Posted on 08/23/2008 9:29:00 AM PDT by doug from upland
Roger Hedgecock taped an interview with attorney and Hillary supporter, Philip Berg, who filed a federal lawsuit challenging Barack Obama's status as a natural born citizen. Roger will be in Denver at the convention next week. Berg will also be there.
Sorry, everyone. I got a business call and didn’t get it posted in time. Doh! But, Roger is talking about it.
I listened to part of Berg’s interview last night on Coast to Coast. Not sure what to think. The Kenya birth certificate, Barak Hussien Obama, Jr. on the same birth date is interesting. I’d like to see that.
It has been determined by “experts” that the birth certificate he posted on his site is a phony. Why would he post that instead of a real one?
The whole Obama birth thing stinks to high heaven. Some of what Berg is claiming I have doubts about.
However, I know for a fact that Obama posted a forged COLB.
That is enough to warrant a thorough investigation AND to boot his sorry ass right out of the US government.
A democrat, Texas Darlin, has been doing great work on this story, including the BS spewed by FactCheck.org.
I have been looking into this for weeks and last I heard it was discovered that the real birth certificate which allegedly is in Honolulu is sealed since boma was adopted by lolo Soeterra.in Indonesia after dunham married him
A good question, Doug. It will be interesting to see how long Obama ignores this.
When they seal the old birth certificate they issue a new one with the adopted name. There is a birth ceertificate in Hawaii IF Barrack was actually born there. It is very suspicious that he would post a phony COLB.
What’s interesting to note; if anybody wanted to slip us an illegal canidate, the MSM would/will help them out all they can, not us, with treason aforethought.
So Barry’s legal last name is still Soetero and he’s not Barack H.Obama legally ?
Did that happen? We don't know.
That seems to be Barry's MO too.
Roger had trouble with the last attorney call. The 14th Amendment defined what it took to be a citizen -— but it did not address the question of “natural born.” Natural born is the language used in the qualifications for the office of the presidency.
That's why I can't figure out why so many are doing backflips about this birth certificate. I can understand him faking his birth certificate if there is something embarassing on there, but unless his mother is not his mother, he is an American.
That's why I can't figure out why so many are doing backflips about this birth certificate. I can understand him faking his birth certificate if there is something embarassing on there, but unless his mother is not his mother, he is an American.
Some have followed the story more closely than have I and can probably give a better answer. There are some questions raised because Obama’s dad was Kenyan. If he was not born in Hawaii as claimed, but rather in a foreign country, there is a question of how long his mom had to live in the country after the age of 16 for him to get the benefit of being “natural born.”
REPLAY on Roger now.
Age 6 - Barry Sotero is adopted by new father and becomes citizen of Indonesia.
Let’s suppose that Obama is nominated and then disqualified in a legal action. Who then steps in his place? The VP candidate or the witch who said the second highest total of delegates?
I think that "natural born" is an original intent debate. The 14th Amendment defines citizenship but citizenship doesn't make one eligible to be elected President. My children are citizens but not eligible to be elected because they are not 35.
It is possible that the framers of the Constitution wanted only those physically born on American soil to be eligible for the office and so disqualify more recent immigrants to the new country. Was it the intent of the writers of the 14th Amendment to override or clarify the "natural born" language? These could be issues that the USSC might have to determine.
Wouldn't that be entertaining? It would certainly rival if not surpass the drama of 2000. No doubt, the legal issue would have to be expedited to the USSC for emergency hearing. Until there was a ruling from the USSC making Obama ineligible, I think the succession issue would take second chair. I think that Hillary would fight like heck to get the chance to run unless it was clear that the Democrat position was irrevokably tarnished for this election cycle. I don't see Joe Biden willingly stepping aside for Hillary.
It includes a footnote:
The 1790 law remained in effect until the Naturalization Act of 1795 superseded it. The 1795 law removed mention of natural born citizen status, stating instead that the children of citizens of the United States who are born outside the limits of the country "shall be considered as citizens of the United States."
whoops — the witch who had, not the witch who said
Hillary could take action at the convention to release all her delegates to Obama so that there would be a unanimous nominee. That won’t happen. He will get the majority, for now.
He also said that McCain is not a natural born citizen. Can someone shed some light on this?
The source for the Kenyan birth certificate story is a rabid GOP hater named Wayne Madsen. I don’t find him credible.
