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.
Jill writes:
Argue it on the merits.
If this is how the govt. wants to deal with it, then every soldier ought to join this claim and get out of being sent to any one of our many illegal and immoral wars.
good point and I will keep this in mind should a draft ever be reinstated.
I am dismayed at the posts herein that evidence so much passion coupled with so little information. For those people interested in actually tackling a fascinating issue: the question that millions of Americans are pondering, from both political parties, is what exactly is a (1) natural (2) born (3) citizen.
Secondly, is the current president?
To opine without knowledge of the issue is just, well, stupid.
At the very least, find out what the phrase “natural born citizen” means, how it is defined and the possible differing constructions that well-intentioned scholars hold and then, and only then in my opinion, base your opinions thereon.
Most of the messages posted here demonstrate the writer’s ignorance of the complicated issue and are just silly hyperbole or, worse, knee-jerk emoting that contribute nothing to the discussion.
Honestly, learn, think, understand and find out why good minds are dismayed by the possibility of this issue.
Vince, you’re right. I watched the moon landing on TV in 1969 in absolute awe. Now I understand that Whoopi Goldberg, of all people, raised questions about it on “The View” because she wondered who was holding the camera.
Mike A, I don’t go to those sites because they edit (censor) any posts and they get your email, which I do not want to give them..
Also, someone posted that I am a practicing attorney, but I do not want to leave any mistaken information standing, or to seem to confirm it by not answering it, so my status is retired lawyer, not practicing lawyer.
Try convincing a moon shot doubter that Armstrong landed on the moon. Some of the moonies are also birthers.
Vince T., welcome back again, with a vengeance. I recall learning in seventh grade civics that a child born in the United States is a citizen of this country. Of course, that was in 1958, when people still ate white bread and lived under white institutions and paid homage to the god of “separate but equal.”
I have racked what remains of my brain in an attempt to determine a motivation for what has become hysteria in certain quarters (see the video on the Delaware town hall meeting that’s all over the web). The comments have variously included references to “Kenya,” “Muslim father” and “loyalty,” as well as repetition of the “I want my country back” mantra. In all fairness, it adds up to a combination of irrational fear, racial prejudice and xenophobia. Instead of using this as an opportunity to remind Americans of the diversity that has created a strong nation, politicians have instead capitalized on the widespread ignorance of the Constitution in this country in a partisan effort to destroy a presidency, a goal most recently repeated by the great senator from South Carolina, Jim DeMint.
It is no more possible to convince hardcore haters that they are wrong on this issue than it is to convince the White Aryan Resistance that the Holocaust actually happened. There is a difference between ignorance and willful ignorance. I no longer desire to exchange views with those occupying the latter category.
Vince,
Wow. I’m impressed. I’d like to drop you on an unsuspecting birther blog and watch the fireworks 😉
Dr. Conspiracy said it best:
QUOTE Obama’s book stating his father’s nationality has been on the bookshelves for over a decade.
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.
I challenge you to find a US Civics textbook published in the past 200 years that says a US president must have citizen parents. Now explain to me why you can’t find one.
And if it is in no textbook, then where do you think anyone would have gotten the idea that there was a parental requirement? They read it on the Internet AFTER June 2008, and after Obama had shown his birth certificate, requiring the smearbots to come up with a new strategy. UNQUOTE
http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2009/05/a-comment-at-the-natural-born-citizen-blog/
Quoted without comment
paratrooper508th
Jul 15, 2009 10:11:58 PM
I have a hard time understanding why this coward volunteered and then backed out, being a so called leader, he is a embrassment to the state he is from and the U.S. Army, who lowed the standards for him to get in?, and this so called lawyer what rock this crawl from under?, I speak as a combat veteran, two tours of duty in Vietnam, both times I volunteered, so what give this scumbag the right too say no too what he asked for, coward
unquote
From: http://www.military.com/news/article/anti-obama-gis-afghan-orders-revoked.html
Byrne QUOTE 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.UNQUOTE
QUOTE Jim Byrne 1, July 16, 2009 at 8:34 pm
Vince,
I concur. The 14th does ensure that anyone born in the U.S., regardless of parental citizenship, would be considered a natural-born citizen, and therefore meet that qualification requirement of Article I. UNQUOTE
http://jonathanturley.org/2008/12/04/eligibility-questions-can-clinton-serve-obama-and-can-obama-serve-the-country/
Give me a while to get back to you on these.
