Skip to comments.The Dangerous Precedent Set by Obama being President
Posted on 08/04/2009 1:26:49 PM PDT by RobinMasters
Obamas father was never a US citizen, nor was he ever permanently domiciled in the US. At birth, Obama was a British citizen. [He's also been a Kenyan citizen and perhaps a citizen of Indonesia as well.] Obama admits his birth status was governed by Great Britain. The question presented then is whether the US is willing to allow persons who were born without a single allegiance to the US to be Commander in Chief of our military.
For it is this specific fear that prompted our first Supreme Court Chief Justice John Jay to suggest to George Washington the following:
Permit me to hint, whether it would be wise and seasonable to provide a strong check to the admission of Foreigners into the administration of our national Government; and to declare expressly that the Commander in Chief of the American army shall not be given to nor devolve on, any but a natural born Citizen.
This letter was written on July 25, 1787. It is in direct response to Alexander Hamiltons suggested Presidential requirement appearing in the first draft of the Constitution wherein Hamilton five weeks earlier on June 18, 1787 submitted the following:
No person shall be eligible to the office of President of the United States unless he be now a Citizen of one of the States, or hereafter be born a Citizen of the United States.
There you have the crux of the issue now before the nation. Hamiltons original drafted presidential requirement was rejected by the framers. Instead of allowing any person born a citizen to be President, the framers chose to adopt the more stringent requirement from John Jay, that the President be a natural born citizen.
(Excerpt) Read more at naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com ...
If The One (or anyone) cannot prove that he is a natural born Citizen of the United States, then he simply is NOT the President of the United States, but an usurper, and a foreign tyrant. It really is that simple.
Perhaps you can explain to me how you could possibly believe that Obama was, in fact, a UK citizen if born on US soil.
Chester A. Arthur was born to an Irish Father.
Charles Curtis was born in Kansas territory before it was a State.
There is an example of both
a President who was born of a non-American parent
a Vice-President who was born outside of the United States proper
The phrase “natural born citizen” did not prohibit either gentleman from holding office.
I wholeheartedly agree. But damned if this isn’t one confusing issue to many here that equate citizenship and U.S. born with natural born. I’ve turned gray just reading this confusion.
“..then he simply is NOT the President of the United States, but an usurper..”
Congress and SCOTUS seem to be perfectly happy with such an arrangement.
Were Obama's mother and father not married at the time of his birth? I only ask because the link you posted primarily details children born to unwed mothers who are British nationals, or are "illegitimate" in some other way.
No person shall be eligible to the office of President of the United States unless he be now a Citizen of one of the States, or hereafter be born a Citizen of the United States”
Well according to Hamilton's first draft Obama qualifies as he was “born a Citizen of the United States”, and this seems to confirm my and many others view of the law that a “natural born citizen” is the same as being “born a Citizen of the United States”.
Don’t take out word for it. Obama is making this claim himself. Check it out. http://www.fightthesmears.com.php5-9.websitetestlink.com/articles/5/birthcertificate
While that word, "anchor baby" isn't found in US law, Obama is that presuming that I understand the context that you are using that word. Obama, like tens of millions of other babies, qualifies for US citizenship primarily because of US Supreme Court case US v. Ark.
Ark grants citizenship to all children who are born "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" (when speaking of US jurisdiction), even if their parents were foreign nationals - so long as the child's parents were "subject to the jurisdiction thereof".
Kansas was US territory, and it has never been positively proven that Chester’s father was a non citizen at the time of his birth, it is only an unproven accusation (thanks in part to Arthur destruction of his own records).
Why then would the founders feel the need to qualify the clause with the natural born modifier several weeks later if all they meant was citizen. I could see your point if the clause went from specific to general but not general to specific.
Contemporaneous definitions (Vattel-The Law Of Nations, Blackstone-Commentaries on the Laws of England) at the time of the founding would indicate that in order to qualify as natural born a child must have two citizen parents as well as being born on U.S. soil. The founder’s reason for creating this special class of citizenship stemmed from a fear of the U.S. coming under the sway of a foreign power. The founder’s wanted to insure that anyone who assumed the presidency had one and only one allegiance. The founders affirmed this definition by excluding themselves (most of whom where British subjects, born on foreign soil, or had Britsh citizens for parents and thus not natural born) from this provision and allowing them to assume the presidency for a short period after the founding of the Republic.
Section 1 of Article Two of the United States Constitution sets forth the eligibility requirements for serving as President of the United States: No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.” The term “natural born citizen” is not defined in the Constitution so we must look elsewhere to confirm its meaning.
