Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

"Citizen" vs "Natural Born Citizen"
The American View ^ | 4/30/11 | Herb Titus

Posted on 05/21/2011 4:43:20 PM PDT by westcoastwillieg

EXCLUSIVE INTERVIEW: Dr. Herb Titus Says Most Important Question: Is Obama, Constitutionally Speaking, A “Natural Born” Citizen? Answer: No, He Is Not

(Excerpt) Read more at wn.com ...


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Government; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: birthcertificate; certifigate; citzen; naturalborn; obama
Only someone with the IQ of a clam would believe a birth certificate glommed from the web without verifying the source document.
1 posted on 05/21/2011 4:43:25 PM PDT by westcoastwillieg
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: westcoastwillieg
No.


(Just click on them for the source information.)





2 posted on 05/21/2011 4:45:17 PM PDT by Yosemitest (It's simple, fight or die.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: westcoastwillieg
Intelligent persons knows that King Obama is not qualified to be President since he is NOT, damn it once again NOT, a NATURAL BORN CITIZEN. ONE of his parents was and still is not a citizen.
3 posted on 05/21/2011 4:47:10 PM PDT by Logical me
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: westcoastwillieg

Are you talking about that old Constitution thing?
That old moldy document that got shredded and used for toilet paper?
Well, it has no relevancy anymore.
We make up our rules now on the fly as we go along.
We write legislation because it makes us “feel good.
We are a “progressive” society, now.


4 posted on 05/21/2011 4:49:56 PM PDT by Repeal The 17th (Proud to be a (small) monthly donor.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Logical me

Even the White House / DNC website admit it :

“The truth is, Barack Obama was born in the state of Hawaii in 1961, a NATIVE CITIZEN of the United States of America. “

http://www.fightthesmears.com/articles/5/birthcertificate


5 posted on 05/21/2011 4:50:06 PM PDT by Para-Ord.45
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: westcoastwillieg

Obama is openly defying the law and the Constitution and not one judge has the balls to declare him not a naturally born citizen.


6 posted on 05/21/2011 4:50:43 PM PDT by Blood of Tyrants (Islam is the religion of Satan and Mohammed was his minion.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: westcoastwillieg

The MSM has deliberately, with full conscious intent, worked to confuse this issue.

First they said everyone was “crazy” and “racist” because they wanted to see a birth certificate which Obama refused to produce.

Then they skewed the issue again by saying that the “right-wingers” do not believe Obama is a citizen while deliberately ignoring the ‘natural born’ element which is the central issue.

The American Media may as well be on Obama’s campaign staff. They work for him.


7 posted on 05/21/2011 4:53:41 PM PDT by 240B (he is doing everything he said he wouldn't and not doing what he said he would)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: westcoastwillieg
Zer0 likely lost his US citizenship while in Indonesia.

Grammar likely facilitated the scamming required to skate his way back to citizen status (SSNs and all).

8 posted on 05/21/2011 4:54:02 PM PDT by Paladin2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Blood of Tyrants

Impeach Him!


9 posted on 05/21/2011 5:07:38 PM PDT by MichiganCheese (Racist Honkies For Herman Cain!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: All; LucyT

Wow, 9 posts and no trolls......must be a record.


10 posted on 05/21/2011 5:17:58 PM PDT by Las Vegas Ron (Woah, Obama will appease Trump, but not Lakin? Thanks LSM)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: westcoastwillieg
The Constitution requires that the President of the United States must be a natural born citizen: Article II, section 1, pa. 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; 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."

If "natural born citizen" is a synonym for "citizen," then there is no reason for adding the exception "or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution." None at all. Being a citizen is not sufficient, unless you happened to be alive when the Constitution was adopted.

So what, then, is a "natural born citizen"? To answer that question definitively will require a full examination of the concepts and history of citizenship.

Types Of Citizenship: Jus Soli, Jus Sanguinis, Natural Born, Native Born, Naturalized

Jus soli citizenship: "Jus soli" is a Latin phrase meaning "law of the soil." Jus soli citizenship is any citizenship that inheres in a person based on the location of his or her birth.

Jus sanguinis citizenship: "Jus sanguinis" is a Latin phrase meaning "law of the blood." Jus sanguinis citizenship is any citizenship that inheres in a person based on his or her ancestry.

Native born citizenship: A native born citizen is one whose citizenship derives from the facts of his birth, and who becomes a citizen at the moment of birth. In both US and British law, those born within the sovereign territory of the country or born to parents who are citizens (subjects) of the country when the person is born are native citizens (subjects.) Native born persons are said to have "birthright citizenship." Note that one can be "native born" either by the "jus soli" principle or by the "jus sanguinis" principle.

Naturalized citizenship: A naturalized citizen is one whose citizenship is granted by statute or by the decision or act of a sovereign.

Natural born citizenship: A natural born citizen is one whose citizenship is beyond dispute, not synthetic, not subject to conflicting claims, not granted by statute or by any act of a sovereign, but inheres naturally in the person according to principles that don't depend on laws or decisions of a sovereign. [The rest of this essay will fully justify this definition]

The 14th Amendment created an implicit distinction among 14th Amendment native-born citizens, and statutory native-born citizens. A 14th Amendment native-born citizen is any person who (a) was born in the United States, and (b) was subject to U.S. jurisdiction at the time of his or her birth. In contrast, a statutory native-born citizen is a person who does not qualify for birthright citizenship under the 14th Amendment, but receives U.S. citizenship, at birth, by laws enacted by Congress. For example, foreign-born children of American parents do not receive citizenship from the 14th Amendment; such children acquire U.S. citizenship, at birth, by statute.

So those born outside the United States to parents who are US citizens at the time of the person's birth are both native citizens and also naturalized citizens, since their citizenship is a) granted to them by an Act of Congress (based on Congress' Constitutional authority "To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization,") and b) effective from the instant of their birth, based on the fact that the person's parents were US citizens at that moment.

Similarly, it is necessary to distinguish between Constitutional and statutory natural born citizens:

These distinctions are not my invention. The U.S. Department of State Foreign Affairs Manual—7 FAM 1130 (page 9) says:

...the fact that someone is a natural born citizen pursuant to a statute does not necessarily imply that he or she is such a citizen for Constitutional purposes

If we were to define "natural born citizen" to mean anyone who is a "citizen at birth", our definition of "natural born citizen" would be statutory because it would depend on the statute or law which defines "citizen at birth". Under existing law, all children born in the United States (except the children of foreign diplomats) are "citizens at birth". Therefore, under existing law, almost all children born in the U.S.—including children of illegal immigrants—could be regarded as statutory natural born citizens.

H.R.1940, also known as the Birthright Citizenship Act of 2007, would change the existing law so that it would no longer grant "citizenship at birth" to children of illegal immigrants. If Congress were to pass H.R.1940, it would alter the meaning of "citizen at birth", and therefore would alter our statutory definition of natural born citizen. If H.R.1940 were enacted, the U.S.-born children of illegal immigrants could no longer be regarded as statutory natural born citizens.

Is "Natural Born Citizen" Equivalent To "Natural Born Subject" As Defined By English Common Law?

The argument is made that "natural born citizen" means the same thing that "natural born subject" means in English common law, except for the differences in meaning between a subject and a citizen. That idea is false. The full proof of that assertion is presented below, in the section entitled "The Semantics Of Natural Born Subject In English Common Law." The short version (executive summary) is as follows:

The English common law did not distinguish between a "natural born subject" and a naturalized subject. Under English common law, once a person became naturalized, he or she was deemed to be a "natural born subject." Hence, under English common law a naturalized citizen was considered a "natural born subject."

Therefore, giving the "natural born Citizen" clause the same meaning as a "natural born subject" would have allowed a naturalized citizen to be eligible to be President of the United States. But Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 mandates that only a "natural born Citizen" is eligible to be President. The clause is written as "No person except . . . shall be eligible . . ." which means that one must be a "natural born Citizen" in order to be eligible to be President, with no exceptions other than for those who were citizens when the Constitution was adopted.

The way we in the US have interpreted the "natural born Citizen" clause since the beginning of the Republic, a naturalized citizen is not eligible to be President. But assuming the "natural born Citizen" clause had the same meaning as a "natural born subject," with the Constitution as written it would not have conveyed in any manner that a naturalized citizen was not eligible to be President. No where do we find in the Constitution any statement that a naturalized citizen is not eligible to be President. To reach this conclusion, we have always relied upon the "natural born Citizen" clause itself which we have compared with the fact that the Framers prescribed in Article I that naturalized citizens were eligible to be Senators ("nine Years a Citizen of the United States") and Representatives (seven Years a Citizen of the United States") . The manner in which the Framers provided that Senators and Representatives needed to be "Citizen of the United States" for only a certain amount of years shows that the naturalized citizen class was included within "Citizens of the United States" and not within "natural born Citizens." This shows that naturalized citizens were not part of "natural born Citizens."

So equating the meaning of a "natural born Citizen" to a "natural born subject" would have allowed naturalized persons to be President, a result that we have rejected from the beginning of the Constitutional Republic. Such a meaning would have created an exception to the "natural born Citizen" clause which would have eviscerated the clause itself. Additionally, since Congress has the power under Article I, Section 8, Clause 4 to make uniform the naturalization laws, such a meaning would have given Congress the power to decide who could be President by simply changing the naturalization requirements. The Framers, fearing that Congress would allow foreign influence to creep into the office of President if it were given the power to select the President, did not give Congress such power.

But the argument is also made that "natural born citizen" differs from "natural born subject" in two ways, not just one: 1) The difference in meaning between a subject and a citizen, and 2) "natural born citizen," unlike "natural born subject," excludes naturalized citizens. But this thesis also is easily falsified:

Firstly, as soon as a second difference is posited, the entire rationale for the argument collapses utterly. That rationale is based on the premise that US citizenship law derives directly from English common law regarding who is or is not a British subject. But if "natural born citizen" differs in meaning from "natural born subject" in any way other than is required by the fact that the US has citizens and Britain has subjects, that invalidates the only premise and justification for defining the US term based on the definition of the British term. It breaks the symmetry, and sets the precedent that the meaning can differ in other ways as well. In other words, if the meaning of the two terms differ in at least one respect other than the difference between subject and citizen, what prevents them from being different in yet a third way? Or a fourth? And so on, ad infinitum.

Secondly, the historical facts are clear and undeniable, and are strongly supported by Supreme Court rulings: English common law was the basis for the common law of the original British colonies, and then of the original States of the Union, but was not the basis for the common law of the United States Federal government.

The framers rejected the notion that the United States was under English Common Law, “The common law of England is not the common law of these States.” —George Mason one of Virginia’s delegates to the Constitutional Convention.

One reason such is the case is because the US was founded as a Constitutional Republic, not as a monarchy. The founding principles were different, and in fact were an explicit rejection of key foundational principles of English law and English government. Another issue was simply that each colony was founded at a different time, adopted English common law as its own at the moment of its founding, but then evolved its own common law going forward, independently of Great Britain and the other colonies. So there was no common "common law" among the founding States!

Finally, words and terms of art have the meanings they do because of their utility in the culture and society that uses them. New words and phrases are created with particular meanings, and existing words and phrases are given new meanings, because those new meaning serve the purposes of those who use them, and old meanings no longer do. So that raises the question of the purpose or intent of the purely American term "natural born citizen," especially in the context of the new Constitutional Republic being created by those at the Constitutional Convention.

