This week, the Supreme Court will likely consider whether to grant review in in a case challenging the eligibility of President-elect Barack Obama due to his alleged foreign birth or his lack of “natural born” status. In the meantime, another constitutional question of eligibility is being raised over Hillary Clinton’s nomination as Secretary of State. I will be discussing both issues tonight on MSNBC Countdown.
The odds are strongly against the Supreme Court taking up the case from New Jersey questioning Obama’s eligibility. The lawsuit was originally filed on behalf of Leo Donofrio against New Jersey Secretary of State Nina Mitchell Wells to challenge Obama’s right to run for president. While some lawsuits allege that Obama is ineligible due to his alleged birth in another country like Kenya, Mr. Donofrio has written to me to clarify that this is not his argument. Here is part of his email to me:
My law suit challenges his status as a “natural born citizen” based upon the fact that his Father was a British citizen/subject. Mr. Obama admits, at his own web site, that he was a British citizen/subject at birth. He was also a US citizen “at birth”. He does not have dual nationality now, but the Constitution is concerned with the candidate’s status “at birth”, hence the word “born” in the requirement. . . . I have repeatedly said, over and again, that I believe Obama was born in Hawaii. I have criticized everyone who has said Mr. Obama is not a citizen. I believe he is a “native born citizen”, but not a “natural born citizen”. The law suit is based upon what distinction the framers drew between the requirement for a Senator and Representative, which only requires “Citizen” status as opposed to the requirements for President, which requires “natural born Citizen” status.
Other lawsuits focus on the foreign born question, as shown below. Obama insists that he was born in Hawaii and has an authentic birth certificate establishing that he is a “natural-born” citizen. The argument over dual citizenship is novel, but in my view inherently weak. Given the ambiguity of the term, it is likely that the Court would opt for the more expansive reading. The Supreme Court is loathe to undo the results of an election. Clearly, it must do so when there is a clear constitutional or statutory flaw. However, the institutional culture of the Court weighs heavily to avoid such confrontations except in the most unavoidable circumstances. Members view the institutional integrity of the Court as requiring such institutional restraint. One could call this “political” or “cultural” or “institutional”, but it is an overriding value. I do not agree with the narrow view of standing to block cases on this kind. However, on the merits, the Court is more likely to adopt the broader view of natural born citizen unless the test clearly bars such an interpretation — it does not in my view. For those of us who comment on the likely outcome of Supreme Court, the odds on this one are long and obvious. Historically and legally, this is simply unlikely.
Litigants want a court to review the original birth certificate, which is locked in a state vault. However, they face serious standing problems. I believe that these lawsuits are meritless, but I have great problem with these standing barriers to review. Standing has been so narrowed in the last few decades that there are now some constitutional provisions that seem unenforceable in court for lack of anyone with standing. Moreover, I am not sure why the original isn’t simply produced for a more open review. Today it was reported today that the certificate was reviewed by an independent group and a conservative organization, which accepted its authenticity.
It is a shame for such cases to be resolved on purely technical standing grounds. This is the type of claim that should not be allowed to fester and enter the realm of conspiracy theory on the blogosphere. This is precisely what happened with Chester Arthur who claimed that he was born in Vermont but was thought to have been foreign born in Canada just across the border. The value of court review is to remove such clouds of doubt and to assure citizens that the constitutional requirements have been satisfied. I have included the factual allegations of one complaint below.
It was inevitable that we would deal with this controversy since both John McCain and Barack Obama had people challenging their eligibility. However, still stinging from the Bush v. Gore controversy, this is not the type of case that either conservatives or liberals on the Court will likely embrace — absent the strongest possible evidence.
Assuming (as is virtually certain) that Obama is eligible to give anyone a Cabinet position, there remains the question of whether he can give one to Hillary Clinton.
Article 1, Section 6 of the Constitution says the following: “No Senator or Representative shall, during the time for which he was elected, be appointed to any civil office under the authority of the United States, which shall have been created, or the emoluments whereof shall have been increased during such time.”
The salary for Secretary of State was in fact increased during Clinton’s term even though it was an automatic provision. That increase of $4,700 could prove costly to Clinton. [Actually, I am most curious about Clinton's towering campaign debt. She has been unsuccessful in getting Obama supporters to pay for her debt after the bruising campaign. As a senator, she could still hold fundraisers, but, as Secretary of State, new limitations would apply. I am curious whether those negotiations with the Obama staff included an agreement to assume the debt.]
Professor Larry Tribe has argued that, because the raise was automatic, it was not a true vote to increase the salary:
“I am, finally, influenced by the fact that the salary increase at issue here was created not by any enactment for which Senator Clinton voted or on which she had any opportunity to vote. Rather, that increase was created by a statute enacted well before Hillary Clinton was elected to the Senate. My understanding is that the 1990s cost-of-living statute in question, 5 U.S.C. Sec. 5303, automatically increases the salaries for a number of federal offices, including that of Secretary of State, provided the President does not certify that the increase would be inappropriate.”
I am not convinced despite my respect for Tribe. The Emoluments Clause applies when the office’s salary “shall have been encreased.” Thus, while it is often presumed that it was by vote (and indeed Clinton voted for appropriations including the higher salary) it is the increase during the term that matter. Notably, one of the early proposed drafts of the clause included language limiting it to an increase of emoluments “by the legislature of the U[nited] States,” which would have required a direct vote but that was changed to the more general language. Moreover, the vote on appropriations with the increased salary further reinforces the applicability of the prohibition.
My guess is that she would willingly pass on the increase — despite the symbolism of the pay gap between men and women in the Cabinet. Now, that is a pay parity controversy in the making. However, it is not simply a matter of asking to be paid less.
Taking the language on its face, it would seem to bar Clinton – at least until 2013.
Democrats may try to pull a Saxbe. Not Saxby Chambliss , Ohio Sen. William Saxbe when he was nominated to be President Nixon’s attorney general in 1974. Texas Sen. Lloyd Bentsen also got around the problem when he was nominated as President Clinton’s Treasury secretary in 1993. Congress has lowered the salary to make them eligible. Technically, that would not seem to satisfy the rule since it is triggered by a vote to increase the salary. It was one of the Framer’s protections against self-dealing and conflicts of interest. However, Clinton may rely on the standing issue — arguing that no one has authority to force review of her eligibility. She will likely be successful, but once again the use of standing to avoid a court review is inimical, in my view, to the protection of constitutional values.
My concern is the way that this question has been dismissed as an inconvenience that should be circumvented by a clever piece of legislation. After years of rightful indignation over Bush’s violations of the Constitution, Democrats should not take power by embracing the same dismissive attitude toward the language of the Constitution. Many of these arguments are creative, but they have to work too hard to avoid the obvious meaning of the Constitution.
For the full story on Clinton, click here.
For the full story on Obama, click here.
In one of the past complaints (on behalf of Plaintiff Steven R Marquis in Washington state), the material facts are presented below:
5.3. There are questions as to where Obama was actually born; in the United States or abroad but subsequently registered in Hawaii. There are further questions regarding Obama’s United States citizenship, if he ever held such, being expatriated and his failure to regain his citizenship by taking the oath of allegiance once he turned eighteen (18) years of age. There are additional questions regarding Obama’s multi-citizenships with foreign countries, which he may still maintain. To date, Obama has refused to prove he is qualified under the U.S. Constitution and his eligibility to run as President of the United States despite requests and recent opportunities to do so in Federal Court.
5.4. The “certificate” that Mr. Obama has posted on his official WEB site is a “Certification of Live Birth,” and not a “Birth Certificate” from Hawaii. There is no indication on even this certificate as to specifically where the birth took place.
5.5. Researchers have claimed to have been unable to locate any birthing records in island hospitals for Barak Obama’s mother. Mr. Obama has offered none for review.
5.6. Three forensic document experts have published extensive reports claiming that there is evidence of tampering on even the Obama WEB site displayed certificate.
5.7. Numerous Freedom of Information Requests have been sent to Officials in Hawaii with no response from the public officials nor has Mr. Obama granted access for release of the information lending to the concern over the veracity of the attestation on the candidate’s application for candidacy for the office of President of the United States.
5.8. The facts are undisputed by Obama that his mother, Stanley Ann Dunham, was a U.S. citizen however, his father, Barack Obama, Sr., was a citizen of Kenya. Obama’s parents, according to divorce records, were married on or about February 2, 1961.
5.9. Obama claims he was born in Honolulu, Hawaii on August 4, 1961; however, has never given the name of the hospital he was born in; whereas there are reports that Obama’s grandmother on his father’s side, half brother and half sister claim Mr. Barack H. Obama was born in Kenya. Reports further reflect that Mr. Obama’s mother went to Kenya during her pregnancy. Wayne Madsen, Journalist with Online Journal as a contributing writer and published an article on June 9, 2008 stating that a research team went to Mombassa, Kenya, and located a Certificate Registering the birth of Barack Obama, Jr. at a Kenya Maternity Hospital, to his father, a Kenyan citizen and his mother, a U.S. citizen. There are claims of records of a “registry of birth” for Obama, on or about August 8, 1961 in the public records office in Hawaii, but these have not been released for scrutiny. It is alleged in the Federal trial and is a matter of much general speculation that Mr. Obama’s mother was prevented from boarding a flight from Kenya to Hawaii at her late stage of pregnancy, which apparently was a normal restriction to avoid births during a flight. It is likely that Stanley Ann Dunham (Obama) gave birth to Obama in Kenya, after which she flew to Hawaii and registered Obama’s birth.
5.10. Regarding the alleged birth of Barack Hussein Obama in Honolulu, Hawaii, it is variously circulated that Obama’s birth is reported as occurring at two (2) separate hospitals, Kapiolani Hospital and Queens Hospital. Obama has provided no proof of birth from of either of these or any other US based facility. He has made no effort to address these public concerns.
5.11. There are no published or known hospital birthing records for Stanley Ann Dunham (Obama), Obama’s mother. There are only claims of records of a “registry of birth” for Obama, on or about August 8, 1961 in the public records office in Hawaii.
5.12. There is even a Canadian Birth Certificate posted on the Internet in the name of Barack Hussein Obama, Jr.; however, the date of birth shows to be August 23, 1961
5.13. At the time of Obama’s birth in 1961, Kenya was a British Colony. Subsequently, under the Independence Constitution of Kenya, Mr. Barack H. Obama became a Kenyan citizen on December 12, 1963. There are no indications or reports that Mr. Obama ever renounced that dual citizenship conferred either by nature of birth or by virtue of his father’s Kenyan citizenship. On Mr. Obama’s Senate web site, Mr. Obama acknowledges his father holds Kenyan nationality but avoids addressing that that he (Mr. Obama) also held/holds Kenyan nationality.
Jonathan,
Very few of the facts you state are true.
First, Obama, on his fightthesmears blog, admits he held British citizenship at birth due to his father’s nationality.
Second, there is no aspect in Donofrio’s lawsuit that alleges “in light of his alleged in Indonesia.” Donofrio assumes Obama was born in the US.
Third, your statement: “Obama insists that he was born in Hawaii and has an authentic birth certificate establishing that he is a “natural-born” citizen.” … is the basis of Donofrio’s lawsuit.
Since Obama’s father was a British citizen, Obama would not be a “natural-born citizen” even if he was born in Hawaii, just as if a married couple at the Russian embassy in D.C. (Russian citizens) had a child at a D.C. area hospital.
A person’s nationality is based upon where their parent’s allegiance lies at the time of their birth, not where they were born geographically.
Anon,
You might want to read the Constitution. I’ll point you to the relevant Amendment (it’s between XIII and XV).
gyges,
And, your point is?
The term “natural born citizen” has absolutely ZERO to do with the XIV Amendment. It has everything to do with the qualifications for president. See Article 2, Section 1. You idiot.
Gyges,
They would be a U.S. citizen, but not a natural born citizen.
See Article 2, Section 1.
Of course, I think they will work will together.
Material fact 5.4 “There is no indication on even this certificate as to specifically where the birth took place.”
That statement is a lie. The certifate lists city, town or place of birth.
It states that the birth took place in Honolulu, Oahu, county of Honolulu.
Go look for yourselves.
http://fightthesmears.com/articles/5/birthcertificate
I am sure that this is just one of many lies the court will have to dismiss.
“City, town or location of birth.”
Gyges,
I didn’t realize until today that “you idiot” was in the Constitution. “See Article 2, Section 1. You idiot.” WOW!!!
Hilary wants her turn to have a romp in the white house.
I’m kidding.
Anon,
I’m going to assume that you’re an expert on the subject, so please enlighten me as to the legal definition of “natural born citizen.” It’d be nice if you could point me to the law\court decision that you’re quoting.
Gyges, type out the phrase “natural born citizen” in the search box of Professor Turley’s site, way up in the right hand corner under his picture, and read the entries.
Natural born means being born without any use of drugs.
Or is that natural birth?
Vince,
I’ve done that. I discovered that the best way to figure out who’s willing to participate in a discussion verses someone who wants to shout their point of view is to ask for a source. If they are willing to give it to you, they might be worth talking to. If they refuse, I just ignore them.
I love how these posts all turn into huge arguements between complete strangers, it cracks me up.
How many of you would actually argue like this face to face?
Vince,
After taking your refresher (I had read over the material a couple of weeks ago when I first heard the “Obama can’t be president” theory), I want to compliment you on your comments; they were exactly the sort of information I was looking for at the time. I had forgotten that you were the source, or I would have mentioned it earlier.
Thank you, Gyges
Gyges,
Try this:
http://federalistblog.us/2008/11/natural-born_citizen_defined.html
Therefore, we can say with confidence that a natural-born citizen of the United States means those persons born whose father the United States already has an established jurisdiction over, i.e., born to father’s who are themselves citizens of the United States. A person who had been born under a double allegiance cannot be said to be a natural-born citizen of the United States because such status is not recognized (only in fiction of law). A child born to an American mother and alien father could be said to be a citizen of the United States by some affirmative act of law but never entitled to be a natural-born citizen because through laws of nature the child inherits the condition of their father.
And that, Gyges, was written by “Fourteenth Amendment framer, Rep. John A. Bingham,…”
You dumb f*#%.
Gyges & Vince = Chip n’ Dale, the little polite cartoon chipmunks
Thank you. No, Thank you.
Mr. Turley,
I have seen you on TV many times, especially during the Clinton impeachment proceeding. At that time, I had great respect for you.
Fast forward to 2008. Retired Senator Obama has gone to great lengths to hide all credentials, including his long form birth certicate. That is OK, he is a professional politician, similar to a military man – looking for maximum advantage.
Your supposedly objective article dances around Leo Donofrio’s suit, and you seem not to have the courage to discuss it. Like all the other “dismissed” suits, dismissed on proceedure, with no suits dismissed on merits, we witness a landscape of incompetent judges, or maybe even corrupt judges.
So nobody has standing to ask the President of the United States for his birth certificate? Is that your position? Please be clear. How much did your law school degree cost you (or maybe your father paid)?
Mr. Turley, life is short. What kind of legal reporter/blogger do you want to be?
I have tried posting a link/response to your ignorant statement above three times.
The link is to actual statements made by the person who drafted the Fourteenth Amendment.
Turley is blocking the link from being posted.
To the first poster (“Anon”):
What you state is a fair representation of Donofrio’s case: Donofrio assumes (like most other people and the media) that Obama is a citizen by birth on US soil. His case however is about the issue of “natural born citizenship”. He doesn’t care about the fringe lawsuits on the birth certificate.
One thing you write, Anon, is however wrong: “just as if a married couple at the Russian embassy in D.C. (Russian citizens) had a child at a D.C. area hospital”
This depends on the status of the parents. If the parents have diplomat status, the child is not a US citizen, even if it’s born on US soil. If they are simply foreigners, the child will be a citizen of the US by statute, according to 8 US Code §1401a.
