"Never send a monkey to do a man's job."
~ Captain Leo Davidson
Posted on 03/10/2009 1:05:44 PM PDT by tatsinfla
Thank you for contacting me regarding President Obama's citizenship. I appreciate hearing from you and would like to respond to your concerns.
Like you, I believe that our federal government has the responsibility to make certain that the Constitution of the United States is not compromised. We must fight to uphold our Constitution through our courts and political processes.
Article II of the Constitution provides that "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." The Constitution, however, does not specify how those qualifications are to be enforced.
In the absence of a specific enforcement mechanism, courts have concluded that only “a candidate or his political party has standing to challenge the inclusion of an allegedly ineligible rival on the ballot.” Hollander v. McCain, 566 F. Supp. 2d 63, 69 (D.N.H. 2008).
Courts have further concluded that, short of a challenge by another candidate, it falls to the voters to decide whether a particular presidential candidate is qualified to hold office. “Voters have no standing to complain about the participation of an ineligible candidate in an election, even if it results in the siphoning of votes away from an eligible candidate they prefer.” Id. at 69.
In November of last year, Mr. Obama was elected our nation’s President, and I intend to bestow upon him the honor and respect due any man who holds that Office. Yet, I am certain that there will be times when I will disagree and oppose President Obama's policies. When that happens, you can be assured that I will pursue vigorously what I believe to be in the best interest of Florida and the nation. I thank you for sharing your views with me and will keep your concerns in mind. If you have additional questions or comments, please contact me. For more information about issues and activities important to Florida, please sign up for my weekly newsletter at http://martinez.senate.gov.
Sincerely,
Mel Martinez United States Senator
does not surprise me one bit.
If Sen. Martinez is correct that only an opposing candidate or his political party can challenge the qualifications of another candidate, then what else do you want him to do?
Unless the answer is to change the law - which is a good idea, I figure.
I find it amazing how quiet our Congress is about this subject. Not a word or a question.
I would think anyone who takes the would have standing. After all it is the US Constitution we’re talking about.
Stop the BS and get on with it!
Must be a form letter, because I received pretty much
the same thing from Bob Corker.
Actually, it is much better than the response I received from Tom Price (R-GA 6th) who categorically stated that zer0 was born in Hawaii.
Martinez is a moron.
The constitution is the supreme law of the land is the only law that cannot be overturned by a simple vote by the voters. That takes a long slow process of a con con and there’s a good reason it’s slow.
If the voters can simply override the constitution we’re a true democracy and can toss that old piece of parchment out right now. Maybe a burning ceremony in DC so we can put it to rest.
Check The Constitution, Article I, Section 5.
Then read The Federalist Papers #62.
It’s all there in black and white. I have not located any vetting process for President in The Constitution, but I haven’t finished reading all The Federalist Papers.
We are too trusting that a person who is not qualified would have the gall to run for POTUS. And then . . . Barry was born.
what is amazing is if what he says is true then why would not one person from the republican party contest his eligibilty in court? oh wait, that would label them a racist right?
I think the explanation for Obama not showing the original birth certificate from Hawaii, which porobably does exist, is simple.
\
It was common practice to put the fathers religion as the child’s religion on the birth certificate.
Barack Obama - Muslim - I believe that’s the dirty secret.
Also it would make him an apostate in the Muslim world, since he turned to Christianity. And we know what the Koran says to do to apostates, ( jihad part deux)
From what the Senator wrote it would seem that only John McCain, Sarah Palin and the other minor candidates have standing.
So, besides Alan Keyes one of the other candidates should be pressured to sue Obama.
I don't. One of the fundamental flaws of our form of government is that we are only allowed to choose our leaders from among those who choose themselves. Everyone of the aspires and day dreams about becoming the POTUS and none will raise their hand to diminish the prize.
or the party itself but who is considered the party
So, according to the cite, only McCain, Keyes, or another Presidential candidate, or their respective party apparatus, has standing to challenge? Then the Keyes suit should continue...
This is a critical Constitutional issue and deserves a full and thorough hearing.
It’s time to take back the country.
“Martinez is a moron”
Yes, and I believe that Kyl is giving this same type of nonsensical response. Contact them is a waste of time. This thing will have to be grassroots among citizens because most of the politicians have been assimilated into the Borg Cube.
Of course, Barry could simply release the original birth certificate, with the doctors, hospital, etc.
But that would be too easy ....
Interesting post on how/why O-bozo would have a fake Hawaii
COLB.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/2203580/posts
“The first task in need of explanation is why would Hawaii aid a known illegal of British birth in illegally obtaining a fake birth certificate? The answer is in 1961 the American public had not yet been herded by Teddy Kennedy and socialists into providing welfare benefits to illegals. Hawaii had a large population of illegals who were slave labor, but were a huge burden to the system in poverty and crime.
