U.S. history. Taking stock now, we find that citizenship is something intuitively understood by most Americans; i.e., a citizen is a fellow member of the We the People of the Preamble. A person could be a member of this class by virtue of American birth or via the naturalization process. Precise legal guidance at the definitional level is still insufficient, since the Constitution itself does not explicitly address these particulars. We feel this lack of explicit guidance most keenly today in the question of whether the currently sitting president is a “natural-born citizen of the United States,” as he is required to be under Article II, Section 1, Clause 6 of the U.S. Constitution.

For the Framers, U.S. citizenship admits from only two possible classes: natural born or naturalized. The first class pertains to citizenship acquired from the moment of birth; the second to natural-born citizens of a foreign state who have satisfied the statutory eligibility requirements of becoming a United States citizen.

What remains ambiguous is whether “natural born” status depends on the geographical place of one’s birth (doctrine of jus soli — the “law of the ground,” or “of the soil”), the citizenship status of the parents one is born of (jus sanguinis — the “law of the blood,” or of natural inheritance), or some combination thereof.

The Constitution itself nowhere defines “natural born.” Our earliest nationalities act — the Naturalization Act of 1790 — is the only instance of statutory “natural born” language that we have. Just five years later, the term “natural born” was removed, with passage of the Nationalities Act of 1795. This act recognizes foreign-born children of two American parents as citizens of the United States from the moment of birth. This would be an application of the doctrine of jus sanguinis. Thus, John McCain was a citizen of the United States from the moment of his birth. Even though he was born on foreign soil, i.e., in the Panama Canal Zone, he is a natural-born citizen of the United States, by virtue of his double American-citizen parentage. This contrasts with the cases of, for example, ex-Secretary of State Henry Kissinger, a natural-born citizen of Germany who became a U.S. citizen in 1943; or of California’s current governor, Arnold Schwarzenegger, a natural-born Austrian citizen who became a U.S. citizen in 1983. Or of the case of my favorite modern philosopher, the natural-born German Eric Vöegelin who, having fled Hitler in 1937, became a naturalized American citizen in 1942.

Under the original Constitution, it was up to each of the several sovereign states to determine who its own citizens were. Indeed, the very idea of state sovereignty would be diminished, were this not the case.

The great complication of state sovereignty in determining citizenship was, of course, that some states refused to acknowledge the citizenship of the “three-fifths-of-a-person” persons born within their respective geographical boundaries. Then, on July 9, 1868, the Fourteenth Amendment was ratified — taking care of that problem by nationalizing U.S. citizenship. In so doing, there was an effective move away from the doctrine of jus sanguinis, to that of jus solis: “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.”

Now the federal government determines who a state’s citizens are, and forbids the states to transgress the privileges or immunities of these newly-minted citizens of the United States. In short, the Fourteenth Amendment turned tradition on its head.

Thus the emphasis shifts from “natural born” — birth to American citizen parents (as formerly determined by the states), jus sanguinis — to “native born” — the geographical location of one’s birth (i.e., within U.S. territory), jus solis.

With the result that today a poor expectant Mexican woman has every incentive to illegally enter the United States for the purpose of bearing her child in an American hospital (at public expense), on American soil — which instantly confers U.S. citizenship on her child. And thus the widespread phenomenon of the “anchor baby” occurs. This issue is beyond the scope of the present article. We merely note here for present purposes that this anchor baby has zero U.S.-citizen parents.

More to the point would be to ask: What kind of citizen is President Barack Hussein Obama? It does not appear that he is “natural born,” at least not under the original understanding of that term, as being the child of two American-citizen parents, irrespective of physical location of birth. For we know his father, Barack Obama, Sr., was a natural-born Kenyan, and a British citizen under the British Nationalities Act of 1947.

If BHO was in fact born in Hawaii, then at best he would be “native-born.” But even this is uncertain; the alleged records attesting to his Hawaiian birth are under seal. A Certificate of Life Birth allegedly issued by the State of Hawaii was posted on his campaign website last year. But had to be quickly taken down, after it was discovered to be a forgery. His school records from Indonesia characterize him as a citizen of Indonesia. He has Kenyan family members who are on record as saying they were present at his birth — in Kenya. A Kenyan birth certificate has surfaced; to the best of my knowledge, its authenticity has not been verified. It’s all terribly confusing; and the Obama Administration is expending tremendous amounts of taxpayer funds ($1.4 million and counting) on lawyer fees, trying to keep these matters as “dark” as possible. So much for the campaign promise of “transparency” from this administration.

