Questions for Speaker Boehner:
1) Do you honor your oath to support and defend the Constitution of the United States?
2) Do you honor the rule of law?
3) Do you support the enforcement of current Immigration law?
4) Do you know that the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 requires that:
All employees, citizens and noncitizens, hired after November 6, 1986 and working in the United States must complete a Form I-9, Employment Eligibility Verification.
5) Is there any exception made in that law for any occupation, including President?
6) Is Obama an employee, hired after November 6, 1986 and working in the United States?
7) Do you know whether or not Obama is in compliance with current Immigration law? Do you know whether or not Obama has completed a Form I-9, Employment Eligibility Verification, and if so, what documents he used as proof of his employment eligibility?
8) Do you realize that the Form I-9 is very specific about what documents are acceptable?
9) Do you realize that when you said:
“The state of Hawaii has said that President Obama was born there,” Boehner said. “That’s good enough for me.”
… you are accepting as evidence something that is not accepted as evidence for a Form I-9?
10) Do you agree that the President is not above the law, and that Obama should publicly release original, initial documentation, certified by the appropriate government agency, to meet the requirements of not only the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 but also the United States Constitution? I.E., that Obama himself must prove that he is not only a citizen, but a natural born citizen?
11) Do you know that even if the “Obama birth narrative” is 100% true, Obama does not meet the Natural Law definition of “natural born citizen”?
12) To what legal authority do you look for the definition of “natural born citizen”? Why do you believe that being a “native born citizen” is sufficient to be considered a “natural born citizen” under the requirements of the United States Constitution?
13) Even if you have a demonstrably legal reason to believe that “native born citizen” is sufficient to be considered a “natural born citizen”, what evidence do you have that Obama is a “native born citizen”?
14) You said:
“The state of Hawaii has said that President Obama was born there,” Boehner said. “That’s good enough for me.”
The State of Hawaii (specifically, Dr. Fukino) did not say “Obama was born in Hawaii” until AFTER you, John Boehner, voted in favor of House of Representatives Resolution 593 which contained the words “Obama was born in Hawaii”.
The irony is that you did not rely on a document from Hawaii, but rather Hawaii relied on a document that you voted for in Washington, D.C.!
15) Which Government Organization Was The First To Say, “Obama was born in Hawaii”?
If Speaker Boehner thinks the answer to that question is “the State of Hawaii”, he is sadly mistaken. The answer to that question is “the U.S. House of Representatives”. And they did so without any documentary proof of the claim.
Then, Hawaii could use H.Res. 593 as prima facie evidence…
Federal Rules of Evidence
Rule 902. Self-authentication(10) Presumptions under Acts of Congress. Any signature, document, or other matter declared by Act of Congress to be presumptively or prima facie genuine or authentic.
————————–
Speaker Boehner, combine the legal requirements of:
1) Article II Section 1 of the United States Constitution
2) Section 3 of the 20th Amendment to the United States Constitution
3) The Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986:
All employees, citizens and noncitizens, hired after November 6, 1986 and working in the United States must complete a Form I-9, Employment Eligibility Verification.
… and you see that Obama and Biden are legally required to produce hard copy documentation of not only their eligibility to work in the United states but also their eligibility to hold the office of President.
And Congress has the legal responsibility to ensure that the President and Vice President have qualified.
I Took The Red Pill 
IB,
Per Wikipedia entry on ‘Flat Earth’:
From the ‘Myth of the Flat Earth’ entry:
Slartibartfast continues:
“%How long did it take after after President Obama published an image of what we now know to be his authentic birth certificate on the web before the first lies calling it a forgery were posted on the web?^”
A couple of days? Not sure. Doesn’t really matter,
You’re missing the point, within a couple of days of releasing an image of a document which is sufficient to prove the president’s natural born status in any court (and the obvious choice as to the document with which to answer the questions that were raised) he was smeared by accusations that we now know to be false. Now you say, ‘that’s all well and fine but questions remain’. Sorry, no one should even consider answering your questions and providing more opportunity for liars to make false accusations about the president unless you can come up with some credible evidence that your questions have merit. If you are unhappy with that, maybe you should take it up with the people in the eligibility movement that thought making up lies about the president’s dead mother was an appropriate way to attempt to remove the lawfully elected POTUS (there’s a word for that, by the way). How would you react if I tried to overthrow the legitimate government of the United States by making up lies about your mother? I think President Obama’s behavior towards the eligibility movement has been, if anything, remarkably restrained.