Arthur’s Father was a non-citizen at the time, the confusion arises about whether Arthur was born in Canada or the U.S. as his family moved from Canada a few months before he was born. Arthur “changed” his date of birth by a year when he was a young man to appear older.
And being a U.S. Territory doesn’t matter to the
‘natural born citizen’ doesn’t mean ‘citizen at birth’
Congress and the courts are perfectly happy with a great many things that are simply wrong.
The law of nations.
I believe that the rules were different back at that time, and you were not automatically a US citizen just by sake of being born on US soil.
U.S. law recognizes two types of citizens. “Natural born”, i.e. those who were born a citizen; and “Naturalized” who went through a legal process to become a citizen.
US vs Ark not only grants citizenship to those born under the jurisdiction of the USA; the decision specifically says “natural born subject”.
“Perhaps you can explain to me how you could possibly believe that Obama was, in fact, a UK citizen if born on US soil.”
Were Obama’s mother and father not married at the time of his birth? I only ask because the link you posted primarily details children born to unwed mothers who are British nationals, or are “illegitimate” in some other way.
Since the law of nations was the guiding light for the framers, and Jefferson had his own personal copythat was gifted to him, Tha natural born is defined therein.
I agree with that, and Title 8, Chapter 12, Subchapter III, Part 1, Section 1404 of the U.S. Legal Code gives the definition of "Nationals and citizens of the United States at birth".
No other portion of law gives definitions that differ. Thus, it is hard to imagine (impossible really) that the court would be forced to suffer under the decision to decide what the difference is between a "natural born citizen" and a "citizen of the United States at birth" when there has been no definition of the former given for 220 years and the definition of the latter has been updated and clarified on a consistant basis.
As in the cases of Arthur and Curtis, I would submit that any court would find the two phrases share meaning and as there is specified definition of one, that is the specified definition they would rely upon.
Can you provide me a source that claims that Chester Arthur’s father was not an American citizen at the time of his birth?
I haven’t seen that as of yet.
Yes. That's right. Obama's father was not some diplomat with immunity. While in the US, Obama Sr. would have been "under the jurisdiction thereof", just like Ark's parents were.
So Curtis and Arthur should never had been sworn in?
The fact that Section I of Article II distinguishes between Natural Born citizens and Citizens at the time of the founding clearly indicates a semantic difference between the two. I again refer you to the text "No Person except a natural born Citizen, OR a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President" (My highlights are for emphasis)
SCOTUS has made indirect reference to the definition of "natural born citizen" in cases like The Venus, Wong Kim Ark, Minor, and Elg. Indicating that indeed two citizen parents are required but birth on U.S. soil is not necessarily required.
John McCain had the same accusations leveled at him and he submitted his case to a judge who rendered an opinion declaring him eligible to serve. SR 511, the Senate resolution passed to declare John McCain a natural born citizen and eligible to run for President, made the same presumption and this piece of legislation was sponsored by none other than Barack Obama. (Why Obama was never subjected to the same level of scrutiny is unfathomable to me.)
Hear hear!!! Bravo! Excelsior!
You are forcing the assumpotion though that a Supreme Court case deals with generalities when it does not.
The Court in the US vs Ark Case was not dealing with the eligibility for president clause of the Constitution but only with citizenship.
Eligibility for president is something completely different than citizenship.
Court cases deal with specifics and not generalities.
Give me a day or two, will have to dig through the biographies to find a first source.
You got Wong Kim Ark exactly backwards. It did NOT indicated that two citizen parents were needed as Wong Kim Ark was deemed a “natural born subject” and NEITHER parent was a U.S. citizen (they were both Chinese nationals).
This is the ruling that established the “anchor baby”. Born in the USA (to non diplomat parents), thus a citizen at birth, thus a natural born subject.
Yes, I agree with that. I was merely asking a question of somebody else with respect to Obama's parents being married or not. It seemed, given the link she provided, that she was intimating that they weren't, or at least that's the way I read it. I hadn't heard that before and I was just asking her for some clarification.
In any event, the status of his parents relationship, married or not, would have no impact or relevance on Obama's own right of citizenship.
The precedent established in Wong Kim Ark was that neither parent had to be a U.S. citizen for Wong Kim Ark to be a “natural born subject”.
Again the case of US vs Ark was NOT dealing with the eligibility clause of the Constitution.
Therefore he is NOT my President, and I will act accordingly - we all should until he proves otherwise.
