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.
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
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.
@ 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).
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.
“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.
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.”
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.
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.
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.
Wow, you ask for a source, go play a gig, come back in the morning and the whole things gone to pot.
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.
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?
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/
So many of our politicans are hunkered down in government employ, essentially welfare for their career. Term limits and less government!
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.
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.
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.
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?