ROADMAP TO ADDRESS THE LOOMING CONSTITUTIONAL CRISIS:
Since the Supreme Court has now prevented itself from acknowledging the question of whether Barack H. Obama is or is not an Article II “natural born citizen” based on the Kenyan/British citizenship of Barack Obama’s father at the time of his birth (irrespective of whether Barack Obama is deemed a “citizen” born in Hawaii or otherwise) as a prerequisite to qualifying to serve as President of the United States under the Constitution — the Court having done so at least three times and counting, first before the Nov 4 general election and twice before the Dec 15 vote of the College of Electors — it would seem appropriate, if not necessary, for all Executive Branch departments and agencies to secure advance formal advice from the United States Department of Justice Office of Legal Counsel as to how to respond to expected inquiries from federal employees who are pledged to “support and defend the Constitution of the United States” as to whether they are governed by laws, regulations, orders and directives issued under Mr. Obama during such periods that said employees, by the weight of existing legal authority and prior to a decision by the Supreme Court, believe in good faith that Mr. Obama is not an Article II “natural born citizen”.
Moreover, each and every member of Congress should be notified that he or she is personally liable (can be sued) for his or her own failure, or the same in conspiracy with other members, to perform what is a ministerial and constitutional duty, that is, to require and/or insist that Presidential electoral votes only be counted for candidates who are “natural born citizens” under Article II of the United States Constitution, the failure of which creates a cause of action for deprivation of claimants’ constitutional rights (as allowed under the Bivens case) against employees of the Federal Government, in this case, to a lawful President and Commander in Chief, and therefore, for deprivation of adequate continuation of the United States as a Constitutional Republic. The constitutionally tortious conduct is not subject to congressional immunity and would be the jettison of Article II of the Constitution by failure to stop and/or object to the counting of electoral votes for Barack H. Obama who has admitted that at the time of his birth his father was a Kenyan/British citizen and not a citizen of the United States of America.
Finally, if 1/20/09 comes and goes with a usurper in the Whitehouse (that is, Obama is definitely NOT an Article II “natural born citizen” — dad Kenyan/British citizen at BHO’s birth — albeit he MAY be a 14th Amendment “citizen”) with usurper enablers in Congress and the Supreme Court … God help us because many of the people will — rightfully and under our Constitution and Declaration of Independence — endeavor through other means to take back the Government from what is nothing less than a non-constitutional coup d’etat. (SCOTUS now does have the power to forestall that grim yet inevitable scenario, otherwise the blood and possible loss of our Constitutional Republic is SQUARELY ON THEIR HEADS.)
Bizarre cartoon. I don’t know anyone who would characterize Obama’s outreach efforts of the past six weeks in that mannner – rather the contrary – all the stories have been about how the right is finding him to be far less scary than they convinced themselves he would be, and the left is largely disappointed.
But, I gotta say, this is not out of line (in terms of lack of credibility) with most of the cartoons KL posts. Where do you get this stuff, from some cartoon reject pile?
Give it up, man. We lost. You’re obviously a smart guy, but harping on stuff like that makes you look like a wingnut. NOONE of significance is pursuing this. The voters spoke. That’s how it works. Go get ‘em in 2012.
How dare you post a cartoon that slightly depicts Obama as not completely 100% even-handed in reaching out to all Americans regardless of whether or not they agree with him politically. Don’t you watch MSNBC? Obama is perfect in all ways, and if you can’t see that, then it just shows that there is something wrong with you.
If Obama was born in Hawaii, which I firmly believe he was, who the hell cares where his father held citizenship. Obama became a citizen by virtue of his birth on American soil (same as McCain who was born in the Panama Canal Zone). My aunt was born in NYC at a time when my grandparents hadn’t yet obtained US citizenship. That doesn’t make her a non-citizen.
The more serious (and valid) issue facing Obama is the eligibility of Sen. Clinton to serve in State. According to Article 1, Section 6, Clause 2 of the Constitution, she cannot assume that office since she was a sitting Senator when the Senate voted on the Executive Branch pay raises. I believe Congress provided a Saxbe solution (referring to Nixon’s appointment of Senator Saxbe to the AG post in exchange for his agreement to receive the pre-raise pay) but this creative loophole has never been tested in Court and is deemed unconstitutional by some on the right. I personally don’t think this rule has much meaning anymore, but as a constitutional history buff I’d love to see it play out in the Courts.