Original Intent

In Alexander Hamilton's first draft of the U.S. Constitution, a person had to be "born a citizen" of the United States in order to be eligible to serve as president. However, in July 1787, John Jay wrote a letter to George Washington, recommending that the presidential eligibility requirement be changed from "born a citizen" to "natural born citizen". The stated purpose of the change was to exclude "foreigners" from the presidency:

“Permit me to hint whether it would not 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 command in chief of the American army shall not be given to, nor devolve on any but a natural born citizen.”

From this information alone, we may infer that:

The wording change from "born a citizen" to "natural born citizen" doesn't make any sense—it would not have excluded anyone not already excluded by the "born a citizen" requirement—unless the term "natural born" is understood as more restrictive than "native born." To fully eliminate the possibility of someone who could possibly be classified as a foreigner becoming President, the meaning of "natural born citizen" would have to include only persons who, from birth, owed allegiance to the United States exclusively and did not acquire, since birth, any foreign allegiance or nationality.

The change from "born a citizen" to "natural born citizen" would not have provided any additional protection against foreign influence in the presidency—that is, Jay's wording change could not have barred from the presidency anyone who was not already barred by the "born a citizen" requirement—unless the term "natural born citizen" meant a person who was not a "foreigner" (a citizen or a subject of any foreign country) since birth.

John Jay's letter to Washington establishes the fact that the Framers were worried about the undivided loyalty of the President, and thought that the requirement that he be a "natural born citizen" would be sufficient to prevent anyone with foreign allegiance (anyone who could be claimed as a subject or citizen of a foreign sovereign) from serving as President. But how could that be, if "natural born citizen" differs from "natural born subject" solely in the difference between a subject and a citizen? A British "natural born subject" could have multiple nationalities, and owe allegiance to multiple sovereigns. And many nations claim anyone with at least one parent (sometimes it must be the father, sometimes it must be the mother, sometimes both) who is a citizen or subject of that nation as a citizen/subject also.

In view of all the above facts and reasoning, it is beyond any possibility of dispute that the only way the "natural born citizen" requirement can prevent a person from having allegiance to a foreign sovereign is if its meaning is the same as the one de Vattel defined and labeled "les naturals, ou indigenes," and which a professional translator translated into English as "natural born citizen" just a few short years after the "natural born citizen" requirement was written and ratified in the new US Constitution. Literally and normatively, the words "les naturals, ou indigenes" mean "the natural ones, the natives." So why did the translator render them into English as "natural born citizen," unless it was his expert opinion that the meaning of "natural born citizen" in the Constitution matched the meaning of the concept defined by de Vattel, where de Vattel specifies the purest form of citizenship as requiring both jus soli ("law of the soil") citizenship and jus sanguinis ("law of the blood") citizenship—with BOTH parents being citizens?

Clearly, if both your parents are citizens (or subjects) of the same sovereign, and you were born in that same sovereign's territory, then and only then is it impossible for any foreign sovereign to have a claim to your allegiance under the law of nations as commonly understood. John Jay's request to Washington makes no sense otherwise. If that reasoning is sound, then "natural born citizen" must have been intended to have the same meaning as de Vattel defined for his term-of-art phrases "les naturels, ou indigenes."

Consider again Article II, section 1, pa. 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; 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." That limits who may be President to persons who meet the following requirements:

Why did the Constitutional Convention include that last exception, allowing those who were citizens at the time the Constitution was adopted to be President?

Before answering that question, consider the case of Congressman Smith. He was born in South Carolina before the American Revolution. At the time of the Revolution, he was not yet an adult. His parents were British loyalists, and fought against the Revolution. But after the Revolution and the adoption of the Constitution in 1787, he was elected to Congress. But his right to be seated was challenged on the basis that he was not a citizen, due to the actions of his parents.

James Madison himself spoke in defense of the fact that Mr. Smith was a citizen. The reasoning he used is decisive with respect to understanding the reason for the exception in the Constitution to the "natural born citizen" requirement.

Madison essentially argued that Mr. Smith was a citizen because of where he was born, and because he was a minor when his parents sided with the British loyalists against the American Revolutionaries. He focused on that point, because he obviously felt that any adults who sided with the British loyalists would not qualify as citizens, regardless of where they were born (he explains the reason for that.) Bear in mind that the Constitution allows naturalized citizens to serve in Congress, there is no requirement that one have "birthright citizenship" (whose normative definition means either "jus soli" OR "jus sanguinis" citzenship (OR, not AND.)) But Madison nevertheless argued that Mr. Smith was a citizen from birth, by reason of his place of birth alone, and explicitly not due to his parentage, because (as Madison argues) his parents never were US citizens at all.

Madison's argument prevailed, and Mr. Smith was seated as a Congressman. The Congress accepted Madison's argument that Mr. Smith had birthright citizenship solely due to the location of his birth in South Carolina—when South Carolina was a British Colony, and not yet a State of the United States. By that same logic, most residents of the US at the time the Constitution was adopted were native citizens of the US by their place of birth alone.

Note that, according to Madison's argument, those who were citizens of any State became citizens of the US instantly, automatically and by operation of natural law and the law of nations the moment two events occurred: 1) The society in which they were citizens came under the sovereignty of the United States, and 2) they were adults who accepted, and did not reject, allegiance to the United States. However, their status as US citizens began only at that moment, and not before. Therefore, most people who were alive when the Constitution was adopted would have had parents who were not US citizens when they were born. That point is crucial, and decisive.

So, based on Madison's argument (which Congress accepted,) if "natural born citizen" means simply "native born," or means essentially the same as "natural born subject" (differing only to the extent that a citizen differs from a subject, and also excluding those whose citizenship was acquired by naturalization) then any citizen of the US at the time the Constitution was adopted would satisfy the "natural born citizen" requirement, so there would be no need for the exception, and its inclusion in the Constitution makes no sense. No sense at all.

But if "natural born citizen" means "born on US soil, with parents who were US citizens when their child was born," then it would in fact be true that no one alive at the time could have satisfied the "natural born citizen" requirement, in which case there is a good reason for the exception.

So the evidence is clear, compelling and irrefutable: The reason the Constitutional Convention required that the President (and later, by Amendment, the Vice President) be a "natural born citizen" is that they were concerned that the person who would be head of State, chief executive and Commander-In-Chief of the US armed forces have absolutely no conflicts of interest, legal obligations or loyalties to any foreign sovereigns or foreign powers.

Some nations claim you as their citizen or subject based on where your were born, some based on who you your parents were (father and/or mother,) and some based on both together. By requiring that the President be born at a location where the US is sovereign, any foreign claim on the President to allegiance based on his place of birth is precluded. By requiring that the President be born to parents who are solely US citizens, any foreign claim on the President to allegiance based on his parentage is precluded.

You may disagree with the goal of the Constitutional Convention, and/or with the means they chose to achieve it. But it's not a technicality, not an anachronism no longer relevant in modern times, nor is it racist. Especially in modern times, it enables persons of any race or ethnic heritage to become President. And it's what the Constitution requires. And if one faction gets to disregard the Constitution because they disagree, then that sets a precedent where all other factions can do the same. And get away with it. Is that really what you want?


The Semantics Of Natural Born Subject In English Common Law

During the 17th and 18th centuries, the term "natural born" had a general meaning and a specific meaning (see below for substantiation.) In the general sense, all English subjects (except denizens) -- including foreign-born and naturalized subjects -- were called "natural-born," regardless of how or when they acquired their English subjecthood. Nearly all children born on English soil, including children of alien parents, were natural-born in the general sense. However, in the specific sense, "natural born" referred only to persons who were born within the sovereign's territory, of parents who were under the sovereign's actual obedience or allegiance (see below for substantiation). Such persons, at birth, owed natural allegiance to the English king exclusively, and did not (at birth) owe allegiance to any other sovereign.

The modern-day mainstream consensus is that "natural born" should be understood according to its general sense, which means that anyone born on U.S. soil is a natural born citizen. However, multiple historical sources (and the arguments and evidence I have already made and presented above) comprehensively and irrefutably indicate that, when the Constitution was written, "natural born," as used in "natural born citizen," was understood according to its specific sense, not its general sense.

What was an 18th-century English "subject"?

During the 18th century, the population of England and its colonies was divided into three categories: foreigners, aliens, and subjects. The difference among them was their allegiance. Subjects owed permanent allegiance to the English king; aliens owed temporary (local) allegiance; and foreigners did not owe any allegiance.

Allegiance—sometimes called ligeance and, at other times, also called obedience—was faith, loyalty and service that someone owed to the king, in return for the king's governance and protection.

Subjects and aliens were collectively referred to as the people of England. The people did not include foreigners.

Prior to the American Revolution, the words subject and citizen had separate and distinct meanings. The two were not synonymous. In 18th-century England and its colonies, some—but not all—English subjects were also English citizens.

Every English subject was either a denizen or a natural-born subject.

Subjects had property rights; aliens and foreigners did not. Subjects could acquire and hold real (non-movable) property such as land, and bequeath it to their heirs. Aliens and foreigners were not permitted to possess English real estate, other than a house or apartment for their own personal habitation.

Foreigners: Foreigners were foreign citizens or subjects who had no intention of making England their "home". They were living in England, but had no intention of becoming a part of English society. Foreigners included members of foreign-controlled religious orders, ambassadors from foreign countries, members of foreign royalty, and foreign merchants visiting English territory solely for trade or business. (Berry). Foreigners did not owe allegiance to the English king, and were not under his protection. Nevertheless, the king provided safe conduct for most foreigners.

Aliens: An alien was a foreign citizen or subject who had established residence, or domicile, on English soil (Berry). While living within the king's realm, alien friends owed temporary ("local") allegiance to the king and were under the king's protection. When an alien friend departed from English territory, her or his allegiance to the king automatically terminated. Alien enemies were citizens or subjects of a foreign country that was hostile towards England. They, like foreigners, did not owe any allegiance to the king and were not under the king's protection.

Denizens: During the early 1600s, the word "denizen" had a broad and general meaning. It referred to anyone who became an English subject by artificial means, such as a public or private act of Parliament, letters patent issued by the king, or military conquest:

[The] denization of an alien may be effected three manner of wayes: by Parliament, as it was in 3 Hen. 6. 55. in Dower; by letters patents, as the usual manner is; and by conquest, as if the King and his subjects should conquer another Kingdome or dominion ... (Coke(1608), p.178)

By the time the U.S. Constitution was written in 1787, the word "denizen" had acquired a more narrow and specific meaning. It referred only to persons who became English subjects by acts of the king (letters patent or military conquest). Persons who became subjects by parliamentary statute or naturalization were no longer called "denizens"; instead, they were called "natural born subjects."

Natural-Born Subjects: A natural-born subject was anyone who acquired subjecthood either by birth or by act of Parliament. When the U.S. Constitution was being written, all English subjects—except persons who were made denizens by the king—were called natural-born subjects. Actual natural-born subjects were subjects by "nature and birthright". They were born on English soil, to parents who were under the king's "actual obedience". All other natural-born subjects were naturalized; they acquired English subjecthood by a public or private act of Parliament; they were deemed to be natural-born subjects by law but were not natural-born subjects in fact.

