You may recall the lawsuit alleging that Obama is not eligible to be President of the United States due to the fact that he is not a natural born citizen. The big problem for that suit is standing.
Now we have a suit with plaintiff’s who have standing. (h/t Ace of Spades HQ)
Alan Keyes, Presidential candidate of the American Independent Party, Wiley S. Drake, V.P. candidate of the Independent Party and California elector, and Markham Robinson, California elector have filed this lawsuit to prevent California from certifying their electors until satisfactory proof is produced that Obama is in fact a natural born citizen:
Legal Basis
62. Article II, Section I of the United States Constitution, states, in pertinent part, as follows:
“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;”
63. Senator Barack H. Obama is a candidate for the Office of the President of the United States. However, to assume such office, Senator Obama must meet the qualifications specified for the Office of the President of the United States, which includes that he must be a “natural born” citizen. Senator Obama has failed to demonstrate that he is a “natural born” citizen. There are other legal challenges before various state and federal courts regarding aspects of lost or dual citizenship concerning Senator Obama. Those challenges, in and of themselves, demonstrate Petitioners’ argument that reasonable doubt exists as to the eligibility of the Democratic Party’s nominee for President.
64. SOS is responsible for ensuring the validity of the State election process by, among other things, verifying the qualifications of the voters, approving the ballots and the candidates, supervising the counting of the ballots, and certifying the results. This certification of the vote by SOS, based upon which Electors received the highest number of votes in the state, is the method provided for in California law for ascertaining which Electors are appointed to vote for president (California Elections Code §15505, 3 U.S.C. § 6). On December 1, or as soon as soon as the election results have been received from all counties in the state, SOS shall certify the names of the ascertained Electors to the Governor, and then transmit to each presidential Elector a certificate of election (California Elections Code § 15505). The Governor then issues and seals a Certificate of Ascertainment which is delivered to the Electors by December 15 (3 U.S.C. § 6), who then meet to sign the Certificate of Vote (Federal Election Code §192.006). The office of SOS is intended to be non-biased and to provide the critical sense of fairness and impartiality necessary for the people to have faith in the fundamental underpinnings of the democratic basis for our elections.
65. There is a reasonable and common expectation by the voters that to qualify for the ballot, the individuals running for office must meet minimum qualifications as outlined in the federal and state Constitutions and statutes, and that compliance with those minimum qualifications has been confirmed by the officials overseeing the election process. Heretofore, only a signed statement from the candidate attesting to his or her meeting those qualifications was requested and received by SOS, with no verification demanded. This practice represents a much lower standard than that demanded of one when requesting a California driver’s license. Since SOS has, as its core, the mission of certifying and establishing the validity of the election process, this writ seeks a Court Order barring SOS from certifying the California Electors until documentary proof that Senator Obama is a “natural born” citizen of the United States of America is received by her. This proof could include items such as his original birth certificate, showing the name of the hospital and the name and the signature of the doctor, all of his passports with immigration stamps, and verification from the governments where the candidate has resided, verifying that he did not, and does not, hold citizenship of these countries, and any other documents that certify an individual’s citizenship and/or qualification for office.
It’s very simple to solve this issue. Show the damn birth certificate and have it certified. It takes a few minutes and is not a invasion of privacy considering he is going to be the people’s President.
Other interesting parts in the lawsuit:
…From August 21, 2008, for over two months, Senator Obama has refused to provide his original birth certificate, even though, in his book, Dreams of My Father, page 26, he states, “… I found the article folded between my birth certificate and old immunization records…” which shows that he clearly has his birth certificate, or that he lied in his book. Particularly telling is the fact that not one single person has come forward, not a doctor, not a nurse, not a hospital administrator, nor anyone else, to state that he or she was present during this birth, except for Obama’s paternal grandmother, who affirmed that she “was in the delivery room in Kenya when he was born Aug. 4, 1961.” Additionally, when Mr. Berg served subpoenas on the hospitals mentioned above, Senator Obama refused to sign a consent form that would allow the hospitals to release any of his information. Instead, Senator Obama has hired three law firms to defend himself, and has challenged the action by Mr. Berg on a technicality, claiming that an ordinary citizen does not have standing to bring the suit.
And:
80. If he was born in Hawaii, there are four (4) other obstacles to Senator Obama’s eligibility. In and about 1967, Senator Obama moved to Indonesia, took the last name of his stepfather, Soetoro, and went by the name Barry Soetoro. In original legal action filed by Mr. Berg, he presented Senator Obama’s school registration, showing him registered as Barry Soetoro, Citizenship-Indonesian, Religion Islam, signed by L. Soetoro. From 1945, Indonesia has not allowed dual citizenship and, therefore, Ms. Dunham-Obama-Soetoro, Senator Obama’s mother, had to relinquish her son’s U.S.citizenship in order to obtain Indonesian citizenship for him, which would make him ineligible to become a United States President. Additionally, the United States could not allow dual citizenship with Indonesia at that time, as Indonesia did not allow dual citizenship, and it was prohibited by the Hague Convention of 1930, as interfering with the internal affairs of another sovereign Country.