Ted. . .if he was born in Hawaii, he’s a natural born citizen. Hawaii has been a part of the US since we annexed it in 1898, and all residents born in Hawaii since 1900 are considered natural born citizens. See US Code, Title 8, Chapter 12, Subchapter III, Part I, Section 1405, which states
“A person born in Hawaii on or after August 12, 1898, and before April 30, 1900, is declared to be a citizen of the United States as of April 30, 1900. A person born in Hawaii on or after April 30, 1900, is a citizen of the United States at birth. A person who was a citizen of the Republic of Hawaii on August 12, 1898, is declared to be a citizen of the United States as of April 30, 1900.”
A true conspiracy theorist would argue that since Hawaii was occupied and subsequently annexed illegally, all US federal laws and regulations w/r/t Hawaii and it’s residents are invalid, thereby making Obama a natural born citizen of the American-occupied Republic of Hawaii, not of the United States of America.
Very appropriate and correct illustration. Just consider how Obama is about to spend the “stimulus” package. Case in point, have a look at the 210 billion for new jobs Obama is creating. From the liberal MSNBC reporting on their man:
“The larger is $150 billion to create 5 million so-called “green collar” jobs to develop more environmentally friendly energy sources.”
That’s right ‘green collar’ jobs. The unionists will get the bulk of the remaining 100 Billion by way of construction jobs for bridges and other infrastructure.
Obama is spending 210 Billion which largely benefits liberal environmentalists and unionists which makes this depiction very accurate.
alaska jake, you are in error. The statute you cite does NOT state “natural born citizen”
“Natural born citizen” under article II of the Constitution requires that both parents be citizens of the US when the child is born — regardless of where the child was born. Even if Barak Obama was born in the White House in the Lincoln Bedroom, he would NOT be an Article II “natural born citizen” since his father was a Kenyan/British citizen, and not an American citizen, when BHO was born. Case closed.
Ted. . .just because you declare the case closed does not make you correct. Article II’s eligibility clause says nothing regarding the citizenship of a person’s parents:
“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.”
Interestingly, the US Constitution and the US Supreme Court have never defined what exactly is meant by the phrase “natural born.” That is to say, nowhere does it say that “natural born” means born in the US specifically and solely to US citizens, nor does it say anywhere that those born on US soil to non-citizens are not considered “natural born” citizens. It was one of those phrases inserted into law without definition.
Upon further research – a simple Wikipedia search at that – I can add that the closest the Supreme Court came to defining what “natural born” means was in the 1939 decision in Perkins vs ELG, where it was decided that a woman born in the US to Swedish parents who were naturalized US citizens at the time of her birth, who was then taken (while a minor) back to Sweden, was not only still a US citizen, was was “declared to be a natural born citizen of the United States.”
I would also add, Ted, in reference to the last paragraph of your post #1, that advocating the overthrow of the US government is a clear violation of the Smith Act of 1940. Of course I wouldn’t accuse you of violating the Smith Act. That would be crazy.
alaska jake, Obama is the one who’d be overthrowing our constitutionally established government. I’m merely advocating keeping and/or restoring the existing constitutional republic.
And insofar as Article II’s “natural born citizen”, it is an airtight case that this requires that both parents be citizens of the US at the time of the child’s birth. (The patents don’t have to be natural born citizens themselves, but they must have been citizens.) That’s not to say Obama is not a citizen, but that he’s NOT a natural born citizen under Article II.
Ted. . . It is not an airtight case. I’m sorry to tell you this, because I know this ruins some sort of weird conspiracy thing you got going, but it just isn’t true. Show me one clause in the Constitution or one single Supreme Court decision which defines what “natural born” means w/r/t the citizenship of the parents. Let me save you some time. . .you won’t find any.
Perhaps “natural born” citizens are only those not birthed by c-section…
Actually, the logical distinction would be between those who are citizens by birth (on U.S. soil or abroad to U.S. parents and registered at birth) and those who are non-citizens (aliens) or who became citizens by the formal process of naturalization.
Also, the idea that the popular vote between candidates whose eligibility for office had been previously unchallenged should be overturned by court judges who were appointed to office should make Republican blood boil even more than the idea of a Dem in the White House.
The whole citizenship throw-down challenge is a short-sighted, ill-considered sideshow distraction.
I’m sorry guys, but I think for you to act as if Ted is some conspiracy nutcase is not being fair to him. The rule of law is very important to all of us. Ted is convinced that he is right on this case, and nobody has presented anything to refute his beliefs. Alaska Jake tried, but fell a little short. It would seem to me that this case actually did call for the supreme court to make a declarative ruling on the meaning of ‘natural born citizen’.
