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.
IS,
Citizenship and natural born citizen are two very different things.
Natural born citizen had to do with loyalty to one’s country. Even today, in most American households, the father dictates the direction of the household. In the time of our Constitutional Convention, there were few exceptions to that rule.
While it is true and accepted that every child born to a woman within the United States is by virtue of the 14th Amendment a citizen of the United States, that does not have bearing on the allegiance of the child.
If a child has an Iranian father, but the child is born in the United States, going to be brought up with loyalty to Iran or the United States? Who knows? -I’d say it could go either way.
Now if a child is born in the United States, to a father who is a U.S. Citizen; do you think it is more likely that the child would remain loyal to the United States? I’d say the odds increase dramatically.
—I’m not claiming that Barack Obama is not loyal to the United States, and I don’t think most “birthers” would make that claim either. What I am claiming, is that we have a Constitution, and, whether we like it or not, that Constitution sets forth a few qualifications. We either have a President that meets those qualifications, or we do not. If he does not, are we best to ignore the Constitution?
Jim Byrne, your comment on Vattel is simplistic and woefully incomplete. You make it appear that at the time the Constitution was ratified, The Law of Nations was the only treatise to have touched upon the issue. Hence, you assert that we must analyze the problem “under the definition I have provided.” You ignore any other writers, such as Blackstone, for example, who defined a “natural-born subject” as anyone born “within the dominions of the crown of England,” and who therefore owed allegiance to the king.
Furthermore, The Law of Nations was written in French. The phrase “natural born citizen” does not appear in Vattel’s treatise, nor in any of several English translations in existence as of the time the Constitution was adopted. Therefore, why do you believe that your definition was in the minds of the Framers?
A far as i know am aware this part
“As the society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights. The society is supposed to desire this, in consequence of what it owes to its own preservation; and it is presumed, as matter of course, that each citizen, on entering into society, reserves to his children the right of becoming members of it. The country of the fathers is therefore that of the children; and these become true citizens merely by their tacit consent.”
…would be news to the Supremes (TUAN ANH NGUYEN V. INS) as they have ruled against bestowing citizenship on “immigrants” with USC fathers even with DNA evidence, mothers yes, but not fathers…
seems that men can make “potential” “citizens” more easily than women, so children ARE NOT citizens naturally following the “condition of their fathers” or alone by “tacit consent”. but that is a separate issue…
my only point here is what you are quoting may indeed be written in the Law of Nations but there are exceptions and it isn’t necessarily the law of the land. so before you use that as the base of the birther arguement we need to see how that has been qualified by SCOTUS and present interpretations of the law.
Born to a USC mother (touch of gold) IN the US seems like that would be a shoe-in arguement for “natural born citizen” as he didn’t have to naturalize, adjust or apply to have his citizenship approved or acknowledged, it was “natural” at birth. That is what i would consider a definition of “natural born citizen”. Make sense? If he had been born to a USC father outside the US it would have been a different story based on the law (based on current immgration law).
I am not a lawyer, but this is just my 2 cents..
Mike S.,
You’re focusing on the trivial BS in order to avoid the important stuff.
One lie is relatively meaningless, but it is still a lie, and reflects upon the general truthfullness of the one who tells it.
I presented a constitutionally mandate qualification, and a reliable definition that would indicate that President Obama does not meet the constitutional qualification. Everything else is just meaningless fluff.
Either you want to follow the Constitution, or you don’t.
You have become distracted by that which is meaningless. Did Obama lie about where he met his wife? -It would appear so. -Is that relevant to meeting the constitutional qualifications? -No. Can the “birthers” prove that President Obama spent over a million dollars to hide his birth certificate? Probably not. Does that have anything to do with meeting the constitutiional qualifications? -No.
Jim,
I have a feeling that there is no evidence or quote that ANYONE could put forth that would satisfy you.
Jim:
““it is necessary that a person be born of a father who is a citizen; for, if he is born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country.””
What about the mother? Back then women were not given equal status so they are ignoring the possibility that the mother would be a citizen.
Gyges,
The Court was not addressing the natural born citizen requirement of Article II. In addition the determination of a natural-born subject is not the same as a natural born citizen.
As the high court has never addressed the definition of natural born citizen, we must look to a definition that existed prior to adoption of our Constitution. -That is the only way to interpret what the Framers would have considered.