81. In addition, upon return to the United States in and around 1971-1972, Senator Obama would have been required to go to the then current immigration procedures to regain his U.S. citizenship. There is no record of him ever doing that. Even if he had done so, he would be considered a naturalized citizen and not a “natural born” citizen.
82. Additionally, assuming Senator Obama was born in what is now Kenya, at the time of Senator Obama’s birth in 1961, (now) Kenya was the British Protectorate of Zanzibar and Senator Obama was automatically accorded a form of British citizenship under Section 32(1) of the British Nationality Act of 1948, effective date January 28, 1949, based on his father’s citizenship.
83. Finally, in 1981, Senator Obama traveled to Pakistan, when there was a ban for U.S. citizens to travel to Pakistan. The only logical possibility for him to do so was by using one of his other passports: Indonesian, Kenyan, or British.
Produce the original full length passport and the case is done…..quite easy. And the fact that he won’t is keeping this story alive.
See author page
Very interesting. I’m curious, though. Let’s say that he can’t produce the required documents. California doesn’t certify the election results. This still leaves him with sufficient electoral votes to win the election. So then lets assume that lawsuits are filed in other states.
Two possibilities:
Lawsuits are not resolved until after elections are certified in enough states to give Obama 270 votes. So Obama gets the 270 votes, but, then, it is discovered that he is really the illegitimate son of Saddam Hussein (accounting for his middle name), and was born in Baghdad. Presumably, he wouldn’t be sworn in, so who is sworn in as President? Joe Biden? Who won the certified vote as vice-president. Or is there a re-vote?
Lawsuits are resolved before certification, and Obama/Biden ticket is disqualified. Is there then a national re-vote?
As I said, just curious.
– Larry Weisenthal/Hungington Beach, CA
The comedy continues. The most criminal election process in the history of the nation and the winner (biggest crook in history) won, or bought the election with terrorist funding, and may be an illegal alien. The forgers are at work 24-7 to clean up the poor forgery they released earlier.
As you state, Curt, this is very simple. All he has to do is just provide his birth certificate and this is all over. The reason this stays alive is because he refuses to be open about pretty much anything about his background.
I don’t believe his citizenship is illegitimate, but just imagining it was for a minute. The man has broken voter registration laws, broken campaign donation laws and has been friends for decades with a domestic terrorist who is a communist and racist. Not to mention his mentor and spiritual advisor for decades has been a Black Supremacist, hate-America bigot. And the mass media and 60+ million Americans saw nothing wrong with any of that. Do you really think anyone is going to say he cannot be President if it is shown he is not a native born citizen of the USA? Please. They will say it’s no big deal and allow him to skirt the laws, just as they have done with his voter registration illegalities and his campaign donation illegalities.
I really don’t think there is anything this man could do which would not have his supporters dismiss it out of hand.
I’m often told I am the firebreathing, knuckle dragging right wing radical in the bunch around here so it may lower my approval rating amongst readers to learn that I think pursuing this issue is a no win situation for us.
First of all, Democrats don’t give a flying F*** about the Constitution, so even if Obama is not a U.S. citizen they wouldn’t bothered in the least.
Second, the dim wit dummies (otherwise known as moderates) can be so easily conned by whatever Obama produces it won’t matter.
Obama will be Inaugurated and if we harp too much on this we will be left to look silly.
This issue isn’t at all as important as the character questions raised by his associations with Ayers, Khalidi, Wright, Odinga, etc.etc.etc. which I do believe will become clearer once Obama takes policy courses that are in line with the radical thinking of those America haters.
There is just so much bad stuff about Obama that will soon become evident to the dim wit dummies that I don’t think we need to go out on the limb over Obama’s birth certificate.
I really believe this is a dry hole. We need to move on to things that we can change, like the lack of a platform with planks and programs and things we believe.
If Obama truly is not a natural born citizen, that would be unpresidented. ; )
I don’t know about this. Some items that I’ve read convince me that there is nothing to all this. then something else comes along and I change my mind. He needs to produce the thing and be done with it.
Larry W. I have read—-if the candidate is ruled unqualified, electors can cast their vote for someone else, but, each state would have to decide how their electors would proceed according to their laws. If a decision comes after the electors vote, Biden gets to sit in the OO.
Now, this is what I’ve read, somewhere, please don’t ask me for a source and discount it if you wish.