Ted, on the other hand when you say it is a air tight case that both parents have to be citizens in order for someone to be ‘natural born’. You haven’t presented what leads you to believe its air tight, or even close to it. Please provide such. Meanwhile, you people laughing at Ted need to back off and at least acknowledge that its a legitimate issue that should be defined by the Supreme Court, because as far as I’m concerned, its not an automatic issue in favor of Obama.
The US has always granted American citizenship to the children of an American parent – regardless of where they were born, otherwise, George Romney wouldn’t have been able to run…
It doesn’t matter WHERE Obama was born…Hawaii, Kenya, Indonesia, or Mars – his mother is an American citizen, and that means so is Obama.
Whoa!!!!! We’re not talking about “American citizen”. We’re talking about ‘natural born citizen’ and if there is anything I’ve learned in the last hour, it is that they are definitely NOT THE SAME THING. I’m just saying go do your research before you conclude that Ted is wrong on this. George Romney was different in that BOTH parents were American citizens, in spite of the fact that he was born in Mexico. Its not as easy a case as you think. Go study it a while, and don’t stop after finding one or two sites that support that Obama is ok on this.
The simple fact is that the 14th Amendment became part of the Constitution when it was ratified. It adds to the description used under Article II for additional clarification without changing II. It is true SCOTUS can hold 14 to be unconstitutional but short of deciding to ratify the Constitution 14 makes BHO eligible for POTUS.
Article II can no more supercede 14, than it can 1, 2, 13, or 15.
Sorry Ted, you cannot hold one section of the document any higher than another section.
#27
George, the 14th Amendment has no bearing on eligibiity under Article II for being President. It deals strictly with citizenship. Article II demands more than just citizenship.
Under the intent at the time of writing, I believe “natural born citizen” was intended to be solely for children of citizens. It’s fuzzy whether American territory was supposed to be added into this equation.
Under SCOTUS precedent, my understanding is that it’s either the child of a citizen (I’m unsure whether it’s just one or both parents), birth on US soil (my understanding is that children of illegals born in this country become citizens), or both. The issue isn’t particularly settled.
The problem here is too many people thinking they know the truth of this situation. That’s what the courts are (supposed to be) for. The SCOTUS will take up the issue on Jan 9 and 16. The best scenario for Ted in this case would be an injunction to prevent the inauguration of Pres Obama (incredibly unlikely to happen) and an order for a trial to determine whether Pres Obama meets the qualifications to be Pres (pretty unlikely, but not out of the realm of possibility).
I believe, regardless of whether the case is valid or not, the SCOTUS will reject this case (and any that are like it). We will see what happens in January.
#28
Richard I would easily claim that the distinction made in the very first line of 14 clarifies the difference between “born” and “naturalized” which is the distinction delt with in Arlticle II.
As far as your contention of “child of citizen” the fact that it does not clairfy one or both is clarification enough under the guise of the document. Since they did not infere specifically both parents you cannot put that inference on their words after the fact.
Additionally, the claim about “American Territory” being under this claim is more than a stretch. At the time of the writing of Article II we did not have such states as Texas, California, Alaska, Illinois etc…Hawaii is a state in the same manner as these are.
This is not a revisionist court right now and I beleive they will not put inferences on to the document that are not strictly spelled out. His mother was/is a US citizen; he was born to her in a US State. Bottom line; unless there is documentation that he was born someplace else this is more than a dead issue.
It’s almost embarrassing that members of a party so high and mighty on original meaning of the Constitution would suddenly infer meaning in clauses not spelled out anywhere in US law.
As I told Ted, nowhere in the Constitution or in Supreme Court case history do we have any declarative notion that “natural born” has any connection with parents’ citizenship. Nowhere. I did not fall short in my defense of Obama’s eligibility to the office of President – in fact I pointed out similar case law pointing to the opposite as fact as well as discussed the failure of the Constitution to address the matter – and I will not acknowledge Ted’s misguided and flat out wrong facts on Constitutional law.
Obama is a US citizen, born on US soil in Hawaii, US territory since 1898 and a state since 1959. His father may not have been a US citizen, but his mother most surely was. Obama was a citizen, a statutory citizen, and a natural born citizen. Obama is Constitutionally eligible to be President of the United States. You may not like that, but he met the few concrete requirements spelled out in the Constitution and received enough electoral votes to become president. And Obama will take office on January 20th.
This is a ridiculous and sad attempt to sidestep the election, and only makes the GOP look even worse to moderates and Democrats.
#30 “This is a ridiculous and sad attempt to sidestep the election, and only makes the GOP look even worse to moderates and Democrats.”
I’m not sure whether this is, in fact, a ridiculous effort or not, but the perception of it certainly is one of ridiculousness. I agree that, barring something more concrete than an absence of proof he was born in Hawaii (more on this later), this just makes anyone attached to it look crazy (the GOP has studiously avoided this; the main proponent (Phillip Berg), is a supporter of Sen Clinton).
