Posted on 11/26/2008 12:08:43 PM PST by doug from upland
Many are claiming that if he was born a citizen of the US and of some other country, perhaps Kenya or Britain, he cannot be a “natural-born” citizen of this country.
My point is that US law ignores whether a US citizen is also a citizen of another country. Citizenship status with another country does not affect one’s US citizenship status.
Possibly it should. Perhaps it should be the law that a person who holds or has held dual citizenship cannot be President. But that doesn’t appear to presently be the case, absent some sort of court ruling to the contrary.
Given the Constitution’s prohibition of ex post facto, even an act passed by Congress (yeah, right!) would probably not impact Obama’s coronation.
...
I hope this helps people to understand the different types of citizenship. In summary you need two parents to be U.S. Citizens at the time of your birth and you must be born on U.S. soil to be a “natural born” citizen.
You're right. It is explained clearly.
Unfortunately, it is loaded with inaccuracies.
This appears to be the author's opinion as to who should be considered a natural-born citizen. It bears no relationship to reality or the law.
From what I can tell, there are only two categories of citizen under US law: natural-born and naturalized. If you are not naturalized, by definition you are natural-born.
Since there are only two position in the US where "natural-born" is an issue, it's not surprising there has been very little litigation to clarify the issue.
You are correct. My bad.
There are only two categories of US citizen. Citizens at birth = natural born. Naturalized.
What the hell are you talking about? If Obama was born in Hawaii, then he’s constitutionally eligible for the office. It doesn’t matter if his father were a british national or a dogcatcher from Brooklyn. He’s still eligible for the office.
Your logic does not follow. The Electors WILL remain. And the WILL be allowed to vote for whomever they choose, if Obama is disqualified before 15 December. You need to read a good history of the Electoral College to better understand the process.
John / Billybob
Seems like Biden would become president one amendment or another and a "Constitutional Crisis" will be avoided. It would be fascinating to see it played out. If not for the entertainment value seeing the Libtards whine and spew over 0zero getting caught being the liar that he is.
To make it absolutely clear, there would be no legal problem in the election of an Elector pledged to Mickey Mouse. There would be problems with such an Elector actually casting that vote, but no problem with the people electing such an Elector.
You have a burr under your saddle about the Electoral Colllege that does not connect with either its legal framework or historical use.
John / Billybob
That's not quite the way I see it. Actually I'm of two minds, something that rarely happens to someone as opinionated as the Old Cat. :) .. On the one hand, I agree that there are only the two classes. On the other, I'm not sure that "natural born" and "citizen at birth" must be the same thing. Unless that is the way it was understood at the time the Constitution was written. My problem is that Congress cannot, by passing an ordinary law, rather than a Constitutional amendment, redefine a term in the Constitution for purpose of the Constitution. Yet clearly they have redefined the requirements for 'citizen at birth'. Many times.
Congress was given the power to establish uniform rules of naturalization, which seems to be the only power they have over such matters, so are all "citizens at birth" also "natural born citizens"? Or would "Naturalized at Birth" be a better description for someone like Obama would be if he had been born in Kenya but his mother was 20, and had lived in the US for at least 5 years since her 14th Birthday?
What little I have seen on the subject from pre-revolutionary English Common and Statute law, children born overseas of fathers who were English subjects were considered natural born subjects, while those born of English subject mothers and foreign citizen/subject fathers were not. And for good reason. The child was most likely to be raised in the culture and lands of the father than of the mother. He/she would thus acquire allegiance and affection to the father's country.
In Obama's case, if born in Kenya or elsewhere than the US, with a foreign father, he would not have been considered a natural born citizen. Add to that his being raised in Indonesia by his stepfather, from approximately age 6 to 10. And at minimum, it's a very risky proposition, and certainly against the spirit of the Natural born citizen clause, to have him as President of the US.
Under the 20th, at most he could become "acting President", while another President is "qualified". How that might happen is almost anyone's guess. Although I think if there is even one "faithless elector" who votes for Hillary or some other prominent Dim, the House would promptly install that person as President, given that a DQ came between the Electors casting their votes, and the President of Congress opening them. Of course that's only about a two week window.
An even nastier problem would be if the DQ came between the counting of those votes and inaguration day. Unless of course Obama did the "right thing", stepped down and moved to Kenya or Indonesia. That's also about a two week window. I don't think the Constitution covers such an eventuality at all.
After the inauguration? Too horrible to contemplate too closely, again unless Obama stepped down. It probably would involve the Reset Button, and that would not be pretty.
I'm not sure this is accurate. My understanding is that even if born in Kenya, he would still be a "citizen at birth" through his mother.
I don't believe there is a third category. Citizen at birth = native born.
If he were not a citizen at birth he would have had to go through a naturalization process to become a citizen and get a US passport.
There is almost no case law on this situation, but most attorneys who have posted on the issue seem to believe that "native-born" was just the Constitution's way of saying citizen at birth.
Certainly Congress has never established a third category of "citizen at birth but not native-born."
Maybe it is time for you, "dogcatcher" to dig into the Constitution and learn something about how our founding fathers tried to protect our country from foreign intruders, including Hussein who at one time may have lived in Brooklyn!!!
Her is another angle???
From all the many lawsuits filed with Mumbo Jumbo legal "language", I feel this is the most compelling and logical to push forward:!!!
A more important lawsuit, however, may be the New Jersey case filed by Leo C. Donofrio. See http://www.blogtext.org/naturalborncitizen/ Donofrio is presently seeking emergency stay relief in the US Supreme Court, and what's intriguing about his action is a new legal theory not asserted (as yet) in any of the earlier cases. Donofrio argues that the "birth certificate" and "Indonesia" issues are irrelevant to Obama's eligibility to serve as President. Donofrio points out that Obama spokesmen have admitted (at least on websites) that his father was a Kenyan native at the time of Obama's birth, and was thereby a British subject (Kenya, at the time, was a British colony). Obama spokesmen acknowledge (on websites) that British law governed the status of Obama Sr.'s children, but the spokesmen also assert that Obama held dual Kenya/US citizenship at birth, and his Kenyan citizenship expired on August 4, 1981. The Obama assertion is that he was in fact born in Hawaii, and that he has never renounced the US citizenship status that arises as a result of his Hawaiian birth.
Donofrio argues that these facts admitted by Obama spokesmen establish WITHOUT MORE that Obama is not eligible for the presidency. Donofrio looks to the full clause in Article 2. Section 1. of the Constitution, which provides:
"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."
Donofrio asserts that the words ". . . or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution . . ." have been overlooked in earlier lawsuits about Obama's eligibility, and that these words provide the key to a proper understanding of the eligibility issue. The Donofrio argument goes to original intent of the framers as expressed through these words-- he points out that most, if not all, of the framers of the Constitution were, at birth, born as British subjects. So the Donofrio "original intent" argument goes like this:
The chosen wording of the framers makes clear that they had drawn a distinction between themselves-- persons born subject to British jurisdiction-- and "natural born citizens" who would NOT be born subject to British jurisdiction or any other jurisdiction other than the United States. The framers grandfathered themselves into the Constitution as being eligible to be President, but the grandfather clause ONLY applies to any person who was a "Citizen . . . at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution." Obama (obviously) was not a Citizen at the time of the Adoption of the Constitution, so he is not subject to the grandfather clause.
Here's where the Donofrio argument becomes quite interesting. The framers recognized that EVEN THEY were not "natural born citizens." That's why they included a grandfather clause to allow any of them to become President. The framers did not want citizens with divided loyalty to become President in the future-- particularly citizens with loyalty to the hated British Empire. Donofrio argues that the word "born" constitutes proof positive that the framers intended that status as a "citizen" must be present at birth, since if this was not the intent there would have been no need for the grandfather clause. Dual citizenship at time of birth (British/US) was allowed for the framers themselves under the grandfather clause, but for no one else. Hence, argues Donofrio, Obama is not a natural born citizen, and even if he produces an original birth certificate proving he was born in Hawaii it will not change the fact that he was a British citizen at birth.
I don’t know why you called your original post “another angle”. I read it the first time. It is still irrelevant. I live in MA. I was born here. If my father was a British citizen, British Consul, Member of the house of Lords, or King, I would still be a citizen of the United States and of Massachusetts according to the Constitution.
It is not parentage that makes the differenc, it is place of birth.
It is not parentage that makes the differenc, it is place of birth.
I agree with you, that you would still be a CITIZEN of the United States, but then you would NOT be a "natural born" citizen. Two big different things!!!
Here is commentary from Joseph Story who, being of the period, was very familiar with the original ideas.
It is indispensable, too, that the president should be a natural born citizen of the United States; or a citizen at the adoption of the constitution, and for fourteen years before his election. This permission of a naturalized citizen to become president is an exception from the great fundamental policy of all governments, to exclude foreign influence from their executive councils and duties. It was doubtless introduced (for it has now become by lapse of time merely nominal, and will soon become wholly extinct) out of respect to those distinguished revolutionary patriots, who were born in a foreign land, and yet had entitled themselves
to high honours in their adopted country.1 A positive exclusion of them from the office would have been unjust to their merits, and painful to their sensibilities. But the general propriety of the exclusion of foreigners, in common cases, will scarcely be doubted by any sound statesman. It cuts off all chances for ambitious foreigners, who might otherwise be intriguing for the office; and interposes a barrier against those corrupt interferences of foreign governments in executive elections, which have inflicted the most serious evils upon the elective monarchies of Europe. Germany, Poland, and even the pontificate of Rome, are sad, but instructive examples of the enduring mischiefs arising from this source.2 A residence of fourteen years in the United States is also made an indispensable requisite for every candidate; so, that the people may have a full opportunity to know his character and merits, and that he may have mingled in the duties, and felt the interests, and understood the principles, and nourished the attachments, belonging to every citizen in a republican government.3 By “residence,” in the constitution, is to be understood, not an absolute inhabitancy within the United States during the whole period; but such an inhabitancy, as includes a permanent domicil in the United States. No one has supposed, that a temporary absence abroad on public business, and especially on an embassy to a foreign nation, would interrupt the residence of a citizen, so as to disqualify him for office.4 If the word were to be construed with such strictness, then a mere journey through any foreign
adjacent territory for health, or for pleasure, or a commorancy there for a single day, would amount to a disqualification. Under such a construction a military or civil officer, who should have been in Canada during the late war on public business, would have lost his eligibility. The true sense of residence in the constitution is fixed domicil, or being out of the United States, and settled abroad for the purpose of general inhabitancy, animo manendi, and not for a mere temporary and fugitive purpose, in transitu.
Is this the same John Story???
Blessed John Story (or Storey) (1504 - June 1, 1571), English Roman Catholic martyr, born in Northern England, was educated at the University of Oxford, where he became lecturer on civil law in 1535, being made later principal of Broadgates Hall, afterwards Pembroke College.[1]
No. Joseph Story. Supreme Court justice, contemporary and friend to John Marshall. He wrote “A Familiar Exposition on the Constitution of the United States. Great book, simply written. He goes through the Constitution clause by clause.
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.