Birthers are still claiming the Earth is flat, still looking for a missing link, still claiming Judge Crater didn’t go missing, and still embarrassing America?
Yep.
Barack Obama’s Long Form Birth Certificate – image from Snopes.com (available many places)
Orly Taitz was in court in Georgia, losing another case because she lacks even a whiff of a scintilla of an iota of evidence to back any of her claims that President Barack Obama was not born in Honolulu, Hawaii, as his now-released long-form birth certificate, short-form birth certificate, contemporary newspapers, eyewitnesses and all other evidence indicate. They have no evidence, and they have clowns for lawyers:
In court filings, Obama’s legal team has called the “birther” allegations baseless and the criticisms of his birth records “patently unfounded.” The filings also noted 68 similar challenges filed have been dismissed and, during a 2009 challenge, a federal judge in Columbus fined Taitz $20,000 for “frivolous” litigation.
But I stumbled onto a wildly misnamed blog, The Constitution Club*, where the issue is given credence and way too many electrons.
(Are lobotomies legal, again? Can people perform self-lobotomies? Just wondering.)
I added some references to sites in the real world, so that anyone not totally insane might find an anchor in reality and follow the threads back to the light.
The post’s author, Daniella Nicole, tried to make a defense of the birthers insane, destructive antics.
I responded, but you never can tell when the birthers will plug their ears, cover their eyes and start singing “Born in the U.S.A.” at the top of their lungs to avoid information that would require them to appear sober. My comment went straight to “moderation.” Probably too many links, or too many high-quality links (thank you, Cornell University Law Library’s Legal Information Institute). For the record, here’s my last reply to Daniella Nicole:
I daresay any of the GOP contenders, or to use your reference, SNL’s the Church Lady, Frankie and Willie or one of the Coneheads, would all be better than the clown (or Homey D. Clown from In Living Color, if you will) currently in office.
Excuse me. I had mistaken you for an American, a patriot, and someone who bears no ill will to the American people.
Unless Obama has lied about who his father is and the birth certificate is a fraud (which would raise other legal issues), Obama is NOT a natural born citizen. Period.
“Born on American soil” means “natural born American citizen.” Obama was born on American soil. End of your argument.
BUT, had he been born on foreign soil, with one American citizen parent, he would still be a natural born citizens — as is John McCain, born in Panama (and not on a military base, but in the local Panama hospital).
Remind me never to refer any of my clients or friends to you for immigration advice.
The Supreme Court actually set the precedent of defining natural born as born of two American citizen parents in the 1875 case Minor v. Happersett. Note it was not a dicta, which is an authoritative statement by a court that is not legally binding, but an actual precedent, which is a rule of law established for the first time by a court and is referred to by other courts afterwards.
The holding in Minor was that women are not voting citizens. The case dealt with Mrs. Minor’s attempt to register to vote. Obama is not a woman, and the issue you’re talking about has nothing to do with registering to vote. So, if the case says what you claim, it MUST be in obiter dicta. [Obiter dicta means those parts of the decision in which the court explains how and why it ruled as it did, but NOT the key ruling itself.] No offense, but you really could use some legal training. At least get a Black’s Law dictionary, will you?
Here, read excerpts from the opinion:
The question is presented in this case, whether, since the adoption of the fourteenth amendment, a woman, who is a citizen of the United States and of the State of Missouri, is a voter in that State, notwithstanding the provision of the constitution and laws of the State, which confine the right of suffrage to men alone. We might, perhaps, decide the case upon other grounds, but this question is fairly made. From the opinion we find that it was the only one decided in the court below, and it is the only one which has been argued here. The case was undoubtedly brought to this court for the sole purpose of having that question decided by us, and in view of the evident propriety there is of having it settled, so far as it can be by such a decision, we have concluded to waive all other considerations and proceed at once to its determination.
So it would be error to claim the case got to the issue of who is a “natural born citizen” at all. It did not.
And, had you read the case, you’d know that. In fact, the case says the opposite of what you claim. It says:
Additions might always be made to the citizenship of the United States in two ways: first, by birth, and second, by naturalization. This is apparent from the Constitution itself, for it provides [n6] that “no person except a natural-born citizen, or a citizen of the United States at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President,” [n7] and that Congress shall have power “to establish a uniform rule of naturalization.” Thus new citizens may be born or they may be created by naturalization.
The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. 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 [p168] 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. The words “all children” are certainly as comprehensive, when used in this connection, as “all persons,” and if females are included in the last they must be in the first. That they are included in the last is not denied. In fact the whole argument of the plaintiffs proceeds upon that idea.
Under the power to adopt a uniform system of naturalization Congress, as early as 1790, provided “that any alien, being a free white person,” might be admitted as a citizen of the United States, and that the children of such persons so naturalized, dwelling within the United States, being under twenty-one years of age at the time of such naturalization, should also be considered citizens of the United States, and that the children of citizens of the United States that might be born beyond the sea, or out of the limits of the United States, should be considered as natural-born citizens. [n8] These provisions thus enacted have, in substance, been retained in all the naturalization laws adopted since. In 1855, however, the last provision was somewhat extended, and all persons theretofore born or thereafter to be born out of the limits of the jurisdiction of the United States, whose fathers were, or should be at the time of their birth, citizens of the United States, were declared to be citizens also. [n9]
If you’re going to opine on citizenship, you would do well to read a summary of actual citizenship law, and don’t take the odd rantings of anti-Obama people on the internet.
Dani said:
Interestingly, many refer to Vattel’s definition of natural born (which is essentially the same thing and may have influenced the founders in their work on the Constitution), but it is not Vattel that sets legal precedent. The Supreme Court can and did set the precedent in the matter in 1875.
Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162 (1875) most assuredly did not rule that a child must have two U.S. citizen parents to be a citizen, nor to be a “natural born” citizen. Read the case’s key sections above.
The precedent that is important here is the presidency of Chester Alan Arthur, a man who, like Obama, had a father born in a foreign country, and who was not a citizen of the U.S. at the time of Arthur’s birth. While opponents tried to make an issue of this in the campaign of 1880, it was a non-starter. You know the rest — Arthur was elected vice president under James Garfield, and ascended to the presidency upon Garfield’s death after being shot (no, Orly Taitz was not the shooter). So, had Hapersett had anything to do with presidential eligibility, it would have applied to Arthur. Since Arthur served out his term as president, it’s pretty clear that the actual precedent supports Obama’s eligibility 100%.
Somebody told you a tall tale about the case — it’s about whether a woman may vote, not about what is a natural born citizen. Seriously, how could anyone confuse those issues?
Congress in 2008 (including Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama) also defined natural born as having been born to two American citizen parents when a challenge to John McCain’s eligibility was issued.So, even by the standard and definition of Congress, including Obama himself, he is not legally qualified or eligible.
1. That was a non-binding resolution, stating the opinion of the U.S. Senate.
2. The resolution, S. Res. 511 in the 110th Congress, ( does NOT say “two American citizen parents,” but instead refers to children born to “Americans.” Obama’s mother was an American.
3. Obama was born on American soil, and so the resolution, covering kids born outside the U.S., is inapplicable, and off the mark.Obama was not born to two American citizen parents, by his own admission and via the birth certificate which he has provided to America. Ergo, he is not a natural born American citizen and does not meet the Constitutional requirement for the office of President of the United States of America. As such, not only is he not legally qualified to be in the office he currently holds, but he is not legally eligible to be on any ballot in the U.S. for the upcoming election. Period.
Except, none of the laws you cite says what you’d need it to say. Obama is natural born because he was born in the U.S. He is also natural born having been a child of a U.S. citizen. He is fully legally qualified — at least, to people who know the law, and who appreciate that it’s necessary to follow the laws.
If wishes were horses, beggars would ride. Your wishes do not change the law. Your misstatements of the cases and the laws do not change the laws. Your wish to find something bad against Obama, a good man and a good president, does not give you a leg to stand on, nor a horse to ride.
And how, pray tell, is using legal means to resolve serious legal matters “polluting the courts”? That is what they are there for.
Junk lawsuits. Nuisance suits. Orly Taitz has already been fined for making these nuisance claims. The evidence needed to challenge Obama’s eligibility simply does not exist, except in the fevered and overactive imaginations of those crazies. The stuff in Georgia this last week is a supreme embarrassment to America — but thank God, the courts got it right.
But by all means, continue to stamp your foot and blather on about this. Your work on this insane and hopeless issue keeps you off the streets, and out of real politics. You can’t do damage to a school board race while you’re lost in the ozone on citizenship and Obama.
_____________
* Maybe by “Constitution Club” they mean “a club with which to beat the Constitution,” and not a group of people joining together in a noble cause, you think?
More, Resources, and Related Articles
- Always a good source on birtherism, Oh, For Goodness Sake
- We Got Mail from a Birther (littlegreenfootballs.com)
- What Really Happened in a Georgia Courtroom on January 26, 2012? | Western Journalism.com (gunnyg.wordpress.com)
- The Birthers Go Down To Georgia (outsidethebeltway.com)
Earlier at Millard Fillmore’s Bathtub
- Constitutional right to be stupid: Birthers at it again
- Goldie Taylor at The Grio: Why Obama shouldn’t have to “show his papers”
- Birthers claim Obama born in Millard Fillmore’s bathtub in 1853
- Stubborn birthers soldier on
- Obama’s eligibility: California court tossed the case out
- Birther karma: Hoaxsters get hoaxed on Kenya birth document
- Crazies never think they are
- Birther control
- Birthers: “We choose to wallow in the gutter”
- NBC on the Obama birth certificate issue
- Anti-Obama blogger indicted for threatening Secret Service agent
- FAIL repeated: Challenges to Obama’s eligibility
- Without hysterics, the Obama eligibility issue
- Obama’s birth certificate: Astrologers bring sound reason (!)
- 6 ways challenges to Obama’s eligibility fail
Millard Fillmore's Bathtub 
LOLOL, Jack Maskell and NON-Partisan is an OXY-MORON!