The Hawaiian answer, as it was a Democratic state and still is was to start registering all those foreign kids by the thousands. The purpose being to tap into all those federal hundreds of millions then which would profit the state. See all of those poverty programs flowed funds into the pockets of the retailers as the golden goose pipeline. If one makes citizens out of illegals, then Hawaii converts a debt into their asset in obtaining more funds and growing the socialist system which empowers Democratic liberals.”
So if John McCain will not sue and Sarah Palin will not sue and the RNC will not sue, it means one of two things.
1. Obama is a Natural Born Citizen
2. The above mentioned people and the RNC are complicit in the BC Conspiracy with Obama and the DNC.
If his mother did not provide the father’s name and race, the hospital would default to the mother’s race.
The BC says that Barry is “Caucasian”!
1. then why wouldn’t obama produce the cert that would put everything to rest?
2. they don’t want to waste their time or money trying to fight it or they just don’t have the balls to do it.
What happened to the consent of the governed?
Me thinks they need to be reminded
Never underestimate the self-destructive pathology of liberals. Bill Clinton used to lie all the time, even when the truth would have served him better. Similarly, Obama may resist releasing his BC just because he's the Messiah and shouldn't have to.
Or, it may have something else embarrassing on it.
And furthermore, how do we know he’s old enough to be president?
References to rulings about appearing on the ballot or participating in an election are irrelevant. They are just a distraction.
Emmerich de Vattel was a Swiss jurist who attained world preeminence in international law. This was primarily the result of his great foundational work, which he published in 1758. His monumental work — The Law of Nations — applied a theory of natural law to international relations. His scholarly, foundational, and systematic explanation of the Law of Nations was especially influential in the United States.
The Law of Nations was so influential in the United States because his principles of liberty and equality coincided with the ideals expressed in the U. S. Declaration of Independence. In particular, his definitions in terms of Law governing nations regarding citizenship, defense of neutrality, and his rules for commerce between neutral and belligerent states were considered authoritative in the United States.
Many have said that de Vattel’s Law of Nations was THE primary reference and defining book used by the framers of the U. S. Constitution. It is really not possible to overstate the influence of de Vattel’s Law of Nations as the primary reference book in the drafting of the U. S. Constitution. Emmerich de Vattel’s Law of Nations is almost beyond comparison in its value as a defining document regarding U. S. Constitution intent and interpretation. The Law of Nations, or the Principles of Natural Law, published in 1758, is the first, and ONLY, definitive work the Framers of the U. S. Constitution used for the inclusion of the “Natural Born Citizen” phrase. It nails what is meant by the “natural born citizen” phrase of Section 1, Article 2, of the U. S. Constitution.
It is amazing how perfectly, precisely, and explicitly what Emmerich de Vattel, wrote in paragraph 212, of book 1, chapter 19, of The Law of Nations entitled CITIZENS AND NATIONS, applies to the Obama FRAUD. Quite clearly and explicitly it defines why Obama, can NOT possibly be qualified to be the President of the United States. Obama MUST be disqualified from the office of President of the United States according to the U. S. Constitution Section 1 Article 2.
“The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. As the society can not exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights. The society is supposed to desire this, in consequence of what it owes to its own preservation; and it is presumed, as a matter of course, that each citizen, on entering into society, reserves to his children the right of becoming members of it. THE COUNTRY OF THE FATHERS IS THEREFORE THAT OF THE CHILDREN.”
The Founders wanted the President to be a Natural Born Citizen to ensure that the ONE person sitting at the top of the Executive branch had UNQUESTIONABLE, UNWAVERING loyalty to the United States, first and foremost.
At one point, the delegates writing the Constitution in 1787 considered THREE “presidents” in the Executive for “checks and balances.” They considered a “natural born citizen” clause for Senators as well. Debating those issues, they felt that a “natural born citizen” clause for Senators would limit the pool of possible candidates and could cause bad feelings with immigrants needed to “jump start” the newly-formed republic.
In the end, the Framers compromised that Senators be required to be US residents for 9 years, while striking the “natural born citizen” clause for the office.
The Framers also compromised on ONE Executive vs. THREE. But to ensure “checks and balances,” the Framers inserted in Art II, Sect. 1, Clause 5: “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...”
The natural born citizen clause was NOT an accident, nor was it an inane rule to be restrictive to immigrants, and it certainly isn’t just a “political” issue. Loyalty to the US is the reason the natural born citizen clause was inserted into the Constitution.