Slartibartfast comments
“IB,
Per Wikipedia entry on ‘Flat Earth’:
and
“From the ‘Myth of the Flat Earth’ entry:”
Ok Slartibartfast, I was simply trying to make a point.
Next time I’ll use something else, that’s just what popped in my head at the time.
Slartibartfast comments:
“You’re missing the point, within a couple of days of releasing an image of a document which is sufficient to prove the president’s natural born status in any court (and the obvious choice as to the document with which to answer the questions that were raised) he was smeared by accusations that we now know to be false.”
We do not “know” they are false. The COLB posted on Obama’s site has that black line through the certificate number, and would NOT be allowed in ANY Court.
The original document, I’ll give you, but the one posted on the internet at Obama’s site, has been altered and is therefore INVALID.
Slartibartfast continues:
“Now you say, ‘that’s all well and fine but questions remain’.”
Legitimate, reasonable questions, like does the long form state he was born at Kapiolani as Obama claims, or a residence?
Slartibartfast goes on:
“Sorry, no one should even consider answering your questions and providing more opportunity for liars to make false accusations about the president unless you can come up with some credible evidence that your questions have merit.”
At the least, Obama could say he released EVERYTHING, and THEN if people still had questions (depending on what the documents stated of course), then that would be on them, and I would be defending Obama like you are.
But he CHOOSES not to release EVERYTHING, and has selectively chosen ONE peice of paper to answer all of these legitimate, reasonable questions.
Let me ask you this, has Obama EVER addressed whether Lolo Adopted him? If he has, I’d like a link to what your source is.
Slartibartfast next comments:
“If you are unhappy with that, maybe you should take it up with the people in the eligibility movement that thought making up lies about the president’s dead mother was an appropriate way to attempt to remove the lawfully elected POTUS (there’s a word for that, by the way).”
What “lies” about his mother?
Slartibartfast comments:
“How would you react if I tried to overthrow the legitimate government of the United States by making up lies about your mother?”
I’d defend my mother, unlike Obama who simply allows the lies to fester.
Slartibartfast concludes:
“I think President Obama’s behavior towards the eligibility movement has been, if anything, remarkably restrained.”
Well, I for one, whould like the President to be a little less “restrained”, and answer the legitimate and reasonable questions.
Those being,
Why won’t you authorize the release of your long form birth certificate?
Why won’t you address whether you were adopred by Lolo Soetoro?
Why won’t you release your College financial records?
Why won’t you release your passport information from 1981?
If you can find me ANY answers by the President for these legitimate and reasonable questions, I’d like a link to your source.
I’ve looked, I don’t believe you’ll find where the President has answered ANY of these questions.
I agree with this graphic depiction:
Interesting posts here…
http://thedailypen.blogspot.com/
The Form I-9, Employment Eligibility Verification refers to the M-274 Handbook. Here is one of the Q&A’s:
Mr. Gibbs, please do tell… How does a rational person comes to a conclusion about someone else’s citizenship?
Does a rational person just take someone at their word?
Does a rational person trust a JPG image that was posted on the same web site within minutes of an obvious, taunting forgery for “Haye I.B. Ahphorgerie” (“Hey! I be a forgery!”)?
Does a rational person accept as evidence (a JPG on a web site) something that would not be accepted as evidence for aForm I-9, Employment Eligibility Verification?
Is that what a rational person does?
Or, does a rational person expect the Constitution and the rule of law to be supported and defended?
I am a rational person and I expect the Constitution and the rule of law to be supported and defended. I expect the the legal requirements of both the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 and the United States Constitution to be enforced.
When one looks at the documentation that is acceptable for an I-9 form, and then look at the subset of documents that could be used to determine a person’s status as a natural born citizen, only one document makes the cut:
A rational person expects members of Congress to support and defend the Constitution, including Article II and the 20th Amendment.
A rational person expects members of Congress to personally inspect an original or certified copy of birth certificate issued by a State, county, municipal authority, or territory ofthe United States bearing an official seal. This must be done for both Soetoro/Obama and Biden. That is the rational thing to do.
McCain never released his birth certificate to the press or public. He showed it to a Washington Post blogger, who returned it to his campaign.
If he did release it, please link us to the site where we can see it.
Please note that the online image of a certificate showing McCain born in Panama City is a forgery.
He was actually born at the submarine base in the Zone.
There is nothing in the Constitution that requires a natural born citizen to have two US citizen parents. Nothing.
Under the 14th Amendment, all persons born in the United States, and subject to its jurisdiction, are citizens. All persons born in the US are subject to its jurisdiction, that is, its legal power to control. Only diplomats and hostile invading military forces are exempt.
