I wasn’t going to address this, but it just won’t go away. My State (Arizona) just passed legislation stating all Presidential candidates must show proof of citizenship to be on the ballot. Apparently the extract provided by the White House is in question. There are some folks out there who believe the current President is ineligible to hold the office, as the U.S. Constitution states, with regard to qualifications:
The United States Constitution, Article II Section I states:
No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.
The big question, of course, is the definition of natural born Citizen. The constitution is vague on this point, and there have been (and continue to be) court cases with regard to this very question. After all, if the duly-elected President isn’t qualified, his Vice-President (who arrived on his electoral coat tails) is also. And every law signed by him and every appointee would be disqualified.
So this is a very important question.
This is not the first time this issue has been raised:
Chester A. Arthur (1829–1886), 21st president of the United States, was rumored to have been born in Canada.[59][60] This was never demonstrated by his Democratic opponents, although Arthur Hinman, an attorney who had investigated Arthur’s family history, raised the objection during his vice-presidential campaign and after the end of his presidency. Arthur was born in Vermont to a Vermont-born mother and a father from Ireland, who was naturalized as a U.S. citizen in 1843, 14 years after Chester was born. Despite the fact that his parents took up residence in the United States somewhere between 1822 and 1824,[61] Arthur additionally began to claim between 1870 and 1880[62] that he had been born in 1830, rather than in 1829, which only caused minor confusion and was even used in several publications.[63] Arthur was sworn in as president when President Garfield died after being shot. (Wikipedia)
A Natural Born Citizen is one who is born of citizen parents. A child born abroad to two US citizen parents is a natural-born citizen: Provided, That at least one citizen parent had a prior residence in the United States or one of its outlying possessions. U.S. Code: Title 8, 1401. (restoretheconstitutionalrepublic.com/forum/)
Of course, documentation has been provided to the courts and the media demonstrating the President was born in Hawaii, after it had become a State. But the questions continue.
- Does the requirement that both parents be US citizens apply? (The President’s father was a British Kenyan subject)
- Is an extract taken from the original birth certificate document sufficient? Is it best evidence?
And now a document surfaces further confusing the issue
This is a promotional brochure from the President’s then publisher, extolling his background and education to sell a book that was never published. The explanation provided is that Mr. Obama, on more than one occasion, padded his resume-bio to sound a bit more exotic.
I suspect this matter will eventually reach the Supreme Court. And, whatever the decision, I’m certain Congress will then act to more specifically define natural born Citizen.
Until then, we must deal with the cards we’re dealt.
h/t Breitbart.com, Wikipedia, restoretheconstitutionalrepublic.com
Several other “born in Kenya” documents seem to have surfaced as well. And then there’s the SS# selective service document questions as well. I suspect what will be proved is that he is a liar of Nixonian proportions. Which we already knew.
Posted by ProudHillbilly | May 22, 2012, 6:57 amWhile I’m not a ‘fan’ of the President, or his policies, I would like to see the facts.
Posted by guffaw1952 | May 22, 2012, 7:08 amMy question is: Would anything this man has done be any more legitimate or good if he had been born in any particular place instead of another?
What does any of this have to do with the freight train coming down the track?
It is a distraction and a farce. If the “powers that be” really wanted us to think he was born somewhere, they could so easily have produced “documentation” to prove it. Obviously, none of them give a fart what we think.
Consider that for a moment. When they no longer even try to hide their lies and malfeasance, something else entirely is going on.
Posted by MamaLiberty | May 22, 2012, 8:30 amI don’t see this as a total distraction. While the specifics may be (brochures, sealed college and law records) if indeed the person in office isn’t constitutionally qualified to hold it, it IS an issue. However, if facts and law show otherwise, we need to address the ‘freight train’ head on, and not be distracted by ‘how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.’ So, in that respect, you are correct.
Posted by guffaw1952 | May 22, 2012, 8:50 amNixon was an amateur compared to this guy. He only broke the law after he was in office … as far as we know.
Posted by Rev. Paul | May 22, 2012, 7:28 amRe: “My State (Arizona) just passed legislation stating all Presidential candidates must show proof of citizenship to be on the ballot.”
You are a little out of date. Arizona’s legislature passed it, but the governor–a conservative Republican–VETOED it.
Regarding the stupid publicity brochure that you have published.
Which is more likely to have made a mistake, an unknown publicity writer, or the combination of these facts: (1) It was highly expensive, risky and rare for a woman in late pregnancy to go to Kenya in 1961 (only 63 Americans went to Kenya in fiscal 1961, and only 21 people returned); (2) There is absolutely no proof in Kenya that she was there in 1961 or in US INS files (which by the way would have been in New York and which have not been lost) that she left the USA for Kenya in 1961, or that she returned or that Obama was entered; (3) AND a Hawaii birth certificate, signed by a doctor, confirmed by the officials in Hawaii and by the birth notices in the Hawaii newspapers all showing that he was born in Hawaii? Which is more likely?