Barack Obama is definitely a “born citizen” according to 8 USC §1401a. The SCOTUS however has to decide whether Obama is also a “natural born citizen”, as well as a “born citizen” according to the 14th Amendment to the Constitution, which would include that Obama was at birth a “subject to the jurisdiction” of the US. The latter is unlikely, because the author of the 14th Amendment gave a comment to said Amendment and stated that “subject to the jurisdiction” meant sole allegiance to the United States. Since Barack Obama had dual allegiance and was under US and UK jurisdiction at birth, he would not be a “born citizen” according to the 14th Amendment. Therefore he would not be a “born citizen” under the Constitution, only by statute, and could then also not be regarded as a “natural born citizen”.
anon, Just what is it with your name calling and what is your problem with my post? I said nothing about or to you.
This just reflects badly back on you.
A lot of posts don’t show up here.
INTO THE HOPPER:
Christopher Earl Strunk
593 Vanderbilt Avenue – #281
Brooklyn, New York 11238
December 3, 2008
The Court Clerk’s Office
Supreme Court of the United States
1 First Street, N. E.
Washington, DC 20543
Subject: In Re Christopher Earl Strunk SCOTUS Rule 22 Petition for Writ of Mandamus on appeal from the Second Circuit 08-5422-OP
Dear Clerk of the Court,
I am Christopher Earl Strunk petitioner, pro se without being an attorney. I hereby apply under SCOTUS Rule 22 for an Extraordinary Writ of Mandamus that at the Justice’s discretion would apply under 28 USC §1651 for Temporary Restraining Order Injunctive Relief of the New York Electoral College pending issuance of an order by the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia or court of competent jurisdiction of all the records demanded of the U.S. Department of State under the Verified Complaint and Petition for Writ of Mandamus under F.O.I.A. in exhibit herein; and herewith attach the following:
•The Letter to the Honorable Ruth Bader Ginsberg
•One Original and two copies of the PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS affirmed December 3, 2008 with annexed Exhibits R22 -A-417 thru R22 -A-521 and
•Three copies of the APPENDIX with annexed Pages R22 -A-001 thru R22 -A-416
•The Certificate of Service
In addition I have chosen the Honorable Clarence Thomas as the alternate Associate Justice to receive the following:
•A copy of the Letter to the Honorable Ruth Bader Ginsberg
•Three copies of the PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS affirmed December 3, 2008 with annexed Exhibits R22 -A-417 thru R22 -A-521
•A copy of the Certificate of Service
This is related to the election of the President, and therefore as it involves imminent irreparable harm as time is of the essence because it is related to the election of the president by the Electoral College that was to be certified December 1, 2008 and assembled to cast a vote on December 15, 2008.
Thank you in advance for your attention to this matter and if you require more information please don’t hesitate to contact me at (845) 901-6767.
Sincerely yours, /s/
_________________________
Christopher Earl Strunk
Attachments
=================================================================
Christopher Earl Strunk
593 Vanderbilt Avenue – #281
Brooklyn, New York 11238
December 3, 2008
The Honorable Ruth Bader Ginsberg
Associate Justice of the S.C.O.T.U.S.
1 First Street, N. E.
Washington, DC 20543
Subject: In Re Christopher Earl Strunk SCOTUS Rule 22 Petition for Writ of Mandamus on appeal from the Second Circuit 08-5422-OP
The Honorable Ruth Bader Ginsberg,
I am Christopher Earl Strunk petitioner, pro se without being an attorney. I hereby apply under SCOTUS Rule 22 to your Honor assigned to oversee the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit for an Extraordinary Writ of Mandamus that at the Justice’s discretion would apply under 28 USC §1651 for Temporary Restraining Order Injunctive Relief of the New York Electoral College pending issuance of an order by the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia or court of competent jurisdiction of all the records demanded of the U.S. Department of State under the Verified Complaint and Petition for Writ of Mandamus under F.O.I.A. in exhibit herein; and
That petitioner also requests an expedited emergency Appeal taken from 2nd Circuit Judge Robert A. Katzmann’s DENIAL of the Emergency Motion for a Circuit Panel to rehear THE PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS in the Original Proceeding in Second Circuit case 08-5422-OP as a matter of substantive due process involving fundamental rights, with request for remand to in EDNY 08-CV-4289 with October 28, 2008 Civil Judgment from the Memorandum and Order of District Judge Allyne R. Ross.
This is related to the election of the President, and therefore as it involves imminent irreparable harm as time is of the essence because it is related to the election of the president by the Electoral College that was to be certified December 1, 2008 and assembled to cast a vote on December 15, 2008.
According to the Public Record, Circuit Judge Katzmann was the attorney and political scientist acting on behalf of the Honorable Senator Patrick Moynihan on the committee to have your Honor appointed to the Supreme Court by then President Clinton. Due to the appearance of favoritism to the decision of Judge Katzmann who himself was rewarded for his efforts to have you appointed by the Senate to the Second Circuit before President Clinton finished his term, as such I would request that the Honorable Justice recuse herself under 28 USC §455 and defer to the Honorable Clarence Thomas as the alternate Justice to review this matter.
Thank you in advance for your attention to this matter and for your continued valuable service to our nation.
Respectfully yours, /s/ Christopher Earl Strunk
_________________________
Christopher Earl Strunk
Ah, the fate of a country hinging on a nuanced interpretation of 200+ year old phrasing in a document whose full meaning has already been warped for political ends by both of the parties of these United States.
Arguments like this are what get me out of bed in the morningfnord.
There have been so many “proxy” arguments over the past 2 years to hide the fact that a lot of people just can’t handle the idea of a black president. If one calls him a “Muslim” (because, after all, there’s a religeous test to be president), or a terrorist sympathizer, or a communist, etc. etc. , then one can avoid what they’re really thinking,”Oh shit, a nigger in the Whitehouse. They’ll be coming for our women next!!!!!”.
No one’s been hidding anything about his birth. Obama’s background has been subject to more examination than any candidate in history.
No disclosure of his birth certificate? Go check out http://fightthesmears.com/articles/5/birthcertificate
Does Obama have to personally drive every crazy asshole down to the county clerks office in Honolulu and read the fucking thing to them????? I suppose the local offcials and his grandmother have had something to do with the conspiracy too, huh?
Face it, there are some people, with brown skin, who managed (some how)to get into ivy leauge schools and are smarter and more ambitious than your average pecker-wood racist asshole. Just because someone has a weird name doesn’t mean they necesarily hate this country. There are some guys, Newt, Mit, Saxby, who do seem like real assholes, but they still love there country, albeit in a hypocritical fucked-up elitist way.
Gyges,
The answer from anon was probably this:
Natural-born citizen means both of your parents were citizens at the time of your birth, so that no foreign allegiance is possible.
“Permit me to hint, whether it would be wise and seasonable to provide a strong check to the admission of Foreigners into the administration of our national Government; and to declare expressly that the Commander in Chief of the American Army shall not be given to nor devolve on, any but a natural born Citizen.”
John Jay, first Cheif Justice of the Supreme Court, in a letter to George Washington, July 1787
The definition of Natural-born comes to us from English common law and is hundreds of years old. Its meaning is not debatable, and was understood by the framers of the 14th amendment. Natural born means that no statute made you a citizen.
Obama can never be Natural-born.
DCDC has this since 11-26-08:
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
——————————–x Case No.:
:
CHRISTOPHER EARL STRUNK : VERIFIED COMPLAINT
: AND PETITION FOR
Petitioner, : WRIT OF MANDAMUS
v. : UNDER F.O.I.A.
:
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE :
:
Defendant. :
:
——————————–x
NOW COMES Christopher Earl Strunk, as the Petitioner, and brings this Complaint pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act, 5 U.S.C. §552, et sequitur, against the Defendant the United States Department of State, stating:
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
1. This cause of action arises under the Freedom of Information Act pursuant to 5 U.S.C. §552. Jurisdiction is properly before this Court pursuant to that federal statute with the United States District Courts under 28 USC §1331 with a Federal question and under 28 USC §1346.
2. This particular District Court for the District of Columbia affords the proper venue under 28 USC §1391 (e) (2) for this action in that the Defendant U.S. Department of State is located within the District of Columbia and the failure of the Defendant to act was also within the District of Columbia.
3. Petitioner filed this complaint requesting this Court to Order the U.S. Department of State to fulfill their obligations pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act (hereinafter “FOIA”) immediately turn over the following documents on the following individual:
a. Stanley Ann Dunham, a/k/a Ann Dunham a/k/a Stanley Ann Obama a/k/a Ann Obama a/k/a Stanley Ann Soetoro a/k/a Ann Soetoro a/k/a Stanley Ann Sutoro a/k/a Ann Sutoro a/k/a Stanley Ann Dunham Obama a/k/a Ann Dunham Obama, born November 29, 1942 at Wichita KS. U.S., a.k.a. Stanley Ann Dunham Obama and who died on November 7, 1995 under the name Stanley Ann Dunham Soetoro (a.k.a. Sutoro), SSN: xxx-xx-8522; and
b. Barack Hussein Obama, Jr. a/k/a Barry Soetoro Date of Birth: August 4, 1961 and as a living natural person; and
4. The following documents:
a. Any and all U.S. Applications for a U.S. Passport;
b. Entry and Exit Passport Records pertaining to the United States and Kenya from the period of time of January 01, 1960 to December 31, 1975 and January 1, 1979 to December 31, 1985;
c. Entry and Exit Passport Records pertaining to the United States and Indonesia from the period of time of January 01, 1960 to December 31, 1973 and January 1, 1979 to December 31, 1985;
d. The above travel records on for the dates specified travelling on a U.S. Passport, Kenyan Passport, Indonesian Passport or any other foreign passport and/or visa;
e. Foreign Birth Certificate registered and filed with the U.S. Embassy, Kenya and/or U.S. Embassy of Indonesia for Barack H. Obama a/k/a Barry Soetoro, Date of Birth: August 4, 1961;
f. Foreign Birth Registry filed with the U.S. Embassy, Kenya and/or U.S. Embassy of Indonesia by Stanley Ann Dunham, et al. Registering the birth of Barack H. Obama a/k/a Barry Soetoro, Date of Birth: August 4, 1961; and
g. Adoption Records and/or Governmental “Acknowledgment” wherein Barack H. Obama a/k/a Barry Soetoro was “acknowledged” as Lolo Soetoro, M.A.’s son.
5. Pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act, the Petitioner, Christopher Earl Strunk, petitions this Court for extraordinary relief in the nature of a writ of mandamus under 28 USC §1651, directed to Respondent, United States Department of State, and its employees and agents in the United States Department of State;
6. This action seeks to compel the U.S. Department of State to turn over the records requested pursuant to a Freedom of Information Act referred to herein.
7. In support of this verified petition, Petitioner avers the following:
THE PARTIES
8. Petitioner, Christopher Earl Strunk (hereinafter “Petitioner”), is an individual who resides with place for service at 593 Vanderbilt Avenue #281 Brooklyn, NY 11238; Email: uncasvotes2@yahoo.com, Cell-845-901-6767.
9. Defendant, United States Department of State, is a Governmental Agency located at 2201 C Street N.W., Washington, D.C. 20520.
FACTS
10. On October 17, 2008, Petitioner filed a FOIA request directed to the United States Department of State request for the above cited records for the person referenced at paragraph 3 (a) for the period from 1960 through 1963, and Petitioner sent the request via United States Postal Service, Certified Mail, Return Receipt Requested; a true and correct copy of Petitioner’s letter is attached hereto and incorporated in by reference as Exhibit A.
11. Petitioner filed the FOIA request for travel records shown as Exhibit A that was deposited with the USPS certified with return receipt request for two-day delivery by October 20, 2008, as per the true and correct copy of the USPS mailing purchase receipt attached herewith marked Exhibit B.
12. That on October 27, 2008, the USPS confirmed delivery of the FOIA request for records under the control of the United States Department of State, (see Exhibit C).
13. That on October 30, 2008, Defendants agent signed the return receipt for the FOIA request shown as Exhibit A for Petitioner’s FOIA request at the U.S. Department of State; that thereafter, was delivered to my mailing address by the USPS, (see Exhibit D).
14. On or about November 7, 2008 Petitioner never received any response from Defendant / Respondent for any of the information requested in regards to above paragraph 3(a).
15. On November 22, 2008, Petitioner filed the FOIA request with reference number B8475 the information detailed above in regards to above living natural person described in paragraph 3(b); see the US Depart. of State request confirmation marked Exhibit E.
16. On November 22, 2008, Petitioner filed a declaration in support of the FOIA request with reference number B8475 the information detailed above in regards to above living natural person described in paragraph 3(b), with a cover letter and attachment of the FOIA request on the deceased person described in paragraph 3(a) see Exhibit F.
17. A true and correct copy of the return receipt is attached hereto and incorporated see Exhibit G.
18. The above records do not fall within any of FOIA exemptions items.
19. The above documents do not involve any of the FOIA exemptions which include National defense or foreign policy records, 5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(1), internal personnel rules and practices of an agency, 5 U.S.C. §552(b)(2); exemption by other federal statutes, 5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(3); trade secrets, commercial or financial information, 5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(4); inter-agency or intra-agency memoranda 5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(5); personnel and medical files, 5 U.S.C. §552(b)(6); information complied for law enforcement purposes, 5 U.S.C. §552 (b)(7); information contained in or related to examination, operating or condition reports prepared by, on behalf of, or for the use of an agency responsible for the regulation or supervision of financial institutions. 5 U.S.C. §552(b)(8); nor does the information requested involve geological and geophysical information, 5 U.S.C. §552(b)(9).
20. The above requested documents are extremely critical and important to Petitioner as well as the general public and are of substantial public interest.
21. The overwhelming majority of the Electoral College slates of the States of the several States received the majority advisory votes cast for Barack Hussein (“H.”) Obama a/k/a Barry Soetoro [hereinafter "Obama"] and thereby won the general election votes on November 4, 2008; and subsequent to canvassing in each State of the several States the Electoral College of each state of the several states is to be certified by the state officials over every state on or about December 1, 2008 is to assembly in each State of the several States to cast their votes on December 15, 2008.
22. Mr. Obama is not a U.S. “natural born” citizen and ineligible to serve as the United States President, pursuant to the United States Constitution, Article II, Section 1, Clause 5.
23. Although Mr. Obama claims to have been born in two (2) separate hospitals in Hawaii, he was actually born in Mombasa, Kenya to his mother a U.S. citizen and his father a Kenyan National.
24. Mr. Obama’s mother (referenced above in paragraph 3(a)) was not old enough pursuant to the Nationality Act of 1940, revised June 1952 to pass on U.S. “natural born” citizenship to Mr. Obama.
25. The U.S. Law in effect during Mr. Obama’s birth stated if you are born abroad to one U.S. parent and a foreign national, the U.S. parent must have resided in the United States for ten (10) years, five (5) of which were after the age of Fourteen (14) in order to register the child’s birth abroad in the United States as a “natural born” U.S. citizen, under the Nationality Act of 1940, revised June 1952, United States of America v. Cervantes-Nava, 281 F.3d 501 (2002), Drozd v. I.N.S., 155 F.3d 81, 85-88 (2d Cir.1998), United States v. Gomez-Orozco, 188 F.3d 422, 426-27 (7th Cir. 1999), Scales v. Immigration and Naturalization Service 232 F.3d 1159 (9th Cir. 2000), Solis-Espinoza v. Gonzales 401 F.3d 1090 (9th Cir. 2005).
26. Under the Nationality Act of 1940, revised June 1952, is the law that applies to a birth abroad and is in effect at the time of birth, Marquez-Marquez a/k/a Moreno v. Gonzales 455 F. 3d 548 (5th Cir. 2006), Runnett v. Shultz, 901 F.2d 782, 783 (9th Cir.1990) (holding that “the applicable law for transmitting citizenship to a child born abroad when one parent is a U.S. citizen is the statute that was in effect at the time of the child’s birth”).
27. Stanley Ann Dunham, Senator Obama’s mother, was only 18 when she had Obama. She was not old enough to register Obama’s birth in Hawaii or anywhere else as a United States “natural born” citizen as she did not meet the residency requirements pursuant to our United States Laws; as such it does not matter that this is a minor technicality, the law is applied regardless – see United States of America v. Cervantes-Nava, 281 F.3d 501 (2002), Drozd v. I.N.S., 155 F.3d 81, 85-88 (2d Cir.1998).
28. Mr. Obama has been asked for his “vault” version birth certificate; however, he has refused, which has prompted law suits across the United States.