There are only two kinds of Citizens, born and naturalized.
All persons who are born as US citizens are natural born citizens.
There was a Congressional Research Report that spelled this out.
It can be claimed that there is a two-parent requirement, but no court has ever ruled that there is such a requirement. If there is a case, please provide a link or citation.
“A rational person expects members of Congress to personally inspect an original or certified copy of birth certificate issued by a State, county, municipal authority, or territory ofthe United States bearing an official seal”
Well, Obama furnished just such a certificate in 2008. Go to factcheck.org.
They photographed the certificate, the signature, and the official raised seal.
http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/born_in_the_usa.html
It is a certified birth certificate, issued by the State official custodian of birth records.
It meets the binding federal legal definition of birth certificate. The federal legal definition of “birth certificate,” is set forth in Title V of the United States Code, section 301 (5 U.S.C. 301 nt.):
http://law.justia.com/us/codes/title5/5usc301.html
The definition reads:
“(3) Birth certificate. – As used in this subsection, the term `birth certificate’ means a certificate of birth–
“(A) of–
“(i) an individual born in the United States; or
“(ii) an individual born abroad–
“(I) who is a citizen or national of the United States at birth; and
“(II) whose birth is registered in the United States; and
“(B) that–
“(i) is a copy, issued by a State or local authorized custodian of record, of an original certificate of birth issued by such custodian of record; or
“(ii) was issued by a State or local authorized custodian of record and was produced from birth records maintained by such custodian of record.
Under this definition (which was first posted here at the Turley site), the COLB is a “birth certificate.” It is a “certificate of birth” issued to “an individual born in the United States” who is a “citizen or national of the United States at birth” and whose “birth is registered in the United States,” and that certificate “was issued by a State or local authorized custodian of record and was produced from birth records maintained by such custodian of record.”
It is a public document of the State of Hawaii, and as such is binding on all states under the Full Faith and Credit clause of the Constitution.
So Obama did produce his official legal birth certificate when he was running for public office.
McCain NEVER made his birth certificate public.
Observer,
Most of what you’ve written is standard Obot boiler plate, addressed multiple times over the last three years.
It’s fairly humorous how you say:
But then you say:
You claim
I claim the online image of the “Obama COLB” is a forgery.
And by the way, the online image for McCain shows that he was born in Colon Hospital, in Colon, Panama. (Not Panama City). See the image in the following post: OK, Speaker Pelosi, How Did the DNC Certify Obama’s Eligibility?
You claim
But the hospital at the submarine base was not built until several years after McCain’s birth. It’s logical that his mother would have given birth to him in the nearest available hospital, which at the time was Colon Hospital. Off the base, and in no way U.S. soil…
You have every right to state your opinion that “the online image of a certificate showing McCain born in Panama City is a forgery”. I don’t believe McCain was born in Panama City, either.
And I have every right to state my opinion that “the online image of a Certification of Live Birth for Obama is a forgery”.
Please name for me the members of Congress who personally inspected a physical, hard copy birth certificate for any of the candidates for President or Vice-President. I would be delighted to have members of Congress inspect a physical, hard copy birth certificate for ALL of the candidates for President and Vice-President. It is their Constitutional duty to ensure the President-elect and Vice President-elect have qualified to hold the office.
The word “natural” refers to “Natural Law”. And by Natural Law, a “natural born citizen” is “born in the country, of parents who are citizens”.
1) 1758:
THE LAW OF NATIONS
OR
PRINCIPLES OF THE LAW OF NATURE APPLIED TO THE CONDUCT AND AFFAIRS OF NATIONS AND SOVEREIGNS
2) July 4, 1776: The Declaration of Independence
3) September 17, 1787 Constitution for the United States of America
Sorry, meant to say the forgery had McCain born at Colon City. McCain was in fact born at a clinic at the submarine base, before the hospital was built. A Washington Post blogger confirmed this.
The fact remains. McCain never showed a Certificate.
Obama did.
Also, go to factcheck.org, everyone, and look at the actual photos of the COLB, not the online scan.
The COLB-forgery theory has been abandoned by most birthers because it is inherently incredible. Most are now pressing for the underlying records that were the basis of the COLB, trying to find information on the hospital, delivering doctor, dates, and witnesses.
Citizens, yes. Natural born citizens? No. The 14th Amendment did not make all persons born in the United States “natural born citizens”, and the Supreme Court confirmed that.