“How much did Barack Obama spend? -Who cares?”
Jim,
I may be an old fart but my memory so far is good. Aren’t you the one who threw in whether The President “lied” about being in school when he met his wife and defended it by saying that if he lied it is indicative of his nature? How come the birther movement apparently lying about million$ spent is irrelevant in determining their good faith? Jim you are simply not going about this in a straightforward manner and you are smart enough to know it. The birther movement, which you appear to support, is spreading unproven lies and disinformation and you are choosing to support their fantasy. You claim merely being a person interested in the constitution. Perhaps this is so, but if it is why are you so reluctant to acknowledge lies when you see them, even if they don’t help your case?
“The claimed “million dollars spent” only serves to bring attention. -the shock factor of “spent a million dollars!” -on what? Makes people take notice.”
With this statement you seem to admit that the birther movement is lying for a hyperbolic effect and you condone this?
Jim,
The money spent is irrelevant to the main question, but the questions Mike and I raised indicate that something smells funny…
You said:
Does he meet the standard of qualification set forth in the Constitution, under the definition that I have provided? -No.
You don’t get to decide this, the SCOTUS does and they don’t see this as an issue that should be heard before the court thus they must consider the issue unimportant (unlikely) or they must not find the arguments put forth by Dr. Taitz, et al persuasive. We follow the constitution as interpreted by the SCOTUS and every indication is that President Obama is eligible to serve in that office.
Slartibartfast,
The amount of money spent by Barack Obama is irrelevant to the legal question of qualification. The claimed “million dollars spent” only serves to bring attention. -the shock factor of “spent a million dollars!” -on what? Makes people take notice.
How much did Barack Obama spend? -Who cares?
Does he meet the standard of qualification set forth in the Constitution, under the definition that I have provided? -No.
Do we follow the Constitution -because it’s the law; or do we ignore the Constitution -because we like the guy?
Jim,
How about this quote “… our constitution, in speaking of natural born citizens, uses no affirmative language to make them such, but only recognizes and reaffirms the universal principle, common to all nations, and as old as political society, that the people born in a country do constitute the nation, and, as individuals, are natural members of the body politic.” –Attorney General Edward Bates
Or from the ruling in United States v. Wong Kim Ark “It thus clearly appears that by the law of England for the last three centuries, beginning before the settlement of this country, and continuing to the present day, aliens, while residing in the dominions possessed by the crown of England, were within the allegiance, the obedience, the faith or loyalty, the protection, the power, and the jurisdiction of the English sovereign; and therefore every child born in England of alien parents was a natural-born subject” (The court was applying English Common law, in a ruling about because Natural born wasn’t defined in the Constitution).
Jim,
So if President Obama’s father was a citizen then he is natural born? I would argue that you just lost your point – if it was only necessary for the father to be a citizen to transmit NBC status, then by that pesky amendment that gave women the right to vote (should have know that would come back to bite us in the ass…) his mother being a citizen is sufficient. Any of the lawyers around here care to verify this or tell me I’m crazy?
Jim,
To expand on Mike S’s last comment, I originally came to this blog to debunk the claim the President Obama is not a natural born citizen (specifically, that his father’s status as a British subject did not invalidate his natural born status). Dr. Taitz, Berg, Dinofrio, et al. have put forth the legal interpretation that both parents must be citizens in order to be natural born. On a thread around the time that the SCOTUS was denying cert to Dinofrio there was a thread in which Vince Treacy (and others) put forward a legal argument refuting that interpretation (which seemed more persuasive to me, although I am admittedly not a lawyer). This leaves the birthers in the position of trying to make an argument for a legal interpretation which the SCOTUS appears uninterested in (having denied cert on several cases). As Mike S. pointed out, the charge that the President has spent some large amount trying to keep his records secret – a charge I have seen repeatedly made in birther circles – doesn’t seem to come from any source and is thus dubious. Mike is right that this whole thing stinks of the “Big Lie” technique.
Mike S.,
If you ignore the facts, because you’re more interested in the motive for asserting the facts, you’re ignoring the rule of law.
We know that John Jay was familiar with the writings of Emmerich Vattel. (See Madison’s instructions to John Jay, Dated Oct. 17th, 1780)
We know that John Jay was the one who suggested the adoption of “natural born citizen” in our Constitution. (see letter dated July 17th, 1787 from John Jay to George Washington, presiding officer of the Constitutional Convention.)
