Talk about discrimination bordering upon bigotry!
It is right there in the United States Constitution in Article II, Section 1, Clause 5, which 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.”
Discrimination upon the basis of national origin, discrimination upon the basis of age, and discrimination upon the basis of residency status! How about that?
In this past presidential election we had two candidates running for the office described above who admittedly were born on foreign soil, one in Panama and one in Nicaragua. The candidate who won, Barack Obama, describes himself as born in the state of Hawaii, however he has released no proof of his birthplace other than a generated Certification of Live Birth, and there are reports that his own family members, and Kenyan government officials are conflicted over where exactly he was born.
Some Constitutional scholars spout off the legal definition of “natural born citizen” is one who was born within the jurisdiction of a national government, i.e. in its territorial limits, or born of citizens temporarily residing abroad. However, I found NO legal definition of “natural born citizen.” The phrase is not defined anywhere in the Constitution. In 1790, the Congress, attempted to make clarification with the Naturalization Act of 1790 that stated “And the children of citizens of the United States that may be born beyond the sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born citizens.” Seemingly this definition would have covered John McCain as a “natural born citizen,” except that in 1795, the Congress made another clarification, the Naturalization Act of 1795, which removed the words “natural born” and stated that children born to citizens beyond the seas are citizens of the U.S., but are not legally considered “natural born citizens” of the U.S. This confusion over the meaning of the Constitution’s “natural born citizen” is why the United States Congress passed a bill endowing Senator John McCain with “natural born citizen” status, so that, if elected President, he would be legal under the Constitution.
This murkiness over the Constitutional definition of “natural born citizen” has caused considerable scenarios to be proffered as to why Barack Obama is not Constitutionally qualified to be President, even if born in Hawaii. Some of them have to do with the young age of his mother at his birth, who would not have had enough years of standing as a United States citizen to automatically confer American citizenship upon him, if he had been born in Kenya. It sounds far-fetched to you and me, but someone, somewhere has found some quirk in the law that seems to state that. (For other examples see sidrx at Pajamas Media.)
Other deniers claim that because Barack Obama was born a British citizen, as a son of a British father, regardless of where Obama himself was born, he cannot be considered a “natural born citizen.” That came as a shocker to me, as I had always considered myself a “natural born citizen,” even though I was born in Maryland of a British father. But, apparently, I am not only NOT a “natural born citizen,” according to some, I am not even a citizen of the USA, a most interesting fact to discover at my age. At least I am in good company. It’s me, President-elect Barack Obama, and President Chester A. Arthur. It must be true as I read it at a BLOG.
If the Constitution were truly the Law of the Land, certainly a definition of “natural born citizen” would have been offered by the Supreme Court or the Congress by now. Or there would have been a law passed by the Congress that no candidates could run for president unless first vetted for eligibility according to Article II, Section 1, Clause 5. Of course, any American with a brain knows that we no longer live under rule of the Constitution, hence all of this kerfuffle over where Barack Obama was “really” born matters not one wit. He will be inaugurated President of the United States and will remain so, regardless of where in the world he was born.
Here is a long, involved treatise written by Constitutional scholar Jonathan Turley to try and convince us that, oh yes, we are a nation of Constitutional laws, and as such it would have been “Unconstitutional” for John McCain to serve as United States President as he is NOT a “natural born citizen.” Turley describes how he and his cohorts, while wrapped in the mantle of the U.S. Constitution, were all ready and willing to go to court to stop McCain’s “Unconstitutional” inauguration. Of course, the election happened a bit differently, and Jonathan Turley’s erudite but laughable opinion on “natural born citizen” suddenly turns 180 degrees as applied to Turley’s favored candidate, Barack Obama.
If we were truly living under the Constitution, Hillary Clinton would be unqualified to be appointed from the United States Senate to Secretary of State. Yet, no one, not Barack Obama, nor the American media, is offering any explanation of how her appointment can be Constitutional. Other American Presidents who disregarded the “Emoluments Clause” of the Constitution were Richard Nixon and Bill Clinton, who both got away with it, as will Barack Obama. President George W. Bush who wanted to nominate Senator Orin Hatch for the Supreme Court was told that would be Unconstitutional and he accepted that ruling and did not nominate Hatch. All of the above support my view that the United States Constitution is just a quaint and moldering document under glass at the National Archives, existing only to hammer heads, when needed, of those with unpopular ideas. It is now generally disregarded as little more than a venerated historic document.