The 14th Amendment was ratified 7/9/1868. After that point in time, the 14th Amendment was part of the Constitution. If the 14th Amendment made all persons born in the United States “natural born citizens”, then the Constitution itself would have, post-1868, contained this assertion.
However, in 1874 and 1898, the Supreme Court TWICE made clear that “The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens.”
So, the assertion that birth on U.S. soil makes someone a “natural born citizen” under the 14th amendment is patently false.
—–
The US Supreme Court in Minor v. Happersett (1874) and again in Wong Kim Ark (1898) stated:
Observer,
Perhaps you miss the point that I don’t believe John McCain is a “natural born U.S. citizen”, either. I think Calero, McCain, and Obama were ALL ineligible, yet all three were on the ballot in some states. Róger Calero, Socialist Workers Party candidate for President of the United States on the ballot in several states, was born in Nicaragua.
See: “Son of This Soil”
LOL. Was the blogger present at McCain’s birth? How did the blogger “confirm” the facts of McCain’s birth?
I return to this challenge for you:
Please name the members of Congress who personally inspected a physical, hard copy birth certificate for any of the candidates for President or Vice-President.
“Please name the members of Congress who personally inspected a physical, hard copy birth certificate for any of the candidates for President or Vice-President.”
Why? Where is that requirement set forth in the Constitution?
I still have not seen where the language of the Constitution requires two citizen parents.
The argument set forth is very tenuous. That 1758 treatise was written in French. The English translation with the words “natural born citizen” did not appear until 1798, ten years after the Constitution. The version in effect in 1787 used the word “indigenes”. I do not see that in the Constitution.
It is quite a leap from the word “natural” to “natural law.”
The Minor case is not authority, because it did NOT say that ONLY the children of citizens were natural born citizens. The quotation leaves out the part where the Court said that the question of children whose parents were not citizens had not been resolved. Wong did in fact equate the children of aliens born in the US with the children of natural born citizens.
Washington’s overdue copy of Vattel did not contain the words “natural born citizen.” The phrase “natural born” had a defined meaning under the common law set forth by Blackstone, and that meaning was use by the framers, as they used many other common law terms.
Is there a link to your postings in 2008 arguing that McCain was not qualified? I would like to read them.
“Under the 14th Amendment, all persons born in the United States, and subject to its jurisdiction, are citizens.
“Citizens, yes. Natural born citizens? No. , and the Supreme Court confirmed that.”
Nope. There are only two kinds of citizens, natural born citizens and naturalized citizens. If you were born a citizen, you are natural born. If you were not born a citizen, then you had to be naturalized, and cannot serve as President.
The Supreme Court never said “The 14th Amendment did not make all persons born in the United States “natural born citizens””.
Sorry. Court never said it. Never.
“LOL. Was the blogger present at McCain’s birth? How did the blogger “confirm” the facts of McCain’s birth? ”
The McCain campaign gave him a copy of McCain’s birth certificate.
McCain’s campaign got it back and did not release it to the press or public.
Obama issued his birth certificated to the press and posted it online.
If Obama is not President, why was the entire world tuned in last night?
The Wong majority resorted to common law, not to Vattel’s law of nations, and found that at common law all persons born within the King’s realm were natural born subjects, because they were under his jurisdiction and protection, and therefore owed him allegiance. The common law exceptions were for diplomats and hostile enemies. The Constitution substituted “citizen” for “subject” in the phrase, intending to cover all persons born as citizens.
John McCain Not a Natural Born Citizen?
July 24, 2008
Three Kinds of US Citizens, and Why It Matters
November 21, 2008
Natural Born Citizen vs. Native Born Citizen
December 8, 2008
You can find all of my postings with the category “Presidential Eligibility” here:
https://itooktheredpill.wordpress.com/category/presidential-eligibility/
First off, Obama’s claimed father was not permanently domiciled in the United States, so the ruling in Wong does not apply to Obama.
Secondly, Wong did not “equate” (make equal or equivalent) the children of aliens born in the US with natural born citizens.
The quote you are probably thinking of is the discussion by the Court of the work attributed to Mr. Binney…
Note:
“A is as much a citizen as B” does not mean “A = B”.
In this case, A is “child of a permanently domiciled alien, if born in the country”, and B is “the natural born child of a citizen”.
The Court did not address the issue of whether or not “A = B”. The Court intentionally punted on that issue. They said it wasn’t necessary for them to resolve that issue in that case. They declared Wong Kim Ark a CITIZEN, not a NATURAL BORN CITIZEN.