This is authoritatively established by Francis Bacon (Case of the Post-Nati of Scotland, 1608. Also, James Spedding, Works of Francis Bacon, Volume XV.) In Bacon's view, there were four categories or "degrees" of persons: 1) alien enemies, 2) alien friends, 3) denizens, and 4) natural-born subjects. Persons became natural-born subjects either by birth or by acts of Parliament, but not by denization (first 3 definitions omitted as not relevant):

The fourth and last degree is a natural born subject, which is evermore by birth, or by act of parliament; and he is complete and entire.

So, just as we in the US have found it necessary to distinguish between Constitutional "natural born citizens" and statutory "natural born citizens", the Brithish found it necessary to distinguish between by birth or actual "natural born subjects" and statutory (by act of Parliament) "natural born subjects."

Ways of becoming a subject: A person became an English subject either naturally (by natural law) or artificially (by human action or man-made law). Persons who were subjects by natural law were called subjects born. Persons who received subjectood artificially (from Parliament or the king) were called subjects made.

Every subject is either natus, born, or datus, given or made (Coke (1608), p.206)

Except in special cases, a child was a subject born (a subject by natural law) if it met two requirements at the time of its birth: a birthplace requirement (the child had to be born within the king's realm), and a parental obedience requirement (the child's parents had to be under the "actual obedience" of the king):

There be regularly (unless it be in special cases) three incidents to a subject born. 1. That the parents be under the actual obedience of the King. 2. That the place of his birth be within the King's dominion. And, 3. The time of his birth is chiefly to be considered; for he cannot be a subject born of one kingdom that was born under the ligeance of a King of another kingdom, albeit afterwards one kingdom descend to the King of the other. (Coke (1608), p.208)

Statute: Parliament may enact laws which automatically naturalize certain children at birth. Such laws were sometimes called public acts of Parliament. By the time William Blackstone (1723-1780) wrote his Commentaries (1765-1769), Parliament had enacted laws which conferred subjecthood, at birth, to foreign-born children of English fathers:

...all children, born out of the king's ligeance [territory], 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. (Blackstone)

A law, enacted in 1604, declared English-born children of alien parents to be "denizens" (in the general sense):

To place the Children, born within this Realm, of foreign Parents, in Degree for the first Birth or Descent only, as Aliens made Denizens, and not otherwise. (House of Commons Journal, Volume 1, 21 April 1604)

Foreign-born children of English fathers, and English-born children of alien parents, were naturalized at birth, by English law:

Furthermore as the law of England must favor naturalization as a branch of the law of nature, so it appears manifestly, that it doth favour it accordingly. For it is not much to make a subject naturalized by the law of England: it should suffice, either place or parents. If he be born in England it is no matter though his parents be Spaniards, or what you will: on the other side, if he be born of English parents it skilleth not though he be born in Spain, or in any other place of the world. In such sort doth the law of England open her lap to receive in people to be naturalized; which indeed sheweth the wisdom and excellent composition of our law ... (Bacon, Francis, pp.664-665)

Naturalization: An alien adult could become an English subject through a legal process called "naturalization," also called a private act of Parliament. Person who were naturalized in this manner acquired the same rights as subjects born, but could not hold public office. Subjecthood by naturalization was available only to Christians who took the Oath of Supremacy and Oath of Allegiance (see English Oaths, 1642). Naturalization had a retroactive effect. When someone became a naturalized subject, all of his children received property and inheritance rights, even if they were born prior to the act of naturalization:

Naturalization cannot be performed but by act of parliament: for by this an alien is put in exactly the same state as if he had been born in the king's ligeance; except only that he is incapable, as well as a denizen, of being a member of the privy council, or parliament, &c. No bill for naturalization can be received in either house of parliament, without such disabling clause in it. Neither can any person be naturalized or restored in blood, unless he hath received the sacrament of the Lord's supper within one month before the bringing in of the bill; and unless he also takes the oaths of allegiance and supremacy in the presence of the parliament. (Blackstone)

Aliens could earn naturalization by (a) serving two years on an English warship during time of war, (b) serving three years on an English whaling vessel, (c) residing seven years on an English-run plantation, or (b) serving two years in America (Cunningham, Law Dictionary, Volume 2, 1771, section titled "naturalization").

Denization by the King: The king had the authority to issue letters patent to aliens, thereby transforming them into denizens (in the specific sense). The rights of denizens were limited by the terms and conditions of the letters patent, which varied from person to person. Denization was not retroactive. It did not confer any rights to children which were born prior to their fathers' denization:

A denizen is an alien born, but who has obtained ex donatione regis letters patent to make him an English subject: a high and incommunicable branch of the royal prerogative. A denizen is in a kind of middle state between an alien, and natural-born subject, and partakes of both of them. He may take lands by purchase or devise, which an alien may not; but cannot take by inheritance: for his parent, through whom he must claim, being an alien had no inheritable blood, and therefore could convey none to the son. And, upon a like defect of hereditary blood, the issue [children] of a denizen, born before denization, cannot inherit to him; but his issue [children] born after, may. A denizen is not excused from paying the alien's duty, and some other mercantile burdens. And no denizen can be of the privy council, or either house of parliament, or have any office of trust, civil or military, or be capable of any grant from the crown. (Blackstone)

Summary: The population of England and its colonies was divided into three categories: foreigners, aliens and subjects. Subjects owed permanent allegiance to the king; aliens owed temporary (local) allegiance to the king; and foreigners did not owe any allegiance to the king.

There were two kinds of English subjects: subjects born and subjects made.

Subjects born were subjects "by nature and birthright". They were actual natural-born subjects. They were born on English soil, to parents who were under the "actual obedience" of the king.

Subjects made acquired subjecthood either from Parliament or from the king. Those who acquired subjecthood from the king were called denizens. Those who acquired subjecthood from public or private acts of Parliament were naturalized (as opposed to actual) natural-born subjects.

A public act of Parliament was a statute which granted subjecthood automatically to anyone who met certain criteria. Public acts included laws which conferred subjecthood, at birth, to foreign-born children of English fathers and to English-born children of alien parents.

A private act of Parliament, also called "naturalization," was a legal process which conferred subjecthood to a specific individual or group.

All English subjects, except persons made denizens by the king, were called "natural-born subjects". However, only subjects born were actual natural-born subjects. All other natural-born subjects were naturalized; they were deemed natural-born by law but were not so in fact.

All English subjects had property rights. They could acquire and possess English real estate and bequeath it to their heirs. Aliens and foreigners could own movable property, but could not hold unmovable property except a house or apartment for their own personal habitation.

Conclusion

From the above, it should be emphatically evident that the term of art in British law "natural born subject" has a very complex set of meanings that are very specific to the needs and realities of British culture and society. It's ostensive meaning in specific usages was dependent on context.

If "natural born citzen" is totally analogous to "natural born subject" other than for the difference between a subject and a citizen, then its meaning includes both subject born and subject made. In which case, the Constitutional grant of power to Congress to define uniform rules of naturalization would give them the power to make even naturalized citizens eligible to be President, in contradiction to the universal understanding of Article II, section 1, pa. 5 from the 1787 up to the present. Exactly as I argued above. So that cannot be the intended meaning.

However, if "natural born citizen" means a subject born, then that meaning matches exactly with the definition of "les naturels, ou indigenes" as defined by de Vattel.

11 posted on 05/21/2011 5:44:43 PM PDT by sourcery (If true=false, then there would be no constraints on what is possible. Hence, the world exists.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Blood of Tyrants

It could be lack of balls or it could be that not a single judge agrees with you.


12 posted on 05/21/2011 6:09:58 PM PDT by Natufian (t)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Yosemitest

Dr. Odongo delivered Obongo.


13 posted on 05/21/2011 6:16:30 PM PDT by screaminsunshine (Shut up and eat your Beans!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: sourcery

Bookmarking for later study...


14 posted on 05/21/2011 6:17:44 PM PDT by Palladin (Sarah Palin in 2012!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: sourcery

Why did the Constitutional Convention include that last exception, allowing those who were citizens at the time the Constitution was adopted to be President?

The simple answer, there would be nobody eligible to be President until 1824.


15 posted on 05/21/2011 6:18:33 PM PDT by gusty
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: westcoastwillieg

Buzzzzzzt! Clang-clang-clang! You have NO standing. We were all handed an excrement sandwich in the Fall of 2008 and now we’re all forced to eat it, while the Soetoros eat Wagyu beef and arugala at the White Crib. NBC is not a concept found in the “charter of negative liberties” in some people’s minds. I Hope we Change.


16 posted on 05/21/2011 6:20:38 PM PDT by SERKIT ("Blazing Saddles" explains it all......)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Blood of Tyrants
Obama is openly defying the law and the Constitution and not one judge has the balls to declare him not a naturally born citizen.

Well they would if only someone with standing brought it to court. </sarcasm>

17 posted on 05/21/2011 6:22:20 PM PDT by itsahoot (We make jokes, they make progress. Dimmitude, get used to it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Yosemitest

Source?


18 posted on 05/21/2011 6:37:18 PM PDT by maine-iac7 (watch the other hand)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Paladin2
Zer0 likely lost his US citizenship while in Indonesia.

If Obozo's father was Barack H. Obama, Sr. and Obozo was born outside the U.S. (as I believe he was, possibly Canada), He never was a citizen, much less a "natural born" citizen as the Constitution requires. His mother was too young to transfer citizenship to her son, assuming a foreign birth.

The only way Obozo could be a "natural born" citizen is if someone other than BHO, Sr. was his father. That is possible. (FMD?) Barry the Bastard has no papers. His recent release is a forgery.

19 posted on 05/21/2011 7:05:08 PM PDT by Texas Fossil (Government, even in its best state is but a necessary evil; in its worst state an intolerable one)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Natufian

Pretty sure it’s the latter.


20 posted on 05/21/2011 8:26:02 PM PDT by sand lake bar (Adventure Time with Finn and Jake!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Texas Fossil

If Obama was born in Hawaii, he’s a citizen, period. And the constraints on the age of his mother apply only to persons born outside the US. For those born in the US, there are no statutory age or time constraints regarding citizenship, so anyone born in the US where either parent is a US citizen has jus sanguinis citizenship, based both on the law of nations and on Congressional statute.


21 posted on 05/21/2011 8:47:54 PM PDT by sourcery (If true=false, then there would be no constraints on what is possible. Hence, the world exists.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: sourcery
If Obama was born in Hawaii, he’s a citizen

Stated Correctly. BUT, he was not born in HI.

If it were that simple he would have long ago produced proof. There is none, except what was "conjured". Probably from a late filing for a COLB made by grandma, which was never approved by the Dept of Health. No proof of where he was born.

If he was born outside the U.S. to the stated parents he would not be a U.S. Citizen at all. The Immigration Act of 1952 was the applicable law at the time of his birth. I can quote you the exact statute if you like.

And, the Constitution (not statues) state that a candidate for President MUST be a "natural born" U.S. Citizen. Which is not the same as a "native born" or simply a citizen. A "natural born" U.S. Citizen is born in the U.S. to parents (plural) who are citizens. Obozo's stated father was never a citizen, so he cannot be a "natural born" U.S. Citizen. The only way Obozo could be a "natural born" U.S. Citizen is if someone other than BHO, Sr. was his father. That is a possibility...