The case, very simply, breaks down to two questions: (1) Was Pres Obama born in Hawaii (there seems to be confusion about which hospital he was born at), and (2) Was Pres Obama’s citizenship revoked by his stepfather in Indonesia when he registered him for school in Indonesia as a citizen of Indonesia (which did not allow for dual citizenship)?
To this point, both questions have been ignored (in a legal sense) by Pres Obama (likely on the basis that his lawyers felt it would be laughed out of court). The COLB presented shows, without a doubt, Pres Obama’s birth was registered in Hawaii. My understanding is that they were registering foreign births (i.e. births occurring in places other than Hawaii), which means he may or may not have been born in Hawaii, and the COLB does nothing to prove it one way or another. Asserting lack of evidence is evidence, however, just isn’t enough.
The cold, hard fact of the matter is that Pres Obama (and Dems in general) won on Nov 5. Trying to do to him what he did to those who ran against him in Illinois isn’t going to do anyone any favors.
Sorry you feel that way Alaska. I think Richard M is presenting a very balanced and accurate approach to the question, and I still feel it is not nearly as cut and dried as you make it out to be. I’m not fighting for anything on this issue, just trying to allow the voices of both sides to be heard without name calling.
I would seriously question whether this court would even entertain the issue, as evidence is lacking to contest Obama’s citizenship. Were the court to do so, what I would expect the conservatives on it to do is defer at this point to the electorate in writing a definition for “natural born” citizenship.
The conservatives on the current court defer to the legislative branch, and through it, to the electorate that selects the representative government. I cannot imagine the conservatives there to upend their own principles — while undermining their authority and the authority of the Constitution in the minds of voters.
As opposed to the anally retentive civil law nations, in America it is generally permissible to do that which is not expressly prohibited. In common law countries like Germany, in my experience, you’re not allowed to do squat unless expressly permitted. Why would any sane person want to create and live in a country like that?
Illinois. . . I never resorted to name calling. However there are few things in life that get me more riled up than when people play fast and loose with the Constitution. Most of the time it’s liberals who conjure up undeclared and hidden meanings in that sacred document. I’ve come to expect that. When I hear Republicans start pulling clauses and amendments out of thin air (Ted: “Natural born citizen” under article II of the Constitution requires that both parents be citizens of the US when the child is born — regardless of where the child was born.) I get very upset. How can any self-respecting Conservative decry activist courts for legitimizing abortion and gay marriage as Constitutional rights while at the same time making up Constitutional intent when it suits their political whims?
One of the beautiful attributes of our Constitution is that it says what it means and means what it says. As MarkG alludes to in #33, anything not specified in the Constitution is left to the States and the People to decide for themselves. Why should this example be any different?
There is no need for a trial. This is a case for SUMMARY JUDGMENT BASED ON OBAMA’S OWN WEBSITE STATING HIS FATHER WAS KENYAN/BRITISH CITIZEN WHEN BHO WAS BORN!!!
That is why I can see absolutely no way around SCOTUS enjoining the inauguration — which is precisely why the 2 Supreme Court dates are crucial, Jan 9, day after Congress convenes on the electoral votes; Jan 16, Friday before the Tuesday inauguration.
Under the 20th Amendment, Biden will be sworn in as the Acting President until a new President is determined in due course.
December 28th, 2008 at 10:13 am
ROADMAP TO ADDRESS THE LOOMING CONSTITUTIONAL CRISIS:
Since the Supreme Court has now prevented itself from acknowledging the question of whether Barack H. Obama is or is not an Article II “natural born citizen” based on the Kenyan/British citizenship of Barack Obama’s father at the time of his birth (irrespective of whether Barack Obama is deemed a “citizen” born in Hawaii or otherwise) as a prerequisite to qualifying to serve as President of the United States under the Constitution — the Court having done so at least three times and counting, first before the Nov 4 general election and twice before the Dec 15 vote of the College of Electors — it would seem appropriate, if not necessary, for all Executive Branch departments and agencies to secure advance formal advice from the United States Department of Justice Office of Legal Counsel as to how to respond to expected inquiries from federal employees who are pledged to “support and defend the Constitution of the United States” as to whether they are governed by laws, regulations, orders and directives issued under Mr. Obama during such periods that said employees, by the weight of existing legal authority and prior to a decision by the Supreme Court, believe in good faith that Mr. Obama is not an Article II “natural born citizen”.
Moreover, each and every member of Congress should be notified that he or she is personally liable (can be sued) for his or her own failure, or the same in conspiracy with other members, to perform what is a ministerial and constitutional duty, that is, to require and/or insist that Presidential electoral votes only be counted for candidates who are “natural born citizens” under Article II of the United States Constitution, the failure of which creates a cause of action for deprivation of claimants’ constitutional rights (as allowed under the Bivens case) against employees of the Federal Government, in this case, to a lawful President and Commander in Chief, and therefore, for deprivation of adequate continuation of the United States as a Constitutional Republic. The constitutionally tortious conduct is not subject to congressional immunity and would be the jettison of Article II of the Constitution by failure to stop and/or object to the counting of electoral votes for Barack H. Obama who has admitted that at the time of his birth his father was a Kenyan/British citizen and not a citizen of the United States of America.
Finally, if 1/20/09 comes and goes with a usurper in the Whitehouse (that is, Obama is definitely NOT an Article II “natural born citizen” — dad Kenyan/British citizen at BHO’s birth — albeit he MAY be a 14th Amendment “citizen”) with usurper enablers in Congress and the Supreme Court … God help us because many of the people will — rightfully and under our Constitution and Declaration of Independence — endeavor through other means to take back the Government from what is nothing less than a non-constitutional coup d’etat. (SCOTUS now does have the power to forestall that grim yet inevitable scenario, otherwise the blood and possible loss of our Constitutional Republic is SQUARELY ON THEIR HEADS.)
December 28th, 2008 at 11:18 am
Bizarre cartoon. I don’t know anyone who would characterize Obama’s outreach efforts of the past six weeks in that mannner – rather the contrary – all the stories have been about how the right is finding him to be far less scary than they convinced themselves he would be, and the left is largely disappointed.
But, I gotta say, this is not out of line (in terms of lack of credibility) with most of the cartoons KL posts. Where do you get this stuff, from some cartoon reject pile?
December 28th, 2008 at 12:17 pm
#1: Whats worse, President Obama or President Biden.
Frankly President Biden scares me a lot more than Obama does.
December 28th, 2008 at 1:43 pm
Ted,
Give it up, man. We lost. You’re obviously a smart guy, but harping on stuff like that makes you look like a wingnut. NOONE of significance is pursuing this. The voters spoke. That’s how it works. Go get ‘em in 2012.
December 28th, 2008 at 4:48 pm
How dare you post a cartoon that slightly depicts Obama as not completely 100% even-handed in reaching out to all Americans regardless of whether or not they agree with him politically. Don’t you watch MSNBC? Obama is perfect in all ways, and if you can’t see that, then it just shows that there is something wrong with you.
December 28th, 2008 at 4:50 pm
This is right on the money. I mean, Rick Warren and Bob Gates are about as leftist as you can get…
http://www.political-buzz.com/
December 28th, 2008 at 5:08 pm
These cartoons are chosen days, sometimes weeks, in advance.
December 28th, 2008 at 6:42 pm
I’m not even worried about how true or untrue it is, but the cartoon is definitely FUNNY AS HECK!!!
December 28th, 2008 at 6:44 pm
If Obama was born in Hawaii, which I firmly believe he was, who the hell cares where his father held citizenship. Obama became a citizen by virtue of his birth on American soil (same as McCain who was born in the Panama Canal Zone). My aunt was born in NYC at a time when my grandparents hadn’t yet obtained US citizenship. That doesn’t make her a non-citizen.
The more serious (and valid) issue facing Obama is the eligibility of Sen. Clinton to serve in State. According to Article 1, Section 6, Clause 2 of the Constitution, she cannot assume that office since she was a sitting Senator when the Senate voted on the Executive Branch pay raises. I believe Congress provided a Saxbe solution (referring to Nixon’s appointment of Senator Saxbe to the AG post in exchange for his agreement to receive the pre-raise pay) but this creative loophole has never been tested in Court and is deemed unconstitutional by some on the right. I personally don’t think this rule has much meaning anymore, but as a constitutional history buff I’d love to see it play out in the Courts.
December 28th, 2008 at 6:49 pm
alaska jake, simply put, “citizen” (as under the 14th Amendment) is NOT the same thing as “natural born citizen” (as under Article II).
December 28th, 2008 at 6:57 pm
Ted. . .if he was born in Hawaii, he’s a natural born citizen. Hawaii has been a part of the US since we annexed it in 1898, and all residents born in Hawaii since 1900 are considered natural born citizens. See US Code, Title 8, Chapter 12, Subchapter III, Part I, Section 1405, which states
“A person born in Hawaii on or after August 12, 1898, and before April 30, 1900, is declared to be a citizen of the United States as of April 30, 1900. A person born in Hawaii on or after April 30, 1900, is a citizen of the United States at birth. A person who was a citizen of the Republic of Hawaii on August 12, 1898, is declared to be a citizen of the United States as of April 30, 1900.”