The statement “A is as much a citizen as B” implies that the two are NOT the same, but share a similar quality. That similar quality is that they are both CITIZENS. But the court quite clearly avoided saying that they are both NATURAL BORN CITIZENS.
I may not spend much more time arguing you on this point. It’s not really worth my time.
What matters is:
1) Verification, via inspection of original, initial documents, that the “Obama birth narrative” is 100% true, and
2) A court ruling, preferably by the Supreme Court, on the Founders’ intended definition of “natural born citizen”.
If the “Obama birth narrative” is proven 100% true, and the court finds that a child born a British subject (which Obama’s own campaign admits he was) can also be considered a natural born citizen of the United States, then end of story.
People constantly want to know what “birthers” want, and what would make them stop. I am not a “birther”. I am a Constitutional Republican. I support and defend the United States Constitution and our Constitutional Republic. I support and defend the rule of law. That is what this post is all about. I seek two things: 1) verification of the “Obama birth narrative” and 2) a court ruling on the original intent of “natural born citizen”.
And don’t try telling me that the COLB verifies the “Obama birth narrative”. It doesn’t confirm the birth hospital, and if Obama wasn’t born at the second hospital that he claimed (first he claimed Queens medical center, then Kapiolani medical center), then a fraudulent document was used as part of the fundraising activities at Kapiolani medical center… and that is a crime.
Again, please name the members of Congress who personally inspected a physical, hard copy birth certificate for any of the candidates for President or Vice-President.
You say
And I say, yes, it is a requirement of section 3 of the 20th amendment for Congress to ensure that the President-elect and Vice-President-elect have qualified.
Please link to the Supreme Court decision containing that statement.
No, he didn’t. And he’s never authorized the State of Hawaii to release it to anyone.
Tell me, who has a physical hard copy Obama COLB in their possession, right now?
If “Obama issued his birth certificated to the press”, then they still have it, right?
And I don’t care about the press as much as I care about Congress… those who have the Constitutional duty to ensure that the President and Vice-President have qualified. Do tell… to which of them did Obama “release” his birth certificate?
Friend says Abercrombie told him, ‘There is no birth certificate!’
Hawaii official now swears: No Obama birth certificate
Signs affidavit declaring long-form, hospital-generated document absent
Thanks for the links. I did not note a link or copy of the Tribe-Olson memo that concluded that McCain was a natural born citizen. It was printed in the Congressional Record when the Senate passed its nonbinding resolution. I agree with its conclusions.
As I said, “There are only two kinds of citizens, natural born citizens and naturalized citizens. If you were born a citizen, you are natural born. If you were not born a citizen, then you had to be naturalized, and cannot serve as President.” I recommend the CRS Memo for the legal analysis.
The framers wanted to bar naturalized foreigners, like younger royalty or nobility, from coming over to “save” our failed republic, getting naturalized, and taking over a President. So, in Hamilton’s words, they restricted the office to those born as citizens.
The COLB given to factcheck and politifact is not a forgery. The Hawaiian officials have stated officially that their records show that Obama was born in Hawaii, that he is a natural born citizen, and that their index records attest to this. Newspaper announcements in 1961 confirm it. Hawaiian officials have never disavowed the COLB. Even hard core birthers have abandoned that theory.
The McCain cert listing Colon city is a forgery. The two Kenyan birth certificates for Obama are proven forgeries.
Rereading Vattel, it was written that “natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens.” I just do not see where it says that ONLY those born in the country of citizen parents are citizens. Minor left the door open. Wong closed it. People who do not like it should amend the Constitution.
The concept of dual citizenship does not disqualify a candidate. No court has ever held so, and the Ankeny court rejected it. No law professor in the country has ever endorsed the theory. it is just a crank constitutional theory, on the level of arguments that a woman cannot be President because the Constitution refers to “he.” Read and study the CRS Memo.
The three kinds of citizens did not list the “born, but not natural born, citizen” because it does not exist in court decisions. I see the natural born by birth in the US and natural born by statute as two varieties of natural born, but it can be debated. There is no serious legal debate that a person born on US soil, subject to its jurisdiction, and not exempt as a diplomat or similar reason, is a US citizen by birth and a natural born citizen.
Obama was born on US soil to a mother who was a natural born citizen of two natural born parents. He is a natural born citizen.
On the issue of citizens by birth by statute, the predominant legal opinion is that they are natural born and eligible, but it is not unanimous, so it will have to be resolved. So the candidates born overseas to US citizen parents can continue to run until the Supreme Court rules on way or the other.
Start at 1:28 mark…
1) It’s nonbinding and carries no legal weight.
