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.
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!
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
I think the Supreme Court should accept the case because it is an issue of constitutional law that obviously needs to be clarified.
To end the suspense, he concludes that she would not be unconsitutional:
http://balkin.blogspot.com/
Scroll down to Dec. 2d.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
@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.
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.