Sure, the X%$#@*% publicist got it wrong. That is where the whole Kenya crap started. Sure Obama was lazy enough not to check the publicist’s crap–that in itself is good reason to vote against him, if you want to. But the fact that the publicist got it wrong (probably from reading the bio of Obama’s father who actually was born in Kenya and had the same name) does not make a fact that Obama was born in Kenya.
http://4peoplewhothink.wordpress.com/2012/04/24/the-belief-factor-by-dan-lynch/
Posted by EllenHancock | May 22, 2012, 7:53 amMy error – the legislature DID pass it, though.
Regarding the brochure, I believe a statement was released (perhaps by another publicist) that it was an innocent stretch of the truth. Mr. Obama stated he was the son of an African prince to raise his status while attending his Hawaiian school. No harm in that. And that’s in his own words, not a publicist.
I’m simply stating this is an issue. This is why I prefer facts to conjecture.
And the other part of the issue is the ‘natural born’ definition. Even if he was born in Hawaii, it appears statute says it must be of two U.S. citizen parents.
So the whole Kenya thing could be a bogus issue.
.
Posted by guffaw1952 | May 22, 2012, 8:23 amRe: “it appears statute says it must be of two U.S. citizen parents.”
Who told you that? It is wrong.
“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) [Edwin Meese was Ronald Reagan’s attorney general, and the Heritage Foundation is a well-known Conservative organization.]
And not only Meese. For, if you were right and there were such a statute or if the US Constitution referred to parents and not to the place of birth, then every single member of the Electoral College who vote for Obama (a clear majority) and every single member of Congress who confirmed his election (it was unanimous) would have been in violation of the Constitution. Oh, and there actually have been four state courts and one federal court all of which have ruled that the US Supreme Court has held in the Wong Kim Ark case that meaning of Natural Born Citizen comes from the common law and refers to the place of birth.
So, you see Obama’s place of birth is important, and the evidence that he was born in Hawaii is overwhelming.
Posted by EllenHancock | May 22, 2012, 9:01 amA Natural Born Citizen is one who is born of citizen parents. A child born abroad to two US citizen parents is a natural-born citizen: Provided, That at least one citizen parent had a prior residence in the United States or one of its outlying possessions. U.S. Code: Title 8, 1401.
Posted by guffaw1952 | May 22, 2012, 9:06 amWho told you that? It is wrong.
Here is an actual example of how Natural Born Citizen was used in the USA (not in France or Switzerland) in 1803, shortly after the Constitution.
“Prior to the adoption of the constitution, the people inhabiting the different states might be divided into two classes: natural born citizens, or those born within the state, and aliens, or such as were born out of it. The first, by their birth-right, became entitled to all the privileges of citizens; the second, were entitled to none, but such as were held out and given by the laws of the respective states prior to their emigration. …St. George Tucker, BLACKSTONE’S COMMENTARIES: WITH NOTES OF REFERENCE TO THE CONSTITUTION AND LAWS OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES AND THE COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA. (1803)
Notice how it is used? There is no reference to parents. Natural Born Citizens were “those born within the state.”‘And here is how it was used about 25 years later, in 1829:
“Therefore every person born within the United States, its territories or districts, whether the parents are citizens or aliens, is a natural born citizen in the sense of the Constitution, and entitled to all the rights and privileges appertaining to that capacity.”—William Rawle, A VIEW OF THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. 2d ed. (1829)
Notice how similar both are to what Meese wrote?
Re children born to US citizens outside of US territory. They also may be Natural Born Citizens. But the word is MAY. Meese says that there is doubt. Others disagree, such as Black’s Law Dictionary, which says:
““Natural born citizen. Persons who are born within the jurisdiction of a national government, i.e. in its territorial limits, or those born of citizens temporarily residing abroad.” — Black’s Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition
Notice the OR. But, as I said, Meese said that there were doubts about the Natural Born status of children of US parents born outside the USA. There are NO doubts that every US citizen born within the USA is a Natural Born US Citizen. That is why the confirmation of Obama’s election by the US Congress was unanimous.
Posted by EllenHancock | May 22, 2012, 9:52 amNo one told me that. It’s in the United States Code, Title 8, Section 1401.
Blackstone, Rawle and Meese aren’t the issue.
HOWEVER
In the interest of clarity and facts, I went to the U.S. Code on line.
http://uscode.house.gov/uscode-cgi/fastweb.exe?getdoc+uscview+t05t08+5242+13++%28natural%20born%20citizen%29
I’m not a lawyer, nor do I play one on TV or in this blog.
I invite all readers to go to the statutes themselves.
It does appear that the law states the President IS indeed a natural born citizen. Of course, there are many other issues.
The debate will continue.
Ms. Hancock, thanks for your input.
More info is better than less.
Posted by guffaw1952 | May 22, 2012, 10:15 amRE: “No one told me that. It’s in the United States Code, Title 8, Section 1401.”