2) It incorrectly states that McCain was born on the military base.
Needless to say, I do not agree with its conclusions.
Observer,
I am in favor of having every candidate for President or Vice-President authorize the release of a certified copy of their birth certificate directly from their state of birth to:
1) The Secretary of State of each of the 50 states,
2) All members of the United States Congress, and
3) Any court to which a case is brought questioning their eligibility.
I am in favor of that. Are you?
If they got that “fact” wrong, how many other “facts” did they get wrong?
From the same link…
Proof that “fact check” bases at least some of their “facts” on news reports. You’d think they’d actually check facts rather than regurgitate news reports. News reports have been known to be wrong, and sometimes intentionally dishonest…
CNN Edits Governor Lingle’s Words to Conceal her Lie and Create their own Lie
Mr. Anderson,
Mr. Corsi of World Net Daily called Snopes and FactCheck
“two purportedly independent websites that have displayed a strong partisan bias for Obama.”
He offers no evidence of this strong partisan bias while arguing that these outlets can’t be trusted. Since World Net Daily (and Mr. Corsi in particular) are known liars with a clear partisan bias against President Obama*, neither Mr. Corsi nor World Net Daily can be trusted.
*I am happy to offer evidence of both of these charges upon request (although the bias may be seen in just about everything posted on WND (come to think of it, the lying is pretty much omnipresent as well…).
Sorry, that “official” was a temp clerk who had no access to or first hand knowledge of birth records, and everything he says is hearsay. I do not think Abercrombie ever admitted anything of the sort, and that what the “friend,” who says the Governor said something, was giving us more hearsay. Media Matters has noted how Corsi put those words in the Governor’s mouth
McCain was born on the military base, so this site needs to post a correction. Tribe Olson does carry legal persuasive weight and it was relevant.
There may be officials requiring birth certificates in 2012. I predict that in every case the COLB issued by Hawaii will be honored in accordance with full faith and credit, and that birthers will be in disarray.
Donofrio? Active? Looked at his website lately? Not too active.
http://www.slate.com/blogs/blogs/weigel/archive/2011/01/21/fun-new-birther-conspiracy-based-upon-illiteracy.aspx
The statement has been posed over and over again for you birthers
“For more than a year, the Department of Health has continued to receive approximately 50 e-mail inquiries a month seeking access to President Barack Obama’s birth certificate in spite of the fact that President Obama has posted a copy of the certificate on his former campaign website. Hawaii is a “closed records” state, meaning that vital records are available on ly to those with a direct and tangible interest as defined by statute; hence they are not subject to disclosure under public records requests.”
So in testimony to a state legislative subcommittee, the official reaffirmed that Obama’s birth certificate was posted on his website.
The COLB is not a forgery. Get over it.
Here is a treatise discussion:
http://supreme.justia.com/constitution/article-1/35-naturalization-and-citizenship.html
Categories of Citizens: Birth and Naturalization
The first sentence of � 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment contemplates two sources of citizenship and two only: birth and naturalization.1230 This contemplation is given statutory expression in � 301 of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952,1231 which itemizes those categories of persons who are citizens of the United States at birth; all other persons in order to become citizens must pass through the naturalization process. The first category merely tracks the language of the first sentence of � 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment in declaring that all persons born in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof are citizens by birth.1232 But there are six other categories of citizens by birth. They are: (2) a person born in the United States to a member of an Indian, Eskimo, Aleutian, or other aboriginal tribe, (3) a person born outside the United States of citizen parents one of whom has been resident in the United States, (4) a person born outside the United States of one citizen parent who has been continuously resident in the United States for one year prior to the birth and of a parent who is a national but not a citizen, (5) a person born in an outlying possession of the United States of one citizen parent who has been continuously resident in the United States or an outlying possession for one year prior to the birth, (6) a person of unknown parentage found in the United States while under the age of five unless prior to his twenty-first birthday he is shown not to have been born in the United States, and (7) a person born outside the United States of an alien parent and a citizen parent who has been resident in the United States for a period of ten years, provided the person is to lose his citizenship unless he resides continuously in the United States for a period of five years between his fourteenth and twenty-eighth birthdays.
1230 United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, 702 (1898).
1231 66 Stat. 235, 8 U.S.C. � 1401.
1232 � 301(a)(1), 8 U.S.C. � 1401(a)(1).