29. Instead, Mr. Obama and or his agent(s) placed an image of a Hawaiian Certification of Live Birth (COLB), which is issued for all birth’s registered in the State of Hawaii; the COLB, does not prove “natural born” citizenship or birth in Hawaii.
30. A COLB is sufficient proof of citizenship; however, it does not prove “natural born” citizenship, a COLB is issued to those who are simply “naturalized”.
31. There is absolutely NO doubt in Petitioner’s mind that Mr. Obama’s birth in Kenya was registered in Hawaii, at which time, yes they would have issued a COLB; however, Obama’s birth could have ONLY been registered as “naturalized” as his mother did not meet the citizenship requirements to register Obama’s birth as “natural born”, Nationality Act of 1940, revised June 1952, United States of America v. Cervantes-Nava , 281 F.3d 501 (2002), Drozd v. I.N.S., 155 F.3d 81, 85-88 (2d Cir.1998), United States v. Gomez-Orozco, 188 F.3d 422, 426-27 (7th Cir. 1999), Scales v. Immigration and Naturalization Service 232 F.3d 1159 (9th Cir. 2000), Solis-Espinoza v. Gonzales 401 F.3d 1090 (9th Cir. 2005), and as such the law that applies to a birth abroad is the law in effect at the time of birth, Marquez-Marquez a/k/a Moreno v. Gonzales 455 F. 3d 548 (5th Cir. 2006), Runnett v. Shultz, 901 F.2d 782, 783 (9th Cir.1990) (holding that “the applicable law for transmitting citizenship to a child born abroad when one parent is a U.S. citizen is the statute that was in effect at the time of the child’s birth”).
32. Mr. Obama’s citizenship status is further complicated by the fact he was enrolled by Lolo Soetoro in a public school, Fransiskus Assisi School in Jakarta, Indonesia; the records received as copies of the school registration, in which it clearly states Mr. Obama’s name as “Barry Soetoro” and lists his citizenship as Indonesian (see Exhibit Addendum).
33. Mr. Obama’s father is listed as Lolo Soetoro, and Mr. Obama’s Religion is listed as Islam.
34. At the time Mr. Obama was registered the public schools obtained and verified the citizenship status and name of the student through the Indonesian Government; and that Indonesia at this time was a police state and foreign students were not allowed to attend public schools.
35. The Indonesian school, upon registration of a new student, verified the citizenship status and name of the child with the Indonesian Government; moreover, Indonesian Immigration and police checked all public schools on a weekly basis to ensure the only students attending were in fact Indonesian citizens.
36. Due to Mr. Obama’s birth abroad, he could only be “naturalized”, second, he became a “natural” citizen of Indonesia; even if Obama’s adoption and/or acknowledgment allowed him to choose his citizenship status, there is more involved.
37. Indonesia, still to this day, does not permit dual citizenship, and the law in Indonesia states if a minor who lost citizenship in another country may reclaim that citizenship; however, prior to age 21, they must swear a declaration signed and served and filed with Indonesia their desire to relinquish their citizenship status.
38. Furthermore if this is not done by age 21, they lose that right; and as stated in the Indonesian laws, “at the age of 18, the child can choose whether to stay an Indonesian citizen or follow their foreign father’s citizenship. They will be then given additional three more years to decide on which nationality to choose.”, e.g. 18 + 3 = 21.
39. The problem here is the citizenship of Mr. Obama’s father “Soetoro” is Indonesian; Indonesia did not recognize dual citizenship.
40. The Indonesian citizenship law was designed to prevent apatride (stateless) or bipatride (dual citizenship); Indonesian regulations recognize neither apatride nor bipatride citizenship.
41. The Hague Convention prevented the U.S. from interfering with Indonesia’s laws.
42. Indonesia did not recognize dual citizenship, thus, neither did the U.S.; and an adoption per se severs all relationship to the birth place and/or citizenship of a birth parent.
43. Once Indonesian “natural” citizenship status occurred, it stayed; and in order, according to Indonesia, which is whose law prevails, Mr. Obama would have been required to relinquish in writing under oath his Indonesian citizenship and file the declaration with Indonesia government.
44. Indonesian citizenship does not expire without a person, in declaration, swears under the penalty of perjury, to relinquish Indonesian Citizenship and files said document with the government no later then age 21, as under the Indonesian Constitution, Art. 2.
45. If Mr. Obama wanted to fully regain any U.S. Citizenship status he may have had, he would have had to undue the adoption or go through paternity to prove Soetoro was NOT his father in the case of Soetoro Acknowledging Mr. Obama as his son, both of which gave Mr. Obama “natural” Indonesian status, which is the same as U.S. “natural born” citizenship status.
46. Under Indonesian law, when a male acknowledges a child as his son, it deems the son—in this case Obama—to be an Indonesian State citizen; the Constitution of Republic of Indonesia, Law No. 62 of 1958 Law No. 12 of 2006 dated 1 Aug. 2006 concerning Citizenship of Republic of Indonesia, and Law No. 9 of 1992 dated 31 Mar. 1992 concerning Immigration Affairs and Indonesian Civil Code (Kitab Undang-undang Hukum Perdata) (KUHPer) (Burgerlijk Wetboek voor Indonesie).
47. Further, the Indonesia Constitution, Article 2 states “It is stipulated that an adopted child has the same status as a natural child and that his or her relationship to the birth parents is severed by adoption”.
48. Further, the Indonesia Constitution, Article 2 states: “on the condition of ratification of the adoption by the District Court: ‘The law stipulates that children of mixed couples automatically assume their father’s citizenship, and a divorced wife cannot take custody of her children because they have different citizenship’….”.
49. Furthermore, Indonesia did not allow Dual Citizenship or Dual Nationality thus Mr. Obama is not a U.S. Citizen, he is Indonesian; neither Mr. Obama’s place of birth or the nationality of his American parent are relevant, the Indonesian Law takes precedence under The Master Nationality Rule of Article 4 of the Hague Convention of 1930.
50. The United States accepts the existence of Dual Nationality only if the other country does; however, Hague Conventions are applied by the United States and this has been in effect since before 1930 (Memorandum on Nationality, including Statelessness: Document A/CN.4/67, Prepared by Ivan S Kerno, International Law Commission, United Nations General Assembly, 6th April 1953.); thus, Mr. Obama is not a “natural born” citizen and my not even be a naturalized citizen.
ARGUMENT IN SUPPORT OF RELIEF
51. Petitioner / Plaintiff has standing to sue under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), 5 U.S.C. § 552 et seq. (1994); and anyone denied information under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), 5 U.S.C. § 552 et seq. (1994) has standing to sue regardless of his or her reasons. Akins vs.FEC, 322 US. App. D.C. 58; 101 F.3d 731; 1996 U.S. App. LEXIS 31253 (1996), 524 U.S. 11 (1998); Public Citizen vs. FTC, 276 U.S. App. D.C. 222, 869 F.2d 1541(D.C. Cir. 1989).
52. Petitioner / Plaintiff has suffered an informational injury as a voter and member of the public; and the lack of information on Mr. Obama’s citizenship, caused by the State Departments action, limited the information available to him as a voter and impaired his ability to influence and inform the public and policymakers.
53. If a party is denied information that will help it in making a voting decision that party is obviously injured in fact; and as stated in Akins, the court noted that:
“[a] voter deprived of useful information at the time he or she votes suffers a particularized injury in some respects unique to him or herself just as a government contractor, allegedly wrongfully deprived of information to be made available at the time bids are due, would suffer a particularized injury even if all other bidders also suffered an injury.”
54. Even if all individuals who voted for any of the other Democratic candidates for President, suffered the same injury that does not take away from the individual injury that Petitioner / Plaintiff suffered.
55. Even assuming a request under FOIA triggered legitimate Privacy Act concerns, the U.S. Department of State was required to provide Petitioner with reasonably segregable portions of that correspondence, 5 U.S.C. §552(b); Department of State v. Ray, 502 U.S. 164 (1991) (disclosure of personal information without identifying details), Baltimore Sun v. Marshals Service, 131 F. Supp. 2d 725, 729 (D. Md. 2001) (identity of purchasers of seized government property disclosed).
56. There are no per se rules of nondisclosure, see Stern v. FBI, 737 F.2d 84, 91 (D.C. Cir. 1984); and FOIA Exemption 6 does not justify the withholding of information regarding individuals particularly where the privacy interest is minimal and the public interest in disclosure is strong, and the balance of interests under Exemption 6 “instructs the court to tilt the balance in favor of disclosure.” Getman v. NLRB, 450 F.2d 670, 674 (D.C. Cir. 1971).
57. These issues can be easily resolved; the documents requested will either prove that Obama is in fact a “natural born” U.S. Citizen or they will prove he is not, at which point he will have to be removed as the Presidential candidate and requires a restraint upon the Electoral College vote cast and certified on or after December 15, 2008.
58. For the above aforementioned reasons, the above requested documents are of great public interest and without receiving said documents; our Country is at risk of allowing an illegal candidate to serve as President of the United States which constitutes a huge National Security dilemma.
59. The court determines whether disclosure is warranted by “balanc[ing] the public interest in disclosure against the [privacy] interest Congress intended the Exemption to protect.” Dep’t of Justice v. Reporters Comm. for Freedom of Press, 489 U.S. 749, 776 (1989). The public interest in disclosure lies in “open[ing] agency action to the light of public scrutiny,” Reporters Comm., 489 U.S. at 772.
60. Under FOIA, 5 U.S.C. § 552, Attorney Fees and Costs are appropriate pursuant to § 552 (a)(4)(E).
CONCLUSION
For the above aforementioned reasons, this Court should Mandate and Order the U.S. Department of State to immediately turn over the documents referred to above.
Respectfully submitted,
Dated: November 22, 2008
Brooklyn, New York /s/ Christopher Earl Strunk
___________________________
Christopher Earl Strunk
Attached Exhibits A through G and Addendum
cc:
Office of Information Programs and Services
A/ISS/IPS/RL
U. S. Department of State
Washington, D. C. 20522-8100
@MASkeptic:
Do you realize what you’re saying? You’re saying that the Constitution is a prostitute, open to whatever interpretation one likes. But this is a totally different issue: It’s about the most important political office in the world. It’s about a decision between political preferences and the actual words of the law, it’s about deciding between the popularity of a candidate and the Constitution. You see, I have nothing against changing laws or amending the Constitution. Historical contexts change, so laws have to change to. But I have something against bending the Constitution at will to serve indidivual or political realities, because legislature suddenly finds out it has been sleeping the past decades. At this moment, the Constitution (in all probability) does not render Obama eligible for Presidency. How in God’s name do you want to bend that? How murch further do you want to go? Do you really want a president with illegitimate power? But———let’s wait what the SCOTUS does.
@dragoon
There is no common law in the US. There’s the Constitution, and there are statutes. But that doesn’t change anything about Donofrio’s arguments, as far as I know.
Article 2, Section 1, Clause 5 of the Constitution of the United 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.”
I strongly feel that Mr. Obama and his supporters have not abided by the explicit provisions of the Constitution.
For this reason, I am demanding that the truth about Mr. Obama’s eligibility to be the president of this great nation be conclusively established so that we can function as one nation and without the nagging question about Obama’s eligibility that deeply troubles me and millions of my fellow Americans.
Getting back to the legal issues.
JT: “Democrats may try to pull a Saxbe. Not Saxby Chambliss , Ohio Sen. William Saxbe when he was nominated to be President Nixon’s attorney general in 1974. … However, Clinton may rely on the standing issue — arguing that no one has authority to force review of her eligibility. She will likely be successful, but once again the use of standing to avoid a court review is inimical, in my view, to the protection of constitutional values.”
This is interesting. Working for Congress back in 1973-74, I recall the Saxbe fix. I recall that Sam Ervin inserted a clause in the bill which reduced Saxbe’s salary providing federal court jurisdiction for a review of the constitutinal issues.
I do not think that any cases ever were filed. Even though Congress can grant subject matter jurisdication over a federal question like this, I do not think they can grant standing, since that is a judicial doctrine requiring that the parties have a stake in the issue. The federal courts cannot issue pure advisory opinions because their jurisdiction is limited under the cases and controversies clause.
A similar clause could be slipped into the Clinton fix, but it seemed much easier to imagine someone, like a criminal defendant, getting standing to challenge the AG.
If anyone can find the statutes at large from 1973 or 73 online, look this up. Otherwise, a trip to the law library for the lawyers (or law clerks, or law students).
“Clinton did in fact vote to increase the salary of the Secretary of State and it was signed into law in January.”
I don’t think that’s correct. See Laurence Tribe on the subject:
“I am, finally, influenced by the fact that the salary increase at issue here was created not by any enactment for which Senator Clinton voted or on which she had any opportunity to vote. Rather, that increase was created by a statute enacted well before Hillary Clinton was elected to the Senate. My understanding is that the 1990s cost-of-living statute in question, 5 U.S.C. Sec. 5303, automatically increases the salaries for a number of federal offices, including that of Secretary of State, provided the President does not certify that the increase would be inappropriate.”
http://balkin.blogspot.com/2008/12/is-hillary-clinton-unconstitutional.html
Rep. Bingham commenting on Section 1992 said it means “every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen.”
This national law does not endow upon any person allegiance through birth alone as was the custom under the old English common law practice but only recognizes citizenship of those born of parents who owe no allegiance to another nation. In other words, national law prevented the creation of conflicting dual citizenships between other nation’s citizens.
Essentially then, “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” means the same jurisdiction the United States exercises over its own citizens, i.e., only citizens of the United States come within its operation since citizens of the United States do not owe allegiance to some other nation at the same time they do the United States. This makes a great deal of sense for the time because there was a great deal of controversy over conflicts arising from double allegiances. In fact, Congress issued a joint congressional report on June 22, 1874 that said the “United States have not recognized a double allegiance.”
Fourteenth Amendment framer, Rep. John A. Bingham, argued before the House in 1871 that Dr. John Emilio Houard was a natural-born citizen of the United States. According to Bingham he was a natural-born citizen because he was “born of naturalized parents within the jurisdiction of the United States” by the “express words of the Constitution, as amended today.” A naturalized male (women became naturalized through their husbands) were required to “absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity” to other nations, and thus, could no longer be said to owe allegiance to anyone but the United States.
Because “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” requires not owing allegiance to any other nation, and because the nation does not recognize double allegiances that can be created at common law, narrows the possibilities to what “natural-born citizen” can mean.
http://federalistblog.us/2008/11/natural-born_citizen_defined.html
Prof. Turley,
Thank you for a very well-written and (for the most part) factual article. I have to say, your article is the most-balanced article I have read so far on this issue. Kudos!
I trust that you will share this same information to the nation tonight when you are on MSNBC. I will try to catch your comments.
1. Jus Soli: (of the soil). If you are born on U.S. soil, you are a “citizen”.
2. Jus Sanguinis: (of the blood). You derive your citizenship from your father – you are a “citizen” of his country.
A “natural born” citizen possesses BOTH Jus Soli AND Jus Sanguinis …
http://federalistblog.us/2008/11/natural-born_citizen_defined.html (link explains natural born citizen)
dragoon “Natural-born citizen means both of your parents were citizens at the time of your birth, so that no foreign allegiance is possible.”
Sorry, no. We have researched this on this site, and this is wrong.
Natural-born means born in the USA.
I may also mean born to US citizen parents beyond the seas, as the First Congress provided in a statute; that question has never been judicially resolved.
But all persons born in the United States are natural born citizens, and eligible for President, regardless of the citizenship of their parents.
Many children of undocument aliens are US citizens by birth.
FAQ on Obama’s birth
http://sites.google.com/site/obamabirth
Visit.
Testing
A question for Professor Turley on an otherwise very good article:
You write that “the odds are strongly against the Supreme Court taking up the case from New Jersey questioning Obama’s eligibility.”
Do you know any evidence, any inside comments from the SCOTUS or other sources, which would suggest that the SCOTUS will not take up the case? If not, don’t you think it would be wise NOT to mention this on live television? Do you think—if there are feasible reasons to assume that Barack Obama is not eligible—that the SCOTUS should not take up the case? If so, why should they drop the case, if there are reasonable doubts? Put differently: If you write that the odds are “strongly against” Donofrio, do you have any interpretation and/or review of his case to offer to us that unequivocally means that Obama actually IS eligible? If not, don’t you think it would be wise NOT to mention on live TV that “the odds are strongly against” Donofrio’s case? Don’t you think it would be wiser to simply discuss the arguments than speculate?
