Skip to comments.Obama Signed Resolution Describing Him As Ineligible
Posted on 12/08/2009 6:22:12 PM PST by blueyon
This is an oldie, but it needs to be revisited, since the Obots still argue that Obama is eligible to serve as Commander-in-Chief.
On April 10, 2008, Sens. Patrick Leahy (D-VT) and Claire McCaskill (D-MO) introduced a resolution expressing the sense of the U.S. Senate that presidential candidate Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) was a 'natural born Citizen,' as specified in the Constitution and eligible to run for president. Sen. McCaskill knew Obama was not a U.S. Citizen, thats why she introduced this bill -- dressing it up to look like it was in Sen. John McCain's cause.
It was during the bill's hearing that Sen. Patrick Leahy, Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, made the following statement:
"Because he was born to American citizens, there is no doubt in my mind that Senator McCain is a natural born citizen," said Leahy. "I expect that this will be a unanimous resolution of the Senate."
At a Judiciary Committee hearing on April 3, Leahy asked Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff, himself a former Federal judge, if he had doubts that McCain was eligible to serve as President.
"My assumption and my understanding is that if you are born of American parents, you are naturally a natural-born American citizen," Chertoff replied.
"That is mine, too," said Leahy.
What's interesting here is that Sen. Leahy, the Chairman of the Senate Judiciary, confirms that a "natural born" citizen is the child of American citizen parents.
Parents -- that's two. That's BOTH parents.
Every time the words, "citizen" and "parent," are used by Sen. Leahy and Sec. Chertoff, the plural case, "citizens" and "parents," is used. The plural case is the operative case.
(Excerpt) Read more at theobamafile.com ...
Ahhh ... Nordyke twins. Here's an article, which links to images of the completed certificates.
Unveiled! Hawaii's 1961 long-form birth certificates - World Net Daily, Jul 28, 2009.
Not that I'm aware of. Every country makes its own rules regarding who it considers and doesn't consider to be a citizen.
I would disagree with the justice. There is no reason I can see why there cannot be more than one route by which one qualifies as a "natural born" citizen.
The problem is that there has never been a definitive ruling as to what is meant by the term. We can argue about it all day and drag in various quotes from Court decisions, regulatory rulings, etc. In the end, the actual meaning of the phrase is kind of a Schrodinger's Cat. Its meaning is indeterminate until the Supreme Court has ruled.
I'm not a fan of the "living Constitution" by any means, but when terms in the Constitution are ambiguous, as this one is, some body has to make a decision what it means.
U.S. law does not mention dual nationality or require a person to choose one citizenship or another. ...
The U.S. Government recognizes that dual nationality exists but does not encourage it as a matter of policy because of the problems it may cause. Claims of other countries on dual national U.S. citizens may conflict with U.S. law, and dual nationality may limit U.S. Government efforts to assist citizens abroad. The country where a dual national is located generally has a stronger claim to that person's allegiance.
However, dual nationals owe allegiance to both the United States and the foreign country. They are required to obey the laws of both countries. Either country has the right to enforce its laws, particularly if the person later travels there.
However, notice that owing allegiance to more than one country does not, according to Congress, interfere with constitutional eligibility to be president of the United States. Born on US soil (except to a foreign diplomat)? Eligible to be president, see Wong Kim Ark and 14th amendment.
In this case, he is describing the application of the rule advanced by the majority - citizenship attaches by location of birth. If the constitutional rule is "citizenship attaches by location of birth," then no amount of statute can overcome the rule.
As to citizenship, of course, naturalization is available. But if "natural born" attaches solely by location (and that is the only variable favorable to Wong Kim Ark), the children born abroad, of US citizen parents, are unqualified to the presidency; and children born in the US, regardless of the citizenship of their parents (excluding diplomats), are qualified.
-- The problem is that there has never been a definitive ruling as to what is meant by the term. [natural-born citizen] --
I agree, but there is a substantial number of people who find Wong Kim Ark to be determinative on the question, and again, my initial point was that Congress deliberately avoided asking and debating the question of how dual citizenship at birth plays against the constitutional requirement of "natural born citizen." By their actions, they have held that dual citizenship is not a barrier.
I think a majority of Congress would like to amend the constitution to admit naturalized citizens to eligibility, as well.
When it counted the electoral votes without raising the issue as a challenge, Congress decided that a dual citizen can also be a natural born citizen. No Court is going to touch the question. I doubt a majority of the public cares one way or the other.
I thought about that first, but would then think we would just overlook the race issue and concentrate on the latter!!!
Is there proof the marriage took place in HI? Or, did it take place in Kenya (or someplace else)?
If the marriage really did take place in HI, was it really a bigamous marriage...or was it a polygamous marriage? Was there a (legal) difference in 1960-61 (?) Hawaii?
Is there proof that Sr. was still married to a wife(s) in Kenya at the time of marriage to SADO? Or, is that an assumption?
Whatever "proof" there may exist that the marriage was in fact a bigamous one (and thus illegal) would have to be discovered in a court of law in order to make the court ordered divorce record...null and void.
So yeah, let's get that discovery going!
I think you have hit the nail on the head. Since the Constitution provides no specific mechanism for determining whether a candidate meets Constitutional requirement, it by default is left up to the voters, the Electoral College and Congress.
Each has the duty to determine if a candidate is qualified. If no objections are raised by these bodies, I’m not sure I want a court stepping in and overriding them.
If we’re all so concerned about this issue, why isn’t anyone, to my knowledge, working for a policy that would prevent a future situation of this type?
All it would take is one state requiring all candidates present appropriate documentation before going on the ballot.
Several states are proposing statutory protocol that includes a requirement to produce evidence (e.g., show the birth certificate), rather than assert "qualified," for parties that aim to place a candidate's name on the ballot. That wouldn't cure the defect that I believe occurred in the recent election, because Obama openly acknowledges that he was a dual citizen at birth.
Plus, the current "policy" aims to prevent unqualified people from being elected. What to do if/when the elected representatives fail to be faithful to the policy? In other words, the issue isn't one of absence of policy, it's absence of principle on the part of the actors.
Which one other than Chester Arthur, whose lack of a citizen father at the time of his birth was well hidden? At least his father *did* become a naturalized citizen about the time Chester was 14.
Actually as far as the US government is concerned, your brother is not only a citizen, but a Natural Born one. This is because your parents were serving the country, and had not taken up residence in Germany. The law is very explicit that anyone born to two US citizen parents is a US citizen, but Vattel's "Law of Nations" has an explicit exemption to the usual "Born in the county of citizen parents" requirement to be Natural Born, for children of citizens born outside a country but "in the armies of the country". It's the same situation as McCain, even if your brother was not born on a US installation.
8 USC 1401:
; (c) a person born outside of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents both of whom are citizens of the United States and one of whom has had a residence in the United States or one of its outlying possessions, prior to the birth of such person;
Law of Nations
§ 217. Children born in the armies of the state.
For the same reasons also, children born out of the country, in the armies of the state, or in the house of its minister at a foreign court, are reputed born in the country; for a citizen who is absent with his family, on the service of the state, but still dependent on it, and subject to its jurisdiction, cannot be considered as having quitted its territory.
The Germans may of course have other notions, but it is my understanding that in order to be a German Citizen, one must have German citizen parents, and that it's almost impossible to become a naturalized German citizen under most circumstances.
I appreciate the clarifications fellas, but be sure, I watched as my father, sitting in Ft. Eustis, filled out that waiver exempting my brother from being drafted into the German military.
Ask and you shall receive.
That's a '63 certificate, or more correctly a certified copy of a '63 certificate, obtained, IIRC in the 1990s.(the certification part has been cropped off) But the '61 certificate has all the same fields, and no addtioinal fields as you can see by this one, which is kind of hard to read: (It's the Nordic twin certificate, she was born the day after Obama allegedly was):
No, but there doesn't really need to be. It's up to each country to say who are it's nationals and citizens. Most countries recognize children of citizens/nationals born outside the country as citizens. The US does. But they may or may not be natural born. Applying the definitions of "Law of Nations", that child of French tourists would not be a Natural born French citizen, although she probably would be a French citizen at birth. That would indeed be the case if were an American couple vacationing in France. That is the child would be a US Citizen at birth, but not natural born. Now if one of the parents was serving at a US Consulate or the Embassy, then the child would be natural born.
As US citizens, yes. Native born even. But not natural born. But the only time that "Native born" verses "Natural born" matters is for eligibility to the office of President.
Those children are in the same position as Wong Kim Ark, born of alien parents in the United States. Wong was ruled to be a US citizen under the 14th amendment. But the question of his Natural born status was not at issue, and any discussion in either descent or majority opinions is mere dicta, not bearing on the case, and not having any value as precedent.
This can be seem by reading the following two paragraphs from the decision of the Court, the first shown is the 3rd paragraph of that decision, while the second shown is the last paragraph of the decision.
The question presented by the record is whether a child born in the United States, of parents of Chinese descent, who at the time of his birth are subjects of the emperor of China, but have a permanent domicile and residence in the United States, and are there carrying on business, and are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under the emperor of China, becomes at the time of his birth a citizen of the United States, by virtue of the first clause of the fourteenth amendment of the constitution: '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.'
The evident intention, and the necessary effect, of the submission of this case to the decision of the court upon the facts agreed by the parties, were to present for determination the single question, stated at the beginning of this opinion, namely, whether a child born in the United States, of parents of Chinese descent, who, at the time of his birth, are subjects of the emperor of China, but have a permanent domicile and residence in the United States, and are there carrying on business, and are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under the emperor of China, becomes at the time of his birth a citizen of the United States. For the reasons above stated, this court is of opinion that the question must be answered in the affirmative.
I think you are missing the point. What the Germans wanted to do, and what they considered your brother to be, is completely separate, absent some provision of the "status of forces" agreement, from what the US government considers him to be.
And just what did the Germans consider him to be? Certainly not a German citizen, since Germany has a large population of native born non-citizens, most of them of Turkish ancestry. I met one of them a year or two ago. A most fetching young wench, and apparently a very sharp engineer as well.
That waiver process was likely the US government intervening on behalf of one of it's citizens with the German government.
It would be very interesting to see who signed in fields 18a and 19a or BHO Jr.'s Certificate of Live Birth.
I had looked this up at one time, but have forgotten which one. I think it was one of the forgettable ones between Lincoln and TR.
If I remember correctly, his mom moved across the border from Canada when quite young. I couldn't find any information on naturalization proceedings, and I'm not sure there was much in the way of a formal process during most of the 19th century.
I do know that in the early part of the century a woman automatically took her husband's citizenship when she married, so it may not have been relevant anyway. I believe during the first part of the 19th only the father's status was considered when determining citizenship. As women acquired more rights as individuals over the course of the century this changed, but I'm vague on dates for specific changes.