The so-called “Truthers” are all over Obama’s supposed origins in Hawaii, on which his “natural-born-status” seemingly wholly depends in their minds. But this is to follow a course leading down into a rabbit hole that offers nothing definitive at the end of the search. The reason being: Hawaii issues Certificates of Live Birth (COLB) to any person born within its geographical jurisdiction, without regard to, or taking any position on, the parental citizenship of the child, or what the child may naturally inherit therefrom such to be qualified as a natural born citizen of the United States. The Hawaiian birth record — if it exists — can only attest to the geographical location of Obama’s birth; it cannot address issues regarding whether he acquires citizenship from his father (British) or from his mother (American) or both. Hawaii — post Fourteenth Amendment — has no power to determine the citizenship status of our sitting President.

In Schneider v. Rusk, 377 U.S. 163 (1964), the Supreme Court held “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.”

And thus presumably, the native-born anchor baby will never be eligible to be President, on “natural born” grounds. For he is the child of non-citizens.

Now let us presume that what the Hawaiian Secretary of State has under seal (i.e., Obama’s “long-form” birth record) really exists. So what? It, by itself, cannot speak to the question of whether BHO is a “natural born citizen.” It could only attest to native-born status.

Of course, what the Framers were mainly worried about was captured in a 1789 letter John Jay sent to George Washington, who was then presiding over the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia:

Especially in the case where we clearly have an inordinately “internationally-minded” POTUS in office right now, I for one would like to know exactly what kind of citizen he is. But he and his team are doing everything in their power to prevent me from finding out. Which just naturally leads to the question: WHY?

The question is particularly urgent, for President Obama is on record as saying he finds the U.S. Constitution —which he (twice) swore an Oath to preserve, protect, and defend — wanting. He finds it wanting because it is not a statement of positive federal government powers, but is rather a negative prescription of what government may not do. That being the case, as an “activist-minded individual,” evidently he simply ignores it, and seemingly violates it every day before breakfast as if it were a matter of principle with him.

Of course, if he is not a “natural born citizen,” and knows it, then he violated his presidential oath of office in the very act of taking it.

If he is not a “natural born citizen,” then we need to recognize that his successful acquisition of Presidential Office has been aided and abetted by the Democratic National Committee, which certified his eligibility for office; and by Nancy Pelosi, who again certified him, before the Electoral College.

We the People of the United States of America have a few questions. And we want answers. Maybe a good place to start would be to examine the “due diligence” records of the DNC and Ms. Pelosi, which led to their respective certifications of Obama’s eligibility to serve.

If we can’t get answers from the Obama people, maybe we need to start querying the DNC and/or Ms. Pelosi: What did they know, and when did they know it?

If Obama is an illegitimate president, then EVERY ACT of his in office is "null and void" from the get-go; i.e., is not binding law that the American people must respect. No appointment he has ever made; no signing of any legislative act; no executive order issued under his name. None have any effect under the Constitution; they are not valid laws that can bind the American people.

Apparently this is NOT true, because of a recognized legal principle called the "de facto officer doctrine".

According to the Supreme Court:

"The de facto officer doctrine confers validity upon acts performed by a person acting under the color of official title even though it is later discovered that the legality of that person's appointment or election to office is deficient."

- Ryder v. United States (94-431), 515 U.S. 177 (1995):

It’s good to see my two most favorite sisters in Christ Freepers discussing the big blue elephant in the living room. Betty, I see that you have been properly baptized in fire by getting insulted from another long-term Freeper. Welcome to the club.

One thing I would dispute is that Obama’s presidency is illegitimate, because he was sworn in as president by the SCOTUS. It was their job to look into his eligibility and there was a perfectly good set of cases winding their way through the courts and on their doorstep at the time, such as Berg vs. Obama. But the SCOTUS abdicated their responsibility to the constitution and to our nation by swearing him in. Consequently, Obama really is president, we’re stuck with him unless the SCOTUS takes on the challenge. Not bloody likely.

The deal that our founding fathers offered was lifetime employment so that members of the SCOTUS could be free from the political consequences of their decisions. That deal broke down, the system failed this time around.

There is a difference. "Truthers" think that the U.S. government or the Jews orchestrated 911. "Birthers" believe that Obama is not a U.S. citizen.