@Vince Treacy:
Whatever you find on this site are just interpretations. And there are many other interpretations out there, and as far as I know the majority opinion of law experts and justices is that you need to be born on US territory AND have American parents. Anything else is de facto only a “native born citizen”, a born citizen by statute, not a “born citizen” under the Constitution, let alone a “natural born citizen”.
I suggest that you go to other sites, like e.g. the federalist blog, or read Yinger’s essay, Chin’s analysis of McCain’s status and other sources, to get all aspects of the issue. I suggest you also read Chertoff’s and Leahy’s statements in the proceedings of Resolution 511, who re-stated the COMMUNIS OPINIO that a “natural born citizen” is a citizen born to American parents.
You also write: “It may also mean born to US citizen parents beyond the seas, as the First Congress provided in a statute; that question has never been judicially resolved.”
No, it has not “never been judicially resolved”, it has been abolished, nullified by a redrafting of the Naturalization Act of 1795, five years after the initial version (1790), by explicitly removing the term “natural born citizen” and substituting it with “citizen”. There is no second opinion about this. The authors clearly wanted to ensure that foreign-born citizens are not eligible for President.
Polly: The 14th Amendment says that all persons born or naturalized in the United States are citizens of the United State. Persons born in the US are natural born citizens. Persons who are naturalized are not.
The qualifications for President are in Art. II cl. 5. No person except a natural born citizen shall be eligible to the Office of President.
None of these provision require anything but birth.
That is the law.
The statements from the 1860s and 1870s cannot affect the meaning of the original Consitution.
@Vince Treacy:
Wrong. There are “born citizens” who are not “natural born citizens”. McCain is a “born citizen” according to statute alone (8 USC §1403), and only retroactively, because at the time of his birth the statute was not yet in effect, and the Insular Cases overruled the Naturalization Act with regard to the Panama Canal Zone.
Furthermore you take the citizen-clause in the 14th Amendment out of context and ignore the fact that it ALSO says “subject to the jurisdiction thereof”, i.e. of the US. Obama clearly was a subject to more than just US jurisdiction, namely dual UK-US jurisdicition. Therefore his status AT BIRTH doesn’t accord with the 14th Amendment “born citizen” status. And that’s a fact, plain and simple.
Anon seems like an antogonist poseur. Donofrio has nothing but respect for the process. He brings a faithful case of first impression to the court. Most of us following his and Wrotnowski’s actions are of the same demeanor and just want the court to give the matter a fair and impartial hearing. Let SCOTUS decide, not the national political party establishments; not the malignant Oligarchy now called the United States Senate.
What I find interesting is the extent to which the framers set forth a restrictive, independent and non-partisan process and accompanying structure for selecting the president of the states. Their fear of Oligarchy is palpable in there efforts to protect and insulate this process.
They were right to be concerned. The national political parties have been trampling the Constitution for years in their nearly unstoppable progression as emerging oligarchies; or, perhaps oligarchies slowly merging.
Implicit in Donofrio’s case of first impression is the return to what has remained unchanged over 200+ years. The Electoral College and presidential election process as set forth by the Framers. Though systematically reduced and all but destroyed by decades of assault on its primacy, it still stands.
Given the law as set forth by the framers, should the political parties be involved as they are now in the selection of the president of the states?
That is an implicit question inherent in Donofrio and Wrotnowski.
Sorry, John.
The only constitutional requirement is that the President be a “natural born” Citizen. The Constitutional Annotated says that all Presidents since and including Martin van Buren were born in the United States. The only issue on qualifications is whether a child born abroad of American parents is natural born. They concluded there is reason to believe that such citizens beconme citizens at birth, but note that the the Supreme Court has not resolved the issue.
I spent a lot of time on websites researching the McCain issue. There is a lot of heat and little light out there.
Check out Chritopher Strunk. He ran for the NY Senate on an “anti-Jesuit” platform. What is that all about?
John,
News Flash! Obama is the President-elect. He will be sworn in on Jan. 20th Deal with it.
I took nothing out of context. Obama was born in the US. He was subject to US jurisdiction.
The 14th does not say subject only to US jurisdiction. You are injecting words into it.
Neither Art II nor the 14th say ANYTHING about the parents.
A lot of other countries treat persons born in the US as their citizens, or as eligible to apply for citizenship, because their parents, or even a grandparent, were born abroad, but that IS NOT AN EXERCISE OF JURISDICTION.
Tribe and Olson established McCain’s eligiblilty for President, and their memo is posted on this site.
These frivolous lawsuits are headed for the trashcan.
Oops. It is time to watch JT on Countdown.
Vince treacy,
Researching on websites will get you where you are, which is stuck on wrong. Look up Judah Benjamin’s take on this, for all the historical context you need to understand what the Framers understood. Read Donofrio. Read the Federalist blog. They will all point you to the original sources you need. The internet is good only for tracking down sources, not opinions.
Required: Born on US soil. Two parents with no foreign allegiance. And this has naught to do with anchor babies.
@Vince Treacy:
“The only constitutional requirement is that the President be a “natural born” Citizen.”
Yes, of course. But you seem to equate “natural born citizen” with “born citizen”, which is not always the case. But a “natural born citizen” needs to be at least a “born citizen”, i.e. birth on US soil is a primary requisite. Sure. By that requisite alone, Obama would be eligible. No need to argue about that. But in the 14th Amendment we also find the remark about being born as a subject to US jurisdiction. Here it fails to accord, because Obama was a subject to US and UK jurisdiction. The jurisdiction-issue is also implicit in the Presidential Qualifications, namely the grandfather clause. The Framers realized they were excluding themselves from Presidential eligibility, because at the time of the adoption/ratification of the Constitution they were (like Obama) under dual jurisdiction, most of them British-American. Their motivation was to minimize foreign influence on the administration, which is clear from the Convention proceedings and John Jay’s letter. The Presidential eligibility clause makes the most sense, when read in this light, which leaves no other interpretation than that of the “natural born citizen” meaning to be free of any foreign allegiance at the time of birth.
@anon the twin
I did not inject words. The 14th Amendment speaks about subjection to US jurisdiction. And Obama was clearly not born as a subject to US jurisdiction, but as a subject to US AND British jurisdiction.
Tribe and Olson have been thoroughly refuted by Chin. Tribe/Olson is just an opinion paper, 2 pages long, of appallingly dire legal quality. It’s wishful thinking, because the laws rendered McCain a NON-CITIZEN at birth, i.e. a sole citizen of Panama. Any other opinion beside the statutory facts is an aim at rewriting the history and vita of a national hero. Tribe/Olsen and S.Res.511 don’t even care to conceal their intentions. Those Washington punks have been giving a lot of people the runaround.
When my wife and I adopted children from Russia, I was interested in this same question. I unfortunately lost the link, but I found an argument online that citizens are either “natural born” or “naturalized”. The Supreme Court (I’m told) considers the distinction black or white, no shades of gray, no other cases to consider. Under the Child Citizenship Act of 2000 (H.R. 2883), my children are citizens without naturalization, and therefore must be considered natural born citizens. I don’t know if they’ll ever run for President, but I’ll consider them eligible to do so.
@dragoon
You’re right, but I would like to add one thing. It’s not necessary to have two US parents. It’s only necessary to have ONE US citizen parent. The other parent however would have to be a citizen, who by the laws of his country would not transfer jurisdiction on the child.
And that’s the tragedy with Obama: If it had been the other way around——namely: Mrs. Obama and Mr. Dunham——, he would be a natural born citizen. Let’s quote the British Nationality Act:
QUOTE: “Subject to the provisions of this section, a person born after the commencement of this Act shall be a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies by descent if his father is a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies at the time of the birth.”
FATHER!!!! If Obama had had a British-Kenyan mother and a US father, Obama would not have been born as a subject under dual UK-US jurisdiction. This part of British common law is a patrilineal ius sanguinis. The mother is irrelevant. Oh, what an irony of fate!
Jonathan,
With regards to the SoS eligibility issue; your blog asserts ‘Clinton did in fact vote to increase the salary of the Secretary of State and it was signed into law in January.’.
The CNN link you provided says that the raise was enacted by an Executive Order, which suggests that it may not have been voted on in the Senate. Am I missing some info here like the EO was used subsequent to a Bill voted on in the Senate? Those two things don’t seem to tally, why is an EO needed if a Bill has passed?
Perhaps in haste you’ve made a mistake here.
@Sam:
Maybe you mean the essay by Professor Yinger. It gives a good overview over exactly this subject. It’s a rather liberal interpretation of the term “natural born citizen”, but to my mind it does not collide with Donofrio’s case.
Since posts with URLs are held back, here’s the article’s title. Just google.
The Origins and Interpretation of the Presidential Eligibility Clause in the
U.S. Constitution: Why Did the Founding Fathers Want the President
To Be a “Natural Born Citizen” and What Does this Clause
Mean for Foreign-Born Adoptees?
By John Yinger.
“No Senator or Representative shall, during the time for which he was elected, be appointed to any civil office under the authority of the United States, which shall have been created, or the emoluments whereof shall have been increased during such time.”
Just watched JT. I would only caution him that it does not seem to matter whether or not Hillary Clinton actually VOTED for the pay raise.
The Clause disqualifies a Member if the pay [emoluments] of the office were increased during the time for which she was elected. It does not distinguish between Members who voted for, against, or abstained.
Well, I just watched the segment on MSNBC. I can’t tell you how disappointed I am to hear what you just said.
And how can you say (paraphrasing) that the COTUS is clear and should be followed on Clinton’s emoluments issue, but at the same time say the COTUS is unclear on the natural born citizen issue.
MSM, and people of your ilk are doing Americans a vast disservice. You are a professor of law (as I understand it) and you should know better than state what you just did on MSNBC. A total disgrace.
Leo has a very strong case that has no precedence – just the type of case that SCOTUS takes on because there is now prior history of law to base an opinion.
I’m tired of fighting the words game, now we are at the point to see what SCOTUS deems to be important.
“there is now prior history of law” should have said “there is no prior history of law”
To all you anonymous posters: I am also anon the twin. I pushed the wrong button by mistake.
“John” wrote “The Framers realized they were excluding themselves from Presidential eligibility, because at the time of the adoption/ratification of the Constitution they were (like Obama) under dual jurisdiction, most of them British-American.”
What in the world are you talking about? The framers excluded from presidential eligibility? They were NOT!
Do the names Washington and Madison ring a bell with you?
The clause said a natural born citizen or “a Citizen, of the United States at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution” could be President.
You continue “because at the time of the adoption/ratification of the Constitution they were (like Obama) under dual jurisdiction, most of them British-American. Their motivation was to minimize foreign influence on the administration, which is clear from the Convention proceedings and John Jay’s letter.”
So they preserved their eligibility even though most of them were British American under dual jurisdiction!
That is one of the wrongest arguments I have ever seen.
Jay’s letter showed the rationale. The did not want foreign Napoleons coming over to save the day. No one was concerned about infants.
@Free America
You have to realize that this is the Washington game. They need their own “political reality”. They don’t care about “constitutional reality”, about “historical reality”, about the fundaments of the union. They don’t care about what’s written in the law. They will bend it at will, as MASkeptic has written above. They have tried to bend it in favor of McCain with Tribe/Olson and S.Res.511, although the facts of the law are against them. And they will also bend it in favor of Obama, if they can. It will be interesting to see what kind of role the SCOTUS will play. In any case, the fact that Turley went on the air and tried himself to create a “political reality”, including speculations—while refraining from discussing the topic thoroughly, based on facts alone—, is a disgrace for a man, who is supposed to be a scientist.
December 4, 2008 at 8:22 pm.
“No Senator or Representative shall, during the time for which he was elected, be appointed to any civil office under the authority of the United States, which shall have been created, or the emoluments whereof shall have been increased during such time.”
Just watched JT. I would only caution him that it does not seem to matter whether or not Hillary Clinton actually VOTED for the pay raise.
The Clause disqualifies a Member if the pay [emoluments] of the office were increased during the time for which she was elected. It does not distinguish between Members who voted for, against, or abstained.
@Vince Treacy:
Your lack of historical and constitutional knowledge is staggering. You wrote:
“What in the world are you talking about? The framers excluded from presidential eligibility? They were NOT!”
The Framers wrote into the Constitution that only a “natural born citizen” would be eligible for President. And with that first part of the clause the Framers excluded themselves, because they were not “natural born”, but “native born” under dual jurisdiction, like Obama. This is why the Framers authored the grandfather clause to “re-include” themselves, despite their own strict rules for future generations. A simple means to an end.
But now I’m outa here. The mediocre quality of the discussions gives me a bad mood.
John I did not inject words. The 14th Amendment speaks about subjection to US jurisdiction. And Obama was clearly not born as a subject to US jurisdiction, but as a subject to US AND British jurisdiction.
Pardon me, John, where does the 14th say subject ONLY to US jurisdiction? The word is not in there, and you are putting it there.
Sure, there are opinions here. That is your blinding insight?
No one in the history of the US has ever subjected the President to a parentage test that you want to add unilaterally.
CAPT-DAX quoted that language: Article 2, Section 1, Clause 5 of the Constitution of the United 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.”
I strongly feel that Mr. Obama and his supporters have not abided by the explicit provisions of the Constitution. UNQUOTE
So Obama was born in the US, as was every President since van Buren. He is over 35. He has lived here for 14 years.
John, now pleased find the explicit clause in the Constitution, or the court case (citation preferred), that says his parents have to be citizens. Captain, which explicit provision die he not abide by?
The answer is none.
The blogs are full of nonsense. Go back and read Jay’s letter, posted above. He was worried about grown-up foreign adventurers.
From Leo Donofrio,
I pulled my original blog when you updated yours. And I told my readers you deserved alot of respect for doing that.
Thank you. I really appreciate it. I saw you on Countdown
and I also appreciate the accuracy there.
Of course, it would be difficult to imagine the SCOTUS taking this on, but I don’t think the Justices will back away from the issue out of fear. New Jersey has liberal standing laws for the type of case I brought so that out might be hard to come by. Still, a procedural error will certainly be fair game if they can find one.
Thanks again for the correction and respect.
Leo Donofrio
http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com
Vince, why were the words changed from the explicit wording of “Natural Born citizen” to just “citizen” in the amendment? Because the framers meant something else completely when defining eligibility of those to hold the office of the President and persons can, by statute or some other means, become citizens but that means a whole different animal from what was required by the framers who took the time to grandfather in themselves with a caveat for others.
Another case that has also entered into SCOTUS pathways is one that Donofrio himself mentions as even more eloquent than his and has great merit: Cort Wrotnowski’s. I believe that he will be on the Plains radio station – plainsradio.com – at 9:00 p.m. eastern.
In both case there was also action by the clerks that was apparently out of line, attempting to block the rightful process due to both. A formal complaint was sent to the Chief Justice. Incredible.
One other concern for our citizens should be the question still out there re: Obama’s time in Indonesia with the mother’s second husband. He was listed under that father’s name in a school, entry to which is open only to Indonesian citizens. That question then is renouncement of U.S. citizenship where he would have to be naturalized upon return to the U.S. There is no known record of his doing so…which could make him then even ineligible to be Senator. And this is supposed to be the “change” involving complete transparency? BTW, Obama is a Constitutional lawyer and taught Constitutional law. He knows the rules…why everything in his background has been completely sealed from the public. How did he get into Columbia with rotten grades and a drug history – applying as a foreign student? Citizens have been content to vote for a completely un-vetted candidate with serious questions.
This isn’t a question of “nuance” of wording. This is a real question of a possible shell game candidate with no respect for the voters nor the Constitution which he swears to respect and uphold.
John wrote “But now I’m outa here. The mediocre quality of the discussions gives me a bad mood.”
That is a gratuitous swipe at a lot of posters.
Good riddance. Come back when you can make a sound like a lawyer or rational debater.