Biden is named in the above suit, as someone who knowingly “helped” perpetuate the fraud. He would be convicted of a felony.
Remember, both Clintons say “he is not ELIGIBLE to serve as President.” Anyone can run, but only natural citizens can SERVE.
@Mike’s America:
Mike, you RINO!
I think Mike is right. Just by nature of his mom being a U.S. citizen, I don’t see how there is any question of Obama’s citizenship; beats the hell out of me why he can’t just produce the damn document and put this to rest.
Too, bad though. I always wanted to make a post entitled,
PResident of the United States of AmericaRemember–Arnold can’t be President because, although he governor of the largest state, he is not a natural born citizen. Why break the rules for BO?
President Pelosi?
Welcome Hillraiser 429, what if they find Pelosi to knowingly help perpetuate the fraud, is she also named in the suit? What a mess we would find ourselves in, all those voters that thought they voted to change our image in the world, feh!
Thanks for the Welcome! I’ve been following this issue since this summer, but have to confess I don’t keep up with all the technicalities. I have read two different instances: 1) Pelosi 2) decided by a vote of the House. Remember, Hillary does have a lot of supporters and did win the popular vote.
I’m just saying… given that President-Elect Obama is found in an unlikely situation to not be a natural born citizen, et al, and he is still allowed to serve… Schwarzenegger 2012. How’s that for a bumper sticker?
There is a lot of stuff “out there” about this that supports the argument. Obama travelled to Pakistan during a period when Americans were banned–how did he manage that, unless he is Kenyan (his birth father), or Indonesian (adopted by his second father). In either case, he has not gone through the necessary immigration process change his citizenship to American. Not only not a natural-born, but not even American?
I have studied this intensively and I see no “dry hole”. Obama will not or cannot prove his eligibility, and that represents a tremendous opportunity for the opposition. This is the last, best hope to remove him.
But more important, patriotic Americans should not stand by while any part of the Constitution is abrogated. If Americans ignore this, they will have ethically and legally failed in their sworn duty to defend and protect the Constitution. Great adversity and danger lies ahead, and if Americans do not defend their Constitution, then it will not defend them.
This is from Gina Cobb, where I usually post, and this post from an expert in logic nails the key issue. More on Gina Cobb.
___________________________________
SUMMARY
The US Constitution specifies that the US President must meet certain eligibility criteria to take office. Many Americans have sworn to uphold and defend the US Constitution, usually expressed as, “I will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.” To honorably defend this oath, the eligibility of the President-elect must be known to the individuals who have sworn this oath. Once the eligibility of the President-elect has become known to the individuals who have sworn to uphold the Constitution, this information has become public.
This leads to a from of deductive logic called a Categorical Syllogism, which reads as follows: (1) To be POTUS, the candidate’s eligibility must be public. (2) Obama’s eligibility is not public. (3) Therefore, Obama is not POTUS. This syllogism is written in the present tense, and as time moves forward, the meaning of the syllogism moves with it. On January 20, 2009, if the premises remain true, this syllogism will disqualify Obama from becoming POTUS.
The Syllogism is based on the rules of nature, not of mankind. It responds only to the rules of deductive logic and cannot be overturned by any human action. If the premises are taken to be true, then the conclusion must be true. There is no law or statute that requires the rules of logic to be proven in a court of law for them to be enforceable. The rules of logic are compelled by nature, and cannot be challenged by any law of man.
Therefore, the conclusion of this syllogism cannot be questioned by humans of any authority. No human is empowered to alter, rewrite, or adjudicate the laws of the Universe. Therefore, so long as the premises of the syllogism remain true, Obama is not POTUS.
Black grandma in Kenya (the one who says Hussein O was born there) ask that he not visit her. She got the news of what happened to white grandma within days of a visit and he didn’t even attend the funeral service. Hussein O would kill his parents and then beg for mercy because he’s an orphan.
I hate to be on the same page as someone as delusional as Larry W, but this is a waste of time. He will be proven to be a citizen.
I think this is the confusion that most think about US citizens giving birth abroad:
“the laws on the books at the time of his birth stated if a child is born abroad and one parent was a U.S. Citizen, which would have been his mother, Stanley Ann Dunham, Obama’s mother would have had to live ten (10) years in the United States, five (5) of which were after the age of fourteen (14). At the time of Obama’s birth, his mother was only eighteen (18) and therefore did not meet the residency requirements under the law to give her son (Obama) U.S. Citizenship”
The laws have since changed, I believe, that there is not an age requirement.
Sarge
Obama Is Not A Natural Born U.S. Citizen And Is Therefore Ineligible For The Presidency / Documentary Video (10m52) by: Philip J. Berg
And I also found this:
Barack Obama is not legally a U.S. natural-born citizen according to the law on the books at the time of his birth, which falls between “December 24, 1952 to November 13, 1986?
