Congress, the President, and the Supreme Law of the Land

Members of Congress (Senators and Representatives) have a Constitutional duty to: 

1) Personally inspect a certified copy of Obama’s original birth certificate, sent to them under seal directly from the State of Hawaii. (Just as was done with the certification of the Electoral College vote)

2) Ask the Supreme Court to clarify the meaning of the Constitutional phrase “Natural Born Citizen”.

 And the State of Hawaii cannot stand in their way.

Constitution for the United States of America, Article VI, paragraphs 2 and 3:

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.

The Constitution is “the supreme Law of the Land”, “any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding”.

Senators and Representatives are bound by the following Congressional Oath of Office:

I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter: So help me God.

Again, Senators and Representatives are Consitutionally bound by this Oath to support the Constitution. They therefore have a tangible interest in any document necessary to support and defend the Constitution, “any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding”.

That means that Senators and Representatives have a “tangible interest” in any document necessary to support and defend the Constitutional eligibility requirements necessary to hold the office of President – even if State laws claim they don’t have a “tangible interest” in those documents. 

The Constitution is the supreme law of the land, any thing in the laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.  No state can claim that a Senator or Representative does not have a “tangible interest” in the vital documents of the President of the United States.  No court can claim that a Senator or Representative does not have “standing” to challenge the eligibilty of someone seeking (or holding) the office of President and Commander in Chief.

From the 12th Amendment:

The President of the Senate shall, in the presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the certificates and the votes shall then be counted;

But no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States.

This means that the Senate and House of Representatives have a Constitutional duty to ensure that the candidates for both President and Vice-President are eligible, and not “constitutionally ineligible to the office of President”.  The concept of Congress verifying Presidential eligibility is right there in the 12th Amendment.

And that concept is reinforced by the 20th Amendment:

if the President elect shall have failed to qualify, then the Vice President elect shall act as President until a President shall have qualified; and the Congress may by law provide for the case wherein neither a President elect nor a Vice President elect shall have qualified, declaring who shall then act as President, or the manner in which one who is to act shall be selected, and such person shall act accordingly until a President or Vice President shall have qualified.

Since Congress is explicitly required to examine “certificates” of the Electoral College vote (and not merely accept someone’s word about the vote), it is logical that Congress has both a Constitutional right and a Constitutional duty to inspect the “certificates” of birth for the President and Vice-President (and not merely accept someone’s word about them).

From Article I Section 2:

No Person shall be a Representative who shall not have attained to the Age of twenty five Years, and been seven Years a Citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an Inhabitant of that State in which he shall be chosen.

From Article I Section 3:

No person shall be a Senator who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty Years, and been nine Years a Citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an Inhabitant of that State for which he shall be chosen.

From Article II Section 1:

No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution [1787], 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.

The Constitution clearly makes a distinction between the term “Citizen” and the term “natural born Citizen“.

The 14th Amendment defines the term “Citizen“, but does not define the term “natural born Citizen“.

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.

This Amendment was ratified July 9, 1868. Over six years after that text became part of the Constitution, the Supreme Court of the United States confirmed that this Amendment does not define the term “natural born Citizen“:

“The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that.”

- Supreme Court Chief Justice Morrison Remick Waite, in “Minor v Happersett”, March 29, 1875

At the time of that decision, the Constitution included the 12th Amendment. This Supreme Court decision makes it clear that the 12th Amendment does not define the term “natural born Citizen“.

For a person to even claim they are a “citizen” under the 12th Amendment, they must meet its two conditions:

1) born or naturalized in the United States, and
2) subject to the jurisdiction thereof

If a person is born to two U.S. citizen parents, they are clearly “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” of the United States and meet the second requirement above.

If a person is born with one or both parents being a citizen of another country, they are “subject to the jurisdiction” of one or more other countries, and do not meet the second requirement above.

Obama’s own campaign made it clear that he was born “subject” to the jurisdiction of Great Britain.  He was born a British subject. That is an undisputed fact. This was openly admitted on the Fight the Smears web site (which at one point was scrubbed, but then later restored):

“When Barack Obama Jr. was born on Aug. 4,1961, in Honolulu, Kenya was a British colony, still part of the United Kingdom’s dwindling empire. As a Kenyan native, Barack Obama Sr. was a British subject whose citizenship status was governed by The British Nationality Act of 1948. That same act governed the status of Obama Sr.‘s children.