Subsection (7) citizens must satisfy the condition subsequent of five years continuous residence within the United States between the ages of fourteen and twenty-eight, a requirement held to be constitutional,1233 which means in effect that for constitutional purposes, according to the prevailing interpretation, there is a difference between persons born or naturalized in, that is, within, the United States and persons born outside the confines of the United States who are statutorily made citizens.1234 The principal difference is that the former persons may not be involuntarily expatriated whereas the latter may be, subject only to due process protections.1235
From Wong, at pages 702-03:
The Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution, in the declaration that
“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,”contemplates two sources of citizenship, and two only: birth and naturalization. Citizenship by naturalization can only be acquired by naturalization under the authority and in the forms of law. But citizenship by birth is established by the mere fact of birth under the circumstances defined in the Constitution. Every person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, becomes at once a citizen of the United States, and needs no naturalization. A person born out of the jurisdiction of the United States can only become a citizen by being naturalized, either by treaty, as in the case of the annexation of foreign territory, or by authority of Congress, exercised either by declaring certain classes of persons to be citizens, as in the enactments conferring citizenship upon foreign-born children of citizens, or by enabling foreigners individually to become citizens by proceedings in the judicial tribunals, as in the ordinary provisions of the naturalization acts.
http://supreme.justia.com/us/169/649/case.html#702
I hope this helps out. I think that ” two sources of citizenship, and two only: birth and naturalization” envelopes the concept. All citizens are equal, except only that naturalized citizens cannot be President or VP.
Now keep fighting the battle, if you will, but there is no known court case or law review article that supports the birther theory, so I think it is dead in the water.
Mr. Anderson,
In response to your question to Observer, I believe that presidential candidates (and vice-presidential candidates) are required by law to show their BCs* to any duly designated state official for ballot access as required by state law, upon request by any court of competent jurisdiction, and would be well advised to do so in response to a request from the electoral college or Congress in its capacity of certifying the election. Also, Congress has the power to subpoena the documents if it chooses (Rep. Issa chooses not to – sorry). Changing this would require an Amendment to the Constitution to prevent something which has never occurred – we’ve had a Frenchman as President (Thomas Jefferson), a Greek as Vice-President (Spiro Agnew), a person born to a non-citizen father (Chester A. Arthur), and yet we’ve never had a single President who was not a natural born citizen (the grandfather clause was never needed by any President to claim eligibility). The safeguards in place are sufficient that any person who doesn’t qualify (at least those with a legitimate shot like the Governator – too bad, he’s a Republican that I would consider voting for) avoids running because their disability is well-known. President Obama’s ‘birth narrative’ was known when he announced his candidacy – if he was not a natural born citizen, the issue would have been litigated successfully before an early Democratic Primary (in fact, the public reaction would probably have necessitated President Obama’s withdrawal before the case was adjudicated). The reason that the eligibility questions have gotten so little traction over the last 3 years is not because everyone is conspiring in a fraud, it is because the questions have been satisfactorily answered and the objections to the answers have been found to have no merit in the opinion of most of the people who care enough to investigate the issue and the opinion of all of those who studied the Constitution professionally before 2007 (with, I think, 3 exceptions – one of which is from the Dred Scott decision…). Is every Constitutional law professor in on the conspiracy? Or have they taught that every person born under the jurisdiction of the United States is a natural born citizen (just like Professor Obama certainly did)? I don’t think we need a Constitutional Amendment concerning eligibility – there is no problem that needs fixing here.
*I will always be referring to certified copies unless otherwise noted.
Mr. Anderson,
As a mathematician, I heartily approve of the use of Venn diagrams – it very clearly lays out your position. I don’t have a graphic, but my Venn diagram would be a circle (labeled ‘citizens’) divided into two sections – ‘naturalized citizens’ and ‘natural born citizens’. I don’t believe that there is support for any other class of citizen in the Constitution, US statute, or the rulings of US courts (there is a SCOTUS ruling from the 70s that apparently created a third class of ‘naturalized at birth’, but it does not apply to President Obama and there seems to be some disagreement as to this interpretation – and, of course, there’s always Dred Scott…). Also, I would note that Thomas Jefferson, Spiro Agnew, and Chester A. Arthur were all ineligible under your rule (although Jefferson would have been covered by the grandfather clause he didn’t need it as he was a natural born citizen of Virginia).
Mr. Anderson,
I think that the ‘permanently domiciled’ argument is a slippery slope for you – marrying a US citizen and having a child could easily be seen as intent to remain in the US – regardless of previous intentions and future actions (and it certainly wont fly when applied to Dr. Dunham).
Mr. Anderson,
If child A can grow up to be president and child B cannot, how is child B ‘as much a citizen’ as child A?