22 posted on 05/21/2011 9:14:36 PM PDT by Texas Fossil (Government, even in its best state is but a necessary evil; in its worst state an intolerable one)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Texas Fossil

Yes, I know all that.

As of now, it would be easier to win the natural born citizen argument based on the fact his father was not a citizen than it would be to challenge Obama’s claimed place of birth. That could change, but I don’t think it’s likely.

And the courts will do everything in their power to avoid a “Constitutional Crisis,” or subject themselves to a charge of deciding the outcome of elections.

And getting the SCOTUS to evict Obama could well be a Pyrrhic vicory, because it would make him a martyr. It could easily ensure that only Democrats can get elected President for at least a generation. I really wish that weren’t so, but that’s how I see it.

The best outcome I can see is that Obama loses in 2012, and the SCOTUS rules afterwards that he never was President because he wasn’t a natural born citizen (for whatever reason.)


23 posted on 05/21/2011 9:52:05 PM PDT by sourcery (If true=false, then there would be no constraints on what is possible. Hence, the world exists.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: sourcery
Yes, I understand. But the last time I looked this is still the United States and this is still Texas where I live. We “had” a government of laws not people. We the People will not set silently as that is destroyed.

This sell out will not stand. The Commies totally control the Dem Party. The Left and their Muzzie allies intend to destroy the U.S. The Globalist RINO Pubbies are almost as bad. They want the U.S. to loose their sovereignty and force us into a global currency and government. They don't understand that you cannot simply make a deal with the Devil (Dems) and expect them to abide by the “deal”.

24 posted on 05/21/2011 9:59:41 PM PDT by Texas Fossil (Government, even in its best state is but a necessary evil; in its worst state an intolerable one)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: maine-iac7
For the source,
25 posted on 05/22/2011 1:39:02 AM PDT by Yosemitest (It's simple, fight or die.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Texas Fossil

[Quote]
The only way Obozo could be a “natural born” U.S. Citizen is if someone other than BHO, Sr. was his father. That is a possibility...
[Unquote]

It may have been a possibility, if and only if, Barack Hussein Obama I and Stanley Ann Dunham Obama had not already legitimated the birth of the child as the son of Barack Hussein Obama I in various legal documents. Although the purported polygamous marriage may have been non-existant, illegal, contray to the laws of the State of Hawaii and/or the United States, or otherwise voided or voidable, the laws still provide for the child to be legitimated nonetheless. In the absence of a court decision ordering it otherwise, the purported father or Barack Hussein Obama I was the father of Barack Hussein Obama II due to the acknoledgments in writing by the purported parents. There is also a provision that a child is legally presumed to be the child of the husband and wife until and unless there are legal proceedings to establish a different paternity, even in a subsequently voided or annulled marrigae. See the following:

U.S. Department of State Foreign Affairs Manual Volume 7 - Consular Affairs; 7 FAM 1130 ACQUISITION OF U.S. CITIZENSHIP BY BIRTH ABROAD TO U.S. CITIZEN PARENT; (CT:CON-204; 11-01-2007); (Office of Origin: CA/OCS/PRI).

7 FAM 1131 BASIS FOR DETERMINATION OF ACQUISITION

7 FAM 1131.2 Prerequisites for Transmitting U.S. Citizenship; (TL:CON-68; 04-01-1998)
Since 1790, there have been two prerequisites for transmitting U.S.citizenship to children born abroad:
(1) At least one natural parent must have been a U.S. citizen when the child was born. The only exception is for a posthumous child.
(2) The U.S. citizen parent(s) must have resided or been physically present in the United States for the time required by the law in effect when the child was born.

7 FAM 1131.4 Blood Relationship Essential
7 FAM 1131.4-1 Establishing Blood Relationship
(TL:CON-68; 04-01-1998)
a. The laws on acquisition of U.S. citizenship through a parent have always
contemplated the existence of a blood relationship between the child and
the parent(s) through whom citizenship is claimed. It is not enough that
the child is presumed to be the issue of the parents’ marriage by the laws
U.S. Department of State Foreign Affairs Manual Volume 7 - Consular Affairs
7 FAM 1130 Page 3 of 103
of the jurisdiction where the child was born. Absent a blood relationship
between the child and the parent on whose citizenship the child’s own
claim is based, U.S. citizenship is not acquired. The burden of proving a
claim to U.S. citizenship, including blood relationship and legal
relationship, where applicable, is on the person making such claim.
b. Applicants must meet different standards of proof of blood relationship
depending on the circumstances of their birth:
(1) The statutes do not specify a standard of proof for persons claiming
birth in wedlock to a U.S. citizen parent or out of wedlock to an
American mother. The Department’s regulations also do not
explicitly establish a standard of proof. The Department applies the
general standard of a preponderance of the evidence. This
standard means that the evidence of blood relationship is of greater
weight than the evidence to the contrary. It is credible and
convincing and best accords with reason and probability. It does
not depend on the volume of evidence presented.
(2) Section 309(a) INA, as amended on November 14, 1986, specifies
that the blood relationship of a child born out of wedlock to a U.S.
citizen father must be established by clear and convincing evidence.
This standard generally means that the evidence must produce a
firm belief in the truth of the facts asserted that is beyond a
preponderance but does not reach the certainty required for proof
beyond a reasonable doubt. There are no specific items of evidence
that must be presented. Blood tests are not required, but may be
submitted and can help resolve cases in which other available
evidence is insufficient to establish the relationship. For the
procedures for establishing legal relationship to or legitimation by a
citizen father once blood relationship has been proven, see 7 FAM
1133.4.
c. Children born in wedlock are generally presumed to be the issue of that
marriage. This presumption is not determinative in citizenship cases,
however, because an actual blood relationship to a U.S. citizen parent is
required. If doubt arises that the citizen “parent” is related by blood to
the child, the consular officer is expected to investigate carefully.
Circumstances that might give rise to such a doubt include:
(1) Conception or birth of a child when either of the alleged biological
parents was married to another.
(2) Naming on the birth certificate, as father and/or mother, person(s)
other than the alleged biological parents.
U.S. Department of State Foreign Affairs Manual Volume 7 - Consular Affairs
7 FAM 1130 Page 4 of 103
(3) Evidence or indications that the child was conceived at a time when
the alleged father had no physical access to the mother.
d. If the child was conceived or born when the mother was married to
someone other than the man claiming paternity, a statement from the
man to whom the mother was married disavowing paternity, a divorce or
custody decree mentioning certain of her children but omitting or
specifically excluding the child in question, or credible statements from
neighbors or friends having knowledge of the circumstances leading up to
the birth may be required as evidence bearing on actual natural paternity.
e. Suggestions for developing cases that involve questionable blood
relationships are given in the following sections.

7 FAM 1131.5-2 General Guidance
(TL:CON-68; 04-01-1998)
Parentage fraud issues must be handled sensitively. Necessary efforts to
enforce the citizenship laws may result in the Department being accused of
threatening the family unit and of jeopardizing the welfare of the child.
Cases of this kind often have public relations ramifications or give rise to
congressional interest. All such cases must be handled in a timely manner
with consideration for the family. Posts should provide information on visa
eligibility in cases where it has been proven that the child has no claim to
U.S. citizenship and the parents wish to take the child to the United States.
7 FAM 1131.5-3 Paternity Issues
(CT:CON-204; 11-01-2007)
a. Issues of False or Fraudulent Paternity Claims: Paternity fraud is a false
claim to citizenship filed on behalf of a child said to have been born to a
U.S. citizen father who is not, in fact, the biological father of the child.
Because a child born out of wedlock to a U.S. citizen mother generally
acquires U.S. citizenship through the mother, paternity fraud is usually an
issue only in cases where the claimed natural mother is an alien. In
some cases, the alleged father is convinced that he is the biological father
in which case the claim is properly considered false rather than
fraudulent. In other cases, he knows that he is not the father, and
conscious fraud is involved. The following factors may indicate the
possibility of paternity fraud:
(1) The child was conceived or born out of wedlock.
U.S. Department of State Foreign Affairs Manual Volume 7 - Consular Affairs
7 FAM 1130 Page 6 of 103
(2) There is doubt that the child was conceived at a time when the
father had physical access to the mother.
(3) The mother admits, or there are other indications, that she had
physical relationships with other men around the time of
conception.
(4) The child allegedly was born prematurely, but its weight at birth
appears to indicate that it was a full-term baby.
(5) The physical characteristics of the child and of the alleged father do
not seem compatible.
(6) There are discrepancies in the birth records.
b. How to Resolve Doubts: To ascertain the true circumstances surrounding
the child’s conception and birth, the consular officer may wish to:
(1) Obtain available records showing periods of time when the alleged
father had physical access to the mother.
(2) Interview the parents separately to determine any differences in
their respective stories as to when and where the child was
conceived. Often, in separate interviews, one party will admit that
the American citizen is not the father.
(3) Interview neighbors and friends to determine the facts as
understood within the local community.
(4) Advise blood testing if the couple continues to pursue the claim
even though the facts as developed seem to disprove it The
propriety of requesting blood or DNA testing is discussed in 7 FAM
1100 Appendix A. If the post disapproves the application, forward
the case to the Department (CA/OCS) for review under cover of a
lookout request form (Form DS-1589, LOOKOUT) (see 7 FAM
1337.8).

7 FAM 1131.6-2 Eligibility for Presidency
(TL:CON-68; 04-01-1998)
a. It has never been determined definitively by a court whether a person
who acquired U.S. citizenship by birth abroad to U.S. citizens is a naturalborn
citizen within the meaning of Article II of the Constitution and,
therefore, eligible for the Presidency.
b. Section 1, Article II, of the Constitution states, in relevant part that “No
Person except a natural born Citizen...shall be eligible for the Office of
President;”
c. The Constitution does not define “natural born”. The “Act to establish an
Uniform Rule of Naturalization”, enacted March 26, 1790, (1 Stat.
103,104) provided that, “...the children of citizens of the United States,
that may be born ... out of the limits of the United States, shall be
considered as natural born citizens: Provided that the right of citizenship
shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in
the United States.”
U.S. Department of State Foreign Affairs Manual Volume 7 - Consular Affairs
7 FAM 1130 Page 9 of 103
d. This statute is no longer operative, however, and its formula is not
included in modern nationality statutes. In any event, the fact that
someone is a natural born citizen pursuant to a statute does not
necessarily imply that he or she is such a citizen for Constitutional
purposes.

7 FAM 1131.6-3 Not Citizens by “Naturalization”
(TL:CON-68; 04-01-1998)
Section 201(g) NA and section 301(g) INA (formerly section 301(a)(7) INA)
both specify that naturalization is “the conferring of nationality of a state
upon a person after birth.” Clearly, then, Americans who acquired their
citizenship by birth abroad to U.S. citizens are not considered naturalized
citizens under either act.

