The controversy over President Barack Obama continues with an interesting twist: Maj. Gen. Carroll Dean Childers (ret.) and active U.S. Air Force reservist Lt. Col. David Earl Graeff are supporting the litigation. On July 8th, Maj. Stefan Frederick Cook filed the suit July 8th in federal court demanding conscientious objector status and a preliminary injunction based upon his claim that President Barack Obama is not a natural-born citizen of the United States. He argued that, since Obama cannot serve as president of the United States, he cannot order him to deploy as commander-in-chief of the U.S. Armed Forces.
What is curious is the decision by the military to suddenly revoke the deployment orders of Cook. That served to fuel the growing movement spreading this rumor. The government is now claiming that the lawsuit is “moot” since Cook doesn’t have to go to Afghanistan. Cook in turn has added a claim to this lawsuit that he was retaliated against for his lawsuit after he was terminated at Simtech Inc., a Department of Defense contractor.
The addition of a retired major general and active colonel will have more of a promotional and legal benefit for these litigants. It was an unfortunate decision to revoke these orders. The Administration should have fought the lawsuit on the merits rather than try to moot the matter. The optics are perfect for those alleging a grand conspiracy to conceal Obama’s birth certificate (which has been viewed as third parties) and hide his alleged foreign born status.
For the full story, click here.
Continuing the list of frivolous suits, take a look at Judge James Robertson’s decision in Hollister v. Soetoro.
The judge issue a show cause order to determined whether to sanction attorney Hemenway. (He later settled for a reprimand since Hemenway was over 80 and not likely to repeat the behavor).
Robertson is the same judge who refuse to let Orly Taitz file a case in D.C. Orly later filed in California because she could find NO D.C. attorney willing to join her as co-counsel.
http://media.ledger-enquirer.com/smedia/2009/07/14/11/obamcase2.source.prod_affiliate.70.pdf
Mike, that is a great link. It makes Dobbs look like an idiot — he seems unaware that Kitty Pilgrim answered his questions — ON HIS ON NETWORK, ON HIS OWN SHOW.
Lou Dobbs is more intelligent!! 🙂
Don’t believe the overwhelming lies of the easily fooled and sellouts.
I thought Jon Stewart had more investigative ability. He is certainly shallow on the birth certificate issue.
A serious take on this whole issue, giving due deference to the birther movement from America’s most Trusted Newsman.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/07/23/jon-stewart-eviscerates-t_n_243383.html
Mike Appleton wrote:
“I suggest that the Founders did not define the phrase “natural born citizen” for the simple reason that they did not believe a definition was necessary.”
________________________________
The simple addition of, perhaps, “that is, not a naturalized U.S. citizen” would have saved a lot of the today’s consternation and Pres. Chester Arthur’s concern, apparently to his deathbed.
Lawyers, legislators, and judges et al. need to use precise and unequivocal language to forestall most anticipated problems since the law is predicated on reasonableness. Without all of the facts and discussions, the *natural born* question is one a reasonable citizen could have cause to question. However, once the evidence is presented–as here and elsewhere–all reasonable citizens should accept that President Barack Obama Jr. is a natural born U.S. citizen based on the current available evidence.
I will admit that I had not known about Arthur’s situation until this discussion and learned about it while reading the Primer to which I earlier linked.
Thanks to all for their extra effort in this discussion.
Mike Appleton. Excellent discussion. I will print it for reference.
On the terms citizen and subject, I believe that British and Commonwealth jurisdictions have moved away from the term “subject” in favor of “citizen” in the wake of the decline of the non-ceremonial aspects of the monarchy. Tribe and Olson suggested that “citizen” and “subject” are often used interchangeably. In a very technical sense, certain non-citizens may be subjects, but I doubt if any of that is relevant to natural born status.
On the common law, the Constitution draws its meaning from many of common law terms and concepts that existed at the time of adoption. To my mind, the best example is habeas corpus. The Constitution at no point defines this term, and does not even list it as an enumerated power of the new government. It is simply provided in Art I, sec. 9 that habeas corpus shall not be suspended except for rebellion or invasion. The Constitution assumes that the privilege exists and will continue to exist. The Clause cannot be understood withour reference to the common law writ of habeas corpus.
So it is not surprising to me that Chancellor Kent looked to the common law for guidance.
Thanks for the correction Vince.
Jim Byrne, I continue to be bothered by your insistence that we are somehow bound by the views of one writer on the issue of what constitutes a “natural born citizen.” You will recall that I earlier cited Blackstone, but you rejected his definition on the basis that there is a distinction between a “citizen” and a “subject,” and asserted that the Founders would have used the word “subject” rather than “citizen” in the Constitution had they agreed with Blackstone.
I believe it is important to remember that the Founders were forming a republic rather than a monarchy. Although the terms “subject” and “citizen” share a common characteristic, a duty of loyalty or allegiance, the word “citizen” is more appropriate to our form of government and has its origins in the Roman republic. Indeed, you will recall from your student days that at one time the most important boast one could make was “Civis romanus sum” (“I am a Roman citizen”).