In the official copies of the THIRD U.S. Congress (1795) margin notes state “Former act repealed. 1790. ch. 3.” referencing the FIRST U.S. Congress (1790).
Document ONE: the actual text of the THIRD CONGRESS in 1795 states, “...children of citizens [plural, i.e. two parents] of the United States...shall be considered citizens of the United States; Provided That the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons, whose fathers have never been resident in the United States...” (THIRD CONGRESS Sess. II. Ch.21. 1795, Approved January 29, 1795, pp. 414-415. Document margin note: “How children shall obtain citizenship through their parents” Document margin note: “Former Act repealed 1790 ch.3.”) See Attachment A.
Document TWO: the actual text of the FIRST CONGRESS in 1790 states,
“...children of citizens (NB: plural, i.e. two parents) of the United States...shall be considered as natural born citizens of the United States; Provided That the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons, whose fathers have never been resident in the United States...” (FIRST CONGRESS Sess. II Ch.4 1790, Approved March 26, 1790, pp. 103-104. Document margin note: “Their children residing here, deemed citizens.” Document margin note: “Also, children of citizens born beyond sea, & c. Exceptions.”) See Attachment B.
Document THREE: the actual text of the Constitution from the Continental Congress and the Constitutional Convention, 1774-1789, and subsequent official printings, of the Constitution of the United States of American: Article II Section 1 Clause 5 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…” See Attachment C.
Rep. John Bingham of Ohio, considered the father of the Fourteenth Amendment, confirms that understanding and the construction the framers used in regards to birthright and jurisdiction while speaking on civil rights of citizens in the House on March 9, 1866:
” ... I find no fault with the introductory clause [S 61 Bill], which is simply declaratory of what is written in the Constitution, that every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents (plural, meaning two) not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen...”
Bingham is also quoted saying in the Spring of 1868 some serious warnings:
“May God forbid that the future historian shall record of this day’s proceedings, that by reason of the failure of the legislative power of the people to triumph over the usurpations of an apostate President, the fabric of American empire fell and perished from the earth!...I ask you to consider that we stand this day pleading for the violated majesty of the law, by the graves of half a million of martyred hero-patriots who made death beautiful by the sacrifice of themselves for their country, the Constitution and the laws, and who, by their sublime example, have taught us all to obey the law; that none are above the law...”
U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark’s (1898) importance is that it is the first case decided by the Supreme Court that attempts to explain the meaning of “natural born citizen” under Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 of the U.S. Constitution. Natural born citizen is similar to the meaning of what a natural born subject is under Common Law in England. That is one of the reasons why the framers specifically included a grandfather clause (natural born Citizen OR a Citizen of the United States, at the time of adoption of this Constitution). The founding fathers knew that in order to be president, they had to grandfather themselves in because they were British subjects. If they didn’t, they could not be President of the U.S. The holding in U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark states that Wong Kim Ark is a native born citizen. If you look at the fact of Wong Kim Ark being born in San Francisco, CA, of Chinese parents, that holding is correct.
In U. S. v Wong Kim Ark, the court thoroughly discussed “natural born citizen,” and in doing so, Justice Gray quoted directly from the holding in a prior Supreme Court case, Minor v. Happersett. The following passage is a quote from Minor as quoted by Justice Gray in Wong Kim Ark:
“’At common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country, of parents [plural] who were its citizens [plural], became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further, and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction, without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case, it is not necessary to solve these doubts. It is sufficient, for everything we have now to consider, that all children, born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction, are themselves citizens.’ Minor v. Happersett (1874) 21 Wall. 162, 166-168.”
Perkins v. Elg’s (1939) importance is that it actually gives examples of what a “natural born citizen” of the U.S. is; what a “citizen” of the U.S. is; and what a “native born citizen” of the U. S.
In this case, the U. S. Supreme Court found that a “natural born citizen” is a person who is born of two U.S. citizen parents AND born in the mainland of U.S.
Citizen:
On cross appeals, the Court of Appeals affirmed the decree, 69 App.D.C. 175, 99 F.2d 408. Certiorari was granted, December 5, 1938, 305 U.S. 591, 59 S.Ct. 245, 83 L.Ed. —. First.— On her birth in New York, the plaintiff became a citizen of the United States. Civil Rights Act of 1866:
Ms. Elg was found to be a “citizen” because she was born in the mainland USA (New York)
Native Born citizen:
This principle was clearly stated by Attorney General Edwards Pierrepont in his letter of advice to the Secretary of State Hamilton Fish, in Steinkauler’s Case, 1875, 15 Op.Atty.Gen. 15. The facts were these: One Steinkauler, a Prussian subject by birth, emigrated to the United States in 1848, was naturalized in 1854, and in the following year had a son who was born in St. Louis. Four years later Steinkauler returned to Germany taking this child and became domiciled at Weisbaden where they continuously resided. When the son reached the age of twenty years the German Government called upon him to report for military duty and his father then invoked the intervention of the American Legation on the ground that his son was a native citizen of the United States. To an inquiry by our Minister, the father declined to give an assurance that the son would return to this country within a reasonable time. On reviewing the pertinent points in the case, including the Naturalization Treaty of 1868 with North Germany, 15 Stat. 615, the Attorney General reached the following conclusion: ‘Young Steinkauler is a native-born American citizen.
