Obama Presidential Eligibility - An Introductory Primer

This Primer, by Stephen Tonchen, is different from, should not be confused with, the WorldNetDaily Obama Eligibility Primer. The Tonchen Primer appeared on the Internet in June 2009, more than a year prior to the WND Primer.

UPDATE (4/27/2011): Now that President Obama has released his long-form birth certificate, questions 31 through 34 in this Primer have become moot [91]. They are retained here for posterity purposes only. The other 33 questions and corresponding answers remain entirely unaffected. Those questions have acquired even greater importance and relevance, now that Obama's newly-released long-form birth certificate has further substantiated his dual nationality at birth.

"Minor V. Happersett is very clear, concise, and impossible to misconstrue."

And yet it has for many years.

Here is what Charles Gordon wrote about the "natural born Citizen" clause in 1968,

"It is clear enough that native-born citizens are eligible and that naturalized citizens are not. The recurring doubts relate to those who have acquired United States citizenship through birth abroad to American parents...there has never been a definitive judicial decision."

and here is what he said about the Minor decision,

“The only question in the latter [Minor v. Happersett] case was whether a state could validly restrict voting to male citizens of the United States... In his generalized discussion, Chief Justice Waite observed that “new citizens may be born or they may be created by naturalization.” The court mentioned the presidential qualification clause and stated that it unquestionably included children born in this country of citizen parents, who “were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners.”

“While this language appears to equate natives and natural-born, the Court specified that it was not purporting to resolve any issues not before it.” Charles Gordon, "Who Can be President of the United States: The Unresolved Enigma” 1968, Maryland Law Review

This is what J. Michael Medina wrote in 1988,

"Who is a Natural Born Citizen?”

“The answer to the above question is, quite simply, we do not know. “The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizen. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that.”[Minor v. Happersett] Because no case squarely on point has arisen, resort must be had to the basic federal scheme of citizenship. It is only clear that naturalized citizens are not natural born.” J. Michael Medina, 1987, “The Presidential Qualification Clause in this Bicentennial Year: The Need to Eliminate the Natural Born Citizen Requirement” 1986, Oklahoma City University Law Review

And this is what Jill Pryor wrote in 1988,

"Despite its apparent simplicity, the natural-born citizen clause of the Constitution has never been, completely understood. It is well settled that "native-born" citizens, those born in the United States, qualify as natural born.2"

And in footnote 2, she writes, "Native-born citizens are natural born by virtue of the nearly universal principle of jus soli, or citizenship of place of birth." Jill Pryor, "The Natural-Born Citizen Clause and Presidential Eligibility: An Approach for Resolving Two Hundred Years of Uncertainty", 1988, The Yale Law Review

She does not mention the Minor decision at all.

And this recent statement,

"To cite Minor v. Happersett as the definitive statement of the meaning of the phrase “natural born citizen” is to exhibit an unfortunate lack of understanding of the Supreme Court’s 1874 decision in that case." J. Gordon Hylton, posted in comment on Marquette University Law School Faculity Blog, October, 2011. Professor Hylton teaches Constitutional Law at Marquette University.

And than there are the court decisions.

"But the supreme court has never squarely determined, either prior to or subsequent to the adoption of the fourteenth amendment in 1868, the political status of children born here of foreign parents. In the case of Minor v. Happersett, 21 Wall. 168, the court expressly declined to pass upon that question.” Judge Morrow, Wong Kim Ark, District Court Northern District of California, January 3, 1896 No. 11, 198.

And more recently,

"Thus, the Court [in the Minor opinion] left open the issue of whether a person who is born within the United States of alien parents is considered a natural born citizen.” Court of Appeals of Indiana, Ankeny vs. Governor Daniels

So while some believe that Minor v. Happersett is binding precedent, it is far from clear that the courts, if given the opportunity, would accept their beliefs over the persuasive opinions of these other guys. In fact, they may give the courts the out they want.

At the Missouri State Qualifications website, Missouri Dem SOS Robin Carnahan requires candidates to meet certain qualifications for the 2012 election. She includes U.S. Senators and Representatives all the way down to Township or Ward Committeemen.

http://www.sos.mo.gov/elections/elect_qalification.asp

However, I find it quite odd that Carnahan has neglected to list the Presidential candidate qualifications. Why is that? We all know there are Constitutional requirements to be President but Carnahan omitted them.

The lowly elected position of Township or Ward Committeemen and Committeewomen must meet certain qualifications – - -
*Resident of county and committee district 1 year next preceding the election
*Registered voter in county and district for 1 year next preceding the election

But no qualifications are listed for the President of the United States. Odd, don’t you think?

Oh, and by the way, qualifications for presidential candidates were also omitted from the website in the 2008 election.

http://www.sos.mo.gov/elections/2008primary/2008offices.asp

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.