John wrote QUOTE The Framers excluded themselves, because they were not “natural born”, but “native born” under dual jurisdiction, like Obama. This is why the Framers authored the grandfather clause to “re-include” themselves, despite their own strict rules for future generations. A simple means to an end.UNQUOTE
Well, John, I hate to break it to you, but those framers were not born under “dual jurisdiction.”
They were born under the SOLE jurisdiction of England. The did not “re-include” themselves because they had exluded themselves under a theory of dual jurisdiction. They INCLUDED themselves because they could not possibly have been natural born US citizens under any conception of the term, BECAUSE THE US DID NOT EXIST WHEN THEY WERE BORN. It is that easy.
Where do you get this stuff? Do you not understand the difference between jurisdiction and citizenship.
Some people may be born in the US, and also have theoretical citizenship by the operation of laws of other countries.
That citizenship does not give the other country any jurisdiction over the infant born in the US. And the 14th speaks of jurisdiction, which implies power, not nominal citizenship.
That case will die tomorrow.
Leo Donofrio and Cort are on plainsradio.com NOW. Leo just mentioned this blog. He also mentions that most reports are not reporting that Donofrio’s case is non-partisan, including McCain and the candidate left on the ballot who was born elsewhere. Some SOS did correct the third candidate and removed him from ballots, yet when speaking to their responsibility to provide to the voters only legitimate candidates when referring to not checking on Obama they say they cannot do so. You can really get educated on this by listening to this excellent attorney, Donofrio.
Kris wrote QUOTE Vince, why were the words changed from the explicit wording of “Natural Born citizen” to just “citizen” in the amendment? Because the framers meant something else completely when defining eligibility of those to hold the office of the President and persons can, by statute or some other means, become citizens but that means a whole different animal from what was required by the framers who took the time to grandfather in themselves with a caveat for others.”
Well, Kris, let’s take it slow. Art II, cl 5 says the President must be “a natutal born Citizen.”
That has never been changed or amended. It means the same today that it meant in 1789.
The 14th Amendment had nothing to do with the Presidency. It reversed the Dred Scott case’s definition of US citizen. It applied to all citizens, not just the President.
The 14th Amendment did not amend the eligibility clause.
It said all persons, born or naturalized in the US, and subject to the jurisdiction therof, are citizens of the US. That is the rule for citizens.
So. One. Obama was born in Hawaii, part of the US, so he is a citizen under the 14th.
Obama is a citizen because he was born in the US.
Two. He is eligible for President because, like every President elected since van Buren, he was born in the USA.
So, the words were not changed.
Leonard Apple wrote to Jonathan, QUOTE With regards to the SoS eligibility issue; your blog asserts ‘Clinton did in fact vote to increase the salary of the Secretary of State and it was signed into law in January.’. The CNN link you provided says that the raise was enacted by an Executive Order, which suggests that it may not have been voted on in the Senate. UNQUOTE
As I posted above, I think the language of the clause applies if the salary is increased while she served, whether she voted for it or not.
In the same way, it applies if it was increased by EO under authority delegated by statute, or by direct legislation.
The question whether it can be fixed by rolling back the salary of the office is distinct.
Larry Tribe wrote about this on Dec. 2 at Balkinization, so a google for that site plus tribe and emoluments should yield more debate
To end the suspense, he concludes that she would not be unconsitutional:
http://balkin.blogspot.com/
Scroll down to Dec. 2d.
I think the Supreme Court should accept the case because it is an issue of constitutional law that obviously needs to be clarified.
Wow!
The Federalist/neocon mob is out in full force tonight. Kudos to you, Vince, for attempting to present facts to those who do not want to believe the facts. I believe that Prof. Turley knows a little more about the Constitution than all of us here and I would rely on his suggestion that SCOTUS is not likely to take the case. It is only a prediction based on his experience and knowledge of the court, but I will bet money that he is right.
Vince: “The 14th Amendment had nothing to do with the Presidency. It reversed the Dred Scott case’s definition of US citizen. It applied to all citizens, not just the President.”
My point exactly.
Rafflaw: “I believe that Prof. Turley knows a little more about the Constitution than all of us here and I would rely on his suggestion that SCOTUS is not likely to take the case.”
The fact that this “very unlikely to succeed” filing has rather unusually been referred to the whole court by all justices, not by Clarence Thomas alone. This appears to be similar to the unusual attention given to the Bush election – on an emergency type situation. For all practical purposes this question must be answered or a cloud of unknowing will hang over this “presidency” and all legislation could be invalid. Actually, with the blackout here in the MSM, PRAVDA was able to pretty much get all of the facts straight, presenting the situation, with all of the unanswered questions, quite fairly and accurately!! How can the Constitution apply just to certain citizens and honored by them, such a Gov. Schwarzenegger, and not to other citizens only because at a particular time a number of people wish to toss it or intentionally neglect its exact wording for a particular agenda? All are subject to the law…even Mr. Obama.
Jonathan,
Very good summary.
SCOTUS could pass on this case, and refer Leo to the House of Representatives. The House counts the Electoral College votes, supervised by VP Dick Cheney. That is the Constutional provision for counting and challenging the electoral votes. Get ready for a big showdown in the House come January. The silly thing is, Obama could make this all go away by just giving permission for Hawaii to show the 1961 form they have on file.
It took McCain less than a day to provide any and all documentation people asked for. It took Obama less than a day to seal every possible record, from every possible hospital and college.
There is a separate issue in California where the Democratic slate of Electors, voted on by the people, include a woman who has been dead for 8 years. So someone missed that, and its possible that California could lose 1 electoral vote, because you can’t substitute a name after people voted. That won’t matter since the results this time weren’t close.
One of the lawsuits (not sure which one) is trying to subpoena Stanley Ann Dunham’s passport and travel records from the State Department. Since she’s dead, she may not be able to object.
Kris,
If you think the law is being broken here and you are astonished that something un-American is about to happen, where were you when the news hit that Bush broke current FISA law by ordering spying on American without a warrant? Where were you when the news hit that Bush and Cheney and others in the Bush Administration had ordered prisoners under US control to be tortured, in defiance of US and International law? Those were legitimate and important issues. This trumped up attempt to disavow a legally elected President of the United States is disgusting.
Forgive me but I think the whole issue is specious, and brought to continue the relentless right wing attack on Obama’s patriotism. The “natural born citizen language” is a vestige from the 18th Century that should be amended away. I would vote for the Devil himself if he could lower taxes, decrease unemployment, keep the peace, promote the general welfare,avoid needless wars, and deliver the mail on time. Truth is that there are defenders of democracy and the will of the people, and then there are folks like Lou Donofrio.
All the focus on the birth, but there is so much more!
Obama was born on August 4, 1961, from a Kenyan father Barack Obama Sr. (1936-1982), an Arab-African Muslim. A few years later he gets an Indonesian father when Ann Dunham marries Muslim Lolo Soetoro Mangunharjo, originally from Malaysia (1936-1987). For this to happen, Ann Dunham had to renounce her U.S. citizenship for her marriage to Lolo Soetoro to be considered legal in Indonesia. The family goes to live in Indonesia and Obama attends Indonesian school under his new family given name of Barry Soetoro. By Indonesian law under his father he must be an Indonesian citizen to attend school there and by Indonesian law cannot have dual citizenship. Elementary school records in Indonesia list Obama’s name as Barry Soetoro, his religion as Islam, and his citizenship as Indonesian. Obama attends Indonesian Franciscus Primary School (1967-1969) and Indonesian Besuki State Elementary School Menteng 01 in Jakarta (1969-1971). After nearly 5 years of living and attending school in Indonesia his mother drops him off with her parents in Hawaii.
After Barry Soetoro returned to Hawaii, he would have had to apply for American citizenship, but he would be a naturalized citizen. It is possible that Obama did not even bother to become a naturalized citizen of the United States and has remained an Indonesian citizen. Federal records would exist if Obama made application for naturalization; if they exist, they have not been made public.
Later in college he gets two Pakistani roommates and in 1981, Obama visits his mother and half-sister in Indonesia, and then continues on for three weeks to Karachi, Pakistan and Hyderabad, India, with his roommates, Chandoo and Hamid, and finally to Kenya to visit his father’s family. During the time he traveled to Pakistan, it was not possible for Americans to travel there because it was on the list of dangerous nations banned by the State Department. Pakistan was also under martial law at that time. So what passport did he use for his worldly travels?
You can see there is a whole host of parental and international residences worth of changes that derail any possibility of meeting the litmus test of US natural born citizen.
To help us put to rest any questions that American citizens have about Barack Hussein Obama Jr., alias Barry Soretoro, our President-elect, we have to turn to records we do know. The reality is, however, that Obama has lived for 48 years without leaving any verifiable trail of evidence of who he really is. There are no records, no paper trail, practically nothing. This can’t be an accident.
Here is what we do know:
Original, vault copy birth certificate — Not released
Certificate of Live Birth — Released – Per Hawaiian law, it is not proof of natural born US citizenship and its validity questioned
Baptism certificate — None
Obama/Dunham marriage license — Not released
Soetoro/Dunham marriage license — Not released
Soetoro adoption records — Not released
Indonesian Fransiskus Assisi School School application — Released
Indonesian Punahou School records — Not released
Occidental College records — Not released
Columbia College records — Not released
Columbia thesis — Not released
Harvard College records — Not released
Harvard Law Review articles — None (maybe 1, unsigned?)
University of Chicago scholarly articles — None
Law practice client list — Not released
Illinois State Senate records — None
Illinois State Senate schedule — Lost
Selective Service Registration — Released – Validity questioned
Passport — Not released
Medical records — Not released
We do know we have a Constitution and I pray that it will honored and be the basis by which the Supreme Court reviews the several cases all questioning who Barack Hussein Obama Jr., alias Barry Soretoro, really is because no one really knows.
For a more detailed time line see http://colony14.tripod.com/id41.html
Vince wrote : “The 14th Amendment had nothing to do with the Presidency. It reversed the Dred Scott case’s definition of US citizen. It applied to all citizens, not just the President.”
Kris wrote: “My point exactly.”
What point?
Before the 14th Amendment, Taney would not even let Obama sue or vote, let alone be President. The Amendment said that he is a citizen because he is born in the US, regardless of race. The Amendment changed those rules of citizenship. The 14th did not change the “natural born” qualification for President.
Are you one of the internet bloggers like Mark Graber who maintain that Taney got it right? Well, he did not. He was reversed.
Obama is eligible for President because he is a natural born citizen, not a naturalized citizen, is over 35, and a resident for the requisite number of years. That is all the Constitution provides. The rest of the things you and your friends are reading into it are nothing but personal predelictions that you would like to see in the Constitution, but that were not written in there.
Kris, Arnold cannot run because he was born in Austria. That is not in the USA. Obama will serve, with no shadow except from bloggers who feed on each others’ fantasies, because he was born in the USA. Obama is subject to the law, and has complied with with every aspect of it.
It is just not your understanding of the law.
You have filled your posts with unsubstantiated claims and smears about Obama. Much of your stuff is so incoherent that no one can respond. Like the sentence quoted in a posting above: “Because the framers meant something else completely when defining eligibility of those to hold the office of the President and persons can, by statute or some other means, become citizens but that means a whole different animal from what was required by the framers who took the time to grandfather in themselves with a caveat for others.”
Say what? What are you trying to say? Which animal did you have in mind?
Let’s see what the Court says.
I saw Jonathan Turley’s interview with Keith Olbermann. It’s just sick! Clinton’s case is serious because it violates the Constitution, but Obama’s case will probably be put to the side because the judges usually don’t like to get involved in such matters? Where did this guy learn law? The eligibility of President is in the Constitution, and is just as important, if not moreso, than the Secretary of State.
This guy is just another media puppet. He’s more concerned with how he looks on TV and that the media and public likes him. What a scared poseur!
And then he sits there and says what Hillary would accept as pay? Hey Turley! You’re Jonathan Turley! That’s it! Quit trying to be the go-to guy for the media. Leave that to someone who is truthful!
Kris wrote “Actually, with the blackout here in the MSM, PRAVDA was able to pretty much get all of the facts straight, presenting the situation, with all of the unanswered questions, quite fairly and accurately!!”
But Wes Pruden, super conservative at the Wash. Times just wrote that “Even Pravda, once the mouthpiece of the Soviet Communist Party, has taken notice with a highly flavored account, accusing Mr. Obama of admitting he was not a legal citizen, which he has not.”
So that is how PRAVDA reports fairly and accutately. Get all you news there, Kris?
David just wrote about JT: “Where did this guy learn law?”
Well, David, we all know who he is and where he learned his law, and where he teaches law.
Who are you? Where did you learn your law? Just why should we listen to you?
Just asking.
SHORT TIME! If Leo Donofrio wins, Congress should set new elections: popular and Electoral College. New Pres Jan20. If Congress keeps Dec15 for the Electoral College, then the state Legislatures can Appoint the Electors.
Barack Obama was elected on the emotion of “the first black president”, hence why so many refuse to see truth. The childish and snide replies show the maturity of their decision. None will respond intelligently to the information presented to them. Excuse me, but all, and I mean ALL the evidence shows the man to practice deceit, lack experience, and be ineligible for the office. There needs to be truth in his fundraising practices, where they turned off the security features for contributors identification. There is just so much about the man that stinks of corruption and lies. Time will show and time will make all of America rage at this man.
So many of our politicans are hunkered down in government employ, essentially welfare for their career. Term limits and less government!
OLD GLORY: Other headlines in the same paper: Martians land in New Jersey, six headed pig born in Canada and flies to Minnesota, Bush seeks third term after McCain and Obama are disqualified. Dream on. Betty, any evidence? Thought not.
There is a good discussion at Millard Fillmore’s Bathtub. This came up as a trackback on the McCain eligibility posting, but it should be here. google donofrio and obama and fillmore if the link fails.
http://timpanogos.wordpress.com/2008/12/05/without-hysterics-the-obama-eligibility-issue/
If SCOTUS votes to take Donofrio’s case and Donofrio prevails, using his argument and the argument presented in the Federalist Society blog, would Gov. Bobby Jindal be ineligible to run for president?
Jindal’s parents were recent immigrants from Punjab, India at the time of his birth. India could also claim Jindal as a citizen, although Jindal was born in Baton Rouge, Louisiana. If citizenship is inherited through the father, as posed by the Federalist Society blog and Donofrio, Jindal would not be considered to be a “natural born citizen” under the Constitution.
Although Donofrio wants a decision based on the narrow issue of the eligibility of Barack Obama, John McCain and Roger Calero, a decision on this matter would have a more long-term impact on the future of Presidential elections.
Any thoughts on the matter?
Bettyo0000:
“Excuse me, but all, and I mean ALL the evidence shows the man to practice deceit, lack experience, and be ineligible for the office.”
***********
If this is Bush you are referring to, I heartily agree. If stupidity renders one ineligible it surely must be. Forgive us for ignoring your furtive pleas for understanding, but we faced the same treatment with our pleas that Bush was trashing the Constitution, decimating our military, destroying the economy, politicizing the administration of justice and every other aspect of government, whoring to the major corporations and defense contractors, wasting young lives, usurping our rights to privacy, and ruining our reputation abroad. Somehow the circumstances of Obama’s birth pale against this record, but then you conservatives have never been ones to see the other man’s point of view or even extend the basic courtesy of showing some humility when you are so thoroughly trounced. Sore losers make for poor conversation partners.
Wow, you ask for a source, go play a gig, come back in the morning and the whole things gone to pot.
So, it begs the question…. what would happen if the Court ruled that Obama is not eligible to be president? Does Biden become president? Once again the Republican right needs to think rather than just follow the Elephant in front. Careful what you wish for. One thing is for sure, Biden would not be afraid to talk to our Enemies OR or Allies.
re: I watched the MSNBC shows in question, and “they raise some interesting points.
I may not be as verbose, erudite, or educated in the minutia of laws, but as an average “JOE” it seem to me that if ones mother was an American citizen, and hasnt renounced her citizenship, it doesnt matter where you are bon- the child is also an american citizen, by law.
that includes children of persons in the US illegally- regardless of nationality- that that child is also a US citizen-Common current Example is a Mexican National female, in the US illegally, who bears a child, and then can remain in america.
