About
My position is straightforward
1. If, as the COLB and the statements of the Department of Health of Hawaii show, President Obama was born on US soil then he is a natural born citizen
2. If he were born abroad, he would likely not be a natural born citizen since such children become citizens by statute, not through common law
3. If Obama acquired an Indonesian citizenship then he still would not have lost his natural born citizenship status
I find arguments based on dual citizenship status to be significantly flawed, and believe that the only way for the President to be ineligible is if he were born outside the United States.
While there is overwhelming data supporting his birth on US soil, there are a few contradictory statements made by people who were not present at his birth but who have come to the conclusion that President Obama is a Kenyan, is of Kenyan Blood, or considers Kenya to be his ‘home country’. None of these instances really are relevant until it can be shown conclusively that President Obama was born on Kenyan soil. This requires that a Kenyan birth certificate is found which is duly attested to by Kenyan officials according to the Federal Rules of Evidence.
While I personally have accepted the facts that show President Obama born on US soil, I also understand why some may doubt this. For this, I personally would have hoped that President Obama would once again release his Certification of Live Birth for inspection. However, I can also accept that other considerations may preclude the President from taking such a precedent setting step.
I also accept the fact that those who doubt Obama’s eligibility may attempt to raise the issue with Congress, the Courts as well as State Governments. Ideally, these attempts would combine with other efforts to improve the tractability of our votes, by for instance proposing a federal standard for voting devices that would guarantee that votes are counted, counted correctly and that votes can be tracked and recounted independently from the devices used.
I also believe that those people who strongly believe in State Rights, accept that the State of Hawaii may determine what documents are to be presented to be used in determining the location and time of birth of one of its state citizens. As such, I find bills which attempt to specify what is acceptable to other states to be foolish and in violation of the Full Faith and Credit clause of our Constitution. Anyone in support of State Rights should understand the internal contradiction in these bills.
And finally, I am fully open to the possibility that I am totally wrong in my position.
Shutting down? OK, where’s the Rick Roll link?
Wow; I understand you wanting to stop the updates, but I wish you could have left the content intact. As more people become aware of the whole fiasco, this site could be a great record of all of the cases.
Regardless, thank you for all of your work!
I will likely work with Dr C on a wiki which will retain a lot of the postings in a more browsable format.
Blackstone – 1760s — Just in time for the American Revolutionary WAR — 1775-1783
——-
http://www.lonang.com/exlibris/blackstone/bla-110.htm
Count how many *natural-born* mentions in the chapter.
Obviously -
Natural born = AT BIRTH allegiance to a regime.
Naturalization = Change in allegiance to another regime AFTER birth.
Place of birth means ZERO.
Nation-State status of Father when a kid is born is what COUNTS.
NO foreign connection for ANY President – Commander-in-Chief, etc. — a BIG DEAL in the late 1700s.
This stuff AIN’T atomic physics.
You’re close. At birth and owing allegiance is determined by the location as allegiance relates to protection offered in return and such can only happen when in the country.
Understanding these terms is what matters.
US v Wong Kim Ark
ibid
Simple really
Demo Rep
You mention Blackstone – but don’t actually quote him. Let me help you.
“THE children of aliens, born here in England, are, generally speaking, natural-born subjects, and entitled to all the privileges of such.”
Compare that to what William Rawle wrote about the US Constitution,
“Therefore every person born within the United States, its territories or districts, whether the parents are citizens or aliens, is a natural born citizen in the sense of the Constitution, and entitled to all the rights and privileges appertaining to that capacity.”
BTW, did you know that William Rawle was a member of the “Society for Political Inquiries”. An organization that included several signers of the Constitution, Declaration of Independence and the Articles of Confederation. They held their meetings at Ben Franklin’s house.
Demo Rep has a hard time understanding Blackstone apparently…
Sorry – NOT all of Blackstone was carried into the new sovereign States on 4 July 1776.
ZERO about monarchy and nobility, etc.
ALL sorts of loyalty ALLEGIANCE oaths in the 13 New States were imposed on ALL adult males — some acts of attainers and treason and spy cases for folks who supported the King George III regime in 1775-1783 — even if they had been born in the old colony and resided therein for a lifetime.
The soil-citizen stuff is NON-sense.
Examples – a very pregnant Queen of England gives birth in a White House bedroom or on the floor of the Congress. Is the kid a Brit or a natural born U.S.A. citizen ? Let us guess.
Same for ALL foreign folks in the U.S.A. — both LEGAL (visas, passports, etc.) and ILLEGAL — Enemy military forces – see Japanese Invasion and conquest and occupation of various U.S.A. Islands in 1941-1945 or the earlier Brit invasions of the U.S.A. in the War of 1812 (MD-DC, LA, Mich. Terr.)
– or the