Mr. Anderson,
The appellant in Wong (the case was upheld) argued that a confirmation of the lower court’s ruling would make Mr. Wong eligible for the presidency. The ruling clearly means that Mr. Wong was eligible.
Mr. Anderson,
Verification by inspection of the original is neither Constitutional nor practicable. Courts are bound to accept what the state offers (in the case of Hawai’i, the COLB) by the ‘full faith and credit’ clause and no state allows access to the original documents – nor should they.
Mr. Anderson,
A court has ruled on the meaning of ‘natural born citizen’ in Ankeny v. Gov. of Indiana – it’s not the SCOTUS, but there is no reason to believe that the SCOTUS would see it any differently. I find it telling that this decision was not appealed – if it reached conference at the SCOTUS, that would decide the issue (either implicitly by refusing to hear the case or explicitly by ruling on it). I can’t help but think that any eligibility lawyer who didn’t take up the case was either incompetent or didn’t want the SCOTUS to decide…
Mr. Anderson,
You mention sites calling themselves ‘non-partisan’ correcting themselves and citing news articles. To me, this is responsible behavior – correcting yourself when an error is found and properly referencing the sources of your information. It makes the other information MORE rather than less credible – I have every reason to believe that if they knew it to be mistaken they would have corrected it and I can check out their sources if I so choose. I would note that the eligibility movement has left a string of (generally unsupported) allegations which have proven to be false and outright lies in its wake and I cannot recall every seeing any of these falsehoods being corrected by their authors – what does this tell us about their credibility?
Mr. Anderson,
I would note that Tim Adams is known to associate with racists and that he is known to be a liar (specifically regarding databases that he – or the office he worked in – had access to). In addition, his affidavit contains nothing but hearsay which would never be admitted to any court of law. If he wants to name people and they confirm (or don’t deny) his story, I’ll consider it, but not until then…
Radio guy said Governor told him there was no birth record?
Never happened.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/01/26/celebrity-journalist-says-he-never-talked-hawaii-governor-obama-birth/#ixzz1CBNO3Qsq
Mr. Anderson,
I have asserted here that none of our previous presidents required the grandfather clause for eligibility. In conversation with a lawyer of my acquaintance, he opined that Martin Van Buren was the first president eligible without consideration of the grandfather clause. I didn’t originate this theory (although I can’t remember who did – it was someone posting over at Doc Conspiracy’s blog) and can’t cite any legal authority in support of it, but in high school I recall learning that the grandfather clause was introduced for people like Alexander Hamilton, who wouldn’t otherwise be eligible (implicitly making the point that people like George Washington did not require it). I will attempt to find support for this position but I wanted to clarify that I did not have any (apart from my own vague recollections) as of yet.
Agent Smith and Observer,
Not being a “lawyer”, and just being an average everyday citizen (natural born by the way, born here in the US of 2 CITIZEN parents), I find it truely unbelieveable that you all go in to so much detail about why Obama shouldn’t and won’t release the documents.
For goodness sakes folks, there really is NO reason for Obama NOT to release the documents unless there is something there that will “embarrass” him some how.
The man traveled all around the Country during the campaign talking about how this administration was going to be “different”, and “transparent” and “open”.
Comment all you want about how he was speaking about “Government” being “open”, and “transparent” and “different”, but to those of us out here sitting back trying to make “heads or tails” out of this mess, the pledge was made, and how can you be “transparent”, and “open” and “different” when he won’t even show us who he REALLY is?
I sit back and watch your comments to “Mr Anderson”, and I’m just baffled as to why Obama won’t simply release the documents.
Another thing that gets me is that Observer posted a response that clearly contradicts the point he was making.
First he says there are two types of citizens, “natural born” and “naturalized”, but then his response goes on about how there are 6 catagories of “citizens by birth”.
So really, as someone who could give a crap about what the law says, or why Obama doesn’t have to release the documents, I am completely baffled as to why he won’t release them.
There really is no reason why other than there is something there that he doesn’t want us to know.
I notice I never get an argument when I quote Obama telling everyone how “the more information the better”.
That’s all we are trying to argue. Obama goes to Notre Dame, and tells those in the audience about how even though you have differences of opinion, it is good to hear each side out.
I have read almost every excuse under the sun as to why Obama doesn’t “have” to release the documents.
But the FACT is, all he’d have to do is authorize their release, and for about 100 bucks, the documents would be made public.
He has spent MILLIONS keeping them sealed.
It’s just ridiculous.
Just release the documents Mr President, it is the MORAL thing to do.