Presidential office requires a natural-born citizen if the child was not born to two U.S. citizen parents. US Law very clearly stipulates: “.If only one parent was a U.S. citizen at the time of your birth, that parent must have resided in the United States for at least ten years, at least five of which had to be after the age of 16.” Barack Obama’s father was not a U.S. citizen and Obama’s mother was only 18 when Obama was born, which means though she had been a U.S. citizen for 10 years, (or citizen perhaps because of Hawai’i being a territory) the mother fails the test for being so for at least 5 years **prior to** Barack Obama’s birth, but *after* age 16. It doesn’t matter *after*. In essence, she was not old enough to qualify her son for automatic U.S. citizenship.
His mother would have needed to have been 16+5= 21 years old, at the time of Barack Obama’s birth for him to have been a natural-born citizen. As aformentioned, she was a young college student at the time and was not. Barack Obama was already 3 years old at that time his mother would have needed to have waited to have him as the only U.S. Cizen parent. Obama instead should have been naturalized, but even then, that would still disqualify him from holding the office. Naturalized citizens are ineligible to hold the office of President.
Having followed this fairly close, it seems that the nine states which now have suits pending can be an issue.
Courts have ruled on standing and some of that is questionable.
But in any event somebody who does have standing and the burden to do this is the Electoral College.
Because of all the lawsuits and the job they have to do and the seeming lack of will of the Obama campaign to provide the documentation beyond a recent COLB it should be enough of an issue for a bipartisan group from the Electoral College visit Hawaii to determine the status of his eligibility.
What is problematic here is there are in Hawaii law about 8 or 9 ways a COLB can be legally changed from it’s original form and none of these facts are coded in any way on the COLB itself to determine which if any of these actions may have been taken.
The Vault Birth Certificate won’t even be enough, they have to look at all the supporting documents in the file for a full evaluation of the issues here.
There are too many exceptions in the Hawaiian law where a person could be born out of country and still be issued a COLB.
That has to be resolved.
Also yet to come is any issue with Indonesian citizenship if his stepfather adopted him.
http://www.blogtext.org/naturalborncitizen/
That link is to a suit in NJ which has been found to have standing at the State level.
Now it is waiting on SCOTUS for action.
There are claims that Obama has used an Indonesian passport in the past. U.S. citizens don’t use Indonesian passports. Even if true, it may have been obtained illegally. But that would create the scenario where someone who falsified Obama’s citizenship records (i.e. with “unclean” hands) is now attempting to claim he is a legal citizen. This is probably why Obama is fighting this so hard.
On the other hand, if he truly was an Indonesian citizen, he would have to go through immigration to regain his American citizenship — something he never did. Theoretically, he could be an illegal immigrant who could be deported.
Why don’t you people just go to Fact Cheack .org!
They have PROOF of his Birth Certificate.
@David101
Mission statement from FactCheck.org:
Obama was on the board of the Chicago Annenberg Challenge that received money from the Annenburg Foundation. The Annenburg Foundation also funds FactCheck.org.
NOT acceptable David, as factcheck.org is owned by Annenberg/Obama. This is kin to asking the fox to check on the hens and make sure they are safe in the hen house! Neither factcheck nor fightthesmears are credible proof of anything associated with Barack Obama’s legitimacy to assume the presidency. The document listed there has already been shown to be a forgery anyway.
I really hope the court will now do their job in view of the severals suits which do have proper standing. I also hope the electoral college will do their job as well. Either our constitution is what it is – or it is NOTHING. We either uphold it and abide by it – or throw it out! (Which I hear he is wanting to do anyway!)
We need a president who will abide by, protect and defend our constitution. PERIOD.
Here are some additional reasons why I personally don’t think this issue will go anywhere.
Firstly, according to FactCheck.org, it’s not simply the birth certificate: there is a contemporary birth announcement, published in a Honolulu paper. So it seems that he probably was born in Hawaii.
Now, Craig raises some interesting, highly technical issues.
McCain was famously born in the Canal Zone. He probably qualified as a citizen, because of his parents, but Congress still felt it important to specially certify that he was qualified, with Obama voting in the affirmative.
Were Obama to be disqualified by lower courts, it is a certainty that it would go to the SCOTUS. It is also a certainty that the idea of disqualifying Obama on the basis of Craig’s technicality would cause a world-wide eruption which would make the 2000 charges of “stolen election” seem tame by comparison. One could easily imagine rioting in the streets. In 2000, the same SCOTUS asserted that it had the power to usurp local election laws on the very flimsy grounds of equal protection, relating to ballot counting guidelines within a single state not being uniform, disregarding the much greater non-uniformity of votes between states. This was an argument with no basis in the constitution, and it was applied on a one time, non-precedent setting basis, to stave off a nightmare of continuing post-election controversy.