The evidence that the COLB is a forgery is an entirely different matter.
McCain was born on a US base in a US territory (Panama Canal Zone) to an active US serviceman
his citizenship and eligibility has bee thoroughly vetted
.
Hedge said that made him a US citizen, but not “natural born.” There was a caller born on that base and he reacalled how his parents told him he couldn’t run. Said it was commonly known.
I listened to part of the interview last night too.
Then I fell asleep, darn I hate when that happens!
In Roger’s interview with Berg, did he mention that Obama traveled to Pakistan, in 1990 or 91, on an Indonesian passport? Or that it is believed that Obama was adopted by his stepfather?
Is John McCain a ‘Natural-Born Citizen’?
James Joyner | Thursday, February 28, 2008
John McCain was born on a U.S. Navy base overseas. The NYT’s Carl Hulse has an interesting article about whether McCain is Constitutionally eligible to be president.
Mr. McCain’s likely nomination as the Republican candidate for president and the happenstance of his birth in the Panama Canal Zone in 1936 are reviving a musty debate that has surfaced periodically since the founders first set quill to parchment and declared that only a “natural-born citizen” can hold the nation’s highest office.
Almost since those words were written in 1787 with scant explanation, their precise meaning has been the stuff of confusion, law school review articles, whisper campaigns and civics class debates over whether only those delivered on American soil can be truly natural born. To date, no American to take the presidential oath has had an official birthplace outside the 50 states.
The short answer is that most legal scholars presume someone who was born a citizen, regardless of location, qualifies. But the question has never been tested in court.
That it’s even an issue at this stage is silly. The Founders had a not unreasonable concern in 1789 that the fledgling nation be led by someone with unquestioned loyalty but they made a mistake enshrining that in the Constitution. Now, though, the idea that an Arnold Schwarzenegger or a Henry Kissinger or John Shalikashvili shouldn’t be eligible to run for president is absurd.
UPDATE: Jim Lindgren has a detailed discussion of the common law meaning of “natural born” demonstrating that McCain would, of course, qualify. Of particular interest is this passage from Blackstone:
When I say, that an alien is one who is born out of the king’s dominions, or allegiance, this also must be understood with some restrictions. The common law indeed stood absolutely so; with only a very few exceptions: so that a particular act of parliament became necessary after the restoration, for the naturalization of children of his majesty’s English subjects, born in foreign countries during the late troubles. And this maxim of the law proceeded upon a general principle, that every man owes natural allegiance where he is born, and cannot owe two such allegiances, or serve two masters, at once. Yet the children of the king’s embassadors born abroad were always held to be natural subjects: for as the father, though in a foreign country, owes not even a local allegiance to the prince to whom he is sent; so, with regard to the son also, he was held (by a kind of postliminium) to be born under the king of England’s allegiance, represented by his father, the embassador.
To encourage also foreign commerce, it was enacted by statute 25 Edw. III. st. 2. that all children born abroad, provided both their parents were at the time of the birth in allegiance to the king, and the mother had passed the seas by her husband’s consent, might inherit as if born in England: and accordingly it hath been so adjudged in behalf of merchants. But by several more modern statutes these restrictions are still farther taken off: so that all children, born out of the king’s ligeance, whose fathers were natural-born subjects, are now natural-born subjects themselves, to all intents and purposes, without any exception; unless their said fathers were attainted, or banished beyond sea, for high treason; or were then in the service of a prince at enmity with Great Britain.
That has always been my understanding as well. The distinction is between bithright citizens — i.e., those who were citizens at the time of birth — and naturalized citizens, who who born citizens of another country and have to apply and be admitted to American citizenship, renouncing their former allegiance.
About the Author: James Joyner is the publisher of Outside the Beltway and the managing editor of the Atlantic Council. He’s a former Army officer, Desert Storm vet, and college professor with a PhD in political science from The University of Alabama. He lives just outside the Beltway in Alexandria, Virginia.
.
The link doesn't work.
I'm not an attorney so forgive my confusion on this issue. However, this law seems to be talking about citizenship. The Constitution can (and does) set eligibility requirements beyond citizenship requirements.
Isn't the Constitution the governing word taking precedent over any law? If the Constitution meant "born on American soil" when it said natural-born citizen, doesn't it stand until specifically amended? Did the 14th Amendment do that? Redefining citizenship requirements does not necessarily redefine the requirements for eligibility for the Presidency.