7 FAM 1133.4 Children Born Out of Wedlock On or
After December 24, 1952
7 FAM 1133.4-1 Section 309 INA (Old and New)
(CT:CON-204; 11-01-2007)
a. Effect of Amendments Section 309 was substantively amended effective
November 14, 1986 by the Immigration and Nationality Act Amendments
U.S. Department of State Foreign Affairs Manual Volume 7 - Consular Affairs
7 FAM 1130 Page 29 of 103
of 1986, Public Law 99-653 (Nov. 14, 1986)(INAA). As originally enacted
there were no specifically provided effective dates in the INAA for the 309
amendments. In 1988, however, Congress retroactively added effective
dates to the INAA as if they had been included in the INAA as originally
enacted. The effective dates for the amendments to section 309 were
included in a new section 23(e) of the INAA. As a result of the
amendments to section 309 INA, and the operation of INAA 23(e), there
are now three categories of persons for purposes of section 309 INA:
(1) Persons covered by “new” 309.
(2) Persons covered by “old” 309.
(3) Persons who may elect to have either old or new 309 apply. “Old”
309 is defined as section 309 as in effect prior to November 14,
1986, and “new” 309 as 309 as in effect thereafter.
b. Text of “new” 309 INA: SEC. 309. (a) The provisions of paragraphs (c),
(d), (e), and (g) of section 301, and of paragraph (2) of section 308, shall
apply as of the date of birth to a person born out of wedlock if—
(1) A blood relationship between the person and the father is
established by clear and convincing evidence,
(2) The father had the nationality of the United States at the time of
the person’s birth,
(3) The father (unless deceased) has agreed in writing to provide
financial support for the person until the person reaches the age of
18 years, and
(4) While the person is under the age of 18 years—
(a) The person is legitimated under the law of the person’s
residence or domicile, (or)
(b) The father acknowledges paternity of the person in writing
under oath, or
(c) The paternity of the person is established by adjudication of a
competent court.
(d) Except as otherwise provided in section 405, the provisions of
section 30l(g) shall apply to a child born out of wedlock on or
after January 13, 1941, and before December 24, 1952, as of
the date of birth, if the paternity of such child is established
at any time while such child is under the age of twenty-one
U.S. Department of State Foreign Affairs Manual Volume 7 - Consular Affairs
7 FAM 1130 Page 30 of 103
years by legitimation.
(e) Notwithstanding the provision of subsection (a) of this
section, a person born, after December 23, 1952, outside the
United States and out of wedlock shall be held to have
acquired at birth the nationality status of his mother, if the
mother had the nationality of the United States at the time of
such person’s birth, and if the mother had previously been
physically present in the United States or one of its outlying
possessions for a continuous period of one year.
c. Text of “old” Section 309 INA
(a) The provisions of paragraphs (3), (4), (5) and (7) of section 301(a)
(now paragraphs(c), (d), (e), and (g) of section 301), and of
paragraph (2) of section 308, of this title shall apply as of the date
of birth to a child born out of wedlock on or after the effective date
of this Act, if the paternity of such child is established while such
child is under the age of twenty-one years by legitimation.
(b) Except as otherwise provided in section 405, the provisions of
section 301(a)(7) (now section 301(g)) shall apply to a child born
out of wedlock on or after January 13, 1941, and prior to the
effective date of this Act, as of the date of birth, if the paternity of
such child is established before or after the effective date of this Act
and while such child is under the age of twenty-one years by
legitimation.
(c) Notwithstanding the provisions of subsection (a) of this section, a
person born, on or after the effective date of this Act, outside the
United States and out of wedlock shall be held to have acquired at
birth the nationality status of his mother, if the mother had the
nationality of the United States at the time of such person’s birth,
and if the mother had previously been physically present in the
United States or one of its outlying possessions for a continuous
period of one year.
7 FAM 1133.4-2 Birth Out of Wedlock to American Father
(CT:CON-204; 11-01-2007)
a. Applicable Law: Whether to Apply Old or New 309(a) INA
(1) “New” section 309(a) INA applies to all persons born on or after
November 14, 1986, its effective date, and, by virtue of section
23(e) of the INAA of 1986 (Public Law 99-653), to persons who had
U.S. Department of State Foreign Affairs Manual Volume 7 - Consular Affairs
7 FAM 1130 Page 31 of 103
not attained age 18 as of November 14, 1986, except those who
had previously been legitimated, to whom “old” section 309 applies.
(Persons born after November 14, 1968, had not attained the age
of 18 when the new 309 came into effect.)
(2) “Old” section 309(a) applies to persons who had attained age 18 as
of November 14, 1986 and to any persons whose paternity was
established by legitimation prior to that date. (Persons born on or
before November 14, 1968, had attained age 18 when the new 309
came into effect.)
(3) Either old or new 309(a) can be applied to persons who were at
least 15 but under the age of 18 on November 14, 1986. These
applicants may elect to have the old section 309(a) INA apply
instead of the new section 309(a) if that law is simpler for them or
more beneficial to them. (Persons born after November 14, 1968
but on or before November 14, 1971 are in this category.)
b. Establishing Citizenship Under “New” 309(a) INA. In adjudicating claims
of persons to whom new section 309(a) INA applies, consular officers
must adhere to the following guidance:
(1) Blood Relationship: The consular officer must be satisfied by clear
and convincing evidence that a blood relationship exists between the
applicant and the alleged U.S. citizen father. This evidence must produce in
the fact-finder a firm belief in the truth of the facts asserted, but does not
need to reach the level of certainty required for proof beyond a reasonable
doubt. No blood test or any other specific type of evidence is required by
the Act (see 7 FAM 1131.4 and 7 FAM 1100 Appendix A). Whether or not
evidence produced by an applicant meets the “clear and convincing”
standard is a question of fact which varies in each case. Consular officers
should keep the above in mind when requesting and reviewing evidence.
(2) Evidence of the Father’s Identity and Citizenship: The evidence
must show that the father was a U.S. citizen when the child was
born.
(3) Father’s Statement of Support
(a) A statement of financial support is required except when the
father is deceased. A father who refuses to sign a statement
of support prevents his child from acquiring U.S. citizenship.
A child who cannot present a written support agreement by
the father cannot be documented as a U.S. citizen unless it is
proven that the father is dead. This is true even if the father
cannot be located; unless dead, the father must be located
U.S. Department of State Foreign Affairs Manual Volume 7 - Consular Affairs
7 FAM 1130 Page 32 of 103
and comply with the requirements of section 309(a), as
amended, before the child’s 18th birthday.
(b) Since section 309(a) specifies that the father must agree in
writing to support the child, a local law obliging fathers to
support children born out of wedlock is not sufficient to meet
the requirement of that section.
(c) The affidavit in 7 FAM 1445 Exhibit 1445.5-3 contains a
statement of support which satisfies the requirements of new
section 309(a). The statement may be in any form, however,
as long as it complies with the following:
(i) It must include an agreement to provide financial
support;
(ii) It must specify that such support will continue
until the child’s 18th birthday;
(iii) It must be in writing;
(iv) It must be signed by the father under oath or
affirmation before a consular officer or before any
other U.S. or foreign official authorized to register
births or administer oaths; and
(v) It must be dated before the child’s 18th birthday.
It may be dated any time prior to that date,
including prior to November 14, 1986.
(d) The statement of support is not required when the father is
deceased. The applicant has the burden of proving the
father’s death, and should provide a death certificate or other
acceptable evidence of the father’s death.
(e) If the father signs a statement of support and subsequently
fails to support the child, the child’s U.S. citizenship is not
taken away. The Department has no authority to obtain
support payments from fathers or otherwise to enforce the
support agreement executed pursuant to section 309(a) INA.
This does not mean, however, that it could not be enforced by
the child against the father, or pursuant to laws administered
by other government entities.
(4) Evidence of Legitimation or Acknowledgement of Paternity: “New”
section 309(a) provides for three alternatives: legitimation under
the laws of the applicant’s residence or domicile; acknowledgement
U.S. Department of State Foreign Affairs Manual Volume 7 - Consular Affairs
7 FAM 1130 Page 33 of 103
of paternity under oath; and court adjudication of paternity (see
following paragraphs). Any of the three actions is sufficient, as long
as the action occurs while the applicant is under the age of 18.
(a) Legitimation
(i) “New” section 309(a) provides for legitimation by the
father as an alternative means of establishing legal
relationship. (Under “old” 309, it is/was the only
method authorized). If the applicant was legitimated
while under the age of eighteen, by affirmative act or by
operation of law under the child’s residence or domicile
on or after November 14, 1986, he or she need only
submit the statement of support discussed in 7 FAM
1133.4-2 b(3), unless such a statement was part of the
legitimating act and evidence to that effect is submitted.
(ii) Legitimation is the giving, to a child born out of wedlock,
the legal status of a child born in wedlock, who
traditionally has been called a “legitimate” child. Thus,
legitimacy is a legal status in which the rights and
obligations of a child born out of wedlock are identical to
those of a child born in wedlock. This status is generally
relevant primarily to the rights of the child vis-a-vis its
natural father. Many foreign countries may not use the
term “illegitimate”, but nonetheless recognize that a
child born in wedlock has greater rights than a child
born out of wedlock, for instance under local inheritance
laws. The out of wedlock child in such countries is not
legitimated within the meaning of new section 309(a).
(iii) “New” section 309(a) requires that legitimation occur
under the laws of the residence or domicile of the child,
not the father. (As discussed in the following sections,
under old 309, it may be the laws of the residence or
domicile of either the father or the child.)
(iv) Posts in countries where legitimation laws are unclear, unknown, or nonexistent
should obtain the father’s statement of support and
acknowledgement ( see 7 FAM 1445, Exhibit 1445.5-3) rather than expend
resources in attempting to determine whether legitimation occurred. If a
legal interpretation of a legitmation law is needed, posts should request the
Department’s (CA/OCS) assistance.
(v) Legitimation is best used to establish relationship only
in cases where the legitimating act has already taken
U.S. Department of State Foreign Affairs Manual Volume 7 - Consular Affairs
7 FAM 1130 Page 34 of 103
place and evidence is readily available. Do not
inconvenience applicants by requiring them to submit
extensive evidence of legitimation or expend resources
to research or interpret foreign legitimation laws.
Encourage the use of the simpler alternative of
acknowledgement of paternity discussed in 7 FAM
1133.4-2 b(4).
(vi) Posts must be satisfied in cases of previous legitimation
that the child was resident or domiciled in the country
where the legitimating act occurred. In most cases, a
child’s residence is the same as its domicile, and both
usually coincide with those of the parents. Posts should
question the applicant and parents regarding residence
and domicile in the same manner as for legitimation
under the original version of section 309(a) discussed in
7 FAM 1133.4-2 c.
(vii) Legitimation may occur by automatic operation of
law at birth, by some affirmative act of the father (for
instance, marrying the mother), or by court order.
Although the legitimation status goes back to birth, it is
the date of the legitimating act which must be
considered in a citizenship claim.
(b) Acknowledgement of Paternity
(i) Acknowledgement of paternity is the simplest means of
establishing legal relationship under the new 309(a) and
should be used in most cases. It may have occurred
either before or after November 14, 1986, as long as it
was done while the child was under age 18.
(ii) Acknowledgement may be made under oath or
affirmation in any form before a consular officer or other