Democrat’s are not held to the same level of accountibility.
Courts do not deal in generalities though. They deal with specifics.
The Ark case was not at all about his eligibility to be president.
And he had some serious concerns about that too. Fortunatly for him, mass communication like we have now was non-existent during that period.
I will look for my first source, but the facts are that his Father came to Canada from Ireland in the mid-1820’s and moved into the United States a few short months before Arthur was born.
His Father would have had to have worked quick to become a citizen in that amount of time.
Thus Obama was “natural born” according to the Ark decision.
Of course you could try t oargue precedent if you wanted but the Court in U.S. vs Ark still did not rule on the eligibility for president clause of the Constitution.
It was never made an issue in the case. In order to amend the Consitution you at least need to have full discovery, and arguments heard on the specific clause of the Constitution involved.
You seem to think that the Court just made a sweeping change to the Constitution without any arguments being heard on it.
It was never proved while he was alive, and the democrats did their best to do so, so why are you stating as fact what they could never prove?
You need to read Fuller's dissent in the Ark case. Fuller, in criticizing the majority opinion says...
"Considering the circumstances surrounding the framing of the Constitution, I submit that it is unreasonable to conclude that "natural-born citizen" applied to everybody born within the geographical tract known as the United States, irrespective of circumstances, and that the children of foreigners, happening to be born to them while passing through the country, whether of royal parentage or not, or whether of the Mongolian, Malay or other race, were eligible to the Presidency, while children of our citizens, born abroad, were not."
Fuller believes it to be unreasonable, but is proffering that will be exactly the practical application of the majority's opinion, which is why he's so critical about it.
WKA has been discussed extensively in previous threads and across the web. I’ll quote back some of it. The Infamous passage from the WKA opinion that Obama supporters refer to is the following:
The foregoing considerations and authorities irresistibly lead us to these conclusions: The fourteenth amendment affirms the ancient and fundamental rule of citizenship by birth within the territory, in the allegiance and under the protection of the country, including all children here born of resident aliens Every citizen or subject of another country, while domiciled here, is within the allegiance and the protection, and consequently subject to the jurisdiction, of the United States. His allegiance to the United States is direct and immediate and his child, as said by Mr. Binney in his essay before quoted, If born in the country, is as much a citizen as the natural-born child of a citizen
It appears at first glance that the passage claims children of aliens born on US soil are themselves natural-born citizens. And thats certainly the hard line taken by Obama eligibility supporters. But a closer inspection reveals this is not what the court held.
Have another look:
and his child If born in the country, is as much a citizen as the natural-born child of a citizen
Justice Gray does a very revealing compare and contrast here:
- he compares two children
- on the one hand, he mentions the US born child of a resident alien
- on the other hand, he mentions the natural-born child of a citizen
Do you see the difference?
He clearly states that only one is natural-born: the child of the citizen.
He says that both are citizens. But only the child of the citizen is natural born for this is what he is comparing the other one to. So the holding indicates Wong Kim Ark was as much a citizen as any other citizen despite not being natural-born.
The Court does not say that the child of the alien is a natural-born citizen.
Had the court intended to state that both were natural born, they would have said:
and his child, if born in the country, is as much a natural-born citizen as the natural-born child of a citizen
You misunderstand the word precedent.
It does not equal amendment.
As i said you can argue that some amount of precedent was set but the Court was NOT hearing a case involving the “elgibility clause for POTUS” so your point is just an opinion and NOT a real precedent in any way.
His Father was from Ireland, moved to Canada and then to the United States months before Arthur was born.
Is it reasonable to believe that his Father was a U.S. citizen at the time of his birth?
I don’t believe so. I will be looking for my primary source on that.
They would not be sworn in today.
That is all fine and good but the case was still NOT about eligibility for president.
The issue before the court was just the man’s citizenship. So it is not a solid ground for claiming precedent in a real case whereas the Consitution is at question directly such as this.
“Obama is that presuming that I understand the context that you are using that word..”
My context: Obama born on US soil to a parent whom is not a US citizen. I think that qualifies as a so called anchor baby.
It is one of the great rumors of Arthur’s presidency, and they (the democrats) were never able to unseat him because of it.
I disagree. It seems odd to assume that 220 years after the Constitution was established that we know more about what “intent” was there than people around 100 years after the Constitution was established.
It’s like people claiming that the President cannot commit troops to combat without a Congressional declaration of war despite the fact that Washington, Adams, and Jefferson each did so.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.