Actually, they served in Panama, according to them.
This site says the issue is very much open and could be a court case of someone wants to spend the money.
.
FYI #39
At any rate, here is the gist of the entry addressing "Natural Born Citizen".
***************************************************
US constitutional definition
The United States Constitution does not define the term "natural born citizen"; however, it does confer on Congress the power: "To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization."
Section 1 of Article II of the Constitution contains the clause:
“ 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. ”
Additionally, the 12th Amendment to the Constitution states that: "[N]o person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States."
It is thought the origin of the natural-born citizen clause can be traced to a letter of July 25, 1787 from John Jay to George Washington, presiding officer of the Constitutional Convention. John Jay wrote: "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." There was no debate, and this qualification for the office of the Presidency was introduced by the drafting Committee of Eleven, and then adopted without discussion by the Constitutional Convention.
The 2003 Equal Opportunity to Govern Amendment, a proposed amendment to the US Constitution, would, if adopted, have removed the prohibition against naturalized citizens holding the office of the President.
US presidential candidates born outside the US
"The constitutional wording has left doubts about whether those born on foreign soil are on an equal footing with those whose birth occurred inside the country's borders, and whether they have the same rights."[1] Though every president and vice president to date (as of 2008) has either been a citizen at the adoption of the Constitution, or else born in a U.S. state or Washington D.C.[2], a number of presidential candidates have been born elsewhere.[3]
Barry Goldwater, who ran as the Republican party nominee in 1964, was born in Arizona while it was still a U.S. territory. Although Arizona was not a state, it was a fully organized and incorporated territory of the United States.[4]
George Romney, who ran for the Republican party nomination in 1968, was born in Mexico to U.S. parents. Romney’s grandfather emigrated to Mexico in 1886 with his three wives and children after Utah outlawed polygamy. Romney's parents retained their U.S. citizenship and returned to the United States in 1912. Romney was 32 years old when he arrived in Michigan.
John McCain, who ran for the Republican party nomination in 2000 and is the presumptive Republican nominee in 2008, was born at the Coco Solo U.S. military base in the Panama Canal Zone to U.S. parents. Although the Panama Canal Zone was not considered to be part of the United States,[5] federal law states that "Any person born in the Canal Zone on or after February 26, 1904, and whether before or after the effective date of this chapter, whose father or mother or both at the time of the birth of such person was or is a citizen of the United States, is declared to be a citizen of the United States".[6] The law that conferred this status took effect on August 4, 1937, one year after John McCain was born — albeit with retrospective effect, resulting in McCain being declared a U.S. citizen.[7] However, the question as to whether or not he is a citizen from birth cannot be answered by this law because (1) it took effect after his birth and (2) it does not state that the person's citizenship was acquired at birth, only that they are a citizen by means of the law's establishment (and, hence, at the time the law takes effect). Indeed, the law in 1936 stated that all persons born to US citizens outside the "limits and jurisdictions of the United States" but the problem is that the Panama Canal Zone was within the limits and jurisdictions of the United States. Thus, the status of Mr. McCain remains unsettled.[8]
US legislation and legal arguments
The requirements for citizenship and the very definition thereof have changed since the Constitution was ratified in 1788. Congress first recognized the citizenship of children born to U.S. parents overseas on March 26, 1790, under the first naturalization law: "And the children of citizens of the United States that may be born beyond sea, or outside the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born citizens."[9][10]
The Fourteenth Amendment mentions two types of citizenship: citizenship by birth and citizenship by law (naturalized citizens): "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside."