Now, is said court really going to go at it again, fully realizing the firestorm they will unleash?
Of equal relevance, would John McCain wish to serve as President under these circumstances? Or any other national Republican politician? Especially considering the remarkable challenges facing whomever is inaugurated in January?
– Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach, CA
My friends ask, If he has a legitimate birth certificate why not just produce it?
I say Bo is flipping the bird to us, in essence saying that he can do anything he damned well pleases and nobody can touch him.
…
Kitty you have summarized it all in two sentences. After all he has a D behind his name and we have become the USSA. He could be a felon and it would not matter one bit to 50% of Americans. I’ve seen him flip the bird at us twice on TV. Call me a cynic but The Constitution and the Bill of Rights will become passe and replaced as outmoded.
@David101:
David, a birth certificate and certification of live birth are two different animals. It’s the certification of live birth Obama needs to produce. See Justadude’s comment #21.
Perhaps he is hiding his true father’s identity? Frank Marshall Davis anyone? Although I am not quite sure why, he isn’t embarrassed about any of the other communists in his past, and any family that would be scandalized is deceased already. For that matter, I think I would rather have a successful Communist than a drunken loser as my official father. Something just doesn’t quite pass the smell test.
The funny thing about this is that Dr. Keyes filed this lawsuit, not the Republicans. Does Dr. Keyes feel that all of Obama’s electors will suddenly choose him?
Because that is exactly equivalent to ask Obama.
Snopes also sold their soul
And I say you are both right.
Curt,
No disrespect intended, but your grasp of the issue at hand is terribly simple and off base because the questions raised by this case (and others) will not be solved by producing a legitimate birth certificate from the State of Hawaii (assuming he has one) and his original full-length passport.
More specifically, the issue at hand is one fold — “loyalty” — as demonstrated by the founding fathers’ absolute, non-negotiable insistence that only a “natural born citizen” could hold the executive office. They placed this requirement in the Constitution to insure that no one with any conflicts of interest would sit as president, and in this case “conflict of interest” means “possible loyalty to another country.”
Obama’s website has already conceded that he is a “natural born citizen” of Kenya, which was under the dominion of the King when he was born, and that he allegedly allowed his Kenyan citizenship to expire when he turned 21. Expiration does not remove the problem, however, because it does not eradicate his “natural,” i.e. “inherent,” loyalty. In other words, assuming Obama was born in Hawaii, he would hold “natural born citizenship” in two different countries, which is tantamount to saying that he has “dual loyalties” to two different dominions.
This means that, in the end, someone will have to define the founding fathers’ intent vis-à-vis the “natural born citizen” requirement. Did they require a pure pedigree? — or would they accept split loyalties in the executive office? The answer to this question strikes me as a no-brainer. My brain notwithstanding, however, the question must be answered at a constitutional level — the Supremes must define “natural born citizenship” and they must apply their definition to the Constitutional requirement. In short, Obama’s in a world of hurt, which explains why this Harvard-trained Constitutional attorney has consistently ducked the issue. Once he produces a birth certificate, he will be compelled to answer all the other questions, and there is no satisfactory answer that won’t demonstrate his dual loyalties.
Consider, for example, that less than one year ago Obama campaigned for his cousin Odinga in Kenya. Most Americans understand that an American senator campaigning in Kenya for a Communist who pledged to institute Sharia Law was problematic. This matter becomes even more complex when you remember that the same American senator is a “natural born citizen” of Kenya — it just looks funny. And now he wants to be president.
I could go on but I think you follow the point. This is not a mere matter of producing a birth certificate from Hawaii — there are very serious Constitutional issues involved.
CTN, thanks for the input, throughout the past months that we have been reading and discussing this in the public realm, I have never seen it explained this way. Haven’t seen that his campaign conceded that he was born in Kenya, that should have been a blockbuster. Is there a source for that information?
How could there be any question, if he wasn’t born here, he can’t be president according to the Constitution? Why did Mr. Audacity/Constitutional scholar even run, he knows what our laws concerning the presidency consist of? Audacious indeed!
What happens to anything he signs while in the Oval Office while we wait for the courts to decide what constitutes a natural born citizen? We are facing dire circumstances, we do not need to dabble in a crisis that never should have been.