Another relevant example is children born outside the US- military “brats”, US foreign service employees, and such- their children are conferred dual citizenship, by default.
Granted- in governor Schwarzenneggers case- he may not be President, but whats to prevent a hand picked “stand- in/cardboard cutout from assuming the elected office, and working in concert with “Arnold”?
and what does the law, and constitution say about this- stand ins, proxys, straw men, cardboard cutouts- someone running on behalf of someone else, and working in concert with them- orchestrating a legal “end around” the founders intent? or is it just another day in “the swamp”?
And what of US military personnel who impregnate a local while serving overseas- the 2 most egregious examples, would be Vietnamese, and phillipino kids of biracial heritage?
And what of John MCCAin? i didnt hear anybody whining.
The best course of action, of course as you speak of is
A. the rule of law- what does the obscure/arcane laws, and legal precedent indicate?
and B. transparency- put all the relevant documentation out there, preferably on the internet in pdf forms, so that the questioning will be defused.
The last thing we need is to have this issue rise above the level it is erupting up to, and then have some of these lunatic fringe “conspiratorialists”(100 point scrabble word- BTW)take matters into their own hands, resulting in something “BAD” happening.
As it is, the wingnuts are already working themselves into a frenzy.
with respect to Senator Clinton- So its OK to vote yourself a raise( must be nice.wish i could)- but if you vote a raise to the rest of govt employees- then that makes one ineligible to move up the chain?
Again the “vast right wing conspiracy” is at it again, because they want to block, by any means necessary the killing of their golden gooses, and their sacred cows.
They have managed to keep senator clinton, and her health care, and education agendas, and ideas from being eneacted, because the rich and powerful like being well- rich and powerful. so much so- that i suspect they are the cause of this current economic predicament- by selling off their assets, taking them out of the US, and hiding them in off shore accounts, and under their matresses, and such-
why look- the unions are being decimated, headed for extinction; there will be no money for any of the programs or platform we voted in President Obama to fix/create. Taxes will inevitably need to go up as a result, and more govt will need to be created to stave off this coming disaster. sort of like the titanic- they al have their lifeboats, and the rest of us are left with tin cups to bail out the rushing waters. And we are all sunk, except of course, the rich, who always seem able to weather the storm.
then 4 years from now- Presto! the GOP will harp about “higher taxes, more govt, yada yada yada.
If you are a little creative- this Depression IS the Less GOVT, Cheap Labor paradise that the GOP wants- and it would be wise to point that out, and soon.
And i’m sure there are a hundred people who would happily serve as “cardbosrd cut-outs/proxys/ stand ins/straw men for either Clinton Women to be either Senators until chelsea is 30- constitutionally eligible, or if Hillary is successfully blocked.
And If President Obama is removed from office, then Senator Biden, Sen Reid, and Nancy Pelosi will stay the course. and we may have a march on washington, by angry citizens with proverbial pitchforks, and torches, ready to lynch those responsible both for the 2000 gore/florida debacle, and this years attempts by Karl “Beelzebub” rove, and his evil minions to overturn the will of we the people. or has -as Lincoln spoke- the govt of by, and for the people already vanished from this earth? I hope not.
thank you.
Application of the Fourteenth Amendment to this case to absolve Obama from any technicalities of the Constitution are not germaine to the discussion. A common misconception is that the Constitution through the Fourteenth Amendment confers natural born citizenship upon everyone born in the United States whether or not they were born to an illegal alien. Senators Howard and Trumbull the two Senators primarily credited as authoring the Fourteenth Amendment, make it clear that Article 2, Section 1 provisions which require the “natural born citizenship” eligibility for POTUS remains intact.
Howard presented to the court majority in the misapplied Wong Ark Can case, that he specifically declared the clause to be “virtue of natural law and national law” which only recognized citizenship by birth to those who were not subject to some other foreign power. The Senator also stated when he introduced the amendment: “The clause [the citizenship clause section 1] specifically excludes all persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, and persons who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons.” It seems clear that the amendment only applies to American citizens (natural law), regardless of their race – which is exactly what was intended. Senator Howard also said in May, 1868 that the “Constitution as now amended, forever withholds the right of citizenship in the case of accidental birth of a child belonging to foreign parents within the limits of the country.”
Senator Trumbull, the co-author, additionally declared: “The provision is, that ‘all persons born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens.’ That means ’subject to the complete jurisdiction thereof.’ What do we mean by ‘complete jurisdiction thereof?’ Not owing allegiance to anybody else. That is what it means.” Sen. Howard followed that up by stating that: “The word ‘jurisdiction,’ as here employed, ought to be construed so as to imply a full and complete jurisdiction on the part of the United States, whether exercised by Congress, by the executive, or by the judicial department; that is to say, the same jurisdiction in extent and quality as applies to every citizen of the United States now.” Senator Howard clearly intended that the phrase “subject to the jurisdiction” does not apply to anyone other than American citizens.
The writer, John A. Bingham, of the 14th amendment’s first section, considered the proposed national law on citizenship as “simply declaratory of what is written in the Constitution, that every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen…”
By his own admission as stated on his website and on Factcheck.org, Obama has clearly stated:
“‘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…”
1. Barack Obama Sr. was a Britsh subject.
2. Barack Obama Sr. was governed by the British Nationality Act of 1948.
3. Barack Obama Jr. was born to a British subject.
4. Barack Obama Jr. was also governed by the British Nationality Act of 1948.
5. ‘[S]ubject to the complete jurisdiction thereof’ means ‘complete jurisdiction thereof,’ not owing allegiance to anybody else.
6. The authors of the 14th Amendment recognized citizenship by birth to those who were not subject to some other foreign power.
7. On Aug. 4, 1961, Barack Obama Sr. and Barack Obama Jr. were subject to another foreign power.
8. On Aug. 4, 1961, Barack Obama Jr. owed at least partial allegiance to another foreign power.
9. Barack Obama Jr. is not a natural born citizen by virtue of the 14th Amendment.
10. Barack Obama Jr. does not meet the Constitutional eligibilty requirement to be natural born citizen.
Raw Story is running an article about a group gathered in a prayer circle outside the Supreme Court, praying not for justice, but that Obama’s election be invalidated. I wonder if God will answer the same way He/She did when the right wingers prayed for bad weather for Obama’s speech at the Democratic Convention.
Remember the “answer”?
Quoting from the Wall Street Journal, “Sen. John McCain canceled the first day of his Republican National Convention, and his campaign made plans to turn the gathering into a giant fundraiser as they braced for the natural and political fallout from Hurricane Gustav, speeding toward the Gulf Coast….Earlier in the day, President Bush and Vice President Cheney, headline speakers for Monday night, cancelled their appearances.
By lunchtime the campaign had decided to call off the entire opening night’s program.”
“Jonathan Turley lays out the oddities in Obama’s place of birth « From My Heart, Out Of My Mind
Trackback on 1, December 5, 2008 at 6:03 pm”
JT should take a look at this site. The guy cannot read and has posted up all of Marquis’s numbered points as if they are JT’s own views.
Anyway, most of what Marquis has posted is questionable. Material fact 5.3 is a lie — the certification does in fact list place of birth. Marquis cannot even read.
Christophe Wiseman can’t read, either. He says “The authors of the 14th Amendment recognized citizenship by birth to those who were not subject to some other foreign power.” This is just wrong.
The Amendment states “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States.” There is nothing in there about other jurisdiction. It does not say “solely” subject to US jurisdiction, nor does it say subject “only” to US jurisdiction.
You have to use the words in the Constitution, not ones you make up by yourself that are plainly inconsistent.
The authors said a lot of things. If they wanted to cover only those who were not subject to some other foreign power, then they should have put that in the Amendment. The ONLY requirements are birth under US jurisdiction. There is nothing else in the Amendment. End of story.
The Congress voted on, and the States ratified, the language of the Amendment, not the purported statements that are quoted without sources.
Democracy Reborn by Garrett Epps is a history of the Fourteenth Amendment. See page 235. John Conness of California stated that children begotten of Chinese parents in California would be covered by the Amendment.
The 14th Amendment was enacted for people like Obama. Before it, southern states, supported by Taney in Dred Scott, held that Americans born in the US could never be citizens, nor could their descendants ever become citizens. They could not vote or sue.
Those racist, bigoted policies were eliminated by the 14th Amendment. All persons born in the US, except those immune from its jurisdiction by diplomatic immunity or other mean, are citizen.
It is very ironic. In the Senate, every Republican voted for the Amendment. Every Democrat voted no. There may have been some in those days who thought that there might be a black President some day.
I am sure that NO ONE on the planet thought that he would be a Democrat.
The once-proud Republican party, founded to oppose the spread of the evil of slavery, has lost its compass.
@ Vince Treacy – I should hope Sir, that a conversation regarding such a topic could be done in a high minded fashion without resorting to name calling and insults (implied and expressly made).
You said: “Christophe (sic) Wiseman can’t read, either. You have to use the words in the Constitution, not ones you make up by yourself that are plainly inconsistent… You have to use the words in the Constitution, not ones you make up by yourself that are plainly inconsistent.
The authors said a lot of things. If they wanted to cover only those who were not subject to some other foreign power, then they should have put that in the Amendment. The ONLY requirements are birth under US jurisdiction. There is nothing else in the Amendment. End of story.
The Congress voted on, and the States ratified, the language of the Amendment, not the purported statements that are quoted without sources.
Democracy Reborn by Garrett Epps is a history of the Fourteenth Amendment. See page 235. John Conness of California stated that children begotten of Chinese parents in California would be covered by the Amendment…”
First of all, I must take issue with your belief that I have made up words and quotes which are inconsistent and are purported statements made without sources. For brevity I did not include extensive quotations and citations, but to satisfy your assertions, I will do so. Further I would be curious to know where in the Constitution or contemporary sources you find for instance the right to restrict ownership of firearms, or the establishment of a Constitutional “right to privacy” which is the basis for a Constitutional right to abortion? If you are to advocate such constructionalism, would you not then agree that judicial activism interpreting the Constitution is an anathema to the Founders original intent?
What further concerns me is that the Constitutional authority upon which you base your assertions is an author rather than cited primary source material and court cases. That said the following should be more than sufficient to dispel your notion that it is so cut and dry.
“The jurists and statesmen referred to in the majority opinion, notably Senators Trumbull (Chairman of the Committee which reported the bill) and Reverdy Johnson, concurred in that view, Senator Trumbull saying: ‘What do we mean by ’subject to the jurisdiction of the United States’? Not owing allegiance to anybodyelse; that is what it means.’ And Senator Johnson: ‘Now, all that this amendment provides [169 U.S. 649, 722] is that all persons born within the United States, and not subject to some foreign power (for that, no doubt, is the meaning of the committee who have brought the matter before us), shall be considered as citizens of the United States.’ Cong. Globe, 1st Sess. 39th Cong. 2893 et seq.” U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898) [169 U.S. 649, 698]
Senator Jacob Howard of Michigan was a member of the Joint Committee on Reconstruction that drafted the Fourteenth Amendment. He was the floor manager for the Amendment in the Senate. During the debates of the Fourteenth Amendment’s citizenship clause, both its primary framers, Sen. Jacob Howard and Sen. Lyman Trumbull listened to concerns of including such persons as Chinese, Mongolians, and Gypsies to citizenship. Additionally, Sen. Fessenden (co-chairman of the Reconstruction Committee) raised the question of persons born of parents from abroad temporarily in this country – an issue he would not have raised if Congress were merely reaffirming the common law doctrine – and of course, the question of Indians.
The provision is, that ‘all persons born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens.’ That means ’subject to the complete jurisdiction thereof.’ What do we mean by ‘complete jurisdiction thereof?’ Not owing allegiance to anybody else. That is what it means.
“[E]very person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States. This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons. It settles the great question of citizenship and removes all doubt as to what persons are or are not citizens of the United States. This has long been a great desideratum in the jurisprudence and legislation of this country.”
Thus “subject to the jurisdiction” does not simply mean, as is commonly thought today, subject to American laws or American courts. It means owing exclusive political allegiance to the U.S.
Sen. Trumbull (Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee) further added, “It cannot be said of any Indian who owes allegiance, partial allegiance if you please, to some other Government that he is ’subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.’” Sen. Jacob Howard agreed:
“[I] concur entirely with the honorable Senator from Illinois [Trumbull], in holding that the word “jurisdiction,” as here employed, ought to be construed so as to imply a full and complete jurisdiction on the part of the United States, whether exercised by Congress, by the executive, or by the judicial department; that is to say, the same jurisdiction in extent and quality as applies to every citizen of the United States now.”
What Sen. Howard is saying here is citizenship by birth is established by the jurisdiction which the United States already has over the parents of the child. There is only one avenue for which an alien could come under the complete jurisdiction of the United States: Naturalization.
Again, had it been stipulated among members of Congress that they were merely reaffirming the old common law rule of citizenship by birth then it would be entirely irrelevant whether parents enjoyed the same jurisdiction of United States citizens or whether they might owe allegiance to some other nation
Rep. John Bingham of Ohio, considered the father of the Fourteenth Amendment, confirms the understanding and construction the framers used in regards to birthright and jurisdiction while speaking on civil rights of citizens in the House on March 9, 1866:
“[I] find no fault with the introductory clause [S 61 Bill], which is simply declaratory of what is written in the Constitution, that every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen…”
CONG. GLOBE, 39th Cong., 1st Sess. 2890 et seq. (1866). All Senate and House debate quotes are from the Congressional Globe (precursor of the Congressional Record) for May 30, 1866.
The Supreme Court correctly confirmed this restricted interpretation of citizenship in the so-called ‘Slaughter-House cases’ [83 US 36 (1873)] and in [112 US 94 (1884)]. In Elk v.Wilkins, the phrase ’subject to its jurisdiction’ excluded from its operation ‘children of ministers, consuls, and citizens of foreign states born within the United States.’ In Elk, the American Indian claimant was considered not an American citizen because the law required him to be ‘not merely subject in some respect or degree to the jurisdiction of the United States, but completely subject to their political jurisdiction and owing them direct and immediate allegiance.’ Elk v. Wilkins, 112 U.S. 94, 99 (1884).
Marx said: History repeats itself, first as tragedy, second as farce. The actual words were: “Hegel remarks somewhere that all great, world-historical facts and personages occur, as it were, twice. He has forgotten to add: the first time as tragedy, the second as farce.”
This has all happened before. In the Dred Scott case, Taney wrote a long decision on the words “All men are created equal” and concluded that they meant only white men, and excluded African Americans, who he said had no rights a white man need respect. The tragedy of the Civil War ensued.
Now individuals write about “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States,” and conclude that the words somehow exclude the first African American elected to the Presidency.
This time it is comedy. And we can see through you. We know you are all are trying to do the same thing that Taney did, to exclude an African American from the Constitution. To bad Taney is no longer on the Court.
As for the law, all may consult the authoritative Constitution Annotated, published by the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service, and available online at GAO:
http://www.gpoaccess.gov/constitution/browse.html#1992
QUOTE While clearly establishing a national rule on national citizenship and settling a controversy of long standing with regard to the derivation of national citizenship, the Fourteenth Amendment did not obliterate the distinction between national and state citizenship, but rather preserved it.\6\ The Court has accorded the first sentence of Sec. 1 a construction in accordance with the congressional intentions, holding that a child born in the United States of Chinese parents who themselves were ineligible to be naturalized is nevertheless a citizen of the United States entitled to all the rights and privileges of citizenship.\7\ Congress’ intent in including the qualifying phrase “and subject to the jurisdiction thereof,” was apparently to exclude from the reach of the language children born of diplomatic representatives of a foreign state and children born of alien enemies in hostile occupation, both recognized exceptions to the common-law rule of acquired citizenship by birth,\8\ as well as children of members of Indian tribes subject to tribal laws.\9\
\6\Slaughter-House Cases, 83 U.S. (16 Wall.) 36, 74 (1873).
\7\United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898).
\8\Id. at 682. \9\Id. at 680-82; Elk v. Wilkins, 112 U.S. 94, 99 (1884). UNQUOTE
So that should settle it for objective observers. An infant born to Chinese parents, who were still citizens of China, was a citizen. Obama was born in the United States. He was subject to its full power and jurisdiction. He was, and is, a citizen from birth. Neither he no his parents had diplomatic status. They were not enemy aliens in wartime. He was in the United States, and he was not subject to the jurisdiction, that is, the power, of any other country. He was not in an Indian tribe.