Since Sen. Obama has neither renounced his U.S. citizenship nor sworn an oath of allegiance to Kenya, his Kenyan citizenship automatically expired on Aug. 4,1982.”

Obama was born a British subject and later became a Kenyan citizen when Kenya became independent of the United Kingdom. That is an undisputed fact.

It is an undisputed fact that both father and son were British subjects when the son was born. It is an undisputed fact that the son’s citizenship status was governed by The British Nationality Act of 1948. Hence it is an undisputed fact that the son was “subject to the jurisdiction” of Great Britain at the time of his birth.

If someone is a “natural born citizen” of the United States, how does British Law govern their citizenship status at birth?

Not only does the 14th Amendment not define “natural born citizen”, but the 14th Amendment definition of “citizen” requires that a person be “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States in order to be considered a “citizen”.

That means that the man known as “Barack Hussein Obama II”, also known as “Barack Hussein Obama, Jr.”, also known as “Barry Soetoro” cannot claim that the 14th Amendment makes him a “natural born citizen”.

He can’t even claim with certainty the 14th Amendment makes him a “citizen”!   Remember that for a person to even claim they are a “citizen” under the 12th Amendment, they must meet its two conditions:

1) born or naturalized in the United States, and
2) subject to the jurisdiction thereof

Obama’s was born a British subject whose citizenship status was governed by The British Nationality Act of 1948.  He was “subject to the jurisdiction” of Great Britain.  That means that by the 14th Amendment, there are doubts that Obama is even a U.S. citizen at all.

The Supreme Court, again in Minor v Happersett said:

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. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their [p168] parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case it is not necessary to solve these doubts. It is sufficient for everything we have now to consider that all children born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction are themselves citizens.

Those doubts must now be answered, as they relate to the man currently holding the office of President of the United States and Commander in Chief of all of our Armed Forces.

Since the Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens, and resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that, where should we go?

Consider the words of the man who became first Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court, written to the man who was the Presiding Officer of the Constitutional Convention and became the first President of the United States….

On July 25th, 1787, John Jay wrote to George Washington, then Presiding Officer of the Constitutional Convention:

“Permit me to hint, whether it would 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 Commander in Chief of the American Army shall not be given to nor devolve on, any but a natural born Citizen.”

John Jay was the First Chief Justice of the United States, among many other things, and it was this letter that caused Clause 5 of Article II to exist in our Constitution.

What was the commonly accepted definition of “natural born citizen” in 1787 when the Constitution was ratified?

The 1758 work:

THE LAW OF NATIONS
OR
PRINCIPLES OF THE LAW OF NATURE APPLIED TO THE CONDUCT AND AFFAIRS OF NATIONS AND SOVEREIGNS

by Swiss legal philosopher Emmerich de Vattel was read by many of the Founders of the United States of America, and informed their understanding of the principles of law which became established in the Constitution of 1787.

In it, Vattel says:

§ 212. Citizens and natives.

The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. As the society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights. The society is supposed to desire this, in consequence of what it owes to its own preservation; and it is presumed, as matter of course, that each citizen, on entering into society, reserves to his children the right of becoming members of it. The country of the fathers is therefore that of the children; and these become true citizens merely by their tacit consent. We shall soon see whether, on their coming to the years of discretion, they may renounce their right, and what they owe to the society in which they were born. I say, that, in order to be of the country, it is necessary that a person be born of a father who is a citizen; for, if he is born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country.

(emphasis mine)

Section 215 elaborates on section 212:

§ 215. Children of citizens born in a foreign country.

It is asked whether the children born of citizens in a foreign country are citizens? The laws have decided this question in several countries, and their regulations must be followed.(59) By the law of nature alone, children follow the condition of their fathers, and enter into all their rights (§ 212); the place of birth produces no change in this particular, and cannot, of itself, furnish any reason for taking from a child what nature has given him; I say “of itself,” for, civil or political laws may, for particular reasons, ordain otherwise. But I suppose that the father has not entirely quitted his country in order to settle elsewhere. If he has fixed his abode in a foreign country, he is become a member of another society, at least as a perpetual inhabitant; and his children will be members of it also.

