Replies

Could you please point me to the place in the Constitution that states that Hawaii Law determines who and who is not a US citizen?

The Framers must have had some great foresight and trust. Foresight to know that Hawaii would one day be a state and trust in the Hawaii State Legislature to define U.S. citizenship.

My mistake. The statute was federal, not Hawaii. See below, especially the part in bold, which would apply to Obama's mother (and Obama, himself) if he were not born in the US.

****************************
1952 The Immigration and Nationality Act of June 27, 1952, 66 Stat. 163, 235, 8 U.S. Code Section 1401 (b). (Section 301 of the Act).

"Section 301. (a) The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth:

"(1) a person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof;

"(7) a person born outside the geographical limits of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is an alien, and the other a citizen of the United States, who prior to the birth of such person, was physically present in the United States or its outlying possessions for a period or periods totaling not less than ten years, at least five of which were after attaining the age of fourteen years.

(b) Any person who is a national and citizen of the United States at birth under paragraph (7) of subsection (a), shall lose his nationality and citizenship unless he shall come to the United States prior to attaining the age of twenty-three years and shall immediately following any such coming be continuously physically present in the United State(s) for at least five years: Provided, That such physical presence follows the attainment of the age of fourteen years and precedes the age of twenty-eight years.

(c) Subsection (b) shall apply to a person born abroad subsequent to May 24, 1934: Provided, however, That nothing contained in this subsection shall be construed to alter or affect the citizenship of any person born abroad subsequent to May 24, 1934, who, prior to the effective date of this Act, has taken up a residence in the United States before attaining the age of sixteen years, and thereafter, whether before or after the effective date of this Act, complies or shall comply with the residence requirements for retention of citizenship specified in subsections (g) and (h) of section 201 of the Nationality Act of 1940, as amended."

State law actually did determine who was, or was not a citizen, naturalized or by birth, at the time the Constitution was ratified, and so State law comes into play, as far as any understanding of the term natural born citizen. In a Constitutional Republic, various States enter into a Confederation, and laws betweem them vary. Attempts to standardize or "federalize" citizenship law did not occur until after the Civil War.

The overarching Constitution between the Several States composing the Republic must accomodate all the Several States, as far as Federal elections, and so eligibility requirements would have to accomodate the various means of determining natural born citizenship. Some states granted this to those born within their geographic boundaries alone. Others required citizen parents. So, both for a President, in order to conform to the laws of all. Vattel covers this.

This is the reason that no law exists outside the Constitution itself, defining the term, because the definition of the term varied between the Several States, and the Several States made this determination themselves. Agreement between them as to the eligibility of a President required birth under both jus sanguinis and jus soli, citizen parents and born of the soil, in order to satisfy them all.

Could you please point me to the place in the Constitution that states that Hawaii Law determines who and who is not a US citizen?

First and foremost, Natural Born status is a constitutional test that was established when the Constitution was written. It required both parents to be Citizens (Naturalized is fine) and the individual to be Born in the US. (Except for persons who were simply Citizens on the date of the adoption of the Constitution. - Which BO doesn't qualify)

This test only has meaning for one person, the candidate for President being offered to the electoral college.

Starting with the 14th Amendment, the status of "Citizen" began to be defined leading to the current laws and regulations defining Citizenship but none of this really has that much bearing on the Natural Born Citizen status defined by the Constitution in Article 2, Section 1. In the case of Barack Obama, the birth certificate is only important in establishing that he actually is listed as a child of a non-citizen, because this would establish that indeed as is already agreed by all parties, Barack Obama was a British Citizen at birth as well because his father never was a citizen of the United States. The whole Birth Certificate issue is a distraction unless it shows someone else is his father, which it doesn't.

Many are arguing that Barack Obama is not a Citizen at all.. which would be more clearly disqualifying and there is significant evidence that this may indeed be the case, but all of this is ultimately moot because this debate must have been finished before the President was inaugurated, and it wasn't.

The reason to chase this down and all of Barack Obama's missing records is one of proving or disproving that BO has achieved his office by committing a fraud or frauds. This knowledge is the right of every citizen.