Thank you for the definitions, Jean S! I have already apologized for my mistake. Where "Truthers" appears in the article, the word should have been "Birthers."

The fact of the matter is, I don't pay much attention to either Truthers or Birthers. All I was trying to suggest is that people who think that proof of birth in Hawaii is sufficient to establish the natural-born status of BHO are mistaken.

If I had anything to say about them, it would be this:

I consider Truthers totally insane, out of their minds. In the olden days, you'd find people like this on psychiatric wards. But we don't lock up crazy people anymore. :^)

Birthers, on the other hand, are on to something real but are mistaken in their fundamental premise.

I hope this will clear up any outstanding issues between us, Jean S. Thank you so much for writing!

Listed on this birth record is the "birth place" of the father in block 11. IF the birth place shows any country other than the United States then Barack Hussein Obama is NOT a natural born citizen.

If Meghan McCain ever ran for president, she would have the same problem (according to convoluted birther logic).

Obama is one of seven presidents for whom blocks 11 and/or 16 on their birth certificates would have been filled in by places other than the United States.

I just cannot fathom what Obama would have lost squashing this shortly after his inauguration? This contentious issue is not going away.

Palling was BRILLIANT the other day in how she answered questions about obama's eligibility.

When **more** than 51% of Republicans, and 30% of the general population do NOT believe Obama was born in the U.S., then there is NO POSSIBLE WAY for Palin to ignore this issue.

Obama's natural born status is an rotting and smelly carcass of an 800 pound dead gorilla in the election living room. Palin wisely chose to acknowledge the MILLIONS of people pointing at the dead gorilla and saying, "LOOK! OBAMA'S NATURAL BORN STATUS SINKS!" .

As for Fox News and Clear Channel (our "Leftist Controlled Opposition Media").....well...Rush, Beck Hannity, Ingram OReilly, Malkin, and the rest are contemptible in their efforts to tip toe around Obama's oozing and corrupt eligibility.

By the way...the poll percentages would be **far** higher if people were asked if they had doubts or questions about Obama's natural born status. There is NO WAY Palin can ignore this.

Yes, I do see your point, Kevmo! Still, I have to believe that the SCOTUS is not "above" the Constitution; they are not the ultimate authority. They swore an Oath to it, to in effect be bound by it. If they become oath-breakers by swearing in Obama (and I don't think this is necessarily so), then what would be the moral effect/constitutional legitimacy of that act?

Then again, perhaps the Court felt it appropriate not to insert itself into what is essentially a political process — a national election. I don't believe that the Court has a role in determining presidential qualifications at all. Other parties have primary responsibility — preeminently the Speaker of the House in making certification before the Electoral College.

Remember the first time Obama was sworn in, when Chief Justice Roberts supposedly flubbed his lines? And then they had to do a re-do the next day?

The first time, I thought that the Chief Justice was just being ironic; and if anyone was "flubbing," it was BHO. Do you remember the way Roberts leaned in at the end, and the way he expressed the "so help me God" as a question, with a pronounced rising tone?

It seems Chief Justice Roberts may be a bit of a skeptic about Obama's qualifications for office. But he did swear him in.

Whether that makes Obama "legit" all by itself is simply doubtful to me, on the theory that "two wrongs never make a right."

Anyhoot, neither you nor I is going to settle this question, dear Kevmo!

Thank you ever so much for writing!

What is really interesting to me is that few people seem inclined to acknowledge the “800-pound gorilla in the room.”
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

MILLIONS of people acknowledge the 800 pound gorilla!

Fox News and Clear Channel ( our “controlled opposition) have absolutely REFUSED to report on the issue. They have gag orders on all of our conservative talk show yappers.

Please do a Google search on the words: 51% Republicans Obama Eligibility. 51% of Republicans do NOT believe that Obama was even born in the U.S. 30% of the general population believes this.

You will see that HUGE numbers of people do not even believe that Obama was born here. The percentages would be higher if the question had been do you have doubts or questions about Obama’s eligibility.

I find Fox and Clear Channel to be CONTEMPTIBLE! Rush, Beck, Hannity, OReilly, Ingram, Malkin, Coulter .;..etc. are cowards who **KNOW** that there is a serious problem with Obama’s natural born status. SHAME ON ALL OF THEM!

With numbers that high with people who don't even believe that Obama was born in the U.S., there is NO WAY Palin can ignore this issue. She was BRILLIANT the other day.

