Posted on 08/04/2009 1:26:49 PM PDT by RobinMasters
Obama’s 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 Hamilton’s 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. Hamilton’s 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 ...
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.
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.