official authorized to administer oaths. An
acknowledgement made by the father on the child’s
birth certificate or otherwise under foreign procedures is
acceptable if it was under oath or affirmation.
(iii) Fathers of applicants not already legitimated,
acknowledged, or subject to court decrees of paternity
may execute an acknowledgement and the statement of
support in the same instrument for the sake of
simplicity, provided the applicant is under 18 at the time
the joint document is signed. The affidavit of parentage
U.S. Department of State Foreign Affairs Manual Volume 7 - Consular Affairs
7 FAM 1130 Page 35 of 103
in 7 FAM 1445 Exhibit 1445.5-3 may be used for this
purpose.
(c) Court Adjudication of Paternity
(i) Establishment of legal relationship by the alternative of
court adjudication of paternity will be extremely rare. It
need not be pursued unless the father is unable or
unwilling to acknowledge the child.
(ii) Such adjudication must have occurred before the child
reached age 18. It is irrelevant whether it was before or
after November 14, 1986.
(iii) Fathers of applicants who are already the subject of
such adjudications need only submit the statement of
support (unless it was previously presented in the court
proceeding and evidence to that effect is submitted).
Consular officers should presume that the court had
jurisdiction over the case. Consuls should keep in mind
that court paternity decrees only establish a legal
relationship, not a blood relationship. Individuals
presenting paternity decrees must still present evidence
of a blood relationship as required by Section 309(a). If
there is evidence which draws into question a court’s
findings, the post should not accept the court order as
establishing a legal relationship (paternity) between the
father and child without consulting the Department
(CA/OCS).
(5) Father’s physical presence in the United States: If the applicant
was born prior to November 14, 1986, the U.S. citizen father is
subject to the original requirements of section 30l(g) INA to
transmit citizenship to the applicant. Thus, he must show that he
was physically present in the United States for 10 years, at least 5
of which were after reaching the age of 14, prior to the birth of the
applicant. For applicants born on or after November 14, 1986, the
most recent physical presence requirements of section 301(g)
apply. In this instance, the U.S. citizen father must show that,
prior to the birth of the applicant, he was physically present in the
United States for 5 years, at least two of which were after reaching
the age of 14.
c. Establishing Citizenship Under “Old” Section 309(a) INA: When
adjudicating cases under old section 309(a) INA, consular officers must
adhere to the following guidance:
U.S. Department of State Foreign Affairs Manual Volume 7 - Consular Affairs
7 FAM 1130 Page 36 of 103
(1) Blood Relationship: The consular officer must be satisfied that a
blood relationship exists between the child and the U.S. citizen
father. Absent such a relationship, the child of an alien mother
cannot acquire U.S. nationality at birth (see 7 FAM 1131.4).
(2) Legitimation: Law of Residence and Domicile
(a) Under Old 309(a), the place for legitimation was not specified.
Old 309(a) was applied to permit legitimation to take place
pursuant to laws of the U.S. or foreign residence or domicile
of the father or child (see 7 FAM 1133 Exhibit 1133.4-2 for
various State legitimation laws). The consular officer should
learn which foreign countries or States of the United States
qualify as either the father’s residence or domicile or the
child’s residence or domicile for purposes of establishing
legitimation.
(b) The Immigration and Nationality Act defines “residence” as
the place of general abode of a person; his principal, actual
dwelling place in fact, without regard to intent. Under this
definition, a military base where a person is stationed, even
for a short period of time such as a training assignment at an
appropriate place, can be considered a residence and the laws
of the state or country where the base is located can be
considered for legitimation purposes.
(c) “Domicile” is generally defined as the place of a person’s true,
fixed, and permanent home or ties, and to which whenever
absent, the person intends to return.
(d) In attempting to determine residence or domicile, the
consular officer may ask such questions as: Where did you
own property? Where did you pay taxes? Where were you
registered to vote? Where have you had bank accounts?
What State issued you a driver’s license or other license?
What ties do you have to the place of residence or domicile?
(3) Legitimation: Marriages: The consular officer should ask whether
the child’s father and mother have ever been married to each other.
A valid intermarriage of a child’s natural parents subsequent to a
child’s birth serves to legitimate a child in most jurisdictions. The
validity of a marriage is governed by the law of the place where it
was performed and may be a determining issue in a child’s claim to
citizenship under section 309(a). A marriage that is void or
voidable may also serve to legitimate a child in some
circumstances, particularly if the child was born after the marriage.
U.S. Department of State Foreign Affairs Manual Volume 7 - Consular Affairs
7 FAM 1130 Page 37 of 103
(a) Valid marriages: See 7 FAM 1133 Exhibit 1133.4-2 for a list
of the states in which a subsequent marriage of the parents
will serve to legitimate a child. If the laws of the state or the
country where the father or the child resided or were
domiciled provide for legitimation by subsequent marriage,
those laws may be applied if there was a valid marriage of the
parents while the child was under 21. In general, the place of
marriage and the place of residence or domicile must be the
same. There are exceptions to this general rule, however,
and a post may find it necessary to submit questions of this
nature to the Department (CA/OCS).
(b) Voidable and Void Marriages
(i) A marriage that did not conform to the laws of the
country or state in which it was performed may be a
void marriage, but only after declared so by an
appropriate authority, usually a court in the jurisdiction
where the marriage occurred. Prior to such judicial
declaration, the marriage may be considered voidable.
A voidable marriage is considered valid for all purposes
unless and until annulled or voided by the court. Even
after a marriage is voided, there is every likelihood that
the children’s status will not be affected. Every state in
the United States, for example, considers children of a
void marriage to be legitimate (see 7 FAM 1133 Exhibit
1133.4-2, Part II).
(ii) Posts should have available a copy of the consular
district’s local laws on marriage and legitimation. If for
any reason a marriage does not appear to have been
valid and legitimation is a determining factor in the
citizenship claim, consular officer’s may need to consult
local law, if a U.S. domicile cannot be identified, to
determine if children born of a void marriage are
considered legitimate. If they would not be considered
legitimate, the consular officer must determine that the
marriage was, in fact, declared void by an appropriate
authority before denying the claim. A post that is
considering a case involving legitimation in a third
country may seek information on the laws of that
country from the embassy of that country or from the
U.S. embassy in that country.
(iii) A law that declares legitimate a child born during a void
marriage presumes that the marriage ceremony took
U.S. Department of State Foreign Affairs Manual Volume 7 - Consular Affairs
7 FAM 1130 Page 38 of 103
place before the child’s birth unless the law specifically
mentions children born before the marriage. Cases that
involve void marriages that occurred after a child’s birth
should be referred to the Department (CA/OCS).
(c) Absence of a Marriage
(i) If no marriage has occurred between the child’s U.S.
citizen father and the child’s natural mother, the
consular officer, after determining the appropriate
domicile or residence, should consult the applicable U.S.
or foreign laws to learn whether the child was
legitimated by other means. In most countries or States
where legitimation is possible without subsequent
intermarriage of the biological parents, certain
conditions must be met (such as formal
acknowledgment of the child by the father, acceptance
into the father’s household, consent of the father’s wife).
For a summary of U.S. laws on legitimation without
marriage, see 7 FAM 1133 Exhibit 1133.4-2, Part III.
(ii) Some states and countries grant all children equal
rights, regardless of the parent’s marital status. In such
cases, the child may be considered to have established
paternity by legitimation under old 309(a) if the blood
relationship between the father and child was
established before the child’s 21st birthday, and the law
concerning the equality of all children was in effect
before the child’s 21st birthday.
(iii) Some states and countries do not provide any specific
way for fathers to legitimate their children. Persons
born out of wedlock who had to rely on the legitimation
laws of those places could not acquire U.S. citizenship
through their fathers if they were age 18 prior to the
1986 amendment of section 309(a) INA.
(4) Legitimation: Adoption by Biological Father
(a) If a father adopts his biological child while the child is under
age 21, the Department regards the child as legitimated for
purposes of old 309(a) regardless of the law of the father or
child’s residence or domicile.
(b) Before any documents are issued, cases that involve adoption
by the biological parent should be referred to the Department
U.S. Department of State Foreign Affairs Manual Volume 7 - Consular Affairs
7 FAM 1130 Page 39 of 103
(CA/OCS) by telegram or memorandum requesting advisory
opinion.
(5) Father’s Physical Presence in the United States: An applicant
acquiring citizenship under the old 309(a) must show that his or her
father was physically present in the United States for 10 years, at
least 5 of which were after the age of 14, prior to the birth of the
applicant.
7 FAM 1133.4-3 Birth Out of Wedlock to American Mother
(TL:CON-68; 04-01-1998)
a. Claims Under Section 309(c) INA: A child born abroad out of wedlock on
or after December 24, 1952, to a U.S. citizen mother acquires U.S.
citizenship if the mother was physically present continuously for 1 year in
the United States or its outlying possessions at any time prior to the
child’s birth. This did not change under any of the amendments to
Section 309 INA. Thus a woman who had spent only a very short time
every year outside the United States would be unable to transmit
citizenship under section 309(c) INA even though she might have
qualified to transmit U.S. citizenship under section 301(g) INA if she had
been married to the father of the child. The 1966 amendment to section
301 INA allowing members of the U.S. armed forces, employees of the
U.S. Government and certain international organizations, and their
dependents to count certain periods outside the United States as U.S.
physical presence does not apply to section 309(c) INA. For this reason,
the mother of a child born out of wedlock cannot use time spent abroad
as a military dependent, for example, to satisfy all or part of the
requirement of continuous physical presence in the United States for 1
year. Subsequent legitimation or the establishment of a legal relationship
between an alien father and a person who acquired U.S. citizenship at
birth under section 309(c) does not alter that person’s citizenship.
b. Claims under Old 309(a): Prior to the November 14, 1986, amendments
to section 309(a), section 309(a) did not apply exclusively to the out of
wedlock children of U.S. citizen fathers, but could also be applied to the
out of wedlock children of U.S. citizen mothers. As a result, a person
born out of wedlock to a U.S. citizen mother who could not transmit
citizenship under section 309(c) because she had not been physically
present in the United States or outlying possessions for the continuous 1-
year period may claim citizenship under old 309(a). As discussed
previously, under old 309(a) the child’s paternity must have been
established by legitimation before the child’s 21st birthday. If this
condition is met, old 309(a) permits acquisition through section 301(g)
U.S. Department of State Foreign Affairs Manual Volume 7 - Consular Affairs
7 FAM 1130 Page 40 of 103
(formerly 301(a)(7)), which requires that the citizen parent (mother or
father), before the child’s birth, have amassed the 10 years of U.S.
physical presence, including 5 after age 14. Persons born out of wedlock
to alien fathers and U.S. citizen mothers on or after November 14, 1986
cannot claim citizenship under 309(a) because new 309(a) requires that
the father have been a U.S. citizen at the time of the child’s birth.
c. Retention requirements: The retention requirements of former section
301(b) INA did not apply to children who acquired U.S. citizenship under
section 309(c) INA by birth out of wedlock to American mothers.