There is no expiration on the Congressional Oath of Office.  It is time for members of Congress to finally honor their sworn oath by doing the following:

1) Personally inspect a certified copy of Obama’s original birth certificate, sent to them under seal directly from the State of Hawaii. (Just as was done with the certification of the Electoral College vote)

2) Ask the Supreme Court to clarify the meaning of the Constitutional phrase “Natural Born Citizen”.

If the data in the certified copy of Obama’s original birth certificate matches the data previously released in “Obama’s COLB”, and the Supreme Court rules in favor of Vattel and first Chief Justice John Jay, then Obama is not Constitutionally eligible to hold the office of President and Commander-in-Chief.

If the data in the certified copy of Obama’s original birth certificate does not match the data previously released in “Obama’s COLB”, then Obama is guilty of forgery, perjury, and obstruction of justice.

Lastly, there is one other section of the Constitution that speaks to Presidential eligibility. It is Section 3 of the very same Amendment which Obama claims makes him eligible to be President. Section 3 of the 14th Amendment reads:

3. No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

About these ads
This entry was posted in Presidential Eligibility. Bookmark the permalink.

24 Responses to Congress, the President, and the Supreme Law of the Land

  1. I don’t want to distract from the “natural born citizen” issues above, but Congress should seriously consider whether Obama, having taken an oath as a U.S. Senator to support the Constitution of the United States, gave aid and comfort to enemies of the United States.

    A case could be made that William “Bill” Ayers engaged in insurrection and rebellion against, and is an enemy of, the United States. He admitted to bombing the Pentagon and U.S. Capitol Building. He has admitted to being a revolutionary communist. And a case could be made that his “family friend” (Ayers own words), Barack Obama, gave aid and comfort to him when the two served together on the Board of the Chicago Annenberg Challenge.

    Congress should not make light of these events and this relationship. Per the Constitution, a vote of two-thirds of each House is required to remove this disability.

  2. I wrote the following before the joint session of Congress inspected the certificates of the Electoral College vote:

    Trust, But Verify

  3. Frin says:

    Mr Pill,

    Wong Kim Ark is very clear that English Common Law is the foundation for US citizenship law. I suggest you read the majority opinion of that case in full – you will find it pretty clear cut that they reject Vattel’s definition.

    I would also suggest you read the opinion of the Supreme Court of NY in the case of Lynch vs Clarke, which did definitively rule on natural born citizenship status. Lynch was born in NY to alien parents, and was found to be a citizen. The whole opinion is very interesting, in particular this sentence:

    “Upon principle, therefore, I can entertain no doubt, but that by the law of the United States, every person born within the dominions and allegience of the United States, whatever were the situation of his parents, is a natural born citizen.”

    The opinion also discusses whether common law or European continental law applies to US citizenship, saying the following:

    “In regard to the effect of birth upon the right of citizenship, it is my duty not to establish the rule of law for the first time, but to ascertain a rule which has been in force from the era of the Federal Constitution, and which has affected the rights of persons and property constantly from that period to the present. Were this, however, to be determined solely on its intrinsic propriety and adaptation to our circumstances, I am not sure that any rule different from that of the common law, ought to be adopted in our country. It is indispensable that there should be some fixed, certain and intelligible rules for determining the question of alienage or citizenship. The place of nativity, furnishes one as plain and certain, and as readily to be proved, as any circumstance which can be mentioned. If we depart from that, and adopt the rule of some of the contintental nations, we have two more remote and difficult tests introduced. We are to ascertain first, by evidence of facts removed one generation from the time of the inquiry, the status or citizenship of the parents at the time of the birth of the propositus; and next, the election or intention of the propositus himself, in reference to his adoption of the country where he was born, or that of which his parents were citizens. ”

    It says quite clearly that they they do not believe that any law other than the common law should be adopted.

    As for the Ayers thing, are you seriously suggesting that the President should be held accountable for actions that Ayers took when the President was around 10 years old, and for which he (Ayers) was not convicted of? That is beyond ridiculous.

  4. JohnC says:

    Here is a fuller passage from what the Supreme Court had to say in Minor v. Happersett:

    “Additions might always be made to the citizenship of the United States in two ways: first, by birth, and second, by naturalization. This is apparent from the Constitution itself, for it provides that ‘no person except a natural-born citizen, or a citizen of the United States at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President,’ and that Congress shall have power ‘to establish a uniform rule of naturalization.’ Thus new citizens may be born or they may be created by naturalization.