According to what I have read of the birth certificate conspiracy, I believe Barack Obama was born in the United States. He probably believes as I believe about myself, that we are “natural born” citizens even though our fathers were British subjects when we were born. Deniers – think about this. Is it possible that Barack Obama, himself, created this smokescreen over his birthplace to drive you to distraction as a way to divert attention from the more serious and controversial plans he has for his new nation?
December 7, 2008 at 10:19 am
The choice facing the Supreme Court boils down to civil unrest to protect the Constitution or civil war to proceed to ‘inaugurate’ a non-”natural born citizen”.
December 7, 2008 at 12:15 pm
Ted – you are living in La-La land if you think average Americans care about or understand the Constitution. Americans judge everything on how it “feels” to them and what Saturday Night Live tells them to think.
December 7, 2008 at 12:45 pm
I don’t know if it was him himself that created this but he, himself could certainly put an end to it all. Maybe the Supremes will force the issue this week. They did not rule Friday as expected in the Donofrio case for whatever reason and while it may be a long shot- at least Justice Thomas forced a full conference. It rests on them that they coulda, woulda, shoulda ended this fiasco.
December 7, 2008 at 1:41 pm
This is the most thoughtful and coherent comment I have read on this issue. I wish I had written this comment. This writer goes to he heart of the issue and does it in a very unbiased way.
The Intellectual Redneck
December 9, 2008 at 12:40 am
To Kerfuffles: The so-called BC of Obama is only an ‘abstract’ of the real Birth Certificate that is on file in the Hawaii State department of Records.
another blog on wordpress called “outfoxing karlrove” clearly shows the back of the ‘certification’ the following words:
‘ June 6
I certify this is a true copy on abstract of the record on file in the Hawaii State deparment of records
Alvin T Omaka, Pb
state registrar’
Surely you know this isn’t the typed ‘long form certificate of live birth’ used in 1961 that contains the real information such as the hospital/doctor/
us citizen/etc.
So my question is why can’t the USA see the ‘real’ BC? Because Obama says it;s a ‘privacy’ issue!! Baloney no President has any privacy if there is a question about his birth place and Hawaii has allowed persons born in other countries to obtain a Hawaii BC if they were outside of Hawaii when hawaii was made a state in 1959! But those persons can only be considered ‘naturilized’ not ‘natural born’ you can blame the Congress of 1795 which changed the law that those ‘born beyond the seas’ to an American Parent could only be naturalized– hence Obama’s legitimate original typed and hand hand written entries for the doctor better get shown just as John McCain’s was or Millions of Americans cannot
believe this man is truly a natural born citizen and the many will continue to question anything he does after he ’swears to uphold the Constitution of the USA etc–’
December 9, 2008 at 8:27 am
fohn – “IF” Obama is not a “natural born citizen” because of the wording of a 1795 law passed by Congress, all that is necessary is for the current “Democrat” Congress to declare him a “natural born citizen” just as they have already done for John McCain. There is no doubt that Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid et al would do that. So, where’s the beef?
http://leahy.senate.gov/press/200804/041008c.html
December 9, 2008 at 1:55 pm
I believe that you seriously misrepresent Prof. Turley’s view on this matter. To link to an article that starts with “There should be universal agreement that the question of McCain’s eligibility for president shows a grossly unfair and unnecessary limitation within Article II. Indeed, we should amend the Constitution to get rid entirely of the ban on naturalized citizens becoming presidents,” and describe it as a plan for “…how he and his cohorts, while wrapped in the mantle of the U.S. Constitution, were all ready and willing to go to court to stop McCain’s “Unconstitutional” inauguration.” seems at best to be a serious misreading.
The main concern of the article is how to best go about clarifying the issue in the Law. In fact the Professor urges the legislator “to be cautious not to take one course that could fail in the brief window between a general election and the swearing in ceremony — when any challenge is likely to occur,” when considering how to correct the situation. That is a far cry from some plot to go to court to stop a President-elect McCain from becoming President.