He’s a friggin Obama shill!
LikeLike
KenyanBornObama says: February 3, 2012 at 11:05 am:
I read that piece of crap the day it came out! Well, I got about halfway through it and it started to make me sick, because of all the fabrications and bogus mumbo jumbo that was crammed into it!
————
Of course you got sick, because it simply blew holes in your misreading of law. Too bad, so sad.
I continue to be amazed that a small band of armchair lawyer-wannabes and a few small-time lawyers with agendas insist they understand the law and the history of law better than actual lawyers, Supreme Court Justices, constitutional law expert, and the lawyers on the staff of the Congressional Research Service.
Tell me, KBOA — where are the bog-name conservative lawyers? If you were correct, one would think they’d be involved. Where’s Robert Bork, Ted Olson, the Federalist Society? Pretty silent, eh? You think they’d go for a slam dunk. Where’s Ed Meese, Reagan’s AG? Oh, he and the Heritage Foundation think that birth in the US is sufficient. “Under the longstanding English common-law principle of jus soli, persons born within the territory of the sovereign (other than children of enemy aliens or foreign diplomats) are citizens from birth. Thus, those persons born within the United States are “natural born citizens” and eligible to be President. Much less certain, however, is whether children born abroad of United States citizens are “natural born citizens” eligible to serve as President …”—- Edwin Meese, et al, THE HERITAGE GUIDE TO THE CONSTITUTION (2005)
LikeLike
Jack Maskell is a greatly distinguished attorney and researcher for the militantly non-partisan Congressional Research Service, well respected among legal scholars for the lack of politics in his writings.
Maskell joined CRS in 1973, when Barack Obama was 12 years old.
To claim that Maskell “is a shill” for Obama only indicates, again, that KBO has no scruples, no honor, and no ability to discern fact from fiction, or gold from dross.
LikeLike
Ed said: “How can we be late to the party with a report, when obviously no birther has bothered to even read it?”
I read that piece of crap the day it came out! Well, I got about halfway through it and it started to make me sick, because of all the fabrications and bogus mumbo jumbo that was crammed into it!
It’s quite obvious that Maskell is a shill for Obama and is covering up the truth! Many have called and written Jack to see why he did this but no one can get a response. Someone filed a case against him, but that has not come out yet! I’m planning on going to DC next week to find out why he’s ignoring us!
LikeLike
How can we be late to the party with a report, when obviously no birther has bothered to even read it?
LikeLike
ED said: “A correspondent tells me there is a bad link in this post somewhere”
It’s probably your link to the Congressional Research Service report, cause that thing STINKS like I don’t know what!
It’s just a bunch of lies, he’s a shill for Obama!
And you are a little late to the party aren’t ya, that’s been out for a while!
LikeLike
1. A correspondent tells me there is a bad link in this post somewhere, that goes to a suspect website. I can’t find the link to purge it. Oy. Hypothetically it’s linked to an image. Help, if you can. What is it?
2. Supportive of the good hard work of Oh, For Goodness Sake, The Birther Think Tank is worth your perusal: http://birtherthinktank.wordpress.com/
3. The highly esteemed, expert-staffed Congressional Research Service has a report on presidential eligibility. Birthers ain’t gonna like it: http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R42097.pdf
LikeLike
KenyanBornObama says:
” Madison says this:
“The sovereign cannot make a citizen by any act of his own; he can confer denizenship, but this does not make a man either a citizen or subject. In order to make a citizen or subject, it is established, that allegiance shall first be due to the whole nation;”
It’s the ALLEGIANCE, Stupid!”
The sovereign cannot make a citizen, agreed. A citizen is created by his or her place of birth. Where does allegiance go? Madison says that there is only one criterion of allegiance in the USA, the PLACE of birth.
This is a well-known principle;
“[An alien parent’s] allegiance to the United States is direct and immediate, and, although but local and temporary, continuing only so long as he remains within our territory, is yet, in the words of Lord Coke in Calvin’s Case, 7 Coke, 6a, ‘strong enough to make a natural subject, for, if he hath issue here, that issue is a natural-born subject.'”—The Wong Kim Ark decision.
“All persons born in the Allegiance of the King are Natural-Born subjects, and all persons born in the Allegiance of the United States are Natural-Born Citizens. Birth and Allegiance go together. Such is the Rule of the Common Law, and it is the Common Law of this country since as before the Revolution.”—US Supreme Court decision in U.S. v. Rhodes.
“…every man owes natural allegiance where he is born, and cannot owe two such allegiances, or serve two masters, at once.”—Blackstone. http://books.google.com/books?id=faZFAAAAcAAJ&pg=PA361&lpg=PA361dq=blackstone+every+man+owes+natural+allegiance+where+he+is+born,+and+cannot+owe+two+such+allegiances,+or+serve+two+masters,+at+once&source=bl&ots=M7W-oJn_I5&sig=JGLf6NiAkTCETtg3EcYxjmjqC0M&hl=en&sa=X&ei=OjkrT5byHoeRgQfxk_DODw&ved=0CCAQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q&f=false
Blackstone also said:
“Allegiance, both express and implied, is however distinguished by the law into two sorts or species, the one natural, the other local; the former being also perpetual, the latter temporary. Natural allegiance is such as is due from all men born within the king’s dominions immediately upon their birth. For, immediately upon their birth, they are under the king’s protection; at a time too, when (during their infancy) they are incapable of protecting themselves.”
Again the reference is to PLACE. Allegiance is due from all men “born within”.
This is quite similar to the Madison quotation. Only Madison points out that in some countries allegiance is due to the country where the parents have citizenship. These are countries on the continent of Europe, like France and Switzerland. But in England, as Blackstone says, and in the USA as Madison says, there is only one criterion of allegiance, the PLACE of birth. He said:
“It is an established maxim, that birth is a criterion of allegiance. Birth, however, derives its force sometimes from place, and sometimes from parentage; but, in general, place is the most certain criterion; it is what applies in the United States.”
LikeLike
Re: “I’ll be damned if I am going to let a Brit come and take it over, like they tried to do in 1812!”
Answer: Obama was born in the USA, in Hawaii, and is a US citizen because of his place of birth. Obama was born in the USA, in Hawaii, and is a Natural Born Citizen because of his place of birth. And, a small detail, his mother was a US citizen, born in Kansas.
“What is a natural born citizen? Clearly, someone born within the United States or one of its territories is a natural born citizen.” (Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on OCTOBER 5, 2004)–Senator Orrin G. Hatch (R-UT).
“It is well settled that “native-born” citizens, those born in the United States, qualify as natural born.” It is also clear that persons born abroad of alien parents, who later become citizens by naturalization,” do not.” Jill A Pryor, Yale Law Review 1988
“Based on the language of Article II, Section 1, Clause 4 and the guidance provided by Wong Kim Ark, we conclude that persons born within the borders of the United States are “natural born Citizens” for Article II, Section 1 purposes, regardless of the citizenship of their parents. Just as a person “born within the British dominions [was] a natural born-born subject” at the time of the framing of the U.S. Constitution, so too were those “born in the allegiance of the United States [ ] natural-born citizens.”— Ankeny v. Governor of the State of Indiana, 916 NE2d 678, 688 (2009), (Ind.Supreme Court, Apr. 5, 2010)
LikeLike
KBO whines, I’ll be damned if I am going to let a Brit come and take it over
Yes. That’s it, I am sure.
You’re all atither with angst, just wringing your hands over an Englishman surreptitiously “stealing” the Presidency.
To borrow from the bard, “Methinks the lady doth protest too much.”
Let’s have the real motivation behind your delirium. Come on, KBO. Out with it. It will be a healing expurgation…
Jim
LikeLike
Re Bingham quotation saying “of parents not owing allegiance…”
Bingham ALSO SAID:
“Who does not know that every person born within the limits of the Republic is, in the language of the Constitution, a natural-born citizen.” Rep. Bingham, The congressional globe, Volume 61, Part 2. pg. 2212 (1869)”
It seems that by 1869 he had changed his mind from what he said in 1866.
More importantly, Bingham was NOT the author of the 14th Amendment. He was the author it the EQUAL PROTECTION CLAUSE of the 14th Amendment. He was not the author if the citizenship clause of the 14th Amendment.
Who was the author of the citizenship clause? Senator Lyman Trumball.
And here is what Lyman Trumball said:
“By the terms of the Constitution he must have been a citizen of the United States for nine years before he could take a seat here, and seven years before he could take a seat in the other House ; and, in order to be President of the United States, a person must be a native-born citizen. It is the common law of this country, and of all countries, and it was unnecessary to incorporate it in the Constitution, that a person is a citizen of the country in which he is born…. I read from Paschal’s Annotated Constitution, note 274: ‘All persons born in the allegiance of the king are natural born subjects, and all persons born in the allegiance of the United States are natural born citizens. Birth and allegiance go together.’ Such is the rule of the common law, and it is the common law of this country as well as of England. There are two exceptions, and only two, to the universality of its application. The children of ambassadors are, in theory, born in the allegiance of the powers the ambassadors represent, and slaves, in legal contemplation, are property, and not persons.” —Sen. Trumbull, Cong. Globe. 1st Session, 42nd Congress, pt. 1, pg. 575 (1872)
However, these are just the opinions of two legislators. There are a lot more, and BY Far most of them who wrote the 14th Amendment agreed that a citizen only requires birth in the country, not citizen parents, and that Natural Born comes from the common law and refers to the PLACE OF BIRTH.
Still, what counts is the ruling of the US Supreme Court, which ruled in the Wong Kim Ark case (six to two, one not voting) that EVERY child born in the USA except for the children of foreign diplomats is NATURAL BORN.
What then is a Natural Born Citizen?
Following the Wong Kim Ark decision courts and Congressional scholars have been unanimous (except for birthers, and they are not considered authorities) that a Natural Born Citizen is a US citizen who fulfills the Natural Born definition set by the US Supreme Court.
That means that every US Citizen who was born in the USA is a Natural Born Citizen, and only naturalized US citizens are US citizens but are not Natural Born US Citizens.
Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC):
“Every child born in the United States is a natural-born United States citizen except for the children of diplomats.”— December 11, 2008 letter to constituent
Senator Orrin G. Hatch (R-UT):
“What is a natural born citizen? Clearly, someone born within the United States or one of its territories is a natural born citizen.”— Senate Judiciary Committee hearing hearing on OCTOBER 5, 2004
“Under the longstanding English common-law principle of jus soli, persons born within the territory of the sovereign (other than children of enemy aliens or foreign diplomats) are citizens from birth. Thus, those persons born within the United States are “natural born citizens” and eligible to be President. …”—- Edwin Meese, et al, THE HERITAGE GUIDE TO THE CONSTITUTION (2005) [Edwin Meese was Ronald Reagan’s attorney general, and the Heritage Foundation is a well-known Conservative organization.]
“Based on the language of Article II, Section 1, Clause 4 and the guidance provided by Wong Kim Ark, we conclude that persons born within the borders of the United States are “natural born Citizens” for Article II, Section 1 purposes, regardless of the citizenship of their parents. Just as a person “born within the British dominions [was] a natural born-born subject” at the time of the framing of the U.S. Constitution, so too were those “born in the allegiance of the United States natural-born citizens.”— Ankeny v. Governor of the State of Indiana, 916 NE2d 678, 688 (2009), (Ind.Supreme Court, Apr. 5, 2010)
Ronald Rotunda, Professor of Law at Chapman University, stated, “There’s some people who say that both parents need to be citizens. That’s never been the law.”
Polly Price, Professor of Law at Emory University, added, “It’s a little confusing, but most scholars think it’s a pretty unusual position for anyone to think the natural born citizen clause would exclude someone born in the [United States].”
“It is well settled that “native-born” citizens, those born in the United States, qualify as natural born.” It is also clear that persons born abroad of alien parents, who later become citizens by naturalization,” do not.” Jill A Pryor, Yale Law Review 1988
LikeLike
Ed[Jim] said: KBO, Even though it is not true that President Obama is ineligible, I still put the question to you:Why are you so eager for it to be so?
Inquiring minds and all…”
Because if this country does not abide by the Constitution, it will cease to remain. Once we let Obama slide, it then becomes precedent that to be President, you only need to be born here and that is 100% FALSE. If this is allowed to pass, then it is only a matter of time before an anchor baby becomes President and that would be 100% opposite the founder’s intent!
My ancestor Edward Darcy/Dorsey settled this country in 1649 and all his children and grandchildren fought in the Revolutionary and the War of 1812 and saved this country and I’ll be damned if I am going to let a Brit come and take it over, like they tried to do in 1812! This year is the 200 Anniversary of the start of the War of 1812 and it looks as if we are going to be throwing the British out again!
LikeLike
And by operation of U.S. law which does not recognize dual citizenship, Obama could not have demonstrated allegiance to any nation other than that of his birth, the U.S. By operation of British law, as I noted earlier, by his being born in the U.S., even British law assumes allegiance to the U.S.
By operation of all relevant laws of all relevant nations, Obama is assumed to hold allegiance only to the U.S.
So, were allegiance the guiding factor (and it’s not, since Obama was born in the U.S.), Obama would be eligible.
LikeLike
And, for the record and forever, establishing that being born on U.S. soil is enough to qualify as “natural born.” In the alternate reading, it establishes that ONE parent is enough for natural born state, if the child is born outside the U.S.
Precedent favors Obama.
Still. Again.
LikeLike
Ellen said: “It is an established maxim, that birth is a criterion of allegiance. Birth, however, derives its force sometimes from place, and sometimes from parentage; but, in general, place is the most certain criterion; it is what applies in the United States.”
You obots need to stop taking things out of context!
If you keep reading on that page Madison says this:
“The sovereign cannot make a citizen by any act of his own; he can confer denizenship, but this does not make a man either a citizen or subject. In order to make a citizen or subject, it is established, that allegiance shall first be due to the whole nation;”
It’s the ALLEGIANCE, Stupid!
LikeLike
Not only not so, but impossible. The Declaration of Independence declared 13 new nations, not a United States of America. Under your reading of later laws, no one from those 13 nations could ever have become president of the U.S. until 35 years after 1789.
In any case, it’s simply wrong to claim the Declaration had any intention of naturalizing people from Britain to the U.S. The U.S. did not exist, and was not even a gleam in George Washington’s eye, yet.
LikeLike
Ellen said: “Oh, and by the way, James Madison actually wrote that there are two criteria of allegiance, birthplace and parents, but that only ONE of them applies in the USA—the PLACE of birth.”
Can you post that quote with sources please, thanks!
LikeLike
Ellen said: “And Wilson’s and Hoover’s mothers were foreign citizens. Birthers say that they had been naturalized before the births. Actually, they were only made US citizens due to laws that made women who married US men automatically US citizens. That is hardly the same thing as being naturalized, in which you have to give up your citizenship in the foreign country and swear an oath.”
WHO CARES, they were citizens by law, making the child born to two citizens, therefore making him a natural born citizen. AGAIN, if you don’t like the laws, work on changing them, but for now and back then, it was THE LAW!
LikeLike
ooops, forgot the William Arthur naturalization paper link:
LikeLike
Birthers claim that Chester A. Arthur hid the fact that his father was not a US citizen. Unfortunately, THERE IS NO EVIDENCE OF IT.
Here’s your evidence…
Chester Arthur was born October 5, 1829, in Fairfield Vermont!
Chester Arthur’s father was naturalized on August 31, 1843 therefore making it impossible for Chester to be born to two American Citizens!
NICE DOIN BUSINESS WITH YA!
RESOLVED!
LikeLike
KBO,
Even though it is not true that President Obama is ineligible, I still put the question to you:
Why are you so eager for it to be so?
Inquiring minds and all…
LikeLike
Ellen said: “But you are arguing that the writers of the US Constitution felt that children born in the USA to foreign parents ran more of a risk of being disloyal than children born in the USA to US citizen parents.”
WRONG, I am saying that the founders did not recognize dual citizenship and I have proven that! It’s there’s no half loya or more loyal, there is full allegiance and you need that to be an American Citizen!
END OF STORY!
LikeLike
Ellen said: “Yes, there was a reason for the grandfather clause, but it applied to the place of birth.”
Show me something to prove this WITH SOURCES!
LikeLike
Ellen says: “That would mean that the US presidents with foreign parents would tend to be less loyal than those with two US citizen parents. And that logic would apply regardless of whether the president fell under the grandfather clause or not. To hold that the grandfather clause makes someone more loyal if born before the Constitution than someone born after the Constitution is absurd.”
WRONG, the Declaration of Independence made all colonists naturalized citizens and they renounced all allegiance, making them citizens with full allegiance.
If it’s absurd to you, then that is your opinion, but it’s the law. If you’d like to change it, you’ll have to amend the Constitution!
LikeLike
ED sais: “Yeah, Dr. Conspiracy has some good stuff.”
hahahahahahaha
Don’t make me laugh! Doc is one the worst liars on the web!
LikeLike
Re: “You receive your allegiance from your parents.”
That would mean that the US presidents with foreign parents would tend to be less loyal than those with two US citizen parents. And that logic would apply regardless of whether the president fell under the grandfather clause or not. To hold that the grandfather clause makes someone more loyal if born before the Constitution than someone born after the Constitution is absurd.
Yes, there was a reason for the grandfather clause, but it applied to the place of birth. The grandfather clause allowed people who were born before the Constitution to become president even if they were born outside the country–as Alexander Hamilton was.
But you are arguing that the writers of the US Constitution felt that children born in the USA to foreign parents ran more of a risk of being disloyal than children born in the USA to US citizen parents. IF this were indeed true, you might ask why the writers of the US Constitution and other American leaders at the time did not say it?
In any case, there have been seven US presidents who had foreign parents including Obama.
Jefferson
Andrew Jackson
James Buchanan
Chester A. Arthur
Woodrow Wilson
Herbert Hoover
Obama.
Of these two fell under the grandfather clause. But as I said, regardless of when they were born, they were loyal–highly loyal–despite their foreign parents. Thus there is from them no evidence that the citizenship of the parents affects loyalty, and there is no evidence that the writers of the US Constitution thought that was true either.
Birthers claim that Jamese Buchanan’s father was naturalized before his birth. Unfortunately, THERE IS NO EVIDENCE OF IT.
Birthers claim that Chester A. Arthur hid the fact that his father was not a US citizen. Unfortunately, THERE IS NO EVIDENCE OF IT.
And Wilson’s and Hoover’s mothers were foreign citizens. Birthers say that they had been naturalized before the births. Actually, they were only made US citizens due to laws that made women who married US men automatically US citizens. That is hardly the same thing as being naturalized, in which you have to give up your citizenship in the foreign country and swear an oath.
Oh, and by the way, James Madison actually wrote that there are two criteria of allegiance, birthplace and parents, but that only ONE of them applies in the USA—the PLACE of birth.
In a speech before the House of Representatives in May of 1789, James Madison said:
“It is an established maxim, that birth is a criterion of allegiance. Birth, however, derives its force sometimes from place, and sometimes from parentage; but, in general, place is the most certain criterion; it is what applies in the United States.”
LikeLike
Yeah, Dr. Conspiracy has some good stuff. I liked this account of the challenge to Obama’s eligibility in Illinois:
http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2012/02/illinois-ballot-challenge-preview-of-georgia/
Our resident Kenyan won’t.
I also like, find amusing, and impressed by, the fact that Dr. Conspiracy is clearly the guy we should go to for expert testimony on birth certificates and recording processes:
http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/visitor-guide/about-dr-conspiracy/
LikeLike
Ed — of COURSE I kept the dates of the newspapers — I had excellent teachers. Links too, but they are behind the library’s firewall. The Arthur ones are from 1881-1882, the McClellan is from November 09, 1903. My friend Dr. Conspiracy put the article up for me: http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/McClellan.pdf
BTW — You and Doc would get along great…
http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/
LikeLike
Cool. Did you keep track of the dates of the newspapers?