    “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. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case it is not necessary to solve these doubts. It is sufficient for everything we have now to consider that all children born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction are themselves citizens.”

    This extended passage is important, because it gives a fuller context to the passage often cited by those who contend it somehow ascribes a special meaning to the term “natural born citizen” apart from general concerns of citizenship by birth.

    What people often overlook is that Minor was a case in which a Missouri woman claimed she had a right to vote as a citizen. The issue of presidential eligibility was irrelevant to this case – citizenship was the main concern here.

    The Court first discussed whether women were in fact citizens under the U.S. Constitution. As part of this discussion, the court examined how people become citizens. It said, in the first paragraph above, that there are two ways in which people can become citizens, (1) by birth, and (2) by naturalization.

    It is only in this discussion of citizenship that the Court turns to “natural born citizen.” Not surprisingly, the Court weaves between the terms “natural born citizen”, “native citizen” and “citizenship by birth” without making any substantive distinction between them.

    Subsequent case law makes it abundantly clear that the term “natural born citizen” is used in precisely the same way – i.e. that it has no special constitutional meaning, and is merely another way for the Court to say “citizen by birth.” For example:

    “Apart from the passing reference to the “natural born Citizen” in the Constitution’s Art. II, § 1, cl. 5, we have, in the Civil Rights Act of April 9, 1866, 14 Stat. 27, the first statutory recognition and concomitant formal definition of the citizenship status of the native born: “All persons born in the United States and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed, are hereby declared to be citizens of the United States . . . .” This, of course, found immediate expression in the Fourteenth Amendment, adopted in 1868, with expansion to “all persons born or naturalized in the United States . . . .””

    Rogers v. Bellei, 401 U.S. 815, 829 (1971).

    “We start from the premise that the rights of citizenship of the native born and of the naturalized person are of the same dignity and are coextensive. The only difference drawn by the Constitution is that only the “natural born” citizen is eligible to be President. Art. II, § 1.”

    Schneider v. Rusk, 377 U.S. 163, 165 (1964).

    “The distinction between citizenship by birth and citizenship by naturalization is clearly marked in the provisions of the Constitution, by which “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;” and “the Congress shall have power to establish an uniform rule of naturalization.” Constitution, art. 2, sect. 1; art. 1, sect. 8.”

    Elk v. Wilkins, 112 U.S. 94, 101 (1884).

  5. Frin says:

    Mr Pill,

    Because I just know you aren’t going to read Wong Kim Ark – here’s a pretty relevant passage:

    “The fourteenth amendment affirms the ancient and fundamental rule of citizenship by birth within the territory, in the allegiance and under the protection of the country, including all children here born of resident aliens, with the exceptions or qualifications (as old as the rule itself) of children of foreign sovereigns or their ministers, or born on foreign public ships, or of enemies within and during a hostile occupation of part of our territory, and with the single additional exception of children of members of the Indian tribes owing direct allegiance to their several tribes. The amendment, in clear words and in manifest intent, includes the children born within the territory of the United States of all other persons, of whatever race or color, domiciled within the United States. Every citizen or subject of another country, while domiciled here, is within the allegiance and the protection, and consequently subject to the jurisdiction, of the United States.”

    Its pretty clear they are referring to Common Law here, not Vattel…

  6. Frin,

    In Minor v. Happersett, the Supreme Court expressed “doubts” regarding the citizenship of U.S.-born children whose parents were not U.S. citizens. In Wong Kim Ark, 1898, the Supreme Court examined these “doubts”, but did not render any decision or ruling pertaining to natural born citizenship. The Court ruled that Mr. Ark was a citizen; it did not rule that he was a natural born citizen. To date, the Supreme Court has never answered the question as to whether natural born citizenship extends to children of non-citizen parents.

    Obama Presidential Eligibility – An Introductory Primer

  7. Frin,

    Its pretty clear they are referring to Common Law here, not Vattel…

    Please note that the eligibility requirement is “Natural born citizen”, not “Common born citizen”. The word “Natural” refers to “Natural Law”, not “Common Law”. The Natural Law definitions commonly accepted by the founders are found in Vattel’s 1758 work “THE LAW OF NATIONS, OR, PRINCIPLES OF THE LAW OF NATURE APPLIED TO THE CONDUCT AND AFFAIRS OF NATIONS AND SOVEREIGNS”.