As far as the Hillary Clinton question goes, you’ll note that Prof. Turley addresses that in the second of the articles you linked to, and seems to feel that it’s the most credible of the three “challenges.”
December 9, 2008 at 3:11 pm
Exactly! Jonathan Turley addresses the “unfairness” of the Constitution’s “natural born citizen” clause and calls for a Constitutional Amendment. Like – let’s all wait ten or fifteen years for that to happen. But because Turley considers it “unfair” does not mean that he thinks it Constitutional. In fact, he wrote in that article that the Congress’s ruling to correct the “unfairness” for John McCain was itself Unconstitutional. I don’t know how you can say that I misrepresented Turley’s views.
Jonathan Turley did not see John McCain as a “natural born citizen” according to his reading of the Constitution. However, when it came to the myriad challenges to Barack Obama’s qualification under the same clause, Turley was immediately dismissive of any and all possible Constitutional hindrances, without further ado.
And PS – I did not even mention Jonathan Turley and his labeling of Alexander Hamilton as NOT a “natural born citizen.” That is too baffling for me to understand. Perhaps you can explain it. Turley explains that because Hamilton was born in the West Indies, he was not a “natural born citizen.” However, the Constitutional clause we are discussing would have never applied to Alexander Hamilton, would it? None of the founding fathers was born in the United States!
December 9, 2008 at 5:43 pm
I was referring (rather explicitly) to your claim that Prof. Turley had somehow “describes how he and his cohorts, while wrapped in the mantle of the U.S. Constitution, were all ready and willing to go to court to stop McCain’s “Unconstitutional” inauguration.” That is a very big misrepresentation, nowhere does Prof. Turley suggest a course of action to bar McCain from the Presidency. The article isn’t an anti-McCain rant as you seem to think, but rather an attempt to get a conversation going as the best way to correct a problem. The more subtle point is that the problem that needed solving wasn’t that McCain wasn’t eligible to be President; the problem is that unclear if McCain was eligible or not.
As for your complaint as to a bias and willingness to ignore any bars to Obama’s presidency, the two instances differ in one key aspect. The only credible Obama question (the theory of his foreign birth is pretty easily debunked, just look at factcheck.org) dealt with a different facet of being a natural born citizen. The legal question that Donofrio sought to argue in front of the Supreme Court dealt with parentage rather than location of birth. The claim was that since Obama Sr. was an English Citizen, Barack couldn’t be considered a natural citizen. That issue is dealt with rather convincingly by a Congressional Research Service Report (http://www.ilw.com/immigdaily/news/2006,0725-crs.pdf) which was written in 2005 and updated in 2006, long before this election.
So since the issue of Parentage being a bar to “natural born” status had been dealt with, but the location issue (specifically in regards to Panama) hasn’t , it was much easier to “call” the results of the Donofrio appeal versus the result of a hypothetical appeal dealing with McCain . Once again, Prof. Turley never said that McCain wasn’t a “natural born” citizen, just that it was unclear if he was or not. I’m not splitting hairs here, there’s a difference between saying “I don’t know” and saying “No.”
Actually the Hamilton issue is dealt with by the “Citizen at the time of the adoption of the Constitution” part of Article II. The majority of the Founding Fathers were born in what would become the U.S.; there had been around 180 years between the founding of Jamestown and the signing of the Constitution. I’m assuming you’re making the argument that they weren’t born in the United States, because the country didn’t exist. That’s true, but they couldn’t be called foreigners like Hamilton could.
December 9, 2008 at 7:36 pm
Gyges – Professor Turley took many words to describe why John McCain was not Constitutionally qualified to be President. He wrote this as far back as March 2008. He predicted a Constitutional meltdown if McCain were elected. He closed his essay with
I know of no one else who wrote so adamantly of John McCain’s unconstitutional status. Even the most liberal members of congress signed on to the law to make McCain a “natural born citizen.” As for those who claim Obama also is not Constitutional, I agree they are probably wrong, but Turley does not even address those charges as you have done. He apparently dismisses them as silliness. Well, others of us think it just as silly to state that a man born of American parents who were sent overseas by the American government to serve America is not a “natural born citizen.”
