Posted on 07/29/2009 10:11:47 AM PDT by Scanian
Yesterday, Dr. Chiyome Fukino, director of the Hawaii State Department of Health, chose to weigh in on the Obama “Natural Born Citizen” controversy again. This time Dr. Fukino went much further than she had before. This time Dr. Fukino held herself out as a Constitutional Law Expert by declaring that Mr. Obama is a “Natural Born Citizen.” I was very surprised by her new statement considering the Supreme Court of the United States has never fully delineated the meaning of the term, “Natural Born Citizen”.
In Minor v. Happersett, decided in 1874, 6 years after the adoption of the 14th Amendment to Constitution, the Supreme Court expressly recognized that doubts (unanswered questions) concerning who is a “Natural Born Citizen” remain and that the Court must look outside the Constitution for its meaning because the phrase is not defined within its boarders. These doubts remain today (Wong Kim Ark, 1898 notwithstanding, see here). Much to our current chagrin, the facts in Minor did not require the Court to address the unresolved “Natural Born Citizen” issues; so usual, the Court chose not to do so. That is really unfortunate for us. The Court could have saved millions of Americans tons of stress today had they, with perfect 20/20 foresight, simply addressed just a few possible situations.
Supreme Court in Minor stated:
..The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners.
(Excerpt) Read more at canadafreepress.com ...
"WTF, did he bring in a cup of Zero's urine?"
LOL! He said something to the effect even if they (meaning birthers) had his DNA they still wouldn't believe he was a NBC.
Just shows how stupid Gibbs is. DNA has nothing to do with where you were born.
Possibly you are correct.
However, no court decision or administrative decision I’m aware of would support such a conclusion.
Everything I’ve seen to date with any credibility indicates that “citizen at birth” = “natural born citizen.”
The law is what it is, not what we might wish it to be.
At least until a liberal judge gets hold of it.
The term "natural-born citizen" has not been dealt with in any way, since ratification of the Constitution. All the laws, opinions and court decisions can only have bearing upon immigration and naturalization, again under the specific dictates of the Constitution.
The meaning of the term is only a mystery to those who want to make it a mystery for various purposes. Many of the advocates of such have sentimental attachment to the notion that they, themselves could one day be President, or that their children could, despite having a parent not being naturalized. That's what I've discovered here on FR, too, through close to a year and a half of sometimes acrimonious debate.
As far as "categories" of citizens, there are quite clearly more than two, by the Constitution itself, by the laws in effect at various times, and by the court decisions over the duration of that time:
- There were citizens by Constitutional ratification, under the so-called "grandfather clause," all now dead, but a category nonetheless.
- There were and are citizens by statute or legal fiat, who went through no process of naturalization, were not born on US soil, and yet had citizenship bestowed upon them after the fact.
- There are native born citizens, which were and are born on US soil.
- There are naturalized citizens, who underwent a process of becoming a citizen by their own volition.
- And, there are natural-born citizens, whose citizenship has never been in doubt, due to having been born on US soil and being born to citizen parents.
Law, cumulative dicta, court decisions and the Constitution itself spell this out.
The US Code...very clearly spells out who is a “Citizen at Birth”. There is no separate specific definition in US law of the term “Natural Born Citizen”
Are you asking us to believe the Congress by statute can amend the U.S. Constitution?
Assuming you recognize the distinction, what is your theory as to why the framers distinguished between the citizenship requirements of Senators and the Pres and VP?
“I’m not asking you to believe anything...”
That is good, although it raises the purpose of your post.
However. so long as you agree the concept of a “natural born” citizen set out in the Constitution is unaffected by the language of some incidental statute you are on the same page as many of us.
You are correct in that the USSC has not yet ruled that, contrary to the historical record, one with a foreign father can be a NBC.
I think you are wrong!
I don't think he is stupid. He plays the gullible press corp like a master violinist to keep them totally focused on the B.C. which is a decoy or bait to distract them from the real issues that they have swept under the rug, numerous sealed records, his father as a British Subject, etc.!!
It reminds me of Rummy how he got his "clients" press corp looking like fools!!!
That is good, although it raises the purpose of your post.
However. so long as you agree the concept of a “natural born” citizen set out in the Constitution is unaffected by the language of some incidental statute you are on the same page as many of us.
You are correct in that the USSC has not yet ruled that, contrary to the historical record, one with a foreign father can be a NBC.
ping
“That “incidental statute” is what allowed Chief Justice Roberts to swear Obama in as 44th President of the United States.”