All persons born in the United States, except those not subject to the jurisdiction of the U.S. government (such as children of foreign diplomats) are citizens under the Fourteenth Amendment. Persons born in the United States, and persons born on foreign soil to two U.S. parents, are born American citizens and are classified as citizens at birth under 8 USC 1401. There is some debate over whether persons who were born US citizens and are classified as citizens at birth under U.S. law should also be considered citizens "by birth," whether they should all be considered to be "naturalized," or whether they should be considered "statutory citizens." There is also some debate over whether there is a meaningful legal distinction between citizens "at birth", citizens "by birth" and "statutory citizens" since U.S. law makes no such distinction, nor does the Fourteenth Amendment use the term "at birth." Current U.S. statutes define certain individuals born overseas as "citizens at birth."[11] One side of the argument interprets the Constitution as meaning that a person either is born in the United States or is a naturalized citizen. According to this view, in order to be a "natural born citizen," a person must be born in the United States or in an incorporated territory, so as the US Virgin Islands; otherwise, he is a citizen "by law" and is therefore a "statutory citizen," because naturalization implies a pre-requisite of foreign citizenship.[12] Current State Department policy reads: "Despite widespread popular belief, U.S. military installations abroad and U.S. diplomatic or consular facilities are not part of the United States within the meaning of the 14th Amendment. A child born on the premises of such a facility is not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States and does not acquire U.S. citizenship by reason of birth."[13] However, the State Department is of the opinion that this does not affect those who are born abroad to U.S. citizens and who otherwise meet the qualifications for statutory citizenship.[14]
US case law
Although the U.S. Supreme Court has never specifically addressed the meaning of "natural born citizen," there are several Supreme Court decisions that help define citizenship:
Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. 393 (1857): In regard to the "natural born citizen" clause, the dissent states that it is acquired by place of birth (jus soli), not through blood or lineage (jus sanguinis): "The first section of the second article of the Constitution uses the language, 'a natural-born citizen.' It thus assumes that citizenship may be acquired by birth. Undoubtedly, this language of the Constitution was used in reference to that principle of public law, well understood in this country at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, which referred citizenship to the place of birth." (Much of the majority opinion in this case was overturned by the 14th Amendment in 1868.)
United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898): A person born within the jurisdiction of the U.S. to non-citizens who "are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity" is automatically a citizen.
Weedin v. Chin Bow, 274 U.S. 657 (1927): A child born outside the U.S. cannot claim U.S. citizenship by birth through a U.S. citizen parent who had never lived in the U.S. prior to the child's birth. (This is still true today, although the specific statutes upon which the Supreme Court's ruling was based have changed since 1927.)
Montana v. Kennedy, 366 U.S. 308 (1961): A person born in 1906, whose mother was a native-born citizen of the United States and whose father was a foreign citizen, who was born overseas and then moved to the United States, was not a citizen of the United States by birth. (Note that the relevant laws have changed considerably since 1906, so this decision does not necessarily apply to later cases.) Schneider v. Rusk, 377 U.S. 163 (1964): The Court voided a statute that provided that a naturalized citizen should lose his United States citizenship if, following naturalization, he resided continuously for three years in his former homeland. "We start from the premise that the rights of citizenship of the native-born and of the naturalized person are of the same dignity and are coextensive. The only difference drawn by the Constitution is that only the 'natural born' citizen is eligible to be President."
Miller v. Albright, 523 U.S. 420 (1998): A child born overseas to an American father and a foreign mother (not married) is not a U.S. citizen unless paternity is established before an established age (in this case 21). This case challenged the law on the grounds that U.S. law requires no explicit acknowledgment of parenthood in the case of a foreign-born child to an American mother and a foreign father (not married).
Nguyen v. INS, 533 U.S. 53 (2001): As in the Miller v. Albright case, the Court holds that a child born overseas to an American father and a foreign mother (not married) is not a U.S. citizen unless paternity is established before an established age (in this case 18). The child was brought to the U.S. before his sixth birthday and raised by his father; however, after a criminal conviction, deportation was ordered but the child claimed U.S. citizenship. His citizenship was denied because paternity had not been established prior to his 18th birthday. The Court upheld the law, once again affirming that Congress has the power to define citizenship outside the citizenship dictated by the 14th Amendment (citizenship by birth).
*******************************************
Without any apparent reason, they've muddied McCain's status (it is Wikipedia, after all). But this seems to cover the Constitutional issue, relevant legislation and case law.
So far DU is blacking out the Phil Berg story.
I searched their site for Phil Berg Obama.
4 threads came up via Google.
3 of them have been deleted by moderator,
and 1 was shunted off to the Sept. 11 topic where it won’t be seen.
Considering they are running a joint fundraiser with the Obama campaign - might that have something to do with it...
What we still need is a smoking gun that can document, with several impeccable sources, when and where he was born. The unwed mothers home in Canada makes a lot of sense(more sense to me than a Kenyan birth) and would help to further explain the interview with Dunham's friend.
But, Phil Berg is rather insistent and has filed a lawsuit,suggesting a Kenyan birth, of course the suit and his interview on "Coast" was light on documentation. That is still desperately needed as far as answers go in this case,IMHO.
ping
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.