Obama is a natural born citizen. Obama is the next President. The reams of pseudolegal rantings have no effect on this.
Finally, the Supreme Court was created by Article III of the Constitution to resolve disputes like this. Come back on Monday to see how they rule.
The SECS STATES have not done the presidential election in the manner the STATES LEGISLATURES have directed. The Legislatures should APPOINT the Electors. Congress can set new dates of election before New Pres Jan20. Also the Legislatures have not done oversight
OLD GLORY: Very realistic plan. Report to Washington on Jan. 20th to be sworn in as President. Report to Rome on Jan 21st to be installed as Pope. [irony]
Vince:
I wouldn’t waste any more time with Christopher Wiseman. I read his bio on his blog and he’s a paralegal and wanna be attorney. To surmise that the statements of the Amendment’s sponsors determine its interpretation shows a fundamental misunderstanding of the system. A bill’s sponsor does not interpret the bill; the Courts do that using precedent developed over years of experience. While an individual Senator’s comments may have some value on the issue of intent, those comments are not dispositive.
In US v. Won Kim Ark (1898), the Court handled just such a nonsensical challenge to a natural born Chinese citizen status confirming place of birth as determinative but subject to three restrictions which do not apply to Obama. (One of those restrictions as applied to Indians was legislated away in 1924). The Court said :”Upon the facts agreed in this case, the American citizenship which Wong Kim Ark acquired by birth within the United States has not been lost or taken away by anything happening since his birth.”
“Justice” Wiseman cavalierly tells us this bedrock case was “misapplied,” whatever that means. (I suppose he means wrongly decided). To support that contention, he cites some dicta by Justice Gray (who was tediously recounting the legislative history)in the case purportedly showing the majority’s rationale. Of course, Gray discarded those statements in reaching the opposite result based upon prior common law precedent specifically the English case of ‘Calvin’s Case,’ reported by Lord Coke, and The Charming Betsy (1804) with an opinion by Chief Justice John Marshall. Two gentlemen with slightly more credibility than our own “Justice” Wiseman here.
A classic example of a guy with a little knowledge being dangerous and trying to fill in the gaps in his knowledge with his own rather uninformed opinions. As he notes on his blog, I am sure he was a fine marine and Eagle Scout. As a lawyer? Not so much.
Vince:
I did enjoy your Pope retort to Old Glory. Where does one apply for that job. As my former history teacher, Mr. Coker, use to say: “That’s nice work if you can get it.”
WHAT ABOUT MONDALE AND AGNEW?
If you or somebody you know is attending the National Press Club meeting this upcoming Monday in Washington by Mr. Donofrio and Mr. Berg, ask them how come 42nd Vice-President Walter Mondale, who would have had German citizenship at the time of his birth through his father, as well as 39th Vice-President Spiro Agnew, who would have had Greek citizenship at the time of his birth through his father, were never questioned about being natural-born US citizens and both sworn in without issue? Also note that by the standards of Donofrio v. Wells, neither Colin Powell nor Mitt Romney nor Bobby Jindal would be “natural-born” US citizens because all their respect fathers were foreign born.
Donofrio v. Wells is really insulting to first-generation Americans and in particular non-White first-generation Americans since this whole concept was never brought up prior to inauguration of either V-P Mondale or V-P Agnew.
Heather, you are absolutely right. You have highlighted some ignorance and some outright hypocrisy. As I said above, “We know you are all are trying to do the same thing that Taney did, to exclude an African American from the Constitution. To bad Taney is no longer on the Court.”
Donofrio is an insult to all first generation Americans.
BTW, Donofrio has chickened out of the National Press Club meeting. QUOTE ON Posted in Uncategorized on December 6, 2008 by naturalborncitizen ALL REPORTS STATING I WILL BE AT THE NATIONAL PRESS CLUB ON MON DECEMBER 8, 2008 ARE FALSE.
I will not be there and am not in any way associated with this event.Please pass this information out to the blogosphere far and wide. The event has nothing to do with me. World Net Daily has their story wrong. I am not involved and nobody is representing my case at this event. UNQUOTE
His 15 minutes of fame are rapidly expiring.
Donofrio v. Wells doesn’t just apply to first-generation Americans but also indigenous American peoples too.
What members of American Indian Nations who are born on reservations like Charles Curtis, 31st Vice-President of the United States? Aren’t all American Indians dual citizens of both the United States and also their tribal nations?
Back to the emoluments branch of this thread. The Saxbe fix in 1973 did have a clause, added I think by Sam Ervin, allowing for challenges.
The trouble is that while Congress can confer jurisdiction on the courts, it cannot manufacture a case or controversy.
So a person had to be aggrieved to use this. It does not seem that anyone ever availed themselves of it.
Actions Challenging Appointment of Attorney General on Grounds of Violation of Constitutional Provisions Governing Compensation and Other Emoluments
Pub. L. 93–178, § 2, Dec. 10, 1973, 87 Stat. 697, provided that:
“(a) Any person aggrieved by an action of the Attorney General may bring a civil action in the appropriate district court to contest the constitutionality of the appointment and continuance in office of the Attorney General on the ground that such appointment and continuance in office is in violation of article I, section 6, clause 2, of the Constitution. The United States district courts shall have exclusive jurisdiction, without regard to the sum or value of the matter in controversy, to determine the validity of such appointment and continuance in office.
“(b) Any action brought under this section shall be heard and determined by a panel of three judges in accordance with the provisions of section 2284 of title 28, United States Code. Any appeal from the action of a court convened pursuant to such section shall lie to the Supreme Court.
“(c) Any judge designated to hear any action brought under this section shall cause such action to be in every way expedited.”
That is found at a note to 28 USC 503.
Dear Professor Turley,
How then can a citizen successfully sue to prevent a usurper from taking office? The courts say we have “no standing” — in other words we, the citizens of the United States, have no rights when it comes to protecting ourselves and our country from a usurper! If this is the case, how is our country any different from Zimbabwe or any other banana republic. It saddens my heart to realize we have no real “rights”.
A ” usurper”?
You mean like a guy who steals an election by leveraging the use of his brother who is the governor of a deciding state to set up roadblocks to keep 16,000 democrats from voting?
Or like a guy who steals an election by having his campaign manager for the state in question count the votes, tossing out 90,000 of them so he can win?
You mean a “usurper” like that do you?
The worst among all of (u)surpers posting is a waffle(r) using Karo instead of Maple surp.
Obama is not a usurper nor a waffler, as charged, but he does change his mind.
Corny tension break within a serious discussion…
the leftist illuminati has shown through the media and otherwise that they have so much power.. that I would be really surprised if either of these things prevents these people from being able to take office.
HISTORICAL BREAKTHROUGH – PROOF: CHESTER ARTHUR CONCEALED HE WAS A BRITISH SUBJECT AT BIRTH
http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com
I would mean a usurper who would spend over 1 million on three different law offices to hide all his personal data. A person who would turn off all the security features so he could get campaign donations from countries like Gaza. Thats the kind of guy i would be wary of.
Really?
I’d be wary of the bungling moron with delusions of world conquest who over the last 8 years trashed the country, the economy, our military, our international credibility, the economy, and essentially ran into everything he touched like a drunken bull in a china shop.
That’s the guy I’d be “wary of”.
This natural born citizen crowd will probably fall all over themselves trying to reverse their arguments if Ahnold is ever seriously considered for president.
The only reason why this group is trying to litigate away the legal and historic election of Barack Obama is very easy to surmise. The man is black and “they” cannot live in a world that might actually allow someone who might undo most of the evil and illegal things that the Bush regime has done to this country and our Constitution. Great job by Mespo and Vince, et al for your yeoman work in debunking this Donofrio crowd.
“A natural born citizen is one who was born within the United States and its territories and possessions. It is someone who is born under the American flag.” Jerome Barron, Law Professor, GW Law School, quoted by Afro:
http://www.afro.com/tabid/456/itemid/2273/Obamas-Eligibility-Challenged.aspx
The newspaper The Afro asked Professor Barron, an esteemed colleague of Professor Turley, his opinion. Barron has studied and taught the Constitution for his entire professional life. He was my con law teacher nearly 40 years ago, and on of my best teachers ever.
For arguments from authority, this is as strong as it gets.
Vince:
If you had Jerry, you need no advice from the likes of me. Whatever Jerry taught you 40 years ago is still twice as good as what I could teach you today.
JT
Also note that 31st Vice-President Charles Curtis was the son of Native American and born on a reservation in prior to the passing of Snyder Act of 1924 which granted full citizenship to Native Americans and yet there were no issues raised prior to his inauguartion.
Also note they tried this whole “natural born” stuff with Barry Goldwater since he was born in Arizona prior to it entering the Union.
While the Emoluments Clause raises a serious issue, the natural-born-citizen arguments are strictly at the level of urban legends, and have already been labeled false at Snopes dot com. But the meme or trope festers on in the blogs and is seeping into respectable media. This post is a little long and repetitive, but is an effort to get the falsity of the urban legend on the record before the Supreme Court sinks it.
In the latest flash, naturalborncitizen wrote HISTORICAL BREAKTHROUGH – PROOF: CHESTER ARTHUR CONCEALED HE WAS A BRITISH SUBJECT AT BIRTH. There is no breakthrough. All he has is a story that Arthur’s father was naturalized in 1843, long after Arthur’s birth, but that in no way affected Arthur’s eligibility for the Presidency.
There have always been charges that Arthur was actually born in Canada, but there has never been any proof, and there is still none. Donofrio concedes that Arthur was born in Vermont. His so-called revelation is that Arthur’s Irish-born father was not naturalized until 1843, years after Arthur’s birth. His father was actually born in the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, established by the Act of Union of 1800.
Discussing a pamphlet of the time, he writes QUOTE Hinman alleged that Arthur was born in Ireland or Canada as a British subject. It was bunk. It’s been definitively established that Chester Arthur was born in Vermont. But Hinman turns out to be correct anyway since Chester Arthur was a British citizen/subject by virtue of his father not having naturalized as a United States citizen until Chester Arthur was almost 14 years old. That means Chester Arthur was a British subject at the time of his birth. UNQUOTE
Donofrio argues that only a natural born citizen who has two U.S. citizen parents is eligible for President. That is false.
Donofrio has hopelessly confused citizenship and jurisdiction, and his confusion permeates his arguments. It is evident when he says “citizen/subject,” blending distinct concepts. An individual may be born with citizenship in one country like England. While he remains there, he is a citizen and is “subject to its jurisdiction.” He may travel or even emigrate to another country. He may remain a citizen of England and may consider himself to be an English or British subject, but he is not subject to its jurisdiction or power unless he returns there. Conversely, noncitizens in Britain may still be British subjects.
So citizenship can follow a person, whether she wants it or not. It does not give the home country any jurisdiction over her when she is abroad. Please, everyone, make this distinction and keep it in mind.
So Great Britain had no jurisdiction over Chester Arthur at his birth. He could have been a British citizen under their law, but that gave the UK no power over him in the US. Even if GB regarded him as a British subject at the time, that had no effect on his eligibility for President, because he was subject to U.S. jurisdiction.
The 14th Amendment provided for two kinds of citizens, born and naturalized. The President must be born in the United States and subject to its jurisdiction. Donofrio claims Obama is a “native born citizen”, not a “natural born citizen,” but those are his words. There is no provision for “native born” in the constitution. He is making this up.
Obama met all the requirements of the Constitution. He was born in one of the United States under U.S. jurisdiction. He was not subject to the jurisdiction or legal power of the courts or government of any other country at the time of birth. There was no dual jurisdiction. Some other country may have considered him as its citizen, giving him dual citizenship, but that did not imply dual jurisdiction.
Donofio’s approach could have dire consequences for our own country. Hundreds of thousands have fled communist Cuba and communist Vietnam and settled in the US. Their children born are natural born citizens. What if communist Cuba or communist Vietnam had a law providing all children of refugees are citizens of Cuba or Vietnam from birth, and thus have dual citizenship? Do we let the law of a foreign communist country disqualify loyal American citizens from the Presidency? Of course not. Our country does not allow the laws of a foreign nation to determine who may or not be President. Our own Constitution and laws determine this.
Other countries may even maintain that its emigres are still its citizens even after they become citizens of their new countries. This would disqualify even the children of naturalized citizens, in Donofrio’s view.
Any purported citizenship in another country has no effect on the natural born citizenship of a person born in the U.S subject to U.S. jurisdiction, or “born under the American flag.” So any British or Kenyan law treating Obama as a citizen had no effect then or now. Dual citizenship based on a foreign law is no bar to the Presidency.
So Donofrio conceded his case when he admitted Arthur was born in Vermont. He conceded his case when he admitted Obama was born in Hawaii.
And yet, even if you assume for the sake of argument that there was dual jurisdiction, which I do not, it still did not bar him under the 14th Amendment. As I have said over and over, the 14th Amendment only states “subject to the jurisdiction” of the U.S., not “subject to sole or exclusive jurisdiction,” or “not subject to any other jurisdiction.”
This was all settled in U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898). The question was “whether a child born in the United States, of parents of Chinese descent, who, at the time of his birth, are subjects of the emperor of China, but have a permanent domicile and residence in the United States, and are there carrying on business, and are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under the emperor of China, becomes at the time of his birth a citizen of the United States.” The Court answered yes. 169 U.S. 649, 705.
So a child born with two parents subject to a foreign power became a citizen at the time of birth. He was a natural born citizen, not a naturalized one. He was therefore eligible to be President, despite that fact that he was born to parents subject to a foreign power.
The Court also explained the jurisdiction requirement. The Court said that “The real object of the fourteenth amendment of the constitution, in qualifying the words ‘all persons born in the United States’ by the addition ‘and subject to the jurisdiction thereof,’ would appear to have been to exclude, by the fewest and fittest words (besides children of members of the Indian tribes, standing in a peculiar relation to the national government, unknown to the common law), the two classes of cases,- children born of alien enemies in hostile occupation, and children of diplomatic representatives of a foreign state… “ So, aliens, diplomats, and Indian tribes [tribal law has changed and all Indians are now US Citizens].
Under the civil rights act of 1866, “’all persons born in the United States, and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed,” had been declared to be citizens of the United States. The Court stated the words “not subject to any foreign power,” were not “intended to exclude any children born in this country from the citizenship which would theretofore have been their birthright.” But, the Court stated ”any possible doubt in this regard was removed when the negative words of the civil rights act, ‘not subject to any foreign power,’ gave way, in the fourteenth amendment of the constitution, to the affirmative words, ’subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.”
So, there it is. The purpose of the jurisdiction clause was to exclude diplomats and enemy aliens, not all so-called foreign subjects. The Amendment expressly dropped the words “not subject to any foreign power.”
Now Donofrio is trying to read back into the Amendment the words that were expressly excluded. That is a fundamental error of statutory and constitutional construction. There is no basis for Donofrio’s dual jurisdiction argument. The Supreme Court has held that there is no express or implied provision that a child born in the U.S. must not be subject to any other jurisdiction.
If he dislikes it, get an Amendment ratified. Many have tried. In the meantime, he will not be allowed to cheat millions of Americans of their birthright, on no more basis than his own say-so.
The bar against naturalized citizens from the Presidency is bad enough. Now Donofrio wants some children born in America to be second-class Americans, also barred from the Presidency. It is a totally unheard-of idea, and it is going nowhere.
He also would like to overturn the choice of the American people in a free election based on his bizarre theories of who should be a natural born citizen.
This is a splendid example of a modern day nativist, Know-Nothing attitude.
FLASH
10:15 AM
Supreme Court denies application for stay in Donofrio case..
Bye, Leo.
Get it first at the Turley site.
Vince,
Once again, thank you.
In the Huffington Post
“The court did not comment on its order Monday rejecting the call by Leo Donofrio of East Brunswick, N.J., to intervene in the presidential election.”
Take that, troublemakers.
A friend of Leo Donofrio has another case, referred to the Supreme Court conference by Scalia for consideration Dec.12th
Prediction: Another loss for Leo and his friend.