That is why I used my blogger’s hyperbole license to describe Jonathan Turley and his cohorts wearing the mantle of the Constitution to go to court and defend the Constitution against that “unnaturally” born citizen, John McCain. Of course, as it turned out, none of that was necessary as Obama won. Case closed and the Constitution is safe … for now.
As for Alexander Hamilton, I think he was born a British subject wasn’t he? Same as George Washington, Ben Franklin, et al. Regardless, after signing on with Washington’s army, he must have had the same citizen status at the ratification of the Constitution as did the others of the Founding Fathers. They were NOT “natural born citizens” but were exempted or qualified by the Constitution to serve as President, if they “attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.”
December 11, 2008 at 7:01 pm
I think this change good. I once KGB, Come America. Find whore. Now, have son in second grade. He say, I want be President. He give you big change.
Son speak great English. Speak with honey tongue. You will faint his charisma. His charm. First fix teeth. Must have big smile. He make great trade with Russia when president. You will like new Baboushka doll, made of soap. My family own factory. America is great. BUT RUSSIA IS GREATER! No sorry I slip. Need more brain wash. Son laugh. Say don’t worry dad. All good when I President.
Keep Constituition paper in glass. No good any more. Made of rag anyhow. Stains.
December 11, 2008 at 7:14 pm
You can only change a clause in the Constitution with an amendment. They did that with the 14th, however stating that it was a clarification rather than a change in the particulars.
Obama was a dual national at birth (assuming he was in fact born in Hawaii). Therefore he was not under sole jurisdiction of the U.S. at birth. Therefore he was not a Natural born citizen. Therefore he can never be a natural born ciitzen. It is something you acquire at the moment of birth. I was born on March 31st. I can never change that to the 19th of March, no matter how much I’d rather be a Pisces than an Aries. No matter how many millions of people agree that I should change it.
Obama is no more a natural born citizen than Nikita’s son. And the framers, in their wisdom chose that safeguard to prevent him and one like Nikita’s son from ever becoming POTUS.
December 11, 2008 at 11:20 pm
JoeE –
So … Nikita’s son can never be President, I can never be President nor can Barack Obama, because we are NOT “natural born citizens.” What about John McCain. Is he a”natural born citizen?”
What happens if Obama is actually inaugurated on January 20th, 2008? Will the U.S. Constitution self-destruct in its glass case at the National Archives?
Isn’t it interesting how former KGB agents are always named Nikita?
December 20, 2008 at 6:13 pm
Mccain is not a natural born citizen. I don’t think he is even covered under any US law that makes him a citizen. When he was born in Panama no law covers his citizenship now or then.
United States Congress passed a bill endowing Senator John McCain with “natural born citizen” status.
This resolution was not a law an has no power of law. It was only a resolution not a joint resolution.
It is only 100 people or less stating they “think” mccain can run for president.
Let me also add I am assuming Obama was born in or “near” hawaii at the time of his birth. According to Hawaiian law he could have been born outside the US and still be an Hawaiian citizen. This is what I find strange. Someone in his family could have applied for a birth certificate after he was born “somewhere” even outside the US. How can he be a US citizen if he was born outside the US? Because we have not seen or know where exactly Obama was born we have to guess where he was born under Hawaiian law. He has not produced any documentation proving he was born in an Hawaiian hospital.
Thses records if any have been sealed. Also his COB has been sealed by the governor of Hawaii. (It just could be he was born outside of the US and does not want this revealed. He sure doesn’t want somanything revealed because he has sealed his birth certificate and hospital records if any.)
Obama was a dual citizen at birth because of his father. Now he is just a citizen but he never was a natural born citizen. Mccain was never a natural born citizen or I believe a citizen.
http://dually.wordpress.com/
December 29, 2008 at 11:21 am
[...] the following excerpt typifies the prevailing attitude of large numbers of people in this country. These are shocking [...]
January 4, 2009 at 11:14 pm
kerfuffles, and others:
The last part of the presidential qualification clause states:or must be a citizen of the US at the time of the adoption of the Constitution. This is what allowed the Founding Fathers to be allowed to run for President, as they new that many, or even most of them where “Natural Born” as “English Citizens” as having “English Citizen” fathers since we where a British Colony prior to the Revolutionary War, as was Kenya in ‘61. They where not natural born US citizens and with out adding the second part of the clause they were excluding themselves to be able to be president. The intent was to never allow anyone with divided loyalties to ever become president, with Good Reason.