    The phrase “natural born citizen” appears exactly once in the entire Constitution, whereas the term “citizen” appears multiple times. No amendment redefines the term “natural born citizen”, only the term “citizen”.

  8. How’s this for simplicity:

    1) The issue is Presidential eligibility.

    2) The Constitution explicitly requires that “No person except a natural born Citizen … shall be eligible to the Office of President”.

    3) Nowhere in the original Constitution, its ratified Amendments, or Supreme Court decisions, is the term “natural born citizen” conclusively defined.

    4) Any consideration of the founders’ original intent for Presidential eligibility must take into account the writings of the man who became the first Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court (John Jay).

    On July 25th, 1787, John Jay wrote the following to George Washington, then Presiding Officer of the Constitutional Convention:

    “Permit me to hint, whether it would 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 Commander in Chief of the American Army shall not be given to nor devolve on, any but a natural born Citizen.”

    It was this letter that caused Clause 5 of Article II to exist in our Constitution. Since the oldest natural born citizens in 1787 were only 11 years old, a grandfather clause was included for those who were citizens at the time of the Constitution’s adoption. But the clear intent was to disqualify “Foreigners” from becoming President and Commander in Chief of our armed forces.

    5) On a web site run by the Obama campaign (it explicitly states “PAID FOR BY OBAMA FOR AMERICA” at the bottom of the page), it was openly admitted that Barack Obama had FOREIGN citizenship from birth until his 21st birthday.

    I think it is pretty clear that John Jay and George Washington, our first Chief Justice of the Supreme Court and first President, would “declare expressly” that Barack Hussein Obama (also known as Barry Soetoro, Indonesian citizen) is NOT eligible to hold the office of President.

  9. In Kerchner, et al. v. Obama et al,
    Atty. Mario Apuzzo cites the following:

    THE VENUS, 12 U.S. (8 Cranch) 253, 289 (1814) (Marshall, C.J. concurring) (cites Vattel’s definition of Natural Born Citizen)

    SHANKS V. DUPONT, 28 U.S. 242, 245 (1830) (same definition without citing Vattel)

    MINOR V. HAPPERSETT, 88 U.S.162,167-168 (1875) (same definition without citing Vattel)

    EX PARTE REYNOLDS, (1879), 5 Dill., 394, 402 (same definition and cites Vattel)

    UNITED STATES V WARD, 42 F.320 (C.C.S.D. Cal. 1890) (same definition and cites Vattel.)

  10. Frin says:

    Mr Pill,

    Do you not understand that “Common Law” refers to English Common Law? Again, Wong Kim Ark makes it very clear that the Supreme Court REJECTED the application of Vattel’s definitions of citizenship, and said that English Common Law is the foundation.

    As for the Kerchner complaint – whilst he references those cases, he fails to tell you that none of these cases cited by Apuzzo actually hold that the “Vattel Rule” applies in the United States and, in fact, the cases that directly address that issue, while citing aspects of Vattel’s writings, decline to require that a child be born to two citizen parents in order to be considered a citizen, natural born or otherwise.

  11. Frin,

    Firstly, Wong Kim Ark does not (re)define “natural born Citizen”.

    Secondly, how do you reconcille these two FACTS:

    1) The first Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court, nominated by the man who was the Presiding Officer of the Constitutional Convention, clearly intended to prevent foreigners from holding the office of Commander-in-Chief.

    “…it would 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 Commander in Chief of the American Army shall not be given to nor devolve on, any but a natural born Citizen.”

    The clear intention is that “natural born Citizen” requirement for the Presidency excludes “Foreigners”.

    2) On a web site run by the Obama campaign (it explicitly states “PAID FOR BY OBAMA FOR AMERICA” at the bottom of the page), it was openly admitted that Barack Obama had FOREIGN citizenship from birth until his 21st birthday.

    his Kenyan citizenship automatically expired on Aug. 4,1982.”