We disagree on that point. The Chief Justice gave the statute absolutely no thought at all, nor did the Congress. That is apparent since there is nothing in the public record that demonstrates O is a citizen.
Once the Congress certified O was President, Roberts, representing only 1/3 of the government with limited power and authority, had no option but to swear him in.
You may be interested in my About Page for more on this point.
We disagree on that point. The Chief Justice gave the statute absolutely no thought at all, nor did the Congress. That is apparent since there is nothing in the public record that demonstrates O is a citizen.
Once the Congress certified O was President, Roberts, representing only 1/3 of the government with limited power and authority, had no option but to swear him in.
You may be interested in my About Page for more on this point.
Bump!
The Supreme Court doesn't appear to agree with you. In its various somewhat peripheral discussions of the issue, it seems to believe English common law provides the best basis for understanting of the term.
Vattel, after all, was Swiss and was writing in French about civil law, based on Roman law and never accepted in England (or America outside Louisiana).
Blackstone, with whom all the Founders who were lawyers would have been very familiar, had a very clear concept of citizenship. It was very similar to the "birthright" citizenship of today, where place of birth, not parentage, is the default relevant factor. Is it not reasonable to assume that common law definitions apply, where not overriden by specific language otherwise?
“Did the justices of the US Supreme Court have no option but to reject every lawsuit challenging Obama’s eligibility?”
Those cases were not heard on very specific and narrow grounds, none of which went to the issue of whether O is a citizen. Several cases are yet working their way through the process. The USSC has to get it right if it is going to render an opinion that Congress screwed up.
“Did the 535 members of Congress have no option but to certify the Electoral College vote when it only would have taken any one Representative and any one Senator to challenge the certification of the Electoral College vote?”
That is precisely the Constitutional defect that the USSC should look at. Failure of the Congress to recognize it duties under the 10th and 20th Amendments and 3 USC 15.
Bear in mind, that failure occurred even if O is later found to be qualified.
If the Court agrees that such a defect occurred and Congress takes no action, then we (and our military) will know exactly what we face.
“Did 435 members of the House of Representatives have no option this week but to unanimously agree with the statement in the House Resolution on the State of Hawaii’s 50th anniversary of statehood that Hawaii is the birth place of the 44th President of the United States, Barack Obama?”
Not sure of the language that was agreed on, but a resolution has no legal effect whatsoever.
Now, I answered your questions, here is a very easy question for you.
Do you believe O is a U.S. citizen and, if so, on what basis?
“Did the justices of the US Supreme Court have no option but to reject every lawsuit challenging Obama’s eligibility?”
Those cases were not heard on very specific and narrow grounds, none of which went to the issue of whether O is a citizen. Several cases are yet working their way through the process. The USSC has to get it right if it is going to render an opinion that Congress screwed up.
“Did the 535 members of Congress have no option but to certify the Electoral College vote when it only would have taken any one Representative and any one Senator to challenge the certification of the Electoral College vote?”
That is precisely the Constitutional defect that the USSC should look at. Failure of the Congress to recognize it duties under the 10th and 20th Amendments and 3 USC 15.
Bear in mind, that failure occurred even if O is later found to be qualified.
If the Court agrees that such a defect occurred and Congress takes no action, then we (and our military) will know exactly what we face.
“Did 435 members of the House of Representatives have no option this week but to unanimously agree with the statement in the House Resolution on the State of Hawaii’s 50th anniversary of statehood that Hawaii is the birth place of the 44th President of the United States, Barack Obama?”
Not sure of the language that was agreed on, but a resolution has no legal effect whatsoever.
Now, I answered your questions, here is a very easy question for you.
Do you believe O is a U.S. citizen and, if so, on what basis.
That document is backed up by the birth announcements in both Honolulu newspapers that appeared on Sunday, August 13, 1961 and both Honolulu newspapers get their Vital Statistics on births, deaths, marriages and divorces directly from the Health Department and not from family members.
On Monday of this week, the Director of the Hawaii Health Department once again confirmed that Obama’s birth certificate is valid and that he was born in Hawaii.” The following is from her statement: “I, Dr. Chiyome Fukino, Director of the Hawaii State Department of Health, have seen the original vital records maintained on file by the Hawaii State Department of Health verifying Barack Hussein Obama was born in Hawaii and is a natural-born American citizen.”
That’s good enough for me. I realize that it is not good enough for you.
“That’s good enough for me. I realize that it is not good enough for you.”
We all get to choose what we believe in, and then live with it. Suppose that is what makes life so interesting.
Regards,
you are welcome!
glad you liked the post.
Public opinion is against the Obamanoids on this.
glad you liked it
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.