Vince,
1850 was a typo, I should read these posts of mine more clsely.
“Do you think the loyalty of that person could be legitimately questioned?”
Jim,
Your letting your politics show. This is about the man’s legitimacy as President, not about his loyalty, or is it in your mind. Bad example to make your case with and still be considered to be seeing this impartial of political beliefs.
“I was never given an unlawful order. As such, I had no reason to disobey one. I also had no reason to question the authority of my President, or my superiors…If I would have had reason, I would have questioned such authority/legitimacy.”
So I can assume from your answer to my question that you were never involved in combat. I also see that in your career you never bucked the trend and thus probably made good career moves. I have Jim and I paid the price for doing the right thing, therefore how dare you state:
“When you understand the obligation to ignore an unlawful (or illegitimate) order, you may understand my position.”
I understand it a lot more than you Jim because I was willing to put my career on the line for principle. I’m glad you never had to, but then I guess you really couldn’t understand those of us who did.
Byrne, I cited that law for the intent of the framers, based on the acts of the framers who served in first Congress.
Washington presided at the Convention and approved the Constitution, and then signed this law. I do not think he would have signed an unconstitutional law.
Go the the treads searchable for mccain and natural born citizen to find complete treatment of McCain. Of course the law was repealed, but others have followed. Look at the research tools I have linked.
I invite any onlookers to look at my posts over the past two years and see if I am deceptive or unprepared. I just post what I know. I have not called anyone names, impugned anyone’s ability or motive, or even asked for their legal credentials.
The 1790 law stands for the propostion that at the time of adoption, the framers believed the term natural born citizen could include children born to US citizens beyond the seas. Jill Pryor has all the footnotes.
Byrne QUOTE 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”? UNQUOTE
This passage just assumes what it tries to prove. The Kenyan citizenship of Obama’s father does NOT “by definition” indicate that he cannot be a natural born citizen. The natural born citizen definition includes, at the very least, all citizens born in the US and subject to its jurisdiction. The only exclusions are for ambassadors, invading armies, and indians.
Obama was subject to the jurisdiction of the US from birth, subject to its laws and power and control. He met all the qualifications at birth. The 14th Amendment did not include the phrase “and not subject to any foreign power” that had been included in the civil rights act. This is an effort to read back into the Constitution a requirement that was expressly considered by Congress and rejected, and that was never ratified by the people. That is a fundamentally flawed manner of statutory construction and reasoning. See the CRS Report linked above and other threads searchable with the term Donofrio.
We are not ignoring the Constitution. Some are trying to insert their own personal policy predilections into the Constitution, with no support in the language or purpose of the document. They are the ones ignoring the rule of law.
Once again, the two-parent rule is not in the Constitution. Even Leo Donofrio cannot support that rule.
The fact that one parent was a citizen of another country did not disqualify Arthur, and does not disqualify Obama.
“The first Congress included children born to citizen parents overseas within the meaning of natural born citizens. I (like Tribe and Olson) think that McCain was eligible under this rationale, as well as by his birth on a US territory.”
Vince,
You are either being intentionally deceptive, or you are unprepared to participate in this dicsussion -as demonstrated by the quote above.
The Naturalization Act of 1790 was repealed, and superceded by the Naturalization Act of 1795. The natural born citizen portion does not exist in the 1795 Act.
SO you think McCain was eligible by means of a an Act of Congress that was repealed before even he was born. (and that was a long time ao)
Jay’s letter wanted a “strong check on the admission of Foreigners into the administration of our National Government.”
Read it. He was worried about Foreigners.
Not about someone who has been a citizen from birth.
Not about the number of his citizen parents.
Read it again.
Ҥ 212. Citizens and natives.
The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens.”
That is Vattel’s definition. It is not in the Constitution of the United States. If the framers had intended that result, they had to put the words “born to parents who are citizens” in the Constitution for all to ratify. They did not. The just put in the words “natural born.” The words were not put into the 14th Amendment, either.
This parental argument was dreamed up in 2008 after Obama produced his birth certificate. It is new. No one ever made it before. No one ever used it against Arthur, whose father was not a citizen. It is not in any civics text. There are entire threads on this over at Obamaconspiracy.com.
Even the nuts who say a woman cannot be President (because the 19th only granted the vote, not the right to be President) can find a civics text years ago saying that the Pres must be a he. But the birthers are still looking for this one.