Mr. Steinkauler was found to be a “native born citizen” because he was born in the mainland USA (St. Louis)
Natural Born Citizen:
U. S. Supreme Court’s Relevant Facts: Miss Elg was born in Brooklyn, New York, on October 2, 1907. Her parents, who were natives of Sweden, emigrated to the United States sometime prior to 1906 and her father was naturalized here in that year. In 1911, her mother took her to Sweden where she continued to reside until September 7, 1929. Her father went to Sweden in 1922 and has not since returned to the United States. In November, 1934, he made a statement before an American consul in Sweden that he had voluntarily expatriated himself for the reason that he did not desire to retain the status of an American citizen and wished to preserve his allegiance to Sweden. [Perkins v. Elg, 307 U.S. 325, 327 (1939).]
U. S. Supreme Court’s Holding: The court below, properly recognizing the existence of an actual controversy with the defendants (Aetna Life Ins. Co. v. Haworth, 300 U.S. 227, 57 S.Ct. 461, 81 L.Ed. 617, 108 A.L.R. 1000) declared Miss Elg ‘to be a natural born citizen of the United States’ (99 F.2d 414) and we think that the decree should include the Secretary of State as well as the other defendants. [Perkins v. Elg, 307 U.S. 325, 350 (1939).]
Rationale of the logic is as follows: The U. S. Supreme Court in 1939 held that Elg was a NATURAL BORN CITIZEN because she was born in Brooklyn, New York on October 2, 1907, her father was naturalized as a U.S. citizen in 1906 under the Naturalization Act of 1906, and her mother derived her US citizenship in 1907 under the Expatriation Act of 1907. The Expatriation Act of 1907 extended the logic linking a woman’s citizenship to her marital status and the status of her spouse.
Ms. Elg was found to be a “natural born citizen” because she was born in the mainland USA (New York) of TWO US citizen parents.
As the above chart clearly shows:
You can be a “citizen” under the following circumstances:
1. You were born of one citizen parent (Obama), or
2. You were born in the US mainland (anchor babies — DEL), or
3. You were naturalized (Schwarzenegger).
To be a “natural born citizen” you must be born in the US mainland of two US parents.
After the Naturalization Act of 1906 created the Naturalization Standards for U.S. Citizenship, Congress passed the Expatriation Act of 1907 to allow SPOUSES of naturalized U.S. citizens to be considered naturalized U.S. citizens as well.
Perkins v. Elg doesn’t explain that but that was THE LAW ENACTED at the time when Elg was born in New York. The Court’s job is to apply the relevant facts to the law. The law as discussed in U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark in 1898 was that in order to be a “natural born citizen,” you had to be born in the U.S. Mainland AND born to U.S. Citizens PARENTS (PLURAL NOT SINGULAR). The key here is BOTH PARENTS WERE U.S. CITIZENS at the time of Elg’s birth. The U.S. Supreme Court, in 1939, ruled that Elg was a “natural born citizen” using DEDUCTIVE REASONING to clarify why. The law is corroborated.
All you have to do is read the Expatriation Act of 1907 (federal statute) as proof. Remember, Elg was born prior to enactment of the U. S. Constitution’s Nineteenth Amendment, ratified on August 18, 1920, and a woman’s status was tied to that of her husband.
Who? Is there a single citation from one of the framers mentioning Vattel?
Wasn’t Alan Keyes on some of the ballots? If as a candidate he had status, why is his lawsuit being blown off?
Well, since his lawyers submitted a request for restraining further disclosure on—one of the grounds cited—that it would cause a harmful embarrassment to Obarry, we may conclude immediately that there is something quite embarrassing on the documents held in storage in HI. But that doesn’t explain why this lying klown affirmative action fraud has also sent out an army of lawyers and private detectives to seal ALL his past records. Does it make you wonder? What could be revealed in all these records, from BC to adoption papers, to enrollment registration for colleges that would be such an embarrassment but not contradiction to Constitutional eligibility? ... Barry is a Democrat; Barry has been proven to swear to a gross lie on his application to the IL Bar Assc., and Barry has lawyers now threatening people for suing to have him show proof he is Constitutionally eligible. WHY? What could possibly be in all those documents which would be such an embarrassment?