II. IS ISSUE OF A VOID MARRIAGE LEGITIMATE?
12. HAWAII – Yes. Section 580-27 of Hawaii Revised Statutes. (1991)
48. WASHINGTON - Yes. Section 26.26.030 and 26.26.040. (1992)

III. CAN A CHILD BE LEGITIMATED IN A MANNER NOT INVOLVING THE
INTERMARRIAGE OF THE NATURAL PARENTS?

12. HAWAII - Yes, if father and mother acknowledges paternity in
writing. Sections 584-2 and 338-21(a)(2) of Hawaii Revised
Statutes. (1991)

48. WASHINGTON - Yes, if while the child is a minor, the father
receives the child into his home openly holds out the child as his
own. Section 26.26.040(d) of Revised Code of Washington. (1992)


26 posted on 05/22/2011 2:51:41 AM PDT by WhiskeyX
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: WhiskeyX

Ouch! That gave me a headache.

The enactment of the Immigration Act of 1952 made this issue very complicated.

I cannot imagine a court procedure that would remove citizenship from Obozo, but if he was not born in the U.S. (and I do not believe he was), legally he is not a U.S. citizen.

It his clear that the Dunham family has been gaming the law on this and other subjects all of Obozo’s life. You can see why he has total disregard to U.S. law. (and for a time he had a law license).

What a mess.


27 posted on 05/22/2011 5:43:00 AM PDT by Texas Fossil (Government, even in its best state is but a necessary evil; in its worst state an intolerable one)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Texas Fossil
Agreed. It's a mess, with Congress and SCOTUS making it far more complicated and irrational.

What is really ironic is the way in which Stanley Ann may have had an opportunity to confer her own U.S. citizenship and a natural born U.S. citizenship to her son by getting pregnant three or four months later, having the child out of wedlock, and without legitimating the child with any purported father. Of course, that was exactly contrary to her original goals, which creates the ultimate irony given today's circumstances.

Although a birthplace for Barack II in Hawaii, Washington, or elsewhere in the United States cannot yet be excluded, neither can a birthplace at the Coastline Hospital, Mombasa, Kenya; a maternity ward in Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada; or another foreign nation. What can be excluded, however, is what appears to be fraudulent Hawaiian birth certificates, Selective Service Registration card, Social Security account numbers, Illinois property records, Federal 1040 income tax returns, and Illinois income tax returns.

You also have to wonder whether or not it was possible that Barack and his staff used political campaign funds in violation of campaign funding and disclosure laws to exile Vera Baker and a suspected illegitimate daughter, Renee L. Abena Obama, to the island of Martinique in the Caribbean after Michelle Obama discovered their adulterous affair?

Then there are the two affairs in which Barack Hussein Obama II and Michelle Obama were compelled by the Illinois Supreme Court to surrender their Illinois licenses to practice law only a few years after receiving and using them.

28 posted on 05/22/2011 6:15:47 AM PDT by WhiskeyX
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: WhiskeyX

Had not heard of Renee L. Abena Obama.

Quick bit of searching made me hesitant about the subject. Some “real” tin-foil hat folks are beating this drum. Could be to confuse the issue, but when the “illuminati” is mentioned and Prison Planet is mentioned; my skeptic alarm starts going off.

Back on track. There must be a record and it appears from the record that the child died very young. (or was vanished as to the law)

We are dealing with known criminals who happen to reside at 1600 Penn. Ave. What a mess indeed.


29 posted on 05/22/2011 6:34:28 AM PDT by Texas Fossil (Government, even in its best state is but a necessary evil; in its worst state an intolerable one)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: WhiskeyX

But you are correct.

1. we do not know who his father was.

2. we do not know where he was born.

3. we do know that his entire life is a fabrication.

4. we do know that he hates the United States and the free world.

The question that begs to be answered is what fools put this “post turtle” where he is?


30 posted on 05/22/2011 6:37:25 AM PDT by Texas Fossil (Government, even in its best state is but a necessary evil; in its worst state an intolerable one)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: WhiskeyX

“Then there are the two affairs in which Barack Hussein Obama II and Michelle Obama were compelled by the Illinois Supreme Court to surrender their Illinois licenses to practice law only a few years after receiving and using them.”

Untrue.

http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/lawlicenses.asp


31 posted on 05/22/2011 6:37:25 AM PDT by Natufian (t)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: Texas Fossil
I ran across Renee L. Abena Obama in the Social Security Death Index somewhere around December 2007 to June 2008 as I searched for addresses connected to anyone with the Obama name. This was later also a common search result while looking for those multiple listings of Social Security numbers for Barack and Michelle.

The “tinfoil” brigade caught onto it sometime later. It made me wonder if it was perhaps some kind of disinformation effort to hide the inconvenient truth in plain sight. I do not know and have no opinion on the accuracy, if any, of any suspected connections between the baby girl and Barack; but the suspected Vera Baker affair does appear very very suspicious with what little is known. You have to ask why was this campaign fund raiser so suddenly jerked out of the Washington D.C. fund raising cornucopia and seemingly exiled to Martinique of all places? It is also extremely strange for a Chicago organization to compensate this person for such incompatible work in the Caribbean?

Perhaps it is all innocent. After all of the other Democrats hiding their affairs and engaging in the most bizarre cover ups, not to mention Schwarzenegger, the possibility of campaign fund violations should not be so carelessly dismissed out of hand.

32 posted on 05/22/2011 7:07:06 AM PDT by WhiskeyX
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: WhiskeyX
Perhaps it is all innocent.

Previous actions would indicate that it is not.

33 posted on 05/22/2011 7:14:22 AM PDT by Texas Fossil (Government, even in its best state is but a necessary evil; in its worst state an intolerable one)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: Natufian
Dare I say it? Anyone who would quote Snopes as an authority on anything is either a cretinous fool or a contemptible liar.

As for the credibility of the denials, it is virtually impossible to get the State of Illinois and the Illinois State Supreme court to outright disbar any attorney-at-law, no matter how heinous their crimes. Instead, they order the attorney to give up their license under threat of actually doing something more forceful, if tghe attorney is too dense to take the hint. When we looked at the Illinois State Supreme court Website in 2007-2008, you could see where the court ordered Michelle to in effect surrender her law license. While the details are complicated and intentionally vague and secretive to avoid embarassing the attorney being punished, it is in effect a form of disbarment, because the attorney cannot practice law. The rules also provide for an application for reinstatement, but the reality is the court will not approve any such requests for certain applicants punished for serious crimes. Thusly, appearances and plausible deniability are used to hide the ugly fact that the attorney committed serious crimes.

Anyone interested in the truth can find the truth independently by using the Internet search engines to look for Illinois attorneys accused of felonies and/or forced to stop practicing law. Some examples to be found are attorneys who committed murder, rape, and pedophilia. When you look up their Illinois State Supreme Court records for the status of their law licenses, you find the same types of carefully vague references to their law licenses being “voluntarily” surrendered. So, Snopes is actually putting the Obamas into the same category of attorneys who lost their law licenses as child rapists and murderers or attorneys who embezzled their clients’ damage awards.

34 posted on 05/22/2011 7:24:13 AM PDT by WhiskeyX
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: Texas Fossil

Ninth hole?


35 posted on 05/22/2011 7:25:47 AM PDT by WhiskeyX
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: WhiskeyX

Yep. But a little past that.


36 posted on 05/22/2011 7:44:57 AM PDT by Texas Fossil (Government, even in its best state is but a necessary evil; in its worst state an intolerable one)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: WhiskeyX

“While the details are complicated and intentionally vague and secretive to avoid” me having to post evidence to support my wild, conspiracy ideas.

Ok, got it.


37 posted on 05/22/2011 8:10:52 AM PDT by Natufian (t)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: Natufian

Sorry to be so rough about it, but Snopes is tantamount to a Stalineque propaganda organ.


38 posted on 05/22/2011 8:46:19 AM PDT by WhiskeyX
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: WhiskeyX

OK, how about:

http://www.truthorfiction.com/rumors/o/Obama-Law-License.htm

or even the birthers favorite....

http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=105998


39 posted on 05/22/2011 10:05:59 AM PDT by Natufian (t)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: Natufian
I'm very well aware of those sources. Rule 770 is exactly what I was talking about when I commented upon the vague usage of plausible deniability. Whenever the lawyer is being sanctioned due to a complaint to the ARDC, there is in some cases a certain amount of discretion exercised when selecting the type of discipline to be exacted upon the attorney. In some cases, the attorney to be disciplined is offered an opportunity to volunteer to volunteer for inactive status under Rule 770. The disciplined attorney gets an opportunity to escape more severe discipline and avoid public disclosure, and the lack of public disclosure avoids further discredit to the Illinois legal profession while also expediting an uncontested conclusion to the disciplinary proceedings.

Since there is little means by which the public can be informed about the confidential provisions of these proceedings, there is little means to differentiate between a voluntary inactive status due to disciplinary proceedings versus voluntary inactive status due to nondisciplinary proceedings. For an attorney subjected to disciplinary proceedings, the offer of a voluntary inactive status under Rule 770 provided plausible deniability on future professional resumes, except among people familiar with the ins and outs of these types of proceedings.

ARDC Individual Attorney Record of Public Registration and Public Disciplinary and Disability Information as of May 20, 2011 at 9:00:00 AM: Full Licensed Name: Michelle Obama Full Former name(s): Michelle Lavaughn Robinson Date of Admission as Lawyer by Illinois Supreme Court: May 12, 1989 Registered Business Address: Not available online Registered Business Phone: Not available online Illinois Registration Status: Voluntarily inactive and not authorized to practice law Malpractice Insurance: (Current as of date of registration; consult attorney for further information) No malpractice report required as attorney is on court ordered inactive status. ARDC Individual Attorney Record of Public Registration and Public Disciplinary and Disability Information as of May 20, 2011 at 9:00:00 AM:

Full Licensed Name: Donald Wayne Garlinger
Full Former name(s): None
Date of Admission as Lawyer
by Illinois Supreme Court: November 15, 1962
Registered Business Address: Not available online

Registered Business Phone: Not available online
Illinois Registration Status: Voluntarily retired and not authorized to practice law
Malpractice Insurance:
(Current as of date of registration;
consult attorney for further information) No malpractice report required as attorney is retired.

ARDC Lawyer Search Results from the ARDC database last updated as of May 20, 2011 at 9:00:00 AM: for the following terms: Last Name: Demasi, First Name: Anthony, status: All, Country: all Name Date Admitted City State Authorized to Practice?
Anthony A. Demasi June 12, 2001 Chicago IL No

Pedophile Lawyer Suspended for 3 Years. Wed, Dec 31, 2008
http://www.jdjournal.com/2008/12/31/pedophile-lawyer-suspended-for-3-years/

http://www.marketwatch.com/Community/groups/us-politics/topics/michelle-obama-disbarred-il-supreme

Disbarred Illinois plaintiff's attorney subject of child sexual assault complaint
5/19/2006 10:35 AM By Ann Knef
http://www.wvrecord.com/news/179243-disbarred-illinois-plaintiffs-attorney-subject-of-child-sexual-assault-complaint

ARDC Policies and Procedures
Attorney Discipline
If an attorney is found to have violated the Illinois Rules of Professional responsibility, discipline will be imposed. The types of discipline are set forth in Ill. S. Ct. Rule 770 and include: reprimand by the court, the Review Board or a hearing panel, censure, probation, suspension for a specified time, suspension until further order of the court, disbarment on consent or disbarment.
http://www.apexcle.com/pages/ARDCPolicies

40 posted on 05/22/2011 11:06:02 AM PDT by WhiskeyX
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: Natufian
I'm very well aware of those sources. Rule 770 is exactly what I was talking about when I commented upon the vague usage of plausible deniability. Whenever the lawyer is being sanctioned due to a complaint to the ARDC, there is in some cases a certain amount of discretion exercised when selecting the type of discipline to be exacted upon the attorney. In some cases, the attorney to be disciplined is offered an opportunity to volunteer to volunteer for inactive status under Rule 770. The disciplined attorney gets an opportunity to escape more severe discipline and avoid public disclosure, and the lack of public disclosure avoids further discredit to the Illinois legal profession while also expediting an uncontested conclusion to the disciplinary proceedings.