And I have shown that Donofrio’s argument does not support this. He hangs his had on dual citizenship, not on a two parent rule.
The tho-parent rule is second stage birther nonsense.
If Obama was born in the US, then he was and is a natural born citizen.
Byrne QUOTE 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.”
UNQUOTE
I do not see a definition of natural born citizen in there. It just defines citizen.
Mike S, good post, but it is even worse than you say; Vattel was 1758, not 1850. He knew the law of the Swiss. He was not a framer or a Supreme Court Justice.
Also, Jay was not a member of the Constitutional Covention. His letter did not quote or cite Vattel. And, as stated many times, he was concerned with generals and princes in arms, not babes in arms.
Mike S.,
I was never given an unlawful order. As such, I had no reason to disobey one. I also had no reason to question the authority of my President, or my superiors…If I would have had reason, I would have questioned such authority/legitimacy.
Why would I select Vattel? Did I just pick it out of the blue? Is there no document that would provide support for the use of his definition?
(As I have posted earlier) James Madison quoted Vattel in a letter to John Jay. John Jay, in a letter to George Washington, while Washington was presiding officer of the Constitutional Convention, recommended that only a “natural born citizen” should be permitted to be POTUS.
Were the Framers concerned with loyalty? -Very much so.
FFLEO,
Followed your link and this to me is the most interesting and telling answer:
“21. If President Obama’s birth certificate shows conclusively that he was born in Hawaii, would it end the eligibility controversy?
Definitely not! President Obama has stated publicly that his father was not a U.S. citizen. According to the birthers’ understanding of history and law, if his father was not a U.S. citizen, President Obama cannot be a Constitutional natural born citizen, regardless of where he might have been born. If President Obama was born in Hawaii, he could be regarded as a statutory natural born citizen, but he would not necessarily be a Constitutional natural born citizen.
Regardless of what his birth certificate says, Obama’s presidential eligibility will never be settled or resolved, until the Supreme Court decides whether the U.S.-born children of non-U.S.-citizen parents are Constitutional natural born citizens.”
This sums it all up and it is conclusive in showing that this is about politics. You understand, I know, that this conclusion is based on their interpretation of Emerich de Vattel, who died in 1767, 9 years before the revolution. A question for you is would he be your “go to” guy on US Constitutional matters? He wouldn’t be for me and actually I’d prefer the works of François Vatel (1631 – April 24, 1671)who has just as much bearing on the US Constitution.
There is a lot of concern about the meaning of natural born citizen. To aid an informed discussion, there is a student law review note by Jill Pryor available:
http://yalelawjournal.org/images/pdfs/pryor_note.pdf
And a CRS Report on citizenship of children born to alien parents in the United States:
http://www.ansarilawfirm.com/docs/U.S.-Citizenship-of-Persons-Born-in-the-United-States-to-Alien-Parents.pdf
Since the term “natural born citizen” was not defined, it is best to start with the words themselves. The Constitution expressly authorized the naturalization of foreign citizen, and allowed natural born citizens to be President. So, to start with, there were two kinds of citizens, born and naturalized.
To qualify to be President, then, a person had to be a citizen, and had to be a citizen by reason of or by virtue of birth rather than by naturalization.
It does not say born in the U.S.A. Jill Pryor (at 97 Yale Law Journal 881) found an early draft by Hamilton that said no person should be eligible for President unless he ”hereafter be born a Citizen of the United States.” So they meant citizen by birth, not merely citizens born on US soil.
The first Congress included children born to citizen parents overseas within the meaning of natural born citizens. I (like Tribe and Olson) think that McCain was eligible under this rationale, as well as by his birth on a US territory.
It is important to look at the purpose or rationale of any legal rule, and to ask what benefit or bane was the motivating force. Our main aide here is Jay’s letter, which is clearly concerned with grown-up generals or princes seeking power after being naturalized by a compliant Congress. The letter expressed no concern about infants or babes.
The framers knew that common law existed, and the first Congress referred to it by name in the 7th Amendment. So it is appropriate to look to the common law for help in interpretation, and common law included all persons born in the realm as citizens by birth.
So there it is: a “natural born citizen” includes all those born on US soil as well as those who are citizens from birth by virtue of their parents. They are all eligible to be President. Other citizens are citizens by naturalization, and not eligible.