Posted on 10/07/2009 11:23:53 AM PDT by EternalVigilance
By Alan Keyes
October 7, 2009
Loyal to Liberty
I just received a call from Orly Taitz, my attorney in the case seeking proof of Obama's eligibility for the Office of President of the United States. Judge Carter has released a statement declaring that the dates he set for the hearing and trial on the eligibility issue are confirmed, and it will move forward as scheduled. Apparently he was not swayed by the Obama lawyer's arguments.
Says nothing about "natural born". Nor about children born of US servicemembers. Section 1401a does cover children born to those in the military, but only applies to births between January 12, 1941 and December 24, 1952. It also only covers those with a single serve member and citizen parent. It basically applies 1401 (g) to those persons. WW-II cleanup. But it still doesn't address "natural born".
Who is a natural-born citizen? Who, in other words, is a citizen at birth, such that that person can be a President someday?
The 14th Amendment defines citizenship this way: All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. But even this does not get specific enough. As usual, the Constitution provides the framework for the law, but it is the law that fills in the gaps.
Currently, Title 8 of the U.S. Code fills in those gaps. Section 1401 defines the following as people who are citizens of the United States at birth:
Perhaps this is what your after?
The reply of yours, to which I was responding, contained cites of statute law as defining natural-born citizenship. I’ve demonstrated why citing statute law is in error, under enumeration of powers to the Legislative branch under the Constitution. Congress is enumerated power over immigration and naturalization only, and therefore Acts of Congress must be understood to pertain to immigration and naturalization only as a result.
And, you’ve again returned to statute law, determining who is a citizen at birth, and conflate citizen at birth with natural-born citizen. This conflation can be clarified and put to rest, by merely looking to The Nationality Act of 1795, werein children born abroad of U.S. citizens are deemed citizens. That is the prime, original example of citizenship at birth by operation of statute. It’s also a prime example of Congress correcting itself, in one of the first, if not the first, instances of Congressional overreach, in enacting the preceding Nationality Act Of 1790, which clearly exceeded powers enumerated to the Legislative branch.
Continuing on down the line with the multiple, erroneous statements and assumptions, children born of parents abroad due to one or both parents being in the United States Armed Forces, are not natural-born citizens under the Constitution. There have been numerous Bills sponsored, purportedly to make such citizens eligible for the Presidency.
Claire McCaskill sponsored one such Bill just last year, co-sponsored by Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama and Thomas Coburn: S. 2678. Another was sponsored by former Senator Nickles of Oklahoma in 2004, and co-sponsored by Jim Inhofe and Mary Landrieu: S. 2128. This is a matter of public record, easily researched by anyone, so repeated misstatements of fact do not long sway public sentiment on the matter, particularly here on Free Republic.
The sentiment that children born abroad of military parents should be considered natural-born is understandable. But, it is not the law. Matter of fact, the law cannot make such a determination. That is why a Constitutional Amendment would be in order, to accomplish such an end. I’ve named two attempts to do just that in the past five years. Neither was ratified.
You’d have us all believe that such Bills for Constitutional Amendment were wholly unnecessary.
They were not unnecessary. Ill advised, yes, no matter how admirable the sentiment behind them, but necessary to accomplish that end.
For anyone reading this thread who is curious or disagrees, please go to http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=s108-2128 to look up S. 2128 from 2004. The same can be done for S.2678 from 2008, by using the search field on govtrack.us to locate that Bill.
These statutes say nothing about Natural Born Citizens, only citizens at birth, derived citizenship etc. It is a Statute which yields to The Constitution and its Amendments.
Pertinent point from the State Department link is this:
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
It seems clear to me that a child can have two legal fathers in two different countries just as they can have two legal citizenships.
Stanley Ann may have made a purely tangential reference to Barry in her Soetoro divorce just to dispose of any child support issue. She is also suspected of using the “truth” opportunistically as the Soetoro may have done when declaring Obama to be his son and an Indonesian citizen to get him into school (and Muslin).
We have no forensic legal evidence of any adoption in Indonesia or HI and lack of an index for an adoption for Barry in HI. We have no passport evidence for Barry for the US, Kenya or Indonesia and claims that US citizens couldn't travel to Pakistan in 1981 have been definitively refuted by contemporary travel packages in the NY Times (from memory).
We just don't know and can only guess how Barry got to Pakistan and whether he could travel there on a non-US passport obtained without renouncing his US citizen or NBC status (if he ever had citizen or NBC status).
At least the extremely important confirmation of an HI record of an index for the Stanley-Obama Sr marriage was made last week.