Since there is little means by which the public can be informed about the confidential provisions of these proceedings, there is little means to differentiate between a voluntary inactive status due to disciplinary proceedings versus voluntary inactive status due to nondisciplinary proceedings. For an attorney subjected to disciplinary proceedings, the offer of a voluntary inactive status under Rule 770 provided plausible deniability on future professional resumes, except among people familiar with the ins and outs of these types of proceedings.

ARDC Individual Attorney Record of Public Registration and Public Disciplinary and Disability Information as of May 20, 2011 at 9:00:00 AM: Full Licensed Name: Michelle Obama Full Former name(s): Michelle Lavaughn Robinson Date of Admission as Lawyer by Illinois Supreme Court: May 12, 1989 Registered Business Address: Not available online Registered Business Phone: Not available online Illinois Registration Status: Voluntarily inactive and not authorized to practice law Malpractice Insurance: (Current as of date of registration; consult attorney for further information) No malpractice report required as attorney is on court ordered inactive status. ARDC Individual Attorney Record of Public Registration and Public Disciplinary and Disability Information as of May 20, 2011 at 9:00:00 AM:

Full Licensed Name: Donald Wayne Garlinger
Full Former name(s): None
Date of Admission as Lawyer
by Illinois Supreme Court: November 15, 1962
Registered Business Address: Not available online

Registered Business Phone: Not available online
Illinois Registration Status: Voluntarily retired and not authorized to practice law
Malpractice Insurance:
(Current as of date of registration;
consult attorney for further information) No malpractice report required as attorney is retired.

ARDC Lawyer Search Results from the ARDC database last updated as of May 20, 2011 at 9:00:00 AM: for the following terms: Last Name: Demasi, First Name: Anthony, status: All, Country: all Name Date Admitted City State Authorized to Practice?
Anthony A. Demasi June 12, 2001 Chicago IL No

Pedophile Lawyer Suspended for 3 Years. Wed, Dec 31, 2008
http://www.jdjournal.com/2008/12/31/pedophile-lawyer-suspended-for-3-years/

http://www.marketwatch.com/Community/groups/us-politics/topics/michelle-obama-disbarred-il-supreme

Disbarred Illinois plaintiff's attorney subject of child sexual assault complaint
5/19/2006 10:35 AM By Ann Knef
http://www.wvrecord.com/news/179243-disbarred-illinois-plaintiffs-attorney-subject-of-child-sexual-assault-complaint

ARDC Policies and Procedures
Attorney Discipline
If an attorney is found to have violated the Illinois Rules of Professional responsibility, discipline will be imposed. The types of discipline are set forth in Ill. S. Ct. Rule 770 and include: reprimand by the court, the Review Board or a hearing panel, censure, probation, suspension for a specified time, suspension until further order of the court, disbarment on consent or disbarment.
http://www.apexcle.com/pages/ARDCPolicies

41 posted on 05/22/2011 11:06:08 AM PDT by WhiskeyX
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: WhiskeyX

If you’d chosen to claim that it was impossible to tell whether the Obama’s had had their law licenses revoked or they had voluntarily given them up just from the Attorney Registration documentation, you might have had a point.

You didn’t do that though, you claimed that they “were compelled by the Illinois Supreme Court to surrender their Illinois licenses to practice law.”

And, despite being ‘very well aware of those sources’ you’ve chosen to discount some of the content, such as:

“James Grogan, deputy administrator and chief counsel for the Attorney Registration and Disciplinary Commission of the Supreme Court of Illinois, or ARDC, has been with the commission for 30 years. He told WND that on July 1, 1994, the Illinois Supreme Court entered an order allowing Michelle to be transferred to inactive status pursuant to Illinois Supreme Court rule 770.

The ARDC website explains, “Prior to November 1, 1999, former Supreme Court Rule 770 provided for a proceeding in the Court for any voluntary transfer to inactive status, whether because of some incapacitating condition or solely as a matter of the lawyer’s preference because the lawyer would not be practicing law.”

Grogan explained, “At the time, the only way to go on inactive status was to do what she did – which was to file a petition in the Illinois Supreme Court.”

He said attorneys often filed a petition for 770 when they wanted to pursue other careers, retire or begin raising a family.

“At the time, this happened all the time,” he said. “Our office would have to file what’s known as a consent.”

Grogan said his office would have immediately alerted the court in a public filing if there had been reason to believe she should face disciplinary action.

“We filed a consent in Michelle Obama’s case in which we had no objection to her transferring to inactive status,” he said. “In the event that she did go on inactive status and she engaged in any disbarrable offenses, there would be a disciplinary case of public record.”

He continued, “Just because someone goes on inactive it doesn’t deprive us of the jurisdiction to prosecute.””

or...

“A spokesperson the IlIARDC told TruthOrFiction.com that neither Barack nor Michelle Obama had any history of disciplinary actions.”

Why? What evidence do you have of malpractice? Or is it all too vague to express in words?


42 posted on 05/22/2011 11:22:33 AM PDT by Natufian (t)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: Natufian
First, there were some articles in 2008 in which it was said Michelle Obama was supposedly disciplined after a complaint about her handling of some client funds. I'm trying to relocate one or more of those articles now, but no luck yet. I kept some links in a file, but the hard drive the file was o failed and corrupted before those just saved files had been backed-up. Grogan’s comments were in response to some of those stories in part.

Even if I could find the lost files and articles, they of course could not definitively prove the disciplinary actions, because the voluntary inactive status would make such actions confidential, because they would not have proceeded forward to the formal disciplinary hearing which is in a public record. This confidentiality is one of the incentives for volunteering for inactive status to escape the public hearing which becomes a public record against a professional reputation. The only way the public would have any information in such a circumstance would be the uncorroborated complaints from the plaintiffs and anyone else privy to the original complaints against the attorney. Under those circumstances, a disciplined attorney who volunteered for inactive status before a formal disciplinary hearing could make a plausible denial it ever happened, and there would be no publicly available records to prove otherwise. There would only be the accusations from the original plaintiffs and people they informed.

Grogan’s comments are therefore a half-truth, and suspicion is warranted because he did not disclose the practice whereby an attorney can escape a public record of disciplinary actions with a peremptory volunteering for inactive status. This is why Grogan’s comments about the court ordering of Michelle Obama to volunteer for inactive status is so misleading. He is being deceptive by omitting the other practice in which an attorney is sanctioned by the court's order to volunteer for inactive status.

If the people involved in these issues did not already have a past replete with examples of fraud, deceit, and other misconduct; there would still be good reason for suspicion, but perhaps not so compelling. In the case of the Obama and Dunham families, their past is replete with fraud, crimes, and other misconduct. You have a cleearcut record of polygamy, adultery, and perjury by Barack Sr. Barck Jr. has clearly lied about his family's history in his autobiographies or ghostwritten biographies. There are just so many reasons why it makes no good sense whatsoever to give the benefit of the doubt with regard to suspicion and the obligation to exercise public oversight under these extraordinary circumstances.

Furthermore, if you read Grogan’s carefully crafted statements in detail, it is quite possible for Grogan’s statements to have been technically 100 percent true, even if Michelle Obama did in fact volunteer to go on inactive status as a result of being ordered by the court to do so due to disciplinary action. Remember, you are dealing with Chicago lawyers who know how to parse the language or even break it.

43 posted on 05/22/2011 12:01:06 PM PDT by WhiskeyX
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: WhiskeyX

OK, I understand now, there is no evidence just a suspicion ‘supported’ by the usual, special parsing of statements that contradict your theory. Thanks.


44 posted on 05/22/2011 12:18:08 PM PDT by Natufian (t)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: Natufian
No, it is not just suspicion. Few people go so heavily into debt to gain a law degree and go to work for a law firm and then volunteer for inactive status after being ordered by a court to do so. The law firm she worked for has a reputation consistent with extreme political activism and the notorious corruption of Chicago government. For Michelle Obama to so quickly after only four years give up being a lawyer while they were so deep in debt and needing income is a fact that warrants further inquiry into the cause.

It is a fact that Barack Hussein Obama II did not disclose his aliases as mandated by Illinois law, as can be seen on the ARDC Website. It is a fact that he did not disclose his illegal substance abuse and possession with intent to distribute illegal narcotics. It is a fact that he did not disclose his multitude of illegal parking tickets, a misdemeanor or felony. In other words he committed perjury, which may have been a felony. The ARDC database records his voluntary entry into inactive status as due to retirement. How does an openly guilty perjurer get away with “retirement” rather than disbarment, unless something improper is in fact going on?

The situation is more analogous to a Democratic Congressman being videotaped as he attacks a Republican Congressman from behind and stabs the man to death, dances around the victim's body whooping it up, and then later on saying he wasn't there and you can't believe the faked videotape because his Democratic buddies in the prosecutor’s office and the district court refuse to arraign, indict, and prosecute the murder. Then the Congressman's supporters go onto a blog and say, you only suspect the crime happened, because no court has ever prosecuted much less convicted him for the alleged crime. Who are you going to believe, the nutcase conspiracy waving around all of that so-called evidence, or these fine and respected attorneys?

45 posted on 05/22/2011 1:00:27 PM PDT by WhiskeyX
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: WhiskeyX

I know the guy’s a scumbag, the evidence is all around me.

You claimed that they “were compelled by the Illinois Supreme Court to surrender their Illinois licenses to practice law.”

Not only is there no evidence to support that claim, there are two pretty solid statements by the Attorney’s Register which all but demolish it.


46 posted on 05/22/2011 3:40:57 PM PDT by Natufian (t)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: Natufian
“You claimed that they “were compelled by the Illinois Supreme Court to surrender their Illinois licenses to practice law.”

The ARDC database report stated it was ordered by the court. Grogan has tried to explain away the reason why the ARDC database said it was court ordered. His explanations appear problematical, however, because they conflicted with the changing versions of the Rule 770 andthe other Rules involved with Michelle Obama’s case. The latest ARDC database report has now deleted the court ordered phrase, which creates ad impression, true or false, that some database scrubbing and altering of the record could be underway. Rather than explain the changes to the data record, a change was made without explanation in the record. You cannot blame the public for being suspicious when these unexplained manipulations of the public reccords take place without enough transparency to avoid adverse impressions.

Since it is somehow supposed to be accepatable for the Obamas and their political allies to hide their records from the public behind hypertechnical interpretations of the law and regulations, it is only fair for the public to also take hypertechnical note of the fact that a court ordered voluntary change to inactive status is still a case of being compelled by the court and law to do so, whether it was for nondisciplinary or disciplinary purposes. So, the observation based upon the wording taken directly from the formeer ARDC record is technically accurate.

The question remains, however, why the ARDC spokesman's statements may be so misleading with respect to the actual Rule or Rules applied to Michelle Obama when she voluntarily relinquished her valuable law license after only four years of legal practice?

How can Grogan’s statements be regarded as trustworthy?

47 posted on 05/22/2011 9:16:18 PM PDT by WhiskeyX
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson