Posted on 04/29/2010 9:14:44 AM PDT by BuckeyeTexan
It looks like Nbc-Gate is hitting top volume. I’ve witnessed some very desperate blogging propaganda trying to stop the bleeding as the nation finally wakes up to the fact that President Obama was a British citizen at the time of his birth. Having been born with dual nationality, he was born with a recognized allegiance to a foreign nation. I have explained previously in great detail why this disqualifies him from being President.
That report was closely followed by a historical discovery of Sharon Rondeau at the Post & Email which highlighted the legal opinion of lifelong Democrat Breckenridge Long - an attorney and graduate of Washington University Law School who later served as Secretary of State as well as U.S. ambassador to Italy under FDR – who, in an article written for the Chicago Legal News, argued that a “native born citizen” of the US who is also born to a British father is not a “natural born citizen” by stating – in 1916 – about Presidential candidate Charles Evans Hughes:
“It is not disputed that Mr. Hughes is not a citizen of the United States, but if he had the right to elect, he must have had something to choose between. He was native born because he was born in this country, and he is now a native born citizen because he is now a citizen of this country; but, had he been a “natural born” citizen, he would not have had the right to choose between this country and England; he would have had nothing to choose between; he would have owed his sole allegiance to the government of the United States, and there would have been no possible question, whether he found himself in the United States or in any other country in the world, that he would be called upon to show allegiance to any Government but that of the United States.”
There you have a lifelong Democrat politician – who served at a high level of Government service – making the argument that President Obama would not be eligible to the office of President despite his place of birth. Is the former Democrat Secretary of State now to be retroactively attacked as a wing nut birther?
The historical dam is breaking as more and more evidence surfaces proving Obama is not eligible. A reader of this blog who has asked to remain anonymous recently provided further historical proof that Obama is not eligible to be president. The New Englander And Yale Law Review, Volume 3 (1845) states:
The expression ‘citizen of the United States occurs in the clauses prescribing qualifications for Representatives, for Senators, and for President. In the latter, the term ‘natural born citizen’ is used and excludes all persons owing allegiance by birth to foreign states.
That is serious on point historical research. At the time of his birth, Obama owed allegiance to Great Britain. That is not disputed, it is admitted by the President himself. And this admission is the true problem Obama faces should this issue ever make its way to the Supreme Court. Obama owed allegiance to great Britain when he was born.
In a previous article, I highlighted the opinion of Alexander Porter Morse, taken from the Albany Law Review article entitled, “NATURAL-BORN CITIZEN OF THE UNITED STATES: ELIGIBILITY FOR THE OFFICE OF PRESIDENT”:
“If it was intended that anybody who was a citizen by birth should be eligible, it would only have been necessary to say, “no person, except a native-born citizen”; but the framers thought it wise, in view of the probable influx of European immigration, to provide that the president should at least be the child of citizens owing allegiance to the United States at the time of his birth. It may be observed in passing that the current phrase “native-born citizen” is well understood; but it is pleonasm and should be discarded; and the correct designation, “native citizen” should be substituted in all constitutional and statutory enactments, in judicial decisions and in legal discussions where accuracy and precise language are essential to intelligent discussion.”
It’s a rather clear testimony to the fact that simply being “native born” does not mean that one is “natural born” but “accuracy and intelligent discussion” are not the goals of propaganda. A fraudulent blogger who shall remain nameless attempted to justify Obama’s eligibility with the following lie:
“Some people have confused Alexander Morse’s paper on child born (abroad) to two US citizens being natural born citizens as a necessary requirement. Of course, anyone familiar with Alexander Morse realizes that he never held such a position…”
It appears the liar has selectively failed to read the quote above as well as Mr. Morse’s letter to the Albany Law Journal of December 18th, 1884, which states:
It seems to the undersigned, aside from judicial sanction, that the children of aliens born in the United States are, to use the language of Judge Cooley in another connection, ” subject to the jurisdiction of the United States only in a much qualified sense; ” until they take some steps submitting themselves to the jurisdiction ...
This letter was written in 1884 – before Wong Kim Ark was decided. His article quoted above, was written in 1904 – after Wong Kim Ark. The historical evidence proves that Morse held the same point of view before and after Wong Kim Ark. The article and the letter both indicate clearly that Morse would not have agreed Obama was eligible.
History, what a concept.
Leo C. Donofrio, Esq.
Pidgeon & Donofrio GP
Ping
It says "citizen" for Congress because a naturalized citizen is eligible. That's the only distinction to draw from those words.
ping
Well, crud. Sorry, rxsid. Cut and pasted the whole title into the FR search and it didn’t show the one you posted. Maybe the ellipsis at the end screwed up the search?
I agree.
No worries. And yeah, probably the “...” made the difference (in not finding the other thread).
I guess my objection is with the idea that Obama OWED the UK allegiance at birth.
He was eligible to claim citizenship in the UK, but foreign law does not obligate him to do so, or divide his natural loyalty.
Given that:
1) His father never seems to have lived with his mother, and he was raised by his mother or her parents, and
2) his father completely abandoned him at a very early age, and
3) his father wasn’t legally married to his mother, since he was already married at the time and bigamy was illegal,
4) he has never in any way acted as though he had allegiance to the UK, and
5) he has deliberately snubbed the British government on multiple occasions,
I find the idea that Obama owed natural allegiance to the UK ridiculous.