Claire McCaskill sponsored one such Bill just last year, co-sponsored by Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama and Thomas Coburn: S. 2678. Another was sponsored by former Senator Nickles of Oklahoma in 2004, and co-sponsored by Jim Inhofe and Mary Landrieu: S. 2128. This is a matter of public record, easily researched by anyone, so repeated misstatements of fact do not long sway public sentiment on the matter, particularly here on Free Republic.
Is there a question in there somewhere?
Niether Indonesian case law, nor statute law directly affects citizenship under US law.
TITLE 8 > CHAPTER 12 > SUBCHAPTER III > Part III
You can see that all renunciation actions must be voluntary on the part of the person, and generally must take place after age 18. (The exceptions being committing treason, insurrection, violent overthrow of the government of the US, etc)
You are making an unwarrented assumption that "citizen at birth is the same as natural born citizen", it's not "natural born citizen" means one who needs no statute to be a citizen at birth, that's why it's call "natural" as in "natural rights". All others, who are citizens at birth solely because of some statute, are not "natural born citizens".
No it is an answer to your post 1457 (which responded to my post at 1446)We have continually answered your questions and now your failure to read Regulator Country's response has answered mine, good day.
your post 1457...This is new law, you must go back to pertinent law of the time, ie: 1952 case law, which I have already enumerated.....
It seems clear to me that a child can have two legal fathers in two different countries just as they can have two legal citizenships.
We have no forensic legal evidence of any adoption in Indonesia or HI and lack of an index for an adoption for Barry in HI. We have no passport evidence for Barry for the US, Kenya or Indonesia and claims that US citizens couldn’t travel to Pakistan in 1981 have been definitively refuted by contemporary travel packages in the NY Times (from memory).
IMO the biggest news was that his Hawaii info had been modified, See MissTickly, and Leo Donofrio for that information.
(1) obtaining naturalization in a foreign state upon his own application or upon an application filed by a duly authorized agent, after having attained the age of eighteen years; or
The agent in this case was the step-father, who is duly authorized by marriage.
I have stated the Constitution, and related statues and US code, your not going to be satisfied, lets move on.
Well, thank you very much, for driving home the point that the status you claim for citizens born abroad of military parents is in error.
Neither the McCaskill-sponsored Bill, purporting to make citizens born abroad of military parents natural-born citizens, nor the Nickles-sponsored Bill, purporting to make citizens born abroad of military parents natural-born citizens, "passed."
Now, what do you suppose the purpose of those two Bills might have been? Would it have been an attempt at making citizens born abroad to military parents into natural-born citizens? That does appear to be the case, etraveler13.
One might reach the logical conclusion that citizens born abroad to military parents are not currently natural-born citizens under the Constitution, might one?
Thank you...I agree that we should move on....
How did we devolve this to an issue about John McCain, and not about Obama?
At this point, I am not interested in issues about Military Children, as Obama does not fall into that catagory.
Perhaps some of the information I posted which were from other locations that I supplied links to, got your panties in a knot, for that I am sorry, and wish to state that my interest is in Obama, not McCain.
I checked your note on the McCaskill bill, read it, and saw that it was stuck in committee and did not pass. To me that shows due diligence to your words.
Save your sarcasm for someone who cares BTW
Actaully they are. See Vattel, "Law of Nations" Book I section 217, in context of sections 212-217.
For the same reasons also, children born out of the country, in the armies of the state, or in the house of its minister at a foreign court, are reputed born in the country; for a citizen who is absent with his family, on the service of the state, but still dependent on it, and subject to its jurisdiction, cannot be considered as having quitted its territory.
No statute is required. Blackstone also has an exception for those in the King's service, but serving outside the country.
I said “two legal fathers” not two biological fathers.
I don't believe Leo and MissT have actually confirmed directly that there was modification of Barry's BC vital record. I think they have overstated the confidence level they can have in the assumptions behind their deductive reasoning that there was such a modification.
However, there are the many and numerous attempts at amending the Constitution, for the purpose of making citizens born abroad of U.S. citizen parents in service to the United States Armed Forces, into natural-born citizens.
This alone throws your extended interpretation, of the influence that Vattel had, into serious question. It's clearly and demonstrably not within the understanding of those with authority under the Constitution to propose Amendments to the same.
Perhaps a legal challenge should be mounted, to any such Bill under current or future consideration in the Senate? I'm sure any number of parties would be highly relieved, if such a challenge were to be successful.
The very real issue of messy legal entanglements, for any future President with citizenship claims upon him or her, from a nation of birth under jus soli remains, though. Imagine a President with citizenship in a nation with which we are at war. Is this a person who should be Commander In Chief of the military? I don't think so.
That's why such proposed Bills for Constitutional Amendment are ill-advised.
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.