They should ALL be lined up against a wall and...
their pictures taken?! :)
Ah yes, my wimp congressman who is a doctor.
Probably a proctologist, since he sounds like an expert on assholes and where they come from (Hussein-the-alleged-Hawaiin).
"Never send a monkey to do a man's job."
~ Captain Leo Davidson
Yep, all we can say is Barry whoever he is was born.
Martinez is a member of the “POTP (Part of the Problem) Club”.
“...we are only allowed to choose our leaders from among those who choose themselves.”
For the Senate we are only allowed to choose candidates from the millionaires club. Time to return to the original plan by letting state legislatures select Senators - please!!!!
My response was different:
date Tue, Jan 6, 2009 at 11:46 AM
subject Response to your recent comments
mailed-by martinez.senate.gov
Thank you for contacting me regarding President-Elect Obama’s citizenship. I appreciate hearing from you and would like to respond to your concerns.
Like you, I believe that our federal government has the responsibility to make certain that the Constitution of the United States is not compromised. We must fight to uphold our Constitution through our courts and political processes.
Article II of the Constitution provides that “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.” The Constitution, however, does not specify how that qualification for office is to be enforced. As you may know, a voter recently raised this issue before a federal court in Pennsylvania. On October 24, 2008, the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania released an order in the case of Berg v.Obama.In that case, the plaintiff, Phillip Berg, raised the same issue that your letter raises regarding proof of the President-Elect’s birthplace. Through his lawsuit, Mr. Berg sought to compel President-Elect Obama to produce a certified copy of his birth certificate.
The District Court dismissed Mr. Berg’s suit and held that the question of Obama’s citizenship is not a matter for a court to decide. The court further noted that voters, not courts, should decide whether a particular presidential candidate is qualified to hold office.
Presidential candidates are vetted by voters at least twice - first in the primary elections and again in the general election. President-Elect Obama won the Democratic Party’s nomination after one of the most fiercely contested presidential primaries in American history. And, he has now been duly elected by the majority of voters in the United States. Throughout both the primary and general election, concerns about Mr. Obama’s birthplace were raised. The voters have made clear their view that Mr. Obama meets the qualifications to hold the office of President.
After he is sworn into office, Mr. Obama will be our nation’s President and I intend to bestow upon him the honor and respect due any man who holds that Office. Yet, I am certain that there will be times when I will disagree and oppose President Obama’s policies. When that happens, you can be assured that I will pursue vigorously what I believe to be in the best interest of Florida and the nation.
I thank you for sharing your views with me and will keep your concerns in mind. If you have additional questions or comments, please contact me. For more information about issues and activities important to Florida, please sign up for my weekly newsletter at http://martinez.senate.gov.
Sincerely,
Mel Martinez
United States Senator
The 17th Amendment was a continuation of the battle between the Federalists and the Anti-Federalists and an effort to further diminish the power of the states with respect to the federal government. While I agree that returning the power to the state legislatures is generally a good idea it won't necessarily give us a better senator, just one beholden to a different patronage system.
Exactly. People need to realize that there were good reasons at the time for passing the 17th--a string of bribery scandals and partisan deadlocks that left states without a senator for years at a time. By the time it was passed, 29 states had already amended their state constitutions to allow some form of direct vote for senator.
LOL Good one
Sec. 3. And be it further enacted, that the children of persons duly naturalized, dwelling in the United States, and being under the age of twenty-one years, at the time of such naturalization; and the children of citizens of the United States, born outside the limits and jurisdiction of the United States, shall be citizens of the United States: Provided, That the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons, whose fathers have never been resident in the United States
Yes... 50 of them, all with different interests and needs... much harder to lobby, IMHO.
If your state capitol isn't the corrupt, inept, Gerrymandered cesspool mine is you might be right, but I doubt it.
Perhaps so, and perhaps even worse, but not in the same way, and not by the very same "good ol' boys", as is the case in DC...
My point is that it is much harder to influence US senators who are beholden to state houses, which pay their own pipers, and will remember next election whether or not the senator performed accordingly, because their own graft and greed depend upon it.
Furthermore, it is much harder for any lobby to influence the senator, as to do so, the lobby must also influence the state houses that stand behind the senator, and to gain real influence, they must do that in multiple states. Suddenly that is not a single bribe to buy a vote, but many, many bribes. Lobbying becomes very costly indeed.
BHO bc 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.