Hi Missy,
You ask a lot of good questions, some of them rhetorical, that deserve answers. Just for kicks, I’ll take them in order:
1. Is there a source for that [“natural born Kenyan citizenship”] information?
Yes, here’s the direct quote and with the link:
“When Barack Obama Jr. was born on Aug. 4, 1961, in Honolulu, Kenya was a British colony, still part of the United Kingdom’s dwindling empire. As a Kenyan native, Barack Obama Sr. was a British subject whose citizenship status was governed by The British Nationality Act of 1948. That same act governed the status of Obama Sr.’s children.
“Since Sen. Obama has neither renounced his U.S. citizenship nor sworn an oath of allegiance to Kenya, his Kenyan citizenship automatically expired on Aug. 4, 1982.”
http://fightthesmears.com/articles/5/birthcertificate
2. How could there be any question, if he wasn’t born here, he can’t be president according to the Constitution?
Know one knows with absolute drop-dead certainty the place of Obama’s birth; hence the need for him to produce a legitimate birth certificate. But a birth certificate will not resolve the issue — it will only establish his birth place.
3. Why did Mr. Audacity/Constitutional scholar even run, he knows what our laws concerning the presidency consist of?
Straight from the Alinksy school of thought. These guys have placed a premium on in-your-face audacity, the kind that steals from you in broad daylight, defying you to stop them.
4. What happens to anything he signs while in the Oval Office while we wait for the courts to decide what constitutes a natural born citizen?
This is where the proverbial rubber hits the road and it explains why every single one of the lawsuits (there’s about 11 so far), including Keyes’, uses the phrase “Constitutional crisis” and it explains why I believe the SCOTUS must define “natural born citizen.” It may turn out that Obama qualifies for POTUS. Then again, it may turn out otherwise, which means this thing’s going to get real ugly real fast.
We shall see.
From the US Constitution Online:
Constitutional Topic: Citizenship
The Constitutional Topics pages at the USConstitution.net site are presented to delve deeper into topics than can be provided on the Glossary Page or in the FAQ pages. This Topic Page concerns Citizenship. Citizenship is mentioned in Article 1, Section 2, Article 1, Section 3, Article 1, Section 8, Article 2, Section 1, and in the 14th Amendment and several subsequent amendments.
——————————————————————————–
If you’re going to be involved in government in the United States, citizenship is a must. To be a Senator or Representative, you must be a citizen of the United States. To be President, not only must you be a citizen, but you must also be natural-born. Aside from participation in government, citizenship is an honor bestowed upon people by the citizenry of the United States when a non-citizen passes the required tests and submits to an oath.
Natural-born citizen
Who is a natural-born citizen? Who, in other words, is a citizen at birth, such that that person can be a President someday?
The 14th Amendment defines citizenship this way: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.” But even this does not get specific enough. As usual, the Constitution provides the framework for the law, but it is the law that fills in the gaps.
Currently, Title 8 of the U.S. Code fills in those gaps. Section 1401 defines the following as people who are “citizens of the United States at birth:”
Anyone born inside the United States
Any Indian or Eskimo born in the United States, provided being a citizen of the U.S. does not impair the person’s status as a citizen of the tribe
Any one born outside the United States, both of whose parents are citizens of the U.S., as long as one parent has lived in the U.S.
Any one born outside the United States, if one parent is a citizen and lived in the U.S. for at least one year and the other parent is a U.S. national
Any one born in a U.S. possession, if one parent is a citizen and lived in the U.S. for at least one year
Any one found in the U.S. under the age of five, whose parentage cannot be determined, as long as proof of non-citizenship is not provided by age 21
Any one born outside the United States, if one parent is an alien and as long as the other parent is a citizen of the U.S. who lived in the U.S. for at least five years (with military and diplomatic service included in this time)
A final, historical condition: a person born before 5/24/1934 of an alien father and a U.S. citizen mother who has lived in the U.S.
Anyone falling into these categories is considered natural-born, and is eligible to run for President or Vice President. These provisions allow the children of military families to be considered natural-born, for example.
Separate sections handle territories that the United States has acquired over time, such as Puerto Rico (8 USC 1402), Alaska (8 USC 1404), Hawaii (8 USC 1405), the U.S. Virgin Islands (8 USC 1406), and Guam (8 USC 1407). Each of these sections confer citizenship on persons living in these territories as of a certain date, and usually confer natural-born status on persons born in those territories after that date. For example, for Puerto Rico, all persons born in Puerto Rico between April 11, 1899, and January 12, 1941, are automatically conferred citizenship as of the date the law was signed by the President (June 27, 1952). Additionally, all persons born in Puerto Rico on or after January 13, 1941, are natural-born citizens of the United States. Note that because of when the law was passed, for some, the natural-born status was retroactive.
The law contains one other section of historical note, concerning the Panama Canal Zone and the nation of Panama. In 8 USC 1403, the law states that anyone born in the Canal Zone or in Panama itself, on or after February 26, 1904, to a mother and/or father who is a United States citizen, was “declared” to be a United States citizen. Note that the terms “natural-born” or “citizen at birth” are missing from this section.