John Jay was so revered that he became the first CJ of the U.S. Supreme Court.
As such, and unless some other definition of “natural born citizen” was floating around at the time of the Constitutional Convention (I am not aware of any others), we must be willing to recognize the definition presented by Vattel.
Vattel’s definition requires that the father must be a citizen of the United States.
“it is necessary that a person be born of a father who is a citizen; for, if he is born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country.”
Barack Obama Sr. was a citizen of Kenya, (I don’t think that is being disputed) which, by definition, would indicate that Barack Obama Jr. could not be considered to be a “natural born citizen” of the United States.
If we ignore this, are we not ignoring our own Constitution? Are we, in effect, saying our constitutional provisions are ridiculous…so we should ignore the Constitution? Is that not the same thing as ignoring “the rule of law”?
Jim,
I refer you back to Vince Treacy’s monumental research on this, through the course of many threads. I’m not playing in this because as i’ve clearly stated there is no there, there. I might get back in the game when someone answers my question which is: Where does the oft repeated charge that The President
has spent million$ covering this up come from? If this unattributed statement can’t be answered, then it becomes crystal clear the nature of the game the birther movement is playing.
Mike S.,
Since you agree that the President MUST BE (as in -we have no choice) a natural born citizen of the United States; how are you defining “natural born citizen”?
What is the source of your definition?
Yes I do agree with those 4 points. However, Jim he has already proved his case, the State of Hawaii agrees and contemporary birth announcements in two Hawaiian newspapers add further proof. The Federal Election Commission is satisfied, as have been the courts.
As to your questions Jim I’ve got too much respect for your intelligence to believe that you are not aware that you are throwing up a smokescreen, since at this point the burden of proof has been met and there is no credible evidence on the birther side to discredit it. You will notice that no one on the birther side, or its’ supporters has shown me where the well used accusation that President Obama has spent million$ covering this up came from. Just another piece of excrement thrown up and parroted and re-parroted by people like Orly Taitz.
However, perhaps you also believe that Vince Foster killed himself and John Kerry was falsely awarded the Silver Star. Meanwhile a wacko billionaire like Richard Mellon Scaife, who’s never accomplished anything in his life save for being born to the right family, sits in his mansion and cackles. Within two years my bet is that Ms. Taitz either has her own FOX TV program or is running for congress. By then we’ll be discussing whether or not Michelle Obama’s Law degree is a forgery, if she cheated on her bar exam and whether her husband was involved in the first WTC bombing.
Mike S.,
We need to start with things to which we will both agree:
1. We have a written Constitution.
2. Article II of that Constitution requires that the President meet 3 criteria to be qualified.
3. One of those qualifications is that he must be a “natural born citizen”.
4. We have no choice but to adhere to the requisites of our Constitution.
Do you agree with the 4 points presented above?
Jim,
Please! The figures thrown around as to what he’s spent always start with a million$. I hang out a lot with a successful lawyer friend. He probably would charge $5,000 to appear in court on a minor litigation. $5,000 to deny the propaganda machine the ability to perpetuate their big lie isn’t unreasonable and what’s more you must know it.
“Can you tell me why it is worth more to keep it hidden? One good reason will do.”
Because the President and his advisors are smart men, who know the history of this “swiftboating”/Vince Foster/Paula Jones tactic, they are playing hardball with it. If they begin to started challenging the validity of each silly charge, all they end up with are arguments about whether their refutations are true and it further perpetuates itself. As Vince and Mike A have stated in other contexts, the birther movement will not be dissuaded by truth, because that is not their interest. They are not neutral upholders of constitutional purity, but partisan hacks who will sling fecal
matter in all directions hoping to make it seems less than the crap it is by sheer repetition.
Sorry Mike, I should have answered your question first.
“In that respect could somebody please show me where the “fact” came from the the President has spent million$ in lawyer’ fees to keep this hidden?”
I don’t know. Our transparent President is not that transparent.
I don’t think anyone would argue that he has spent over $5000.00 to keep this hidden, when it would cost him less than $100.00 to get the vault copy released.
Can you tell me why it is worth more to keep it hidden? One good reason will do.