Great stuff. Thanks.
LikeLike
I actually did some research on President Chester Arthur’s birther issue by going through old newspapers at the library (online these days so much pleasanter than in the old days). Arther’s issue wasn’t his father’s status. It was Arthur’s own birth place. Up yonder in Vermont, Canada is pretty durn close. Rumors were that Arthur was born in Canada. His family lived in both places at various time. Arthur seems to have ignored his birthers, much like President Obama ignores his.
“Just think of it, that 450,000 watches were made in this country last year, and still Chester A. Arthur hasn’t found time to tell where he was born.” [Boston Daily Globe]
“Having been present at the important event, like the other fellow of whom we have all heard, Mr. Chester A. Arthur ought to know whether he was born in America or Canada. And yet there Is a chance that he does not know; or, knowing, refuses to tell.—[Cincinnati Enquirer.]
“Fraud and forgery were the weapons used by the administration “heelers” in securing the nomination of Judge Folger. We are now getting a glimpse at the methods by which Chester A. Arthur carried New York against Hancock. The spectacle of a national government with Mr. Arthur at the head—a man who came primarily Into office by fraud and who was advanced to his present position by a heinous crime—is not edifying in this age of enlightenment.” [Boston Daily Globe]
“A Journal correspondent in Vermont has followed up the wanderings of the father of Chester A. Arthur in Canada and Vermont, and says there is no doubt that the Vice-President-elect is a native of the United States, the alleged evidence to the contrary notwithstanding…. It is stated that a brother bearing the same initials was born at Fairfield, Vt., and afterward died. Under this theory Chester A. Arthur must become his own brother and have a resurrection if he is to be vice-president of the United States. If Mr. Arthur is the son of a well-known I man, a bona fide native of the United States, and so much of a “favorite son” as to be able to get the nomination for the second office in the Union, it would seem that there could be no difficulty In
verifying the fact of his birth in an obscure Vermont town, provided that really was the place.” [Boston Daily Globe]
Note that there’s absolutely nothing about his father’s citizenship. It’s not because it was deliberately hidden — it’s because no one thought it was a disqualifier. Because in 1903, according to an article about another eligibility issue similar to McCain’s:
“Years ago In the public schools it was quite generally taught that a President of the United States must be a native born citizen of this country.”
LikeLike
KBO says that the reams and reams of evidence cited by Ed (and by a great many journalists and even Republican lawmakers who say the birthers are loopy) is not sufficient.
So what does she offer for a rebuttal? Soaring rhetoric? Solid, hard evidence? Common sense? No. Even better.
She says, You failed dude, just face it!
Translation: “LA LA LA, I CAN’T HEAR YOU. LA LA LA”
KBO, I have a question for you.
It is not true that President Obama is not legitimate. But, why do you so desperately wish that it was?
I think I know the answer. But I would prefer to hear it from you. It would be the only honest thing you have offered in this entire exchange. Unburden yourselve…
Jim
LikeLike
You’re talking made up stories in different eras. I’m talking history and law. The history is that every time a person with one foreign-citizen parent has run for the presidency or vice presidency, they were determined eligible as natural born citizens, and allowed to serve. In both cases, the nation gained advantages as result.
LikeLike
Birthers get crazier, and crazier:
http://www.rightwingwatch.org/content/biblical-birthers-titus-claims-bible-says-obama-ineligible-presidency
LikeLike
I fail dudes without data every day.
Got a case? Cite it. Got a law? Cite it.
Obama’s a natural born citizen, eligible for his second term, absent your showing of extraordinary evidence to overcome the powerful legal precedents that say he’s good to go.
LikeLike
You failed dude, just face it!
LikeLike
Nuts then, nuts now. They lost the argument, the courts wouldn’t go along, legal precedent, common law and the legislatures did not agree with your view — sure, there were people who said Arthur was not eligible.
They lost.
That’s the precedent.
Were you a constitutionalist, you’d hew to the Constitution instead of demanding we ignore the full faith and credit clause. Were you a constitutionalist, you’d stick with the current and traditional understanding of citizenship, instead of plucking bizarre and faulty mined quotes to oppose the Constitution’s view of citizenship and eligibility for the presidency.
Do you feel ignored? It’s because you’re not a constituitonalist, your arguments are repugnant to common law, international law, U.S. and British statute — and just repugnant on all other grounds. Being ignored is about the best you can get. Be careful what you hope for — if the rest of the country figures out what you mean to do and stops ignoring you, Obama wins, the Senate goes 65 Democrats, the House goes Republican, and you’ll be asking Obama’s Justice Department to protect your rights.
He would, you know. He’s a good egg.
Got a case? Cite it. Got a law? Cite it.
Got insanity? Keep it to yourself.
LikeLike
@ ED I’m talking about stories at the time that it happened, not stuff writtin up now!
Back then, there were people just like the Constitutionalists (Us) that knew he was not eligible, but it was ignored, just as it is now, by the mainstream media!
LikeLike
I have no doubt that birthers post a lot saying President Arthur was ineligible to be president. But then, I can get all sorts of UFO fanatics saying they’ve been abducted several times, too.
What I said was that the legal precedent is that Arthur served. About 50 years later, that precedent was confirmed when Vice President Curtis served.
In each of those cases, one parent was not a citizen of the U.S. at the birth of the man elected and given the oath as eligible to be president of the U.S.
With a bit of searching, you can probably find someone on the internet who claims Abe Lincoln never died, was not assassinated, and probably still hunts vampires. That doesn’t make it true, legal, or not insane.
Where is the law or the ruling that says full natural born citizen rights do not attach to someone born on U.S. soil? Nowhere. Where is the law or ruling that says full natural born citizen rights do not attach to someone born to one U.S. citizen parent? Nowhere.
Got a case? Cite it. Got a law? Cite it.
Got insanity? Keep it to yourself.
LikeLike
Jim says:
January 31, 2012 at 6:04 pm
Whatever4, welcome to MFB! If you haven’t been here before, you will find it a treat. Ed’s blog is really wonderful. About 90% of the fun is, of course, in the substantive articles he posts.
———————————–
Hi, Jim and Ed! I’ve been getting the RSS feed for over a year, I think. I love the education stuff, the wildlife stuff (there was one Yellowstone video on the frazil ice that we watched over and over). I think I found the site trying to debunk (of course) MF’s bathtub! This might be my first time posting though.
LikeLike
Keep on dreamin. You all will see soon enough.
Maybe you should start looking for your rocks now, cause there is gonna be a shortage of them once the truth comes out and there are gonna be loads of people looking for rocks to hide under!
I can’t wait!
LikeLike
LOL KBO I don’t know what third world country you are from but we have a thing called equal rights in this country so it doesn’t matter if its the father or mother. Even if a certificate of birth abroad was not applied for it can be done as long as the child sets foot in the U S before his or her 18th birthday with all the rights of a citizen born here.
LikeLike
@ Scrooge, no…not if you were a citizen at the time. A child follows the fathers nationality, so your daughter is OK!
LikeLike
@ED, yeah right, like I am going to read an Obot’s blog, when I have already proved that all they do is lie and take things out of context and post bogus quotes!
NOT!
LikeLike
ED said: “You’re taking Jesus down? You’re weirder than I thought possible.”
I said YOUR messiah, not mine!
It’s obvios you see that you have been proven wrong so now it’s time to start to detract and change the subject because you can’t dispute the facts!
You obots are so predictable!
LikeLike
You misread what I said, or you’re lying for the fun of it. Never trust a recreational liar, I always say (though, generally, a professional liar can be trustworthy — you don’t lie well enough to be a professional).
I said that U.S. law does not concede to British law on citizenship issues. I said that Britain’s law does not trump U.S. law in U.S. courts.
But then I found the British Home Office explanation, which says that under British law, British law on citizenship does not trump U.S. law in U.S. courts.
In other words, to the extent that British law ever could matter in this case, British law says
you’re a wackaloonyou are wrong. British law says Obama never had dual or competing allegiance. So the legal basis you claim, which was wrong, does not apply here, under British law. Strike 6.LikeLike
Oh man reading all of this makes me wonder what I should tell my 35 year old daughter. She was born in a civilian S Korean hospital. The military base was too far away. On top of that my wife of 37 years is still a S Korean citizen. Are some here saying that my daughters certificate of U S citizen born abroad and U S passport are no good. This is like when she was 18 and some white supremacy group was preaching races shouldn’t mix so she asked them what she was supposed to do because she’s already here. Are birthers a result of a broken education system or do we just chalk it up as we will always have some people that are just plain stupid.
LikeLike
No, I’m not aware. What makes you say that, in conflict with all other reports? See here, for exampe: http://ohforgoodnesssake.com/?p=21127
LikeLike
You’re taking Jesus down? You’re weirder than I thought possible.
LikeLike
Whatever4, welcome to MFB! If you haven’t been here before, you will find it a treat. Ed’s blog is really wonderful. About 90% of the fun is, of course, in the substantive articles he posts. The remaining delights are in finding the odd “cyber-chew-toy” like your friend, KBO. I just make popcorn and watch the shredding. At times, I despair that there are so many dumbs in the world. But the presence of folks like you and Ed and Ellie and so many others gives me hope.
You say, KBOA is one of the most prolific and delusional birthers on the Internet. There’s no logical argument or legal citation that will budge her from her script.
We know why, don’t we? I mean that there certainly are reasons for this kind of myopia. Has she ever allowed anyone a peek at the real reason for her pitchforks and torches?
Just curious. I have a bet with a shrink about these folks. ;-)
Cheers!
Jim
LikeLike
You’re right, I don’t understand your claims. If all we needed to do was look at the citizenship of the parents, why do you bother to make up, or to repeat, the false story about Mrs. Obama going to Kenya? Why do you repeat unnecessary-to-your-delusion falsehoods?