Also, the USA does NOT support the ‘once British, always British’ doctrine - we had a war over that in 1812...
The search function will miss threads at times especially if you use the entire title. Example is to use the following words from the title and it will call both threads up.
educating
really
confused
Just my experience with the search function.
The following quotes came before the possibility of Obama being elected was raised, so I think they show where legal opinion had settled prior to Obama running:
“NATURAL BORN CITIZENS. A natural-born citizen of the United States is one who is a citizen by reason of his place of birth or the citizenship of his father. The two classes of naturalized and natural born citizens are thus mutually exclusive, and together constitute the entire citizen body of the United States. ”
Andrew C. McLaughlin & Albert Bushnell Hart ( Ed.), CYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICAN GOVERNMENT Vol. 2 (1914).
“NATURAL-BORN CITIZEN. A person whose citizenship derives from the nation where he or she was born.”
Kenneth Robert Redden, Enid Veron, Modern Legal Glossary, pg. 263 (1980)
“Natural-born citizens can acquire that status by being born in the United States, on the basis of jus soli…”
William Carroll, Norman Smith, American Constitutional Rights: cases, documents, and commentary, pg. 130 (1991)
“The requirement that the president be a “natural born” citizen implies that the framers recognized the principle of jus soli. According to this doctrine – literally meaning the “right to land or ground” – citizenship results from birth within a national territory.”
Kermit Hall, The Oxford Companion to the Supreme Court of the United States, pg. 24 (1992)
“Americans are accustomed to the concept of automatic citizenship granted to persons born in the United States, who are called “natural-born citizens…”
Joseph M. Bessette, American Justice, Volume 1 – Page 129 (1996)
“Natural-born citizens are people born in the United States.”
David Heath, the Presidency of the United States, pg. 8 (1999)
“Natural Born Citizenship Clause. The clause of the U.S. Constitution barring persons not born in the United States from the presidency.”
Black’s Law Dictionary, eigth edition (1999)
He doesn't believe there are multiple classes of citizenship. He believes there is only one class, citizen and that all citizens enjoy the same rights and protections under the Constitution. Where he distinguishes a difference between citizens is in the multiple paths to obtaining citizenship.
For example:
1. Citizens by birth
a. natural born citizens
b. citizens by the 14th Amendment
c. citizens by statute
2. Citizens by naturalization
3. Other citizens by statute
An example of this might be derivative citizens - i.e. foreign woman who married a U.S. male between 1855-1922. Or a woman whose husband became naturalized in those same years and the wife became a citizen by statute automatically - this one could also be seen as a sub-category of naturalization, but there are probably more examples.
The Fine Print: I believe I have acturately summarized his opinion. However, don't hold him accountable for any errors in my interpretation.
I guess I missed the part in your quote that show Obama felt loyalty to the UK, and how he demonstrated that loyalty...silly me.
Lesson learned. Thanks for the advice. It’s appreciated. I hate to be a culprit of posting duplicate threads. In this case, I’m not going to ask the mods to delete it. If they do so on their own, so be it.
Beckwith,
For clarification, are you essentially saying that a law governing the status of one’s citizenship (by blood) equates to that person owing a natural allegiance?
Mr Rogers,
Are you essentially saying that the such a law does not equate to a natural allegiance?
Thanks,
Tex
He was granted British citizenship at birth and did not have to take affirmative action to claim it or retain it at the age of majority, just like his U.S. citizenship.
(Stipulation: Some dispute Obama’s being granted British citizenship at birth based on his being an illegitimate child of an unrecognized marriage under the BNA of 1948.)
When Obama was granted his Kenyan citizenship upon Kenya’s independence from GB, he was required to take affirmative action to retain that citizenship when he reached the age of majority. (I believe that’s correct. Someone please correct me if I’m wrong.)
Obama took NO steps to claim UK citizenship, so there is no sign he felt any allegiance. My sister was born in Germany, but she has ZERO natural allegiance to Germany, although she COULD have claimed German citizenship.
Under the Kenyan Constitution, if Obama wanted to be a citizen, he needed to renounce his US citizenship:
“A person who, upon the attainment of the age of twenty-one years, is a citizen of Kenya and also a citizen of some country other than Kenya shall, subject to subsection (7), cease to be a citizen of Kenya upon the specified date unless he has renounced his citizenship of that other country, taken the oath of allegiance and, in the case of a person who was born outside Kenya. made and registered such declaration of his intentions concerning residence as may be prescribed by or under an Act of Parliament.”
http://kenya.rcbowen.com/constitution/chap6.html#97
I’m saying the British law does not impose any natural allegiance on Obama’s part, nor has he ever shown any allegiance in any way to the UK.
Legally, I believe the consensus prior to Obama’s running was that ‘natural born’ meant born in America, versus a naturalized citizen. That may or may not have been the original intent, but the original intent doesn’t seem clear enough for a court to rule Obama ineligible.
Obama didn’t have to take any steps to claim his British citizenship. It was his by birthright.
Same as Elg, right? U.S. citizenship was hers by birthright. Her parents couldn’t take it away from her by moving her out of the country and renouncing their U.S. citizenship.
Wouldn’t the same apply to Obama? His mother and grandparents couldn’t take away his British citizenship just by raising him in Indonesia and the U.S.
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.