December 28th, 2008 at 7:01 pm
lol, conspiracy theorists
December 28th, 2008 at 7:32 pm
A true conspiracy theorist would argue that since Hawaii was occupied and subsequently annexed illegally, all US federal laws and regulations w/r/t Hawaii and it’s residents are invalid, thereby making Obama a natural born citizen of the American-occupied Republic of Hawaii, not of the United States of America.
December 28th, 2008 at 9:15 pm
Very appropriate and correct illustration. Just consider how Obama is about to spend the “stimulus” package. Case in point, have a look at the 210 billion for new jobs Obama is creating. From the liberal MSNBC reporting on their man:
“The larger is $150 billion to create 5 million so-called “green collar” jobs to develop more environmentally friendly energy sources.”
That’s right ‘green collar’ jobs. The unionists will get the bulk of the remaining 100 Billion by way of construction jobs for bridges and other infrastructure.
Obama is spending 210 Billion which largely benefits liberal environmentalists and unionists which makes this depiction very accurate.
December 29th, 2008 at 12:10 am
alaska jake, you are in error. The statute you cite does NOT state “natural born citizen”
“Natural born citizen” under article II of the Constitution requires that both parents be citizens of the US when the child is born — regardless of where the child was born. Even if Barak Obama was born in the White House in the Lincoln Bedroom, he would NOT be an Article II “natural born citizen” since his father was a Kenyan/British citizen, and not an American citizen, when BHO was born. Case closed.
December 29th, 2008 at 1:13 am
Barack
Obama
is not
a Keyan,
Indonesian,
or whatever.
There’s no conspiracy.
Shut.
Up.
December 29th, 2008 at 1:21 am
Ted. . .just because you declare the case closed does not make you correct. Article II’s eligibility clause says nothing regarding the citizenship of a person’s parents:
“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.”
Interestingly, the US Constitution and the US Supreme Court have never defined what exactly is meant by the phrase “natural born.” That is to say, nowhere does it say that “natural born” means born in the US specifically and solely to US citizens, nor does it say anywhere that those born on US soil to non-citizens are not considered “natural born” citizens. It was one of those phrases inserted into law without definition.
December 29th, 2008 at 1:29 am
Upon further research – a simple Wikipedia search at that – I can add that the closest the Supreme Court came to defining what “natural born” means was in the 1939 decision in Perkins vs ELG, where it was decided that a woman born in the US to Swedish parents who were naturalized US citizens at the time of her birth, who was then taken (while a minor) back to Sweden, was not only still a US citizen, was was “declared to be a natural born citizen of the United States.”
December 29th, 2008 at 1:52 am
I would also add, Ted, in reference to the last paragraph of your post #1, that advocating the overthrow of the US government is a clear violation of the Smith Act of 1940. Of course I wouldn’t accuse you of violating the Smith Act. That would be crazy.
December 29th, 2008 at 1:59 am
alaska jake, Obama is the one who’d be overthrowing our constitutionally established government. I’m merely advocating keeping and/or restoring the existing constitutional republic.
And insofar as Article II’s “natural born citizen”, it is an airtight case that this requires that both parents be citizens of the US at the time of the child’s birth. (The patents don’t have to be natural born citizens themselves, but they must have been citizens.) That’s not to say Obama is not a citizen, but that he’s NOT a natural born citizen under Article II.
December 29th, 2008 at 2:10 am
Ted. . . It is not an airtight case. I’m sorry to tell you this, because I know this ruins some sort of weird conspiracy thing you got going, but it just isn’t true. Show me one clause in the Constitution or one single Supreme Court decision which defines what “natural born” means w/r/t the citizenship of the parents. Let me save you some time. . .you won’t find any.
December 29th, 2008 at 9:20 am
Perhaps “natural born” citizens are only those not birthed by c-section…
Actually, the logical distinction would be between those who are citizens by birth (on U.S. soil or abroad to U.S. parents and registered at birth) and those who are non-citizens (aliens) or who became citizens by the formal process of naturalization.
Also, the idea that the popular vote between candidates whose eligibility for office had been previously unchallenged should be overturned by court judges who were appointed to office should make Republican blood boil even more than the idea of a Dem in the White House.
The whole citizenship throw-down challenge is a short-sighted, ill-considered sideshow distraction.