It has never been the rule that a person must have two parents as citizens to be considered a natural born citizen — nor, in a just and fair world, could it be so.
Consider what would happen were a child born and the mother claimed she did not know who the father was. The child would be, at law, a bastard.
NOT a natural born citizen? Absurd.
In what sort of a world would a bastard have more rights than a legitimate child in the same circumstances? Again, absurd.
One of your critics here claims you can’t be swayed by reason or fact. Sure looks that way to me.
LikeLike
Heeeey, what’s up fogblower?
Whatever 4 said: “KBOA is one of the most prolific and delusional birthers on the Internet. There’s no logical argument or legal citation that will budge her from her script. She refuses to accept the overwhelming body of evidence that she is very very wrong.”
Can you point me to that overwhelming body of evidence that proves me wrong?
You know, I have a video of you, walking into your building and greeting yur little doggy at the door. It was right after you got back from a fogblow get together!
LikeLike
KBOA is one of the most prolific and delusional birthers on the Internet. There’s no logical argument or legal citation that will budge her from her script. She refuses to accept the overwhelming body of evidence that she is very very wrong. People have countered every one of her quotes over and over, to no avail. She just pops up somewhere else.
KBOA — according to Obama Sr’s immigration file (via the FOIA), he never left the US between the time he landed in Hawaii and the time he left Cambridge. In 1961, Kenya required recent Yellow Fever and Smallpox vaccinations that couldn’t be given to pregnant women. The journey would have taken at least a week each way, the last part on a bumpy jeep ride for more than 400 miles. The minimum cost would be a year’s salary for the average Hawaiian citizen. Why on earth would a pregnant teenager take such a trip by herself to see a hostile father-in-law and a first wife? Obama was born in Hawaii, the farthest US state from a foreign country. Your logic is baffling.
LikeLike
Ellie said: “LOL “….it’s ALL OVER the web!” Well, then, it must be true. Of course, that means that this http://www.timecube.com/ is also true. Scary.”
You obots love to take phrases out of context.
What I said was the RESEARCH is all over the web, for him to go look. He says there is NOTHING about Chester being ineligible and I said research it, it’s all over the web. One can do the research and validate the facts and see what a lie or not, that’s your job, but then the Obots don’t like facts because the facts show that they are 100% wrong!
That’s why when they can’t argue the facts, they stoop to name calling and they throw up another subject trying to detract others away from the facts just posted.
I was just at one of your fogbow related sites and there were like 10 quotes there, most from lyman trumbull and others related to the 14th amendment and EVERY SINGLE quote was out of context or was said by someone else or was not even on the page. I am working on a video about it that will expose you Obots for what you are, uneducated, fact twisting, out right LIARS!
It’s gonna be good!
LikeLike
Ed said: “Any way you try to distort the law, the facts are Obama is eligible.”
Then prove it ED, show me a law! You have yet to show me ANY law that says being born here to 1 citizen parent, makes you a natural born citizen!
I have listed MANY that show he is not! Who are people going to believe the evidence I show with sources or you just SAYING SO!
FAIL!
LikeLike
ED said: “But of course, Mrs. Obama was a citizen of the U.S., and that also would have qualified Barack Obama, Jr., to be considered a natural born citizen of the U.S., under all precedents, and under the resolution adopted by the U.S. Senate concerning the citizenship and presidential eligibility of Sen. John McCain.”
Sorry ED, but there is no precedent saying Obama is a natural born citizen. There IS precedent saying he is NOT a NBC.
AND for the record, the McCain resolution says that he is a NBC because he was born to TWO citizen parents!
“Whereas John Sidney McCain, III, was born to American citizens on an American military base in the Panama Canal Zone in 1936: Now, therefore, be it
Resolved, That John Sidney McCain, III, is a `natural born Citizen’ under Article II, Section 1, of the Constitution of the United States.”
Check it for yourself: http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=sr110-511
You’re not doing very well here…lolol
LikeLike
ED said: “Barack Obama, Jr., was born in Honolulu, and that fact alone makes him a natural born citizen under law at the time,”
SHOW ME THE LAW, you have yet to show me a law that proves this. Until then, it’s just babble!
LikeLike
Ed said: “Here’s news, for you (history for the rest of us): Mrs. Obama didn’t leave Hawaii during her pregnancy.”
She actually was not In Hawaii at the start of her pregnancy. She was in Chicago working as a nanny as quoted from Obama’s book. She got pregnant there by either Malcolm X, Frank Marshall Davis or Elijah Muhammad. She was in Chicago at least until Mid December and must have realized she was pregnant and went back home and then the parents moved everyone to Hawaii, afraid of the backlash that might come about with a young girl having a half black child.
LikeLike
ED said: “You’ve provided not a whiff of a scintilla of an iota of evidence that Barack Obama, Jr., was not born in Honolulu as all the official records indicate.”
You just don’t seem to get it ED, it has nothing at all do do with where he was born and the birth certificate is irrelevant. None of that proves he was a natural born citizen. All you need to know to see if someone is a NBC is to see if both parents were US citizens, which would confer full allegiance to the child making them a NBC.
Obama’s father was not a citizen, so he could not confer US allegiance, all he could confer was British allegiance.
It’s common sense!
LikeLike
Ed said: “The birth announcement appeared in both Honolulu dailies, and it can be found in many public libraries today — generally on microfiche or microfilm, but there, just the same. The first internet publication of the image came from a guy who was working to disprove Obama’s eligibility — but he was honest, and reported what he found.”
Many people have looked and gone to the libraries and there is no record of this anywhere, so you are wrong!
And please show me who the first guy was that was honest and reported it, thanks!
LikeLike
ED said: “Health departments reported births officially recorded from local hospitals. Had the birth of Barack Obama, Jr., not occurred in Honolulu, it would not have been reported in the legal section of the classified ads (this is a legal document, by the way, an official publication; it is not easy to monkey with it). Your claim shows you do not understand how vital records are kept and reported, and you have little understanding of the “official notices” rules of governments and newspapering.”
You are 100% wrong. At the time of Obama’s birth, in Hawaii a lot of babies were not born in hospitals and the people notified the health dept because there wasn’t a hospital involved. Even children born outside the country AT THAT TIME could get Hawaiian birth certificates.
Explain why none of the hospitals Obama said he was born at, will affirm that Obama was born there. Yet, a hospital in Kenya has an attraction that says he was born there!
LikeLike
ED said: “Your claim is Mrs. Obama went to Africa. There is no evidence to support that claim — no way to make the journey in a reasonable period of time, no visas issued, no contemporary reports of the journey by anyone who should have known about it.”
I never said this was fact, I am just explaining to you how it could have easily happened, You said it was impossible that people PLANNED and knew 50 years ago that they wanted him to be president. I’m just showing you that it didn’t have to be a master plan and give a simple explanation!
LikeLike
ED Said: “In the court reporters, we find that people born on U.S. soil are considered U.S. citizens for all purposes. Parents being of foreign extraction is not an issue, ever.”
Then with all your research on law, you should have no problem pointing out the law that proves this!
LikeLike
Ok ED, you obviously can’t comprehend, when it’s more than 1 paragraph. Let’s do it this way.
Who authored the 14th amendment?
I say it was:
House Rep. Honorable John Bingham, but Sen. Jacob Howard added in the Citizenship Clause as an amendment to the bill.
Do we agree on this?
LikeLike
Actually, you are right (Can ya believe that?)
I SHOULD be calling him Barry Soetoro because that IS his name. There is no proof that he ever changed it back to Barack Obama, so his name really is Barry Soetoro.
Even Insdie Edition did two stories proving he was Barry Soetoro, VERY INTERESTING:
http://www.insideedition.com/videos/130/barack-obama-early-years-in-indonesia.aspx
http://www.insideedition.com/videos/132/barack-obama-school-life-in-indonesia.aspx
LikeLike
LOL “….it’s ALL OVER the web!” Well, then, it must be true. Of course, that means that this http://www.timecube.com/ is also true. Scary.
LikeLike
Making up stuff.
Your claim is that a pregnant woman was allowed to fly to Africa, but then denied the return trip. That’s absurd on its face.
Your claim is Mrs. Obama went to Africa. There is no evidence to support that claim — no way to make the journey in a reasonable period of time, no visas issued, no contemporary reports of the journey by anyone who should have known about it.
You imagine a trip that did not occur. That’s not evidence. It’s fantasy. Under the circumstances, it’s malicious fantasy.
You claim is absolutely untrue, completely unevidenced. Plus, it’s probably impossible.
Health departments reported births officially recorded from local hospitals. Had the birth of Barack Obama, Jr., not occurred in Honolulu, it would not have been reported in the legal section of the classified ads (this is a legal document, by the way, an official publication; it is not easy to monkey with it). Your claim shows you do not understand how vital records are kept and reported, and you have little understanding of the “official notices” rules of governments and newspapering.
A birth out of state can be recorded in most states, but only upon presentation of the documents that provide the evidence of the birth, the legal documents. A phone call does not work.
If you’re going to tell fantastic lies about the whole birth story, you may as well lie about the small stuff, eh? The birth announcement appeared in both Honolulu dailies, and it can be found in many public libraries today — generally on microfiche or microfilm, but there, just the same. The first internet publication of the image came from a guy who was working to disprove Obama’s eligibility — but he was honest, and reported what he found.
Your claim that the newspapers disappeared is a whole cloth lie. Whoever told you that should not be trusted.
You’ve provided not a whiff of a scintilla of an iota of evidence that Barack Obama, Jr., was not born in Honolulu as all the official records indicate. You’ve failed to account for eyewitness reports of Mrs. Obama in the hospital in Honolulu. You’ve mentioned a completely fictional, pragmatically impossible story of a trip to Kenya, with an implausible and unrealistic claim that the trip delayed Mrs. Obama’s return to Hawaii.
Here’s news, for you (history for the rest of us): Mrs. Obama didn’t leave Hawaii during her pregnancy. Barack Obama, Jr., was born in Honolulu, and that fact alone makes him a natural born citizen under law at the time, under present law, under laws that existed at the founding of our nation, under the 14th Amendment, under the ruling in Minor v. Happersett, under the obiter dicta of the case, and under all precedents we can find in U.S. history and law.