In 2008, when Arizona Senator John McCain ran for president on the Republican ticket, some theorized that because McCain was born in the Canal Zone, he was not actually qualified to be president. However, it should be noted that section 1403 was written to apply to a small group of people to whom section 1401 did not apply. McCain is a natural-born citizen under 8 USC 1401(c): “a person born outside of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents both of whom are citizens of the United States and one of whom has had a residence in the United States or one of its outlying possessions, prior to the birth of such person.” Not eveyone agrees that this section includes McCain – but absent a court ruling either way, we must presume citizenship.
U.S. Nationals
A “national” is a person who is considered under the legal protection of a country, while not necessarily a citizen. National status is generally conferred on persons who lived in places acquired by the U.S. before the date of acquisition. A person can be a national-at-birth under a similar set of rules for a natural-born citizen. U.S. nationals must go through the same processes as an immigrant to become a full citizen. U.S. nationals who become citizens are not considered natural-born.
Becoming a citizen
A non-citizen may apply to become a citizen of the United States. At no time will such a person ever be considered natural-born (unless the U.S. Code is changed in some way). The process to become a citizen involves several steps, including applying to become and becoming a permanent resident (previously known as a resident alien), applying to become and becoming naturalized, and finally taking the Oath of Allegiance to the United States. Children of naturalized U.S. citizens generally become citizens automatically, though they will also not be considered natural-born. There is a time constraint before a permanent resident can apply for naturalization, generally either 3 or 5 years. The other requirements are that there be a minimum length of time in a specific state or district, successful completion of a citizenship exam, ability to read, write, and speak English, and good moral character.
The Oath of Allegiance to the United States
The following is the text of the Oath of Allegiance:
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 I will support and defend the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic;
that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same;
that I will bear arms on behalf of the United States when required by the law;
that I will perform noncombatant service in the Armed Forces of the United States when required by the law;
that I will perform work of national importance under civilian direction when required by the law; and
that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; so help me God.
Let me make one other point relative to the Certificate of Live Birth (COLB) on Obama’s website.
Please notice the all-bold, all-capitalized words at the bottom of the image, which state: “ANY ALTERTATIONS INVALIDATE THIS CERTIFICATE.”
http://fightthesmears.com/articles/5/birthcertificate
You don’t have to think twice about this to understand that the image on the site is a scanned reproduction that someone prepared for web use, which means that they resized and modified the graphic. In other words, they altered it. And if you don’t think my argument is valid, then ask yourself if any court of law, let alone SCOTUS, would accept a virtual image on a website as viable evidence.
Obama could be rid of this one aspect of the question if he scanned an original birth certificate (which is not the same as a COLB), while he simultaneously showed the original to the powers that be. I find it interesting that he circumvented the original, as well as the issue, with this sleight of hand.
All goes away with proof, sans proof he is disqualified or our Constitution is meaningless.
I dropped my conclusion above (#37). It meant to frame this argument:
Obama’s COLB states that any alterations to the document invalidate it.
Obama’s web master altered the document when he replicated it.
Therefore, Obama’s COLB is invalid.
I think either my earlier post hit the SPAM or I didn’t get it sent properly so…
With regard to the constitutional topic of US Citizenship, I believe the Constitution Online spells it out rather succinctly.
http://www.usconstitution.net/consttop_citi.html
USMC Daughter,
Your post (I received it via email) and its accompanying link furnishes the standard answer to the question, What constitutes a “natural born citizen”? However, it fails to address the question at hand — What does the Constitution say regarding persons enjoying natural born citizenship in two different countries?
Even though the US Constitution does not specifically address the question of dual loyalties, I don’t think this means that the founding fathers did not contemplate it. Can you imagine what the fathers would have answered if someone raised their hand during the constitutional convention and asked, “Ummmm, what if someone is a ‘natural born citizen’ of the USA and a ‘natural born subject’ of the King?”
NO SOUP FOR YOU!
If the goal is to protect the office of POTUS from conflicting loyalties, methinks the fathers would contend that a person suffering from rivaling loyalties due to dual citizenships does not qualify as a “natural born citizen.”
I think this will be my last comment on this thread.
I think this is a waste of time and effort that at best will change nothing.
Suppose it gets into the courts–it almost certainly will go to the Ninth Circuit–which (while I am not a lawyer) I believe is the most overturned court in the system.
So it will go to the Supreme Court.
About half of the Supreme court will will find that the original founders intended to the term “natural born” to mean “born on US soil”[1]. The other half will find that disallowing Obama is almost certainly to result in civil war (with which I agree) therefore will either concur or recuse.