I went to :
http://uscode.house.gov/uscode-cgi/fastweb.exe?getdoc+uscview+t05t08+5242+13++%28natural%20born%20citizen%29
and to:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1401
You can search on both of them. Search for “natural.” You will not find it. So, how could there be a reference to “Natural Born” it it?
Posted by EllenHancock | May 22, 2012, 10:30 amI did scour the reference. You are correct, insofar as the phrase ‘natural born citizen’ is not in that statute. A secondary reference I initially used obviously played fast-and-loose with the text, doing their own editorialization.
But, the phrase ‘natural born citizen’ is in the Constitution. And courts are continuing to wrestle with the specific meaning.
Posted by guffaw1952 | May 22, 2012, 11:26 amWrestle?
I have told you that four state courts and one federal court have ruled specifically on Obama that the US Supreme Court has held that every child born in the USA, except for the children of foreign diplomats, is Natural Born. There is NO court that has held that two citizen parents are required. Not one. In fact, you cannot find a court that says that even one citizen parent is required. And, not only about Obama. Here is another case, of the MANY that say that the US-born children of foreigners are Natural Born Citizens:
Mustata v. US Dept. of Justice, 179 F.3d 1017 (6th Cir. 1999) (children born in US to two Romanian citizens described as “natural born citizens” of the US):
“Petitioners Marian and Lenuta Mustata are citizens of Romania. At the time of their petition, they resided in Michigan with their two minor children, who are natural born citizens of the United States.”
And another:
Nwankpa v. Kissinger, 376 F. Supp. 122 (M.D. Ala. 1974) (child born in US to two Biafra citizens described as “natural born citizen” of the US):
“The Plaintiff was a native of Biafra, now a part of the Republic of Nigeria. His wife and two older children are also natives of that country, but his third child, a daughter, is a natural-born citizen of the United States.”
What made the third child different from her siblings? Only that she was born in the USA.
The basic reason for the many rulings is because the meaning of Natural Born is well known. It is not a special legal term. It was what the Americans at the time used to indicate native born, which was not a popular phrase when the Constitution was written.
As late as World War I, the term was in general use. Millions of people understood it. Men who registered for the draft were asked whether they were citizens or not, and if they were, whether they were naturalized citizens or natural born citizens. Note that that is only two categories. There were no options for naturalized, native born to one US parent, native born to no US parents, and Natural Born (which would have had to have been explained as natural born to two US parents).
The theory that two US parents are required is a birther fantasy.
Posted by EllenHancock | May 22, 2012, 12:15 pmNope. Simply offering a medium for discussion. I appreciate your interest, and offering up of case research.
As I titled this post, it’s a kerfluffle. I even did my own research and agreed with your premise.
Personally, I believe as the man obtained a US Passport long before he became a public figure, he must have supplied appropriate documentation. There still are questions regarding his SSN and Military Draft documents, but we won’t go into them here.
I’m not a birther. I just want facts. Thanks for supplying some of them.
Posted by guffaw1952 | May 22, 2012, 12:25 pmYou are welcome. If want more information on the SS number you should realize that millions of Americans have errors in their SS files. And millions more have multiple SS numbers, caused mainly by the errors made by SS clerks. I am not an expert on the draft side, so I will not discuss it.
Posted by EllenHancock | May 22, 2012, 12:55 pmEven the ones dealt off the bottom of the deck??? Sigh…
Posted by Old NFO | May 22, 2012, 5:04 pmApparently
Posted by guffaw1952 | May 22, 2012, 5:45 pmFirst off, a disclaimer: I am not a Birther either. Having said that, I will state that I believe there should be enforcement of eligibility requirements. I spoke with a legislator from the AZ Senate a year or so ago, and he pointed out to me that the state of AZ does not currently verify eligibility of Presidential candidates, neither do they verify eligibility for any other state offices, and that the same is true for the other 49 states. If there are eligibility requirements, than there should be a process in place for verification. Gov. Brewer should not have vetoed that measure, and the Legislature should pass another one. I also believe that to be a Natural Born Citizen (as opposed to being a Native Born Citizen) at least one parent should be a citizen, and both parents should be residing in the U.S. legally. Is that too much to ask?
Posted by Gregory Brown | May 26, 2012, 12:26 amWow. Where you been hiding?
Thanks for your input.
Posted by guffaw1952 | May 26, 2012, 6:09 amAlthough there may not be a law, Arizona has now proven overwhelmingly that Obama was born in Hawaii, which is in the USA. Oddly, very oddly, Arizona has not insisted on similar proof for Mitt Romney, who has not shown his birth certificate.
The meaning of Natural Born Citizen comes from the common law and refers to the place of birth, not the parents. So, since Obama was indeed born in Hawaii (not the crazy myth that his mother flew to Kenya), he is a Natural Born US Citizen. If Romney was born in the USA, he is a NBC also, and so are Rubio and Jindal. The fact that neither of their parents were US citizens does not matter; the place of their birth matters.
“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.]
Posted by EllenHancock | May 26, 2012, 10:01 am