  12. Frin says:

    Mr Pill,

    Yes yes yes I understand that you like the letter from John Jay – he says that he wants the President to be a Natural Born Citizen – I’m not disputing that. Neither he, nor the Constitution defines the term NBC – so where do we go for that definition? To the decisions of the court from then until now – and you are yet to provide one case where the definition of Vattel is used to frame the definition of a citizen. I have shown you a number of cases, such as Wong Kim Ark and Lynch vs Clarke among others (there are many more) which show that English Common Law is the reference for US Citizenship. That is my whole point. I’ll capitalize it to make it clear – ENGLISH COMMON LAW IS THE BASIS FOR US CITIZENSHIP LAW. English Common Law is jus solis, not jus sanguine.

    As for your second point – I’m not disputing that Obama was eligible for Kenyan citizenship – you keep acting like its some big revelation that you have found but its not – its been well known for a long time. Doesn’t that make you wonder why nobody with some real stake in this matter, such as Hillary Clinton or the Republican Party, followed this line during the campaign? I’ll give you a hint why – its because its completely irrelevant to his citizenship status.

    I’ve told you time and time before, with reference to court rulings, which establish that only those children born in the US to foreign diplomats or hostile combatants are not considered US citizens. Everyone else is. End of story.

  13. Frin says:

    Mr Pill,

    Yet another actual legal opinion that refutes your line of argument…

    http://nativeborncitizen.wordpress.com/2009/07/24/steinkauler-continued/

    The opening line of the article says:

    “First it [Steinkauler] established that the term ‘native born’ is equivalent to the term ‘natural born’ and that a ‘native born American citizen … can become President of the United States’. Furthermore, his native born nationality can be supplemented with an acquired nationality without him losing his native born status as long as he decides when reaching the age of majority to take his nationality of birth.”

  14. Yes yes yes I understand that you like the letter from John Jay – he says that he wants the President to be a Natural Born Citizen – I’m not disputing that.

    You’re avoiding the fact that John Jay wanted “a strong check to the admission of Foreigners into the administration of our national Government”.

    I’m not disputing that Obama was eligible for Kenyan citizenship

    You’re avoiding the fact that Obama wasn’t just “eligible” for Kenyan citizenship, his own campaign posted on the FightTheSmears.com web site that he HAD Kenyan citizenship. It expressly says, “his Kenyan citizenship“. Fact.

    Obama had foreign citizenship at birth. FACT.

    John Jay was clear that he did not want foreigners in our government, and especially not as Commander-in-Chief.

    George Washington agreed with him, and the requirement of U.S. Citizenship (for Senators and Representatives) and natural born Citizenship (for President) were written into the Constitution.

    If Washington thought John Jay was wrong on such a foundational issue, those eligibility requirements would not be in the Constitution, and Washington would not have chosen Jay as Chief Justice of the Supreme Court.

    The first Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, and the President who nominated him, agreed that they did not want foreigners in our government, and especially not as Commander-in-Chief.

    Obama had foreign citizenship from birth to adulthood (over the age of 18). He lived in a foreign country, registered in school as a citizen of that country. As a U.S. Senator, he took an active part in promoting a candidate (many say a relative) in the elections of a foreign country (Kenya). He allowed his book to be given a title which reads, in Bahasa Indonesia, “Assault Hope: From Jakarta to the White House”. He has called himself a “citizen of the world”, and travelled the world apologizing for the U.S.A.

    Obama is a foreigner. He is the very definition of what our first Chief Justice, first President, and the rest of the founders sought to exclude from Presidential eligibility.

    Period.

  15. Very appropriately cross-posted as a comment to the “Open, Transparent, and Accountable” thread

    Who said the following:
    (hint, it’s not a right-wing extremist “birther”)

    But why are we supposed to rely on the testimony of Dr Fukino, whom I believe entirely. It is not my job as a journalist or yours as a citizen to take public officials on trust. They are not to be trusted, whoever they are. It is our job to demand all the evidence we want or need. I know the electronic record is legit. I have no doubt that Obama has every constitutional right to be president. I think the Birthers are nuts. But there is no reason on earth that the original cannot be retrieved and shown. Jon Klein and CNN were wrong, and I retract my apology of yesterday.

    Obama promised total transparency. Where is it?

    {emphasis mine}

    Who said it?