It is called National Security!
Why use two different terms, natural born citizen, citizen, in the qualification clause if they have the same meaning?
Vattell Law of Nations book 1 article 212, Used by the Founding Fathers as this was the book of law reference used by England and other nations published in the 1750’s. This was common knowlege at the time the Constitution was written that Natural Born follows the father. So there was no need to spell out the definition in this clause. Are other terms defined in the Constitution? They relied on legal accepted terms at the time in the rest of the document. If was not meant to be a dictionary.
The law passed by the Senate you refer to to make McCain a Natural Born Citizen is not a law it is a resolution! It is only a statement or the Senate that they agree McCain is in their Opinion, a natural Born Citizen “having Us citizen parents (with an S), that is plural, as in both Parents.
McCains parents were in the service of the US government, out of the country by Government Service order, not as in Moved to some foreign Country by choice. I believe this is covered by Vattel article 217, as well as 212. One does not give up citizenship by service to ones country, outside the country. McCain is without any doubt a Natural Born Citizen! He at least produced his birth certificate as soon as the issue came up. Obama refuses to prove and answer the many other questions surrounding his citizenship., such as how he was able to travel to Pakistan when no US citizen could, or how he when to school in a foreign country when No American could? Which is the reason 56% nation wide of 107,000 who responded to the AOL poll concerning Obama birth certificate, now think something is wrong here!
Obama campaigned on transparency in government, yet he refussed to be himself! How can anyone trust him at his word when he speaks out of both sides of his mouth on so many issues? And refusses to disclose. Any law enforcement would assume you are guilty if you refuse to answer questions and prove your telling the truth. Why does Obama think he is above the law. The answer is rightly assumed because he refusses to disclose!. He mocks the Constitution! He picked Chicago for a reason folks!
He tries to say that “He was 8 years old when when the Weather Underground was active in ‘69″. The fact is they where active in ‘81and two of them are in prison for killing guards and cops in a bank robbery, in NY, in the area of Columbia University when Obama was there at Twenty years old! His address at the time is reported to have been with in the two blocks of one of the suspects homes, where every home was searched. But Obama conveniently does not recall this incident!
Obama has surrounded himself with terrorists and America Haters! He has fooled those who refuse to open there eyes to see who he really is! He is all talk when it comes to his proclamation to be for America! He is for the destruction of America!
He did not help the people left without power, heat, and running water in the slums in his Ill Senate district, that were supposedly rehabbed by his Syrian friend Rezko. With Government funds! Up to his neck in Voter Fraud with ACORN!
Nikita, thank you for your humor! This is exactly why we need the Natural Born Clause to remain in the Constitution. Obama is the exact sitituon our forefathers where afraid of: Born of a foreign father, raised by foreign step father, mother was sent to communist schools, surrounded by foreign influncences! Now he wants to “Change the Constitution and America” will be just another Broke! country in the UN! Look up the “Strategy of Manufactured Crisis”!http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/09/barack_obama_and_the_strategy.html
January 4, 2009 at 11:41 pm
I did not finish on the Weather underground.
Ayers and Dorn have raised the son of the two in prison and all three of them where in Venezuela, supporting, making speeches with Chavez in the last couple of years.
Acorn is reported to have offices in South America, and guess where our voting software comes from? You got it Venezuela!
Obama and Ayers on many of the same boards opreated out of the same addresses. fro years. But they are not friends! Do these people really think that everyone is stupid enough to believe this stuff?
The truth will come out soon!
No law suit has been dismissed on merits of the case, only on standing to bring the suit.
We have 2 different US Supreme Court Conferences this week. Jan 9th and Jan 16th are these dates significant? They could be!
If the cases had no merit the SCOTUS would not bother to even have the conferences. Only stays or injunctions have been denied. It may be that SCOTUS could not act until the electoral process has run its course!We will see if this question on “Natural Born” is BOGUS on the 12th and the 19th?