December 29th, 2008 at 9:54 am
I’m sorry guys, but I think for you to act as if Ted is some conspiracy nutcase is not being fair to him. The rule of law is very important to all of us. Ted is convinced that he is right on this case, and nobody has presented anything to refute his beliefs. Alaska Jake tried, but fell a little short. It would seem to me that this case actually did call for the supreme court to make a declarative ruling on the meaning of ‘natural born citizen’.
Ted, on the other hand when you say it is a air tight case that both parents have to be citizens in order for someone to be ‘natural born’. You haven’t presented what leads you to believe its air tight, or even close to it. Please provide such. Meanwhile, you people laughing at Ted need to back off and at least acknowledge that its a legitimate issue that should be defined by the Supreme Court, because as far as I’m concerned, its not an automatic issue in favor of Obama.
December 29th, 2008 at 11:40 am
The US has always granted American citizenship to the children of an American parent – regardless of where they were born, otherwise, George Romney wouldn’t have been able to run…
It doesn’t matter WHERE Obama was born…Hawaii, Kenya, Indonesia, or Mars – his mother is an American citizen, and that means so is Obama.
December 29th, 2008 at 11:54 am
Whoa!!!!! We’re not talking about “American citizen”. We’re talking about ‘natural born citizen’ and if there is anything I’ve learned in the last hour, it is that they are definitely NOT THE SAME THING. I’m just saying go do your research before you conclude that Ted is wrong on this. George Romney was different in that BOTH parents were American citizens, in spite of the fact that he was born in Mexico. Its not as easy a case as you think. Go study it a while, and don’t stop after finding one or two sites that support that Obama is ok on this.
December 29th, 2008 at 11:55 am
we have to beat this man, who is best able to do it? jeb, thune, romney, or petraeus?
December 29th, 2008 at 12:35 pm
The simple fact is that the 14th Amendment became part of the Constitution when it was ratified. It adds to the description used under Article II for additional clarification without changing II. It is true SCOTUS can hold 14 to be unconstitutional but short of deciding to ratify the Constitution 14 makes BHO eligible for POTUS.
Article II can no more supercede 14, than it can 1, 2, 13, or 15.
Sorry Ted, you cannot hold one section of the document any higher than another section.
December 29th, 2008 at 1:09 pm
#27
George, the 14th Amendment has no bearing on eligibiity under Article II for being President. It deals strictly with citizenship. Article II demands more than just citizenship.
Under the intent at the time of writing, I believe “natural born citizen” was intended to be solely for children of citizens. It’s fuzzy whether American territory was supposed to be added into this equation.
Under SCOTUS precedent, my understanding is that it’s either the child of a citizen (I’m unsure whether it’s just one or both parents), birth on US soil (my understanding is that children of illegals born in this country become citizens), or both. The issue isn’t particularly settled.
The problem here is too many people thinking they know the truth of this situation. That’s what the courts are (supposed to be) for. The SCOTUS will take up the issue on Jan 9 and 16. The best scenario for Ted in this case would be an injunction to prevent the inauguration of Pres Obama (incredibly unlikely to happen) and an order for a trial to determine whether Pres Obama meets the qualifications to be Pres (pretty unlikely, but not out of the realm of possibility).
I believe, regardless of whether the case is valid or not, the SCOTUS will reject this case (and any that are like it). We will see what happens in January.
December 29th, 2008 at 1:37 pm
#28
Richard I would easily claim that the distinction made in the very first line of 14 clarifies the difference between “born” and “naturalized” which is the distinction delt with in Arlticle II.
As far as your contention of “child of citizen” the fact that it does not clairfy one or both is clarification enough under the guise of the document. Since they did not infere specifically both parents you cannot put that inference on their words after the fact.
Additionally, the claim about “American Territory” being under this claim is more than a stretch. At the time of the writing of Article II we did not have such states as Texas, California, Alaska, Illinois etc…Hawaii is a state in the same manner as these are.
This is not a revisionist court right now and I beleive they will not put inferences on to the document that are not strictly spelled out. His mother was/is a US citizen; he was born to her in a US State. Bottom line; unless there is documentation that he was born someplace else this is more than a dead issue.
December 29th, 2008 at 2:02 pm
Illinoisguy. . .
It’s almost embarrassing that members of a party so high and mighty on original meaning of the Constitution would suddenly infer meaning in clauses not spelled out anywhere in US law.
As I told Ted, nowhere in the Constitution or in Supreme Court case history do we have any declarative notion that “natural born” has any connection with parents’ citizenship. Nowhere. I did not fall short in my defense of Obama’s eligibility to the office of President – in fact I pointed out similar case law pointing to the opposite as fact as well as discussed the failure of the Constitution to address the matter – and I will not acknowledge Ted’s misguided and flat out wrong facts on Constitutional law.