  16. Frin says:

    Mr Pill,

    What part of “I’m not disputing that Obama was eligible for Kenyan citizenship – you keep acting like its some big revelation that you have found but its not – its been well known for a long time.” do you refuse to understand? I’m not trying to hide anything, or play semantics with you. Obama has not hidden that fact. The citizenship of Obama’s father is of no relevance to Obama’s citizenship, given he was not in the US as a foreign diplomat or as a hostile enemy combatant. Obama is not a foreigner as per your John Jay letter, so I see no conflict there.

    There are over 1.2 million lawyers in the US, many of whom are constitutional experts (real experts, not fake experts like your beloved Ron Polarik). How many of these REAL constitutional experts are standing up and saying there is a problem here. NONE. Not a single one. Your lawyers are all frauds, shysters, anti-semites or just plain incompetent.

    Your recent posts have suggested that not only do you say that Obama isn’t a natural born citizen, you don’t even think Obama he’s a citizen at all. This is so completely ridiculous and flies in the face of such an overwhelming amount of case law that it is almost beyond belief. But its getting to that point for you that you have to make such wild claims to keep your argument above water.

  17. IF Obama’s original birth certificate shows that he was born in Hawaii then the Constitution (per the 14th Amendment) makes him a Citizen. But not a natural born Citizen. Nowhere in the Constitution is the term “natural born Citizen” conclusively defined. The Supreme Court said so, and also said that there are “doubts” about whether people in Barack’s situation are “natural born Citizens”. I think those doubts are answered by John Jay’s letter to George Washington.

    Obama, even if born a U.S. Citizen, is also a foreigner. He had Kenyan citizenship, and his own campaign said so. You don’t have to think Obama was born in Kenya to believe Obama was born a British subject and later became a Kenyan citizen. Again, he did have Kenyan citizenship, and his own campaign said so! I understand that you think that’s irrelevant, and we will agree to disagree. What matters is what the Supreme Court says. (And what Obama’s original birth certificate says).

    It’s interesting how hard people like you and Math are working to try to get people like me to give up. You’re scared.

    You can give anyone who questions Obama the “Joe the Plumber” treatment and sling ad hominem attacks all you want, but what matters is the truth, and the truth will out.

  18. John says:

    The Constitution does not define the term “natural born citizen.” It does, however, mention only three classes of citizen: those grandfathered in in Article 2; those born on U.S. soil, and those naturalized citizens.

    Doesn’t logic dictate that one who is not a naturalized citizen is then a natural born one?

  19. John,
    You’re correct about three types of citizens, but you’re off on the details. Those grandfathered in in Article 2 aren’t a different type of citizen, they were made naturalized citizens by the Declaration of Indpendence on July 4th, 1776.

    I wrote about the three kinds of citizens last November:
    Three Kinds of US Citizens, and Why It Matters

  20. Math says:

    I’m not scared, I’m just amused at your resolute obstination in face of facts. Like I said, nothing will come out of this, of that I am 100% sure. I shouldn’t be laughing at people like you, but in your case I’m willing to make an exception.

  21. Frin says:

    Mr Pill,

    I’m not exactly sure what there is to be scared of. Your crack team of lawyers is currently batting 0. The country at large is laughing at you because of the performances of Orly Taitz and Alan Keyes on the MSM. The GOP is quickly figuring out that pandering to the conspiracy theorists in the party is making them look crazy too – so I think those Republican congressman such as Posey will fade away into obscurity.

    I’ve been hearing that Obama is going to be dragged out of the White House in handcuffs since Jan 20th, and nothing has happened. Well, actually, what has happening is that birthers like you have been focused on this non-issue instead of putting your efforts into stopping his evil Socialist agenda.

    And if you think pointing out the absurdity of your “legal” arguments is an ad hominen attack then I would suggest you get thicker skin.

    I’m just going to quote from Lynch vs Clarke here, because it proves my point about the absurdity of your position:

    “Suppose a person should be elected President who was native born, but of alien parents, could there be any reasonable doubt that he was eligible under the constitution? I think not. The position would be decisive in his favor that by the [247] rule of the common law, in force when the constitution was adopted, he is a citizen”

    Your argument is completely counter to this – and you can point to John Jay all you like – but the fact is this is the way that the courts have ruled.

  22. I’m not exactly sure what there is to be scared of.

    This.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s