People, one of the things we need desperately to do is get away for rule by technicality.
If the man is not qualified (and I believe he is not) the time to say so was a recent Tuesday or before.
[1] The question of “born on foreign soil of US citizens or of a US citizen” is not so clear. Somebody with a dictionary from the period could be of some help.
But if Obama was born in Hawaii, the story is over.
Larry,
There’s no such thing as “rule by technicality” when the technicalities are points of law. For example, let’s say you’re a convicted felon who is ineligible to vote. Do you believe you have a valid contention to enter a polling place and demand a ballot because “it’s a technicality” that US law prohibits felons from voting?
There are no technicalities.
Regarding the issue of when to raise this objection to Obama, most of the lawsuits against Obama were filed prior to Election Day.
CTN, I still predict that, if this were to get to SCOTUS, they’d find a reason not to disqualify Obama, in the same way (and for the same basic reasons) that they found a way to halt the Florida recount. I don’t think that the 2000 action of SCOTUS was taken for partisan reasons, but rather to prevent a descent into election anarchy. Same thing would/will apply in this case. Just watch and see. The current lawsuit by Keyes is way too little and way too late. Obama declared his candidacy 20 months before the election, for crying out loud. By the way, I really think that too much was made of the so-called Annenberg-Obama connection. The very idea that the Annenberg foundation would be a party to transparent public fraud is ludicrous, to anyone who ever looked at the names of the Harvard war dean in Annenberg hall, or even spent 5 minutes reading about the Annenberg foundation.
e.g. http://www.fas.harvard.edu/~memhall/images2/annen3.jpg
– Larry Weisenthal/HB
I can’t believe the Courts would let this hang. They can look at the actual documents “in camera”. They could rule that the originals can be viewed but not copied by the parties involved.
BO is most certainly hiding something. Even if he wA BORN in Hi., he could be charged with crimes which would exempt him from taking office. The passport issue is interesting because it can be checked easily within the Gov.t(in camera). What passport did he use on the trip to Europe this summer? Maybe he is exempt?
CTN, read the document thoroughly.
U.S. Nationals
A “national” is a person who is considered under the legal protection of a country, while not necessarily a citizen. National status is generally conferred on persons who lived in places acquired by the U.S. before the date of acquisition. A person can be a national-at-birth under a similar set of rules for a natural-born citizen. U.S. nationals must go through the same processes as an immigrant to become a full citizen. U.S. nationals who become citizens are not considered natural-born.
This is for REAL. The election is NOT OVER. IF Obama is ineligible because he is not a natural born U.S. citizen then the Supreme Court could decide who will be President OR the Electoral College could reject Obama as a growing list of potential electors are joining a lawsuit demanding proof of birth. Instead of talking let’s do something.
Take action here: http://peoplespassions.org/index.html
It’s EASY. Just click and send emails to Reps. then send letters/emails to Electors asking them to defend the U.S. Constitution and demand Obama provide birth certificate or step down from Presidency. Every email and letter counts! Please help.
Write To U.S. Supreme Court Justices Regarding Obama Birth Certificate here: http://libertynjustice.wordpress.com/
FOR PROOF look here: http://peoplespassions.org/documents/The_Problem_with_a_birth_place.htm
and here:
LISTEN TO AUDIO of Kenya Grandmother stating that Obama born in Mombassa Kenya:
People in Kenya know something that Americans don’t: Obama born in Kenya!
VIDEO: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yl1K94ALlTA
More than a half-dozen legal challenges have been filed in federal and state courts demanding President-elect Barack Obama’s decertification from ballots or seeking to halt elector meetings, claiming he has failed to prove his U.S. citizenship status. WND is tracking the progress of many cases across the U.S., including the following: OH, CT, WA, NJ, PA, GA, Hawaii
Read full article: http://worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=80928
If Biden was to step in, nancy pelosi would become his VP. Folks that’s scary!
Larry, as a fellow Liberal Democrat and Obama supporter, I have to say I wholeheartedly disagree with your points here. The Constitution is the foundation of how our country is run, and no threats of mass hysteria rioting should ever be allowed to void it. If it is found that Obama is indeed ineligible to serve, then I shall remove my support, as fervently as I stood for him. We cannot say that the Constitution doesn’t count when it’s inconvenient for us, and then later argue that California’s passing of Proposition 8 is in violation on the Equal Protection Claus of the 14th Amendment, or fight for any other issue we believe in. If the Constitution doesn’t count for everything, it doesn’t stand for anything.
With that said, I do believe this to be a non-issue. For when Congress changed the law which requires one parent to be 19 to the new requirement of 16, they also made the law retroactive to 1952 – which covers Obama in any of the aforementioned scenarios.