Good grief, wideminded, a thing like that would be harmless enough if it applied to dogcatchers; but as applied to an illegitimate POTUS, it's horrifically dangerous. This is like issuing a license to steal. Legal thinking like that does nothing to prevent a "fire-sale" of the United States of America.

You could put a rotten crook into office, and he can do stuff that cannot be undone. Regardless of whether he's punished after the fact, the damage is still there, and it is lasting damage.

Somehow I don't think this is what the Framers had in mind.

Thank you so very much for bringing Ryder v. United States (94–431), 515 U.S. 177 (1995) to my attention!!!

With numbers that high with people who don't even believe that Obama was born in the U.S., there is NO WAY Palin can ignore this issue. She was BRILLIANT the other day.

Well I think if anyone can make hay out of this mess, it would be Sarah. But it would take all the guts she's got. She would be massacred by the press and the other "usual suspects."

I hope she goes for it! That ought to shake up things nicely!

I missed the inauguration and had no interest in watching a rerun, but your take on what happened is very engaging, dearest sister in Christ!

With the balance of powers being what they are, I'm not sure how the government would cope should Obama be found illegitimate so late in his presidency. But I'm fairly confident that many would raise the legitimacy of acts he signed into law, executive orders, etc.

The Supremes might not be able or willing to touch such cases considering the one raised earlier on this thread, but that would not prevent Congress from enacting new law even retroactively (as it does with the tax code.)

The problem of the many having reservations about presidential legitimacy is that no citizen so far has managed to be granted "standing" in federal court. Ergo, there is no "release valve" at the level of the citizenry. Thus the problem continues to fester and metastasize....

In the ideal scenario, a State steps up to the plate, and challenges the authority of presidentially authorized legislation that intrudes on its sovereignty, while creating unfunded liabilities for the State that must be borne by its own citizens.

I'd give pride of place to Texas on this one. After all, Texas is the only sovereign nation-state that ever joined the Union. She did not join it to diminish the liberties of her people.

But it's just a dream, just a dream....

Dearest sister in Christ, you wrote, "but that would not prevent Congress from enacting new law even retroactively (as it does with the tax code)." Please elaborate???

Thank you ever so much, dearest sister in Christ, for writing!

IOW, if one of our early Presidents (exempted under Article II, §1) was born here, but not of two Citizen parents, We have a clear example of what a natural born citizen is NOT.

Fascinating insight, dear TXnMA!

Off the top of my head, I suppose many of the Framers were British-, Irish-, or Scots-born, or children thereof. But they had invested their own blood, treasure, and sacred honor in their new nation; so earned their "natural-born status" thataway.

They did not expect that their decendents would have to earn it thataway, but simply by virtue of being the offspring of American citizens.... Their generation had already paid the blood-price, as it were.

There is a more direct precedent for the current scenario: the presidency of Chester A. Arthur [1881–1885].

A legend had circulated in the public mind that Arthur was not a natural-born citizen of the United States because of his (alleged) Canadian birth. Like the Birthers today, a great many people back then thought the citizenship test rested on the jus solis doctrine. That is, the place of one's nativity is what gives you your citizenship, irrespective of parentage.

Of course that was all bunk, back then as well as today. The facts show that Chester A. Arthur was born to a "natural-" AND "native-"born American citizen — his mother — and an Irishman who was not a naturalized American citizen, and therefore under the British nationalities act of the time, was a British citizen.

It turned out that Arthur was born in the State of Vermont. But the geography is irrelevant to the question of "natural-born."

Anyhoot, on the historical record it appears that Chester A. Arthur was NOT a natural-born citizen of the United States. He served out his term. His bid to re-up was not successful.

Thankfully, he left little if any long-term public destruction in his wake.

Don't we live in interesting times, dear brother in Christ?

Some further thoughts, wintertime, FWTW.

I cannot even begin to describe the satisfaction I take when I see people like Sally Quinn go after Sarah. :^)

I mean, check out the side-by-side comparison.

To my mind, Sally comes across as an effete, clueless, irrational, ridiculously privileged, dried-up, and thoroughly repugnant Kool-aid-drinking hag, as compared with the splendidly vital and engaging Sarah....

Just putting these two side-by-side sharpens the "cultural divide" in a way that can only be inspiring to conservatives. Or so it seems to me, a cultural/constitutional conservative.

Call it: A Study in Contrasts. These are the very "contrasts" that now divide American society and politics.

Let the games begin!

May God ever bless Sarah Palin and her family.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.