Obama is a US citizen, born on US soil in Hawaii, US territory since 1898 and a state since 1959. His father may not have been a US citizen, but his mother most surely was. Obama was a citizen, a statutory citizen, and a natural born citizen. Obama is Constitutionally eligible to be President of the United States. You may not like that, but he met the few concrete requirements spelled out in the Constitution and received enough electoral votes to become president. And Obama will take office on January 20th.
This is a ridiculous and sad attempt to sidestep the election, and only makes the GOP look even worse to moderates and Democrats.
December 29th, 2008 at 2:25 pm
#30 “This is a ridiculous and sad attempt to sidestep the election, and only makes the GOP look even worse to moderates and Democrats.”
I’m not sure whether this is, in fact, a ridiculous effort or not, but the perception of it certainly is one of ridiculousness. I agree that, barring something more concrete than an absence of proof he was born in Hawaii (more on this later), this just makes anyone attached to it look crazy (the GOP has studiously avoided this; the main proponent (Phillip Berg), is a supporter of Sen Clinton).
The case, very simply, breaks down to two questions: (1) Was Pres Obama born in Hawaii (there seems to be confusion about which hospital he was born at), and (2) Was Pres Obama’s citizenship revoked by his stepfather in Indonesia when he registered him for school in Indonesia as a citizen of Indonesia (which did not allow for dual citizenship)?
To this point, both questions have been ignored (in a legal sense) by Pres Obama (likely on the basis that his lawyers felt it would be laughed out of court). The COLB presented shows, without a doubt, Pres Obama’s birth was registered in Hawaii. My understanding is that they were registering foreign births (i.e. births occurring in places other than Hawaii), which means he may or may not have been born in Hawaii, and the COLB does nothing to prove it one way or another. Asserting lack of evidence is evidence, however, just isn’t enough.
The cold, hard fact of the matter is that Pres Obama (and Dems in general) won on Nov 5. Trying to do to him what he did to those who ran against him in Illinois isn’t going to do anyone any favors.
December 29th, 2008 at 2:40 pm
Sorry you feel that way Alaska. I think Richard M is presenting a very balanced and accurate approach to the question, and I still feel it is not nearly as cut and dried as you make it out to be. I’m not fighting for anything on this issue, just trying to allow the voices of both sides to be heard without name calling.
December 29th, 2008 at 2:52 pm
I would seriously question whether this court would even entertain the issue, as evidence is lacking to contest Obama’s citizenship. Were the court to do so, what I would expect the conservatives on it to do is defer at this point to the electorate in writing a definition for “natural born” citizenship.
The conservatives on the current court defer to the legislative branch, and through it, to the electorate that selects the representative government. I cannot imagine the conservatives there to upend their own principles — while undermining their authority and the authority of the Constitution in the minds of voters.
As opposed to the anally retentive civil law nations, in America it is generally permissible to do that which is not expressly prohibited. In common law countries like Germany, in my experience, you’re not allowed to do squat unless expressly permitted. Why would any sane person want to create and live in a country like that?
December 30th, 2008 at 1:56 am
Illinois. . . I never resorted to name calling. However there are few things in life that get me more riled up than when people play fast and loose with the Constitution. Most of the time it’s liberals who conjure up undeclared and hidden meanings in that sacred document. I’ve come to expect that. When I hear Republicans start pulling clauses and amendments out of thin air (Ted: “Natural born citizen” under article II of the Constitution requires that both parents be citizens of the US when the child is born — regardless of where the child was born.) I get very upset. How can any self-respecting Conservative decry activist courts for legitimizing abortion and gay marriage as Constitutional rights while at the same time making up Constitutional intent when it suits their political whims?
One of the beautiful attributes of our Constitution is that it says what it means and means what it says. As MarkG alludes to in #33, anything not specified in the Constitution is left to the States and the People to decide for themselves. Why should this example be any different?
December 30th, 2008 at 2:28 pm
There is no need for a trial. This is a case for SUMMARY JUDGMENT BASED ON OBAMA’S OWN WEBSITE STATING HIS FATHER WAS KENYAN/BRITISH CITIZEN WHEN BHO WAS BORN!!!
That is why I can see absolutely no way around SCOTUS enjoining the inauguration — which is precisely why the 2 Supreme Court dates are crucial, Jan 9, day after Congress convenes on the electoral votes; Jan 16, Friday before the Tuesday inauguration.
Under the 20th Amendment, Biden will be sworn in as the Acting President until a new President is determined in due course.