You read it here first.
The Supreme Court would be nuts to let ANY of these eligibility questions to go anyplace..
the country could not take a constitutional crisis at this time not to mention the riots that would occur..
for me, i think that if obama had a legitimate birth certificate on file in hawaii he would have shown it by now..
i think he has something to hide..
i also think the fix is in and the court will not entertain any of the appeals..
i don’t give a rats-ass if he is black, mulatto or whatever..
i just don’t trust anyone from chicago..
there is always a good side to most any president..
i hope obamas good side wins and his socialist side goes away..
William Morrow wrote “for me, i think that if obama had a legitimate birth certificate on file in hawaii he would have shown it by now.. i think he has something to hide..”
That is false.
He has a legitimate birth certificate on file, and he has shown it.
We do not let false information go unchallenged on this site. Try somewhere else.
William Morrow also wrote “i just don’t trust anyone from chicago..”
Dumb move to post that on the site hosted by Joh Turley of the Chicago Turleys.
As they may say in Chicago, what is black and blue and bleeds and floats in Lake Michigan? Answer is the last guy who said “i just don’t trust anyone from chicago..”
Just kidding. Some low-hanging over-ripe fruit is just too tempting.
This just hit me about the Saxbe fix and its effect on earnings parity in the cabinet: Can’t Congress just vote again to raise the salary for Secretary of State once Hillary vacates her Senate office? If Hillary has no hand in the new vote it should be constitutional.
There is a lot of confusion amongst many people. But Natural Born Citizen, Native Born Citizen, and Citizen all have different meanings. The Framers of the constitution were not idiots when they used the word Natural Born Citizen and Citizen in the same paragraph. A natural born citizen is norn in the country of parents who are citizens (note not natural born citizens, simply citizens) So if your parents came to america and become citizens, then their children born here would be natural born citizens. However if these folks remained non-citizens for whatever reason – their children may not be natural born citizens but they would be Native born citizens and they would be citizens. Obama is a Citizen of the U.S. Obama is a Native Born Citizen (unless his BC is false) but it appears he is not a Natural Born Citizen since his father was not a citizen of the U.S. And perhaps his father never intended to become a citizen. And perhaps his father would want his son to be of the same citizenship as himself – or who knows. Never-the less – at birth – Obama was not a Natural Born Citizen because of this fact.
The comments posted by “John” in this article have been reposted at the Obamacrimes website that is run by Mr. Phil Berg and are being credited to Professor Turley. I am not familiar with this blog so if Professor Turley comments under the name “John” then they are indeed correct. However, if “John” is another person then Professor Turley is being misquoted.
The comments seem to be at odds with Professor Turley’s other comments in the article and with previous comments he made on the Donofrio case on MSNBC’s Countdown program.
God dag! Kan jag ladda ner en bild fran din blogg. Av sak med hanvisning till din webbplats!
Vince Treacy
1, July 16, 2009 at 7:18 pm
“President Obama has spent over a million dollars to hide the vault copy of his birth certificate.”
That is a persistent birther rumor, but no proof has been offered. Some people believe this implicitly, yet doubt Obama’s birth certificate.
And the birth certificate is irrelevant, since the birthers insist against all law and precedent that a natural born citizen have two US citizen parents, so Obama can never be natural born. This particular discussion has exhausted almost all aspects of the topic, and the Cook case is moot and over.
Mike S., about the hijacking, it happened before at “Obama adopts Cheney” and at another thread that I have forgotten. I just tried to respond to birthere posters who chose the thread. Note that I redirected a health policy post away from here to the new health bill topic.
If we all agree, we can continue all these born discussions at the most recent natural born citizen thread, and direct any birther posters to our replies there, or to any other thread mutually agreed upon:
Transferred
“And the birth certificate is irrelevant, since the birthers insist against all law and precedent that a natural born citizen have two US citizen parents, so Obama can never be natural born.”
Thank Goodness. I thought I was a birther. Fortunately, I don’t think a natural-born citizen is required to have two U.S. Citizens as parents.
I based this on your statement:
jim byrne 1, June 22, 2009 at 9:24 pm
“Anyone born in the U.S. top [sic] U.S. citizens is eligible to hold the office of President.”
http://jonathanturley.org/2009/06/17/obama-adopts-cheney-policy-and-opposes-release-of-white-house-logs/
I understand the confusion Vince. I was responding to AY’s comment about only people born in the original colonies could be president. -I probably should have made my point clearer…
I’m not sure if a child born in the U.S. to foreign parents would be considered a natural-born citizen. (I haven’t researched it)
My statement was correct. If you’re born in the U.S, and both of your parents are U.S. citizens, you would meet the natural-born qualification. –I didn’t exclude those born to a single U.S. Citizen parent.
Perkins Coie was paid between last quarter of 08 and first qurater 09 over a million dollars. Not to mention the federal attorneys he is using(tax dollars)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perkins_Coie
http://query.nictusa.com/pres/2009/Q1/C00431445/B_PAYEE_C00431445.html
Again it would be as simple as saying to some independent examiners go see it for your self. Then they could make a statement that says we have seen and verified the original birth certificate. I realize people such as Kos, Fact check have seen and held the COLB but NO ONE HAS TESTED if it was a forgery.
We know that Palin claims she has spent over $500k in defending roughly a dozen suits and it has cost Alaska, I forget couple $200k. Thats about $700k in legal fees. How many cases and counting for Obama. Regardless in some cases he is represented by the govt. those attorneys get paychecks so in esscence we the people are paying his defense in those cases.
“All persons born … in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof” are citizens,14th Amd., and since they are citizens by virtue of their birth rather than naturalizaton, they are natural born citizns. See, also, Wong Kim Ark. Nothing is said in the Constitution about parents. I have discussed this before and my posts are here and at sites reached by putting “Donofrio” or “natural born citizen” in the Search window, so I am not going into it again.
Nothing in the Perkins entry on fees for birth challenges. Lots of money for campaign legal expenses. I posted about this on the Cheney site linking to Irregular Times.
Leaving town for a while. Expect only a spot or two.
I am sure JT is happy the we, his posters, have rearranged our playpen and are now playing well with each other.
Vince,
I concur. The 14th does ensure that anyone born in the U.S., regardless of parental citizenship, would be considered a natural-born citizen, and therefore meet that qualification requirement of Article I.
ooops ===Article II. Missed an “I”.
Jim Byrne thank you for your support on the other thread. This is the first time I’ve directed any comments to you. Mike S wants to analyze people so I thought I would do a little myself. They don’t see things the way you and I do because of the republican/democrat divide. They are still mad over the 2000 election in which I believe Bush stole and now they have a democrat in office and are blind to the possibility that a democrat stole the election. With that said I was happy in the beginning with Bush and then 9-11 happened. When I saw Bush standing on a pile of rubble, his arm draped over the shoulder of the fire chief and he said those famous words, I said to myself and I’ll never forget it the only thing he is missing is a can of budwiser beer but something is not right. Then I figured out with the broad powers he enacted afterwards 9-11 served to purposes, one, a reason to go to war and two, to broaden the powers of the executive branch. Thats why they let 9-11 happen. Now Obama is in office and he’s worse than Bush. In away I hope he is on the up and up because if he gets removed we get Biden, that would be complete disaster as it would have been if Mr. I invented the internet, the world is burning Gore would of been. So in some aspects we have to be careful what we wish for. Anyways until there is proof beyound a reasonable doubt, I will believe the COLB, Selective Service Card are forgeries. I will believe that his passport info was scrubbed and the guy who did it was executed for what he knew and the list goes on and on.
So they believe that the 2000 election was stolen from them but don’t believe it could of been done in reverse this time.
Vince so how much money do you think he has spent? It certainly aint zero my man and there have been alot of cases that were not free.
bdaman,
I think most of the people here are good people.
When I stumbled upon this blog, I had no idea who John Turley was. -I don’t watch Rush, or Beck, or Olberman. I just found the topics to be interesting.
I have noticed that if you agree, you’re a good guy. However, if you disagree, you’re a troll, or a neocon, or some other term used with the intent to make you leave. Some seem to forget that honorable people can disagree.
Words are just words. They generally don’t express feeling, unless you work hard to make them do that.
Be patient. -I think Mike S. may be having a bad day. He’s generally a pretty good guy. I’m not sure what he did for a living, but I think it had something to do with psychology. He likes to analyze people. Unfortunately, typed words are not the best reference material and he arrives at the wrong conclusions. What really bothers me is..why analyze any of us? We are all just trying to share our points of view. We all want a better country. sometimes we approach it from a different direction.
I don’t think too much about past elections. We can’t undo the past, so why dwell on it? As for 9/11…it’s pretty much BS from beginning to end. Anyone who thinks those buildings went down because of a kerosene fire doesn’t know physics…fortunately for those perpetrating the sham..most of the country doesn’t understand physics.
Jim, thank God(everyday) that you posted that. I’m about 90% of what you said. With the exception of I do watch Beck don’t watch Olberman and I did know who Turley was(only cuz I saw him on Olberman when I was changen channels) that is EXACTLY how I feel. In the beginning I got attacked with the you’re a troll, or a neocon, or some other term used with the intent to make you leave bull crap but I think I’ve been posting here for a couple of months now and the name calling went away. I don’t mean to lose my cool it just happens certain things just set me off. You can’t see me so when someone draws the race card and has no idea about me that just sets me off. You have no idea how it is to either watch your father cry or go after someone because they called thier son a racial slur. I grew up in a town where it was discovered that a Judge Santora after being on the bench for many many years was issuing much harsher sentences to blacks than whites for the same offenses. To make matters worse i had a personal run in with him, not in a court but on the street. Anyways it’s all good Jim, I’ve been through alot but have alot to be thankful for.
Jim did you ever read this when I posted it a couple a weeks ago?
http://www.voltairenet.org/article160636.html
Jim Byrne:
how did the towers come down? I thought it looked awfully much like a couple of big jetliners ran into them caused some columns to shear, forces to re-distribute and the fires caused the remaining columns to have an added thermal stress and then column buckling and collapse due to excessive stress.
While jet fuel may not burn hot enough to melt steel it certainly burns hot enough to cause thermal stresses and those stresses can be quite high. An 800 degree temperature differential can cause a significant amount of additional stress. Please see this example at the link below and keep in mind this example is only an 80 degree differential:
http://physics.uwstout.edu/statstr/Strength/Stress/strs381.htm
once you understand this concept I think you will see how steel can fail at high temperatures that don’t cause melting to take place.
Indentured Servant: Read the link I posted above then google your question you pose to Jim you’ll find many scientist who agree with Jim. New evidence points to what He is saying.
Put it this way Gore says the science is settled on global warming but is it. http://www.petitionproject.org/
IS and bdaman, this thread is for Obama birth. We came here voluntarily to keep other threads clear of this topic. Please take 9-11 tower postings over to one of the threads where all the other postings can be found.
Lot of military and ex-military flocking to Cook and Taitz because of doubts about birth.
Sure, a healthy, reasonable skepticism is good.
Don’t remember military folk doubting GW Bush’s claims about Saddam’s WMDs, his purchase of yellowcake from Niger, and his links to AlQuaeda and responsibity for 9-11 when they were sent into Iraq.
Vince can I get your opinion on the estimated cost you think Obama has spent on his defense. While your thinking about that could you also explain your insistance that World Nut Daily confirms the COLB is authentic.
You just asked us to go elsewhere to talk about 9-11 then bring it right back up.
bdaman and IS,
Thanks for the links. I must agree with Vince; we should try to stay on topic for the thread. If you want, you can contact me over at live com using uinm. -I think you can decode that.
Vince,
“Lot of military and ex-military flocking to Cook and Taitz because of doubts about birth.
Sure, a healthy, reasonable skepticism is good.
Don’t remember military folk doubting GW Bush’s claims about Saddam’s WMDs, his purchase of yellowcake from Niger, and his links to AlQuaeda and responsibity for 9-11 when they were sent into Iraq.”
Military personnel don’t have the luxury of verifying intelligence information. They do have a problem when they ask their CIC -”Who are you?” and their CIC does a dance to avoid answering. An order based on bad intelligence is still a lawful order. An order from a fraudulent commander is not lawful.
Don’t get me wrong. Military personnel get pretty ticked-off about bad intelligence. Unfortunately, they can’t undo what has already been done.
With Appuzo’s case approaching and the recent plublicity over cook. ie: Lou Dobbs has jumped in and liberal talk radio host Lyn Samuels echoing the birther claims yesterday this issue has heated back up as predicted. I visited Appuzo’s site and he has a new post in which he says this.
Quote: While a natural born citizen is obviously a citizen at birth, not all citizens at birth are natural born citizens. The two legal terms of art are not identical and are not equal.
There is absolutely nothing in that U.S. Statute, USC Title 8 Section 1401, that grants “natural born citizenship” to anyone. The legal term of art “natural born citizen” is not even mentioned in that law. USC Section 1401 only determines by law who is a “citizen” or a “national” of the U.S. at birth, i.e., a basic “citizen at birth”. The Section 1401 law is a naturalization law which grants citizenship by law, not by nature.
http://puzo1.blogspot.com/
correction by Charles F. Kerchner, Jr.
CDR USNR Retired
I posted this on another thread, but think it may be worth reposting here.
The phrase “natural born citizen” is distinguished as a separate legal entity from the phrase “U.S. Citizen” in Article Two of the United States Constitution by the word “or”. “Natural born citizen” is not defined anywhere within the text of the Constitution other than its specific separation from the term “U.S. citizen”.
The U.S. Constitution was based upon the encyclopedic “The Law of Nations,” (Droit des gens; ou, Principes de la loi naturelle appliqués à la conduite et aux affaires des nations et des souverains) a treatise written in 1758 by Swiss lawyer and diplomat Emerich de Vattel as a manual for how government should function. Book I, Chapter XIX, part 212, codified the definition of “Natural born citizen” as jus soli jus sanguinus: “The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens.”
John Bingham, considered to be the “Father of the 14th Amendment” confirmed the understanding and the construction that the framers used in regards to birthright and jurisdiction. While speaking on civil rights of citizens in the House on March 9, 1866, he said:”
“ [I] find no fault with the introductory clause [S 61 Bill], which is simply declaratory of what is written in the Constitution, that every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen…. . . ”
- John Bingham in the United States House on March 9, 1866 (Cong. Globe, 39th, 1st Sess., 1291 (1866))
—Unfortunately, as I am reminded, that would indicate that even though one who was born in within the jurisdiction of the U.S. is a citizen at birth, they may not be eligable to serve as POTUS if the parents were not U.S. Citizens.
Jim Byrne 1, July 17, 2009 at 10:14 am
I posted this on another thread, but think it may be worth reposting here.
**************************
Momma was American born. So what is your point here?
Obama has been a supreme War Criminal for years and should not have been on the ballots. He is on the top level of War Criminals with Bush, Cheney, Biden, Hitler and Goering. Most members of Congress from 2003 forward are co-conspirators.
The U.S. War Criminals could be arrested today under USC TITLE 18 > PART I > CHAPTER 118 > § 2441 – War Crimes.
AY,
I was only clarifying the definition of “natural-born citizen”.
In addition to momma being American born, I’m pretty sure Obama’s mother was a U.S. Citizen at the time of his birth. However, the “Certification of Live Birth” does not provide any information about the citizenship of his mother or father at the time of his birth.
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/.shared/image.html?/photos/uncategorized/2008/06/13/bobirthcertificate.jpg
FYI -I see nothing on a standard long-form birth certificate that would identify citizenship of the parents.
Jim, headin out of town have a great weekend
Thanks bdaman. You too.
Missouri Rep. Tim Jones has joined the birther fight.
Tim is a soft spoken attorney who avoids the limelight. He’s not the kind of guy who gets involved in something without thinking it through first.
Vince,
I noticed your comment concerning Quo Warranto. I think Quo Warranto is applicable. Mandamus sure wouldn’t make any sense.
Jim Byrne:
“The U.S. Constitution was based upon the encyclopedic “The Law of Nations,”
go take a look at the constitution of the state of new york from the late 1600’s early 1700’s and I think you will change your mind.
It looks to me like the founders just put some more meat on it.