But of course, Mrs. Obama was a citizen of the U.S., and that also would have qualified Barack Obama, Jr., to be considered a natural born citizen of the U.S., under all precedents, and under the resolution adopted by the U.S. Senate concerning the citizenship and presidential eligibility of Sen. John McCain.
Any way you try to distort the law, the facts are Obama is eligible. Your distortions of history only mean we should question your grip on reality, not that your claims have any bearing to actual events, or actual persons, living or dead.
LikeLike
If your case were to be made, it would need to be all over the law books, all over the court reporters. It’s not there.
In the court reporters, we find that people born on U.S. soil are considered U.S. citizens for all purposes. Parents being of foreign extraction is not an issue, ever.
What more research needs to be done on Arthur? His father was not a U.S. citizen, the issue was raised in the campaign, and the issue died. Arthur served as president. Where is that precedent determined to be no longer active, by court or law?
I’ve done the research. I’ve spent the time in law school to understand the issues, and I’ve spent the time in the law books and reporters, and history books. You don’t have a leg to stand on.
Here in America, we believe in rule of law, not rule of bigots, not rule of whims and fantasies. You should join us sometime.
LikeLike
KBO,
I, for one, am just tickled pink that you aren’t referring to the President as Barry Sotero. There may be hope for you tinfoil hatters after all.
And there you have it!
Jim
LikeLike
@James Kessler
“KBO, I’ve offered two precedents of people ruled eligible for the presidency who exactly meet the circumstances of Obama — born of one U.S. citizen parent, and one foreign citizen parent. President Chester Arther served; Vice President Charles Curtis served.”
Your precedents have already bee proven NOT TO BE Natural Born Citizens and YES, people at the time knew he was not eligible. You obviously didnt do the research on CHester Arthur because it’s ALL OVER the web!
So your claim is “Others were illegal and got away with it, so Obama should be able to get away with it”
You are pathetic and very unamerican and there is nothing you can do to change the fact that Obama is ineligible! TOO BAD!
LikeLike
James Kessler said “Sorry, that’s nonsense. You don’t want him to be President because he is black. You and your fellow birthers are nothing but ignorant racists.”
Um Sure, that’s why I just put a video begging for Allen West to run for President!
LOLOL, I guess Obama isn’t BLACK ENOUGH!
YOU FAIL!
LikeLike
James Kessler said: “This is your premise: That somehow near 50 years ago a woman from Kansas living in Hawaii magically knew that her as of yet to be born child would one run for President so she and the state government of Hawaii engaged in a conspiracy to hide the fact that the boy was born in Kenya despite the fact that there is no such Kenyan birth certificate. She faked a birth announcement in the Hawaiian newspaper and state government offices.”
She went to Kenya to meet the family and was not able to get back because she wasn’t allowed on the plane being that pregnant. She had Obama and then alerted her mother. The mother called the health department and put in that a child was born and the healt department notified the papers. I will also add that the original of that paper was never found. The person that first found it, can not show the origina; where it came from, THAT IS A PROBLEM!
I have proven Obama is not a natural born citizen but you just refuse to look at the facts, that is your problem and keeps you in the dark on the facts!
LikeLike
“He was still born to a US citizen and was born in a US state. Ergo he’s a natural born US citizen.”
So show me the law with sources that proves this statement!
LikeLike
Ed writes:
KBO, I’ve offered two precedents of people ruled eligible for the presidency who exactly meet the circumstances of Obama — born of one U.S. citizen parent, and one foreign citizen parent. President Chester Arther served; Vice President Charles Curtis served.
Because they’re white, Ed, and that is the git’s real problem with Obama..that he isn’t.
LikeLike
To quote:
WRONG AGAIN! You are the one ignoring the law. You don’t MAKE A CLAIM for dual citizenship, you are naturally born with it. A child follows the father’s nationality.
He was still born to a US citizen and was born in a US state. Ergo he’s a natural born US citizen.
This is your premise: That somehow near 50 years ago a woman from Kansas living in Hawaii magically knew that her as of yet to be born child would one run for President so she and the state government of Hawaii engaged in a conspiracy to hide the fact that the boy was born in Kenya despite the fact that there is no such Kenyan birth certificate. She faked a birth announcement in the Hawaiian newspaper and state government offices. And then one day said boy runs for President and the Republican governor of Hawaii, the DNC, the RNC, the John McCain campaign, the Hillary Clinton Campaign and the George W Bush adminstration including the FBI, CIA, and Secret Service and the Obama campaign all engaged in a conspiracy to cover up the facts that Obama can’t legally be President.
Sorry, that’s nonsense. You don’t want him to be President because he is black. You and your fellow birthers are nothing but ignorant racists.
LikeLike
@ED. You have no clue and have a lot of research to do. Others will see my facts and know that I am right. I have a case filed right now against Obama and if there was nothing there, the judge would not have accepted it. I get to go to DC tomorrow to serve his papers!
YEE HA! Your messiah is going down!
You were aware that Obama is being removed from the ballot in GA, aren’t you? I guess that’s because he’s eligible. HAHAHAHAHA
LikeLike
ED SAID: “Read it and learn, and prosper, from the British Home Office:”
LOLOL, I thought Birtish law didn’t matter…
Give it up, you been proven wrong!
LikeLike
ED SAID: “P.S. Take a look at the British Master Nationality Rule. Under that rule, Britain owed no allegiance and no obligation to Obama at any time, because of his U.S. citizenship and U.S. residency.”
You seem to forget, OBAMA WAS NOT A CITIZEN. He was born a British Subject, so he can not be a citizen until he takes the naturalization oath!
You lose again!
LikeLike
AND who is the one with the FACTS that can be proven? ME!
You have nothing to back up your claims and I DO!
YOU FAIL!
LikeLike
P.S. Take a look at the British Master Nationality Rule. Under that rule, Britain owed no allegiance and no obligation to Obama at any time, because of his U.S. citizenship and U.S. residency.
These principles are reflexive. If Britain owed no duty to Obama, Obama had no allegiance and no duty to Britain, either. It’s a function of law — the only way Obama could have held allegiance to Britain would have been for him to make such a declaration and renounce his U.S. citizenship. Didn’t happen.
Read it and learn, and prosper, from the British Home Office:
You could look it up, but I’ve saved you the trouble.
LikeLike
And then you cite Britain’s dual-citizenship clause.
Balderdash.
You base your claim against Obama’s eligibility on your assertion that Obama “owed allegiance” to Britain.
When did Obama owe allegiance to any other nation, under U.S. law? Never.
Under U.S. law, we don’t allow other nations to dictate our citizenship rules. If Britain passes a law that says Newt Gingrich is hereinafter and forever a citizen of Britain, which would make him ineligible to be president of the U.S., you’d agree? Your argument rests on an assumption that the U.S. surrenders sovereignty to any other nation under that other nation’s laws that grant favorable citizenship rights to U.S. citizens.
I disagree with you that British law would or should control in any U.S. citizenship case. Nor is there any precedent for any U.S. court, nor any state court, conceding jurisdiction of U.S. law over U.S. citizens on U.S. soil, to a foreign authority.
Your argument is a classic conflicts of laws issue, and the precedents all run against your case, under all permutations of the tests courts use to resolve such conflicts.
British law does not apply to U.S. citizens in U.S. courts on U.S. issues. Your argument fails.
LikeLike
KBO, I’ve offered two precedents of people ruled eligible for the presidency who exactly meet the circumstances of Obama — born of one U.S. citizen parent, and one foreign citizen parent. President Chester Arther served; Vice President Charles Curtis served.
How can you distinguish those cases? Your claim, that Obama owed allegiance to another nation, rests wholly on your unevidenced, and uncited, claim that somehow Obama was under the sway of the British government. You’ve offered nothing of legal substance to support the claim.
How do you distinguish Curtis and Arthur? Why do you insist the black guy isn’t qualified, when the Irishman and the Native American/Frenchman were?
Please explain why you propose to treat Obama differently, now, 140 years after this issue was decided in Obama’s favor with the inauguration of Chester Arthur as Vice President.
Also, be sure to see the analysis offered by Ted Olsen and Larry Tribe, referring to Sen. McCain’s eligibility; ironic that they base this argument on McCain’s eligibility on Obama’s clear eligibility.
So, according to Olsen and Tribe, being born on U.S. soil is enough. That he was born to a U.S. citizen would also have done it, had he been born out of the U.S. Obama’s in under two different rules.
Who to believe, a blog poster with an offensive handle, or the former Solicitor General of the U.S. (Bush administration) and one of the most distinguished Constitutional scholars of our age? This is not a difficult decision at all.
LikeLike
YOU GOT IT!
LikeLike
LOLOL So you haven’t even learned about the grandfather clause in article 2 section 1? Sorry dude, you are levels below me and have years of research to still do to catch up to me! There is nothing you can debunk that I put out.
You don’t even read the facts but instead detract from the facts and spew your little tirades. Try looking at my facts and dispute them, if you can do this, you could possibly move up, but I know ofr a facts that you can not dispute me facts!
You got a lot to learn newbie!
LikeLike
Apparently my dad’s parents couldn’t run for President despite being born in Minnesota because their parents were born in Germany.
What a load of crap you spout, birther.
LikeLike
Yeah in other words little birther you’re just spouting nonsense.
Because lets remember that the first group of Presidents weren’t born to citizens of the United States.
Secondly, Barack Obama has no dual citizenship anywhere.
Thirdly, his mother is a US citizen.
Your entire premise boils down to “We don’t want him as President because he’s black.”
LikeLike
ED SAID: “Again you ignore the law. Obama could have made a claim for dual citizenship under British law, but he didn’t. Under U.S. law, the law that governs this case, Obama never was subject to any foreign power as the law defines it. Had his father been a soldier on assignment, or a British diplomat on assignment, it might be a different matter. But his father was neither, so claims of split loyalties are legal nullities.
Again I wonder, why don’t you just stick with U.S. law? It’s clear on the issue, and the precedents are well set.”
WRONG AGAIN! You are the one ignoring the law. You don’t MAKE A CLAIM for dual citizenship, you are naturally born with it. A child follows the father’s nationality. The reason British Law comes into play here is because Obama’s father was a british subject and HE was subject to their laws. He was governed under the Bortitsh Nationality Act of 1948 which clearly says:
Part II
Citizenship of the United Kingdom and Colonies.
Citizenship by birth or descent.
“5.—(1) Subject to the provisions of this section, a person born after the commencement of this Act shall be a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies by descent if his father is a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies at the time of the birth;”
LOOK IT UP!
Obama has admitted himself and it’s on factcheck that he was a born a dual citizen and they say his Kenyan Citizenship ran out when he was an adult. You can not BECOME a natural born citizen, you have to be BORN that way!
And show me the law with sources that prove Obama is a citizen or was not subject to Britian!
Yes, US LAW is clear in the issue and Obama must be a natural born citizen and he is not! He is NOT even a citizen, did you read anything I have put here, obviously not!
LikeLike
ED said: “Vice President, and then President Chester Arthur’s father was of Irish citizenship when the president was born — exactly analogous to Obama’s father’s Kenyan citizenship. Arthur served as president, no questions about his citizenship eligibility. ”
You obviously have done no research on Chester Arthur. There was a big deal of him not being a natural born citizen, look at the papers from those times. Many people tried to stop him and that’s why he burned all his papers, READ UP ON IT!
Also, Chester Arthur appointed Justice Horace Gray who gave the opinion in Wong Kim Ark and Chester had something BIG to gain by Gray going against the Constitution by making WKA a citizen! It validated his presidency, but they forget that you ca not change the Constitution because you FEEL LIKE IT, you have to make a constitutional amendment and that has NOT BEEN DONE, so as it stands, Obama is ineleigble!
And I have proved it!
You’ve got a lot of reading to do, better get started!
LikeLike
Oh Ed, you are SO WRONG!
Where to start???
Ed said: “You’re drawing a distinction between naturalized citizen and born citizen. Nowhere is there any indication that a person born on U.S. soil would not be considered a natural born citizen, even if both parents were foreign born. Nowhere is there a suggestion that both parents must be citizens — an unenforceable clause, by the way, because it could confer on bastards rights denied to legitimate children of U.S. citizens.”
I am quite aware of the disticntion I am drawing. There is ONLY a naturalized and a natural born citizen.
Again, it has nothing at all to do with the “soil”, it has to do with you allegiance to the United States. The founders did not recognize dual allegiance which is confirmed by the Natualization Oath of Allegiance, which clearly states:
“I hereby declare, on oath, that I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state or sovereignty, of whom or which I have heretofore been a subject or citizen;”
That alongside the Civil RIghts Act of 1866, which says:
“Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That all persons born in the United States and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed, are hereby declared to be citizens of the United States;”
http://www.digitalhistory.uh.edu/reconstruction/section4/section4_civrightsact1.html
CLEARLY shows that all citizens (naturalized or born here) MUST NOT be subject to any foreign power! Obama’s father was subject to a foreign power (Great Britian) and Obama has admitted this himself. If Obama never to the Oath of Naturalization, the he has divided loyalties!
ED THEN SAID: “The history is recounted well enough in Minor v. Hapersett, as I noted above in the post:
The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens.”
So explain this ED!
The Civil Rights act passed the Senate but not until Jacob Howard added the first clause. The bill then went to the House where Representative John Bingham (author of the “future” 14th amendment), confirms the understanding and construction the framers used in regards to birthright and jurisdiction while speaking on civil rights of citizens in the House on March 9, 1866, in regards to Trumbull’s amendment to the bill:
“I find no fault with the introductory clause [S 61 Bill], which is simply declaratory of what is written in the Constitution, that every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of PARENTS NOT OWING ALLEGIANCE TO ANY FOREIGN SOVEREIGNTY is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a NATURAL BORN CITIZEN”
MIDDLE COLUMN 3RD PARAGRAPH:
http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llcg&fileName=071/llcg071.db&recNum=332
IS IN THE LANGUAGE OF YOUR CONSTITUTION A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN. These are the same man that authored the 14th amendment and added in the citizenship clause. Who is a higher authority, then the men themselves?
LikeLike
Ed ably defends the President’s legitimacy as follows…
Vice President, and then President Chester Arthur’s father was of Irish citizenship when the president was born — exactly analogous to Obama’s father’s Kenyan citizenship. Arthur served as president, no questions about his citizenship eligibility.
….and he continues…
Then there was Charles Curtis. His father was a U.S. citizen, but his mother was not. He was born in a territory, not in a state (the Constitution didn’t adequately anticipate such territorial expansion, either). By your count, he should have been ineligible twice.
But he was deemed a natural born citizen for purposes of presidential eligibility, and served as Vice President of the U.S. for four years
…and in summation, Ed concludes…
But we can’t make a case against Obama under the Constitution.
But Ed, you have forgotten several aggravating factors in the unique case against President Obama. Perhaps you are incapablen of reading betwee the lines. Don’t take offense. That is often the case with edumacated people who read books and are all “facty”.
Perhaps you will change your tune when you consider that…
1. The President’s middle name is Hussein.
2. The President’s last name rhymes with “Osama”.
3. The President is an avowed Muslim and, apparently, Rick Santorum agrees. Or, at the very least, he didn’t correct those at one of his campaign rallies who asserted as much.
4. There is a D next to the President’s name, indicating his political party affiliation. This makes him ineligible. Really, Ed. Have you not been paying attention to the prevailing collective wisdom of the Tea Party hoi polloi?
5. And finally, Ed, as my own sainted mother puts it…
“Obama is a black.”
Alright. The tongue is now removed from my cheek. I await the chorus of whines and whimpers — “You liberals always make it about race”.
Since the Tea Partiers have been shown ample documentation proving it cannot justly be about birth, Constitutionality or policy…I am unable to conclude that it is about anything BUT race and party affiliation.
Any thoughts, Ed? Or does staring into the abyss for too long make you ill? That, my friend, is a dyspepsia I certainly understand…
Jim
LikeLike
Again you ignore the law. Obama could have made a claim for dual citizenship under British law, but he didn’t. Under U.S. law, the law that governs this case, Obama never was subject to any foreign power as the law defines it. Had his father been a soldier on assignment, or a British diplomat on assignment, it might be a different matter. But his father was neither, so claims of split loyalties are legal nullities.
Again I wonder, why don’t you just stick with U.S. law? It’s clear on the issue, and the precedents are well set.
LikeLike
KBO said:
You’re drawing a distinction between naturalized citizen and born citizen. Nowhere is there any indication that a person born on U.S. soil would not be considered a natural born citizen, even if both parents were foreign born. Nowhere is there a suggestion that both parents must be citizens — an unenforceable clause, by the way, because it could confer on bastards rights denied to legitimate children of U.S. citizens.
The history is recounted well enough in Minor v. Hapersett, as I noted above in the post:
Vice President, and then President Chester Arthur’s father was of Irish citizenship when the president was born — exactly analogous to Obama’s father’s Kenyan citizenship. Arthur served as president, no questions about his citizenship eligibility.
Then there was Charles Curtis. His father was a U.S. citizen, but his mother was not. He was born in a territory, not in a state (the Constitution didn’t adequately anticipate such territorial expansion, either). By your count, he should have been ineligible twice.
But he was deemed a natural born citizen for purposes of presidential eligibility, and served as Vice President of the U.S. for four years (the chief criterion to fill that office being that one must be eligible to be President).
Yes, if we torture Minor v. Hapersett beyond all recognition, and ignore that it is a case about women’s right to vote; if we ignore all precedents in the office; if we ignore common law assumptions about citizenship; and if we ignore statutory U.S. law on citizenship and naturalization since 1789, we can make a patched-together, leaking, limping, ugly case against Obama’s eligibility.
But we can’t make a case against Obama under the Constitution.
I am perplexed and vexed no end at your and other birthers’ claim to wish to follow the Constitution, before you walk all over it with your muddy boots.
LikeLike
And a few more facts to support my claims:
1862 Representative John Bingham, author of the 14th Amendment (Cong. Globe, 37th Congress, 2nd Session, pg 1639):
“All from other lands, who by the terms of [congressional] laws and a compliance with their provisions become naturalized, are adopted citizens of the United States; all other persons born within the Republic, of parents owing allegiance to no other sovereignty, are natural born citizens. Gentleman can find no exception to this statement touching natural-born citizens except what is said in the Constitution relating to Indians.”
The Civil Rights Act of 1866 failed to pass in the Senate until Lyman Trumbull proposed an amendment to the bill adding the words “That all persons born in the United States and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed, are hereby declared to be citizens of the United States;”
http://www.digitalhistory.uh.edu/reconstruction/section4/section4_civrightsact1.html
The bill then went to the House where Representative John Bingham (author of the “future” 14th amendment), confirms the understanding and construction the framers used in regards to birthright and jurisdiction while speaking on civil rights of citizens in the House on March 9, 1866, in regards to Trumbull’s amendment to the bill:
“I find no fault with the introductory clause [S 61 Bill], which is simply declaratory of what is written in the Constitution, that every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of PARENTS NOT OWING ALLEGIANCE TO ANY FOREIGN SOVEREIGNTY is,
in the language of your Constitution itself, a NATURAL BORN CITIZEN”
MIDDLE COLUMN 3RD PARAGRAPH:
http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llcg&fileName=071/llcg071.db&recNum=332
The 14th amendment was introduced to render the Civil Rights act constitutional and amend it to the Constitution. It passed in the House, but failed in the Senate until Senator Jacob Howard’s amendment to the bill (the citizenship clause) was introduced. In 1866 while while introducing bill H.R. 127 (14th Amendment) Jacob M. Howard (Author of the Citizenship clause) states:
“This amendment which I have offered is simply declaratory of what I regard as the law of the land already, that every person born within the limits of the United States, AND SUBJECT TO THE JURISDICTION THEREOF, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States.”
http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llcg&fileName=073/llcg073.db&recNum=11
MEANING that they changed NOTHING with the 14th Amendment, only that they were declaring what was already the law. The LAW he was referring to, was the Civil Rights Act of 1866 which had just recently passed and again states:
“Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That all persons born in the United States and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed, are hereby declared to be citizens of the United States;”
http://www.digitalhistory.uh.edu/reconstruction/section4/section4_civrightsact1.html
Everyone seems to forget the phrase “subject to the jurisdiction thereof”, which is why the law/amendment went astray. If you look at the congressional records, while they were debating the Civil Rights Act of 1866 and the 14th Amendment, you will find the truth and see the 14th Amendment has been 100% perverted!
What exactly did “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” mean to the framers of the Fourteenth Amendment? Luckily we have Sen. Lyman Trumbull, Chairman of the Judiciary Committee, author of the Thirteenth Amendment, and the one who inserted the citizenship clause amendment to the bill, so I think he knew what HE meant::
“The provision is, that ‘all persons born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens.’ That means ‘subject to the complete jurisdiction thereof.’ What do we mean by ‘complete jurisdiction thereof?’ NOT OWING ALLEGIANCE TO ANYBODY ELSE. That is what it means.”
http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llcg&fileName=073/llcg073.db&recNum=14
So this proves that “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” means the same exact thing as “not subject to any foreign power”
Senator Howard concurs with Trumbull’s construction:
“I concur entirely with the honorable Senator from Illinois [Trumbull], in holding that the word “jurisdiction,” as here employed, ought to be construed so as to imply a full and complete jurisdiction on the part of the United States, whether exercised by Congress, by the executive, or by the judicial department; that is to say, the same jurisdiction in extent and quality as applies to every citizen of the United States now.”
http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llcg&fileName=073/llcg073.db&recNum=16
1814 Supreme Court Case, The Venus, Chief Justice Marshall cites Vattel in saying:
“The whole system of decisions applicable to this subject rests on the law of nations as its base. It is therefore of some importance to inquire how far the writerson that law consider the subjects of one power residing within the territory of another, as retaining their original character or partaking of the character of the nation in which they reside. Vattel, who, though not very full to this point, is more explicit and more satisfactory on it than any other whose work has fallen into my hands, says:”
“The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives or indigenes are those born in the country of parents who are citizens. Society not being able to subsist and to perpetuate itself but by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights.”
http://supreme.justia.com/us/12/253/case.html
Supreme Court Minor V. Happerset:
“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.”
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=88&invol=162
LikeLike
@Jim Also, as you can see from the first line of the Civil Rights Act of 1866 (Still in effect today) it says:
“Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That all persons born in the United States and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed, are hereby declared to be citizens of the United States;”
http://www.digitalhistory.uh.edu/reconstruction/section4/section4_civrightsact1.html
This shows that to be a citizen (natural born or naturalized), you need to be born to parents not holding allegiance to any foreign powers.
The first line of the Naturalization Oath of Allegiance supports and validates my claims by saying:
“I hereby declare, on oath, that I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state or sovereignty, of whom or which I have heretofore been a subject or citizen;”
This shows that foreign immigrants must renounce all allegiance to any foreign sovereignty before becoming a citizen. So do you think they only meant that immigrants were to have this full allegiance, but didn’t require the same full allegiance for people born here to immigrant parents?
It’s common sense, IMO.
LikeLike
@Jim First of all, please excuse my typos above (divided, you=your) I realize that grammar and spelling on the internet equate to education and I can spell, really! lol
Anyways,
No ones loyalty is “suspect”, it’s just that the founders did not recognize dual citizenship/dual allegiance.
You can start here by seeing how the article 2, section 1 clause changed from citizen to natural born citizen during it’s drafting:
NBC in the Constitutional drafts:
June 18th, 1787 – Alexander Hamilton suggests that the requirement be added, as: “No person shall be eligible to the office of President of the United States unless he be now a Citizen of one of the States, or hereafter be born a Citizen of the United States.”
Works of Alexander Hamilton (page 407).
http://books.google.com/books?id=Dm0FAAAAQAAJ&pg=PA407&lpg=PA407&dq=%22hereafter+be+born+a+Citizen+of+the+United+States%22+%2BHamilton&source=bl&ots=s6a4fGDolB&sig=K063NZIEWeaqsInb-bnTgoE6orQ&hl=en&ei=q610SsWEIY7mMdiJnLEM&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=2#v=onepage&q&f=false
July 25, 1787 (~5 weeks later) – John Jay writes a letter to General Washington (president of the Constitutional Convention): “Permit me to hint, whether it would 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 Commander in Chief of the American army shall not be given to nor devolve on, any but a natural born Citizen.” [the word born is underlined in Jay’s letter which signifies the importance of allegiance from birth.]
http://rs6.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/r?ammem/hlaw:@field%28DOCID+@lit%28fr00379%29%29:
September 2nd, 1787 George Washington pens a letter to John Jay. The last line reads: “I thank you for the hints contained in your letter”
http://www.consource.org/index.asp?bid=582&fid=600&documentid=71483
September 4th, 1787 (~6 weeks after Jay’s letter and just 2 days after Washington wrote back to Jay) – The “Natural Born Citizen” requirement is now found in their drafts.
Madison’s notes of the Convention.
http://www.nhccs.org/dfc-0904.txt
If there were no difference in citizen and natural born citizen, there would have been no need to change it.
LikeLike
KBO,
Thank you for the explanation. It makes perfect sense. So because my mother and uncle were born to Hungarian-born immigrants, their loyalty to America was suspect?
Please enlighten me.
Jim
LikeLike
@James Kessler
Sure, I can do that. You first need to know that is has NOTHING to do with WHERE you were born. We have been trying to tell the Obots this for years, but they insist on calling us Birthers, when we could care less where Obama was birthed!
It has to do with allegiance and you recieve your allegiance from you parents. If both parents are US citizens, as McCain’s and Romney’s parents were when they were born, then you are a natural born citizen.
If you have devided loyalties, because both your parents were NOT US citizens, then you follow the nationality of the father! This is why Obama was a British subject at birth and why he can never be a natural born citizen, Like Romney and McCain!
There ya go, does that help you understand?
LikeLike
I’d like a birther to explain to me exactly then how George Romney and John McCain could run for President please.
Since the former was born in Mexico and the latter was born in Panama.
LikeLike
[…] Birthers: Lacking the sense God gave chickens (timpanogos.wordpress.com) […]
LikeLike
It was a good response, of course, but I’m sure it won’t do a bit of good. Birthers by their very nature, feel that not only are they entitled to their own opinions, they are also entitled to their own facts.
LikeLike
Wake up and smell the facts:
Representative John Bingham 1862 (Cong. Globe, 37th, 2nd Sess., pg 1639 (1862)
“All from other lands, who by the terms of [congressional] laws and a compliance with their provisions become naturalized, are adopted citizens of the United States; all other persons born within the Republic, of parents owing allegiance to no other sovereignty, are natural born citizens. Gentleman can find no exception to this statement touching natural-born citizens except what is said in the Constitution relating to Indians.” http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llcg&fileName=059/llcg059.db&recNum=680
In 1866 while introducing the bill H.R. 127 (14th Amendment) Jacob M Howard (Author of the Citizenship clause) states:
“This amendment which I have offered is simply declaratory of what I regard as the law of the land already, that every person born within the limits of the United States, AND SUBJECT TO THE JURISDICTION THEREOF, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States.”
http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llcg&fileName=073/llcg073.db&recNum=11
MEANING that they changed NOTHING with the 14th Amendment, only that they were declaring what was already the law. The LAW he was referring to was the Civil RIghts Act of 1866 which stated:
“Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That all persons born in the United States and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed, are hereby declared to be citizens of the United States;”
http://www.digitalhistory.uh.edu/reconstruction/section4/section4_civrightsact1.html
Everyone seems to forget the phrase “subject to the jurisdiction”, which is why the Law/Amendment went astray. If you look at the congressional debates when they were writing the 14th Amendment, you will find the truth and you will see that the 14th Amendment has been 100% perverted!
What exactly did “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” mean to the framers of the Fourteenth Amendment? Luckily we have Sen. Lyman Trumbull, Chairman of the Judiciary Committee, author of the Thirteenth Amendment, and the one who inserted the phrase:
“The provision is, that ‘all persons born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens.’ That means ‘subject to the complete jurisdiction thereof.’ What do we mean by ‘complete jurisdiction thereof?’ NOT OWING ALLEGIANCE TO ANYBODY ELSE. That is what it means.” http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llcg&fileName=073/llcg073.db&recNum=14
Sen. Howard concurs with Trumbull’s construction:
“I concur entirely with the honorable Senator from Illinois [Trumbull], in holding that the word “jurisdiction,” as here employed, ought to be construed so as to imply a full and complete jurisdiction on the part of the United States, whether exercised by Congress, by the executive, or by the judicial department; that is to say, the same jurisdiction in extent and quality as applies to every citizen of the United States now.” http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llcg&fileName=073/llcg073.db&recNum=16
Minor v Happersett:
“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” http://supreme.justia.com/us/88/162/case.html
And last but not least…
Representative John Bingham of Ohio, considered the father of the 14th Amendment, confirms the understanding and construction the framers used in regards to birthright and jurisdiction while speaking on civil rights of citizens in the House on March 9, 1866:
“I find no fault with the introductory clause [S 61 Bill], which is simply declaratory of what is written in the Constitution, that every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of PARENTS NOT OWING ALLEGIANCE TO ANY FOREIGN SOVEREIGNTY is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a NATURAL BORN CITIZEN”
MIDDLE COLUMN 3RD PARAGRAPH:
http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llcg&fileName=071/llcg071.db&recNum=332
LikeLike