In any event, I went home last night and pulled out my volumes of Kent’s “Commentaries on American Law,” first published in 1827. I note that Mr. Kent acknowledges the contributions of Vattel on the law of nations, as well as those of Grotius, Burlamaqui, Montesquieu and others, but makes no reference to Vattel in his discussion of natural born and naturalized citizens, relying instead upon principles of English common law. (Although not relevant here, I would argue that the Founders were much more deeply indebted to people like Montesquieu, Locke, Hobbes and Hume than they were to Vattel.)
Kent writes that “Natives are all persons born within the jurisdiction of the United States.” (Lecture XXV, Vol. II, p. 33). “It is the doctrine of the English law, that natural born subjects owe an allegiance, which is intrinsic and perpetual, and which cannot be devested (sic) by any act of their own.” (Id., pp. 35-36). By contrast, “An alien is a person born out of the jurisdiction of the United States,” (with certain exceptions). (Id., p. 43). Thus aliens can become citizens only through an applicable naturalization procedure. “A person thus duly naturalized, becomes entitled to all the privileges and immunities of natural born subjects, except that a residence of seven years is requisite to enable him to hold a seat in congress, and no person, except a natural born citizen, is eligible to the office of governor of this state, or president of the United States.” (Id., p. 57).
Kent is referring to the state of New York, where these lectures were given, and to the naturalization acts then in effect. The point, however, is that he uses the phrases “natural born subject” and “natural born citizen” interchangeably.
On the subject of the constitutional requirements to hold the office of president, Kent observes, “The constitution requires, that the president should be a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States at the time of the adoption of the constitution, and that he have attained the age of thirty five years, and have been fourteen years a resident within the United States. Considering the greatness of the trust, and that this department is the ultimately efficient power in government, this restriction will not appear altogether useless or unimportant. As the president is required to be a native citizen of the United States, ambitious foreigners cannot intrigue for the office, and the qualification of birth cuts off all those inducements from abroad to corruption, negotiation, and war, which have frequently and fatally harassed the elective monarchies of Germany and Poland, as well as the Pontificate at Rome.” (Lecture XIII, Vol. I, p. 255).
I suggest that the Founders did not define the phrase “natural born citizen” for the simple reason that they did not believe a definition was necessary. If one is born in the United States, one may be properly described as “native born,” a “natural born subject” or a “natural born citizen.” Therefore, since the president was born in the United States, he was and is constitutionally eligible for the office he holds.
I offer the foregoing as cumulative to what I and others (particularly Vince Treacy) have previously posted. If you remain unconvinced, I will have to leave it to others because I have exhausted my intellectual capabilities. And if you nevertheless subscribe to the Hawaiian forgery-conspiracy branch of birtherism, I have nothing at all to say.
It was Chief Justice John Marshall, not Justice Story, who quoted Vattel with approval in his concurring opinion.
This is extremely interesting.
The U.S. Supreme Court Reports present Justice Joseph Story (in 1814) indentifying Vattel “is more explicit and more satisfactory on it than any other whose work has fallen into my hands, says” –and goes on to quote Vattel’s definition of citizens.
I guess Justice Story was trying to “de-legitimize the President”.
“The people have spoken. No honorable man would interfere with that for dishonorable reasons.”
When you lie with pigs you get dirty. The birther movement is not and never has been an honorable movement. It is bought and paid for by people who want to de-legitimize the President. Its’ “great” legal minds Mr. Donofrio and Ms. Taitz are kooks at best, but most probably self-serving frauds. In back of this movement is no doubt racism and the shock that our President is a black man. This movement is being stirred up by the pundits of the talk radio circuit and by the farthest out of Republican legislators.
The end result of it if it keeps going on, will be frustration with every succeeding lost/dismissed lawsuit by birther minions. Convinced that President Obama was installed by a huge conspiracy to put a “foreigner” in the White House, those among the birthers who are the craziest, Aryan Nation, KKK perhaps, will try violent means to “save” their country and perhaps may succeed.
Despite what torturous logic is brought to bear the overwhelming proof, beyond a reasonable doubt, is that the President is a “natural born” American citizen and thus legitimately the President of the US. When GW Bush was installed as President by SCOTUS in a decision made that was so putrid, it said within its own body, that it was not to be used as precedent. Antonin Scalia’s son was hired by the law firm that represented Bush, but our “esteemed” jurist refused to recuse himself and rendered a decision overruling the Florida Supreme Court, directly counter to his every professed legal belief. However, when 9/11 occurred the honorable people in opposition to the phony election rallied around Bush and gave him support, until his deceit and incompetence became all too apparent. Honorable people do not support the birther movement, despite their protestations to the contrary.
Shakespeare in Marc Antony’s funeral oration is a good source for this as Antony said “And Brutus is an honorable man.” There is nothing honorable about ther birther movement and thos who give them succor can not count themselves honorable.
P.S. Based on knowledge not leeched from Wikipedia, or Donofrio, but from my own reading through the years, Vattel was a Natural Philosopher, whose chief influence was Liebniz.
Gottfried Liebniz was a genius rivaling Isaak Newton and who actually co-invented Calculus with Newton, although Newton got the credit. Both were giants in the Natural Philosophy Movement which led to “The Enlightenment.” In that respect Liebniz probably outshone Newton who was obsessed with alchemy all of his life. Our founders were overwhelmingly Natural Philosophers and so of course would be familiar with Vattel as they would be aware of all the works of others in the movement and as men of The Enlightenment. To pick out Vattel as a particular influence on their thinking is cherry picking at best and more probably disingenuous. One simply looks for a Natural Philosopher who might by some stretch makes their case and lo and behold the one chosen was widely read and commented on.
bdaman writez: Really so when Donofrio filed and included in his suit McCain and Calero you think that.
You think this is a race thing or it has now turned into one. Do you think that all birthers are racist or do you think that the only people who are pushing the issue is white? Just curious
look, I really don’t care who files what law suit. it seems clear to me that this is a race thing and that it all started with the whack jobs that palin attracted to the mccain campaign…like that crazy woman who said she though Obama was a terrorist and McCain had to talk her down saying that Obama was a decent guy and that he wasn’t an arab.
Barack Obama is the sharpest guy we have had in the White House in many years. His capabilities far surpass his immediate predecessor. I may not agree with some of his political beliefs, but those are just a drop of rain in the sea. Further, I believe in a democracy. -The people have spoken. No honorable man would interfere with that for dishonorable reasons. -Contrary to the claims of some; I would not.
If removed, due to a failure to qualify (my contention); what happens? -While removal would be unprecedented, I believe the Twentieth Amendment would be controlling. -As such Joe Biden would be our next President. I think Joe’s a heck of a nice guy, but I also think he would be a gaff machine…something we surely don’t need right now.
I wouldn’t trade Barack for Joe unless I didn’t have a choice. I don’t believe I have a choice.
“In matters of style, swim with the current; in matters of principle, stand like a rock.” -Thomas Jefferson
These “birthers” are nothing more than direct descendents of the Know Nothing Party.
GWLawSchoolMom Quote: this whole birther business would never have happened if Obama had been white with all the same other circumstances, born in Hawaii with a father with foreign birth.
Really so when Donofrio filed and included in his suit McCain and Calero you think that.
You think this is a race thing or it has now turned into one. Do you think that all birthers are racist or do you think that the only people who are pushing the issue is white? Just curious
Hey Jim B when I said keep up the fight I didn’t mean start one. Remember the quote from Gahndi.
Even if you are in a minority of one the truth is still the truth. It looks like you were in the minority today. You are not alone my friend and just like Obamas polls are going down the birther issue is heating up. Expose the truth.
I’m not into the two parent gig, Law of Nations, Vattel stuff. I’m into why Mr. Transparency ain’t so Transparent. Especially after he signed the executive order on FOIA the very first day, which in effect says you can look up anybody else, just not me.
I smell a rat
Mike S writes:
Jim,
Gutless copout showing who you really are. You were beaten to a pulp by Vince and others, factually, logically and rhetorically, but not man enough to admit it. To me that means that for you it was always political and your version of politics is riddled with disingenuous and hypocrisy. You’re good
Jim, but you’re not in the league of some of the people here, of whom I’m among the least.
me: lets also not forget that the framers designated that an african american was not a citizen but 3/5 of a whole person and that they had no rights to marry or emancipate or vote and in many instance it was illegal for them to be literate. much has changed since then but the way I see it, this whole birther business would never have happened if Obama had been white with all the same other circumstances, born in Hawaii with a father with foreign birth.
Vince nice to see you back, I really, really enjoy your passion. OUTSTANDING. by the way the first paragraph above was you. I haven’t been using the quote unqoute button since you’ve been gone. Did you hear, one of my post set Buddah off and it brought him back from the dark and into the light and he’s posting again. See I have some good points.
Nice to see you back Vince I was getting concerned.
Why did NO ONE even mention that he wasn’t a natural born citizen because of that before June of 2008? That’s because until the smear campaign and the propaganda, no one in the country thought citizen parents were a requirement. The whole redefinition issue was created out thin air by Obama opponents, and many of you were fooled into thinking that you knew something all your life that you never heard before last June.
Thats because behind the scene Claire McCaskill was doing her best to change it and this is the first time in history other then Chester Aurthur there was a suspect. The guy has been groomed to be president. He wasn’t elected, he was selected.
This is making it’s rounds again, I’ve seen it before, but it’s the first one I’ve seen that someone hasn’t added thier BS to it. The first go around required a retraction from Mr. Suttons family and then on fight the smears. You can’t acccess fight the smears anymore but it said in effect that Mr Sutton is old has health problems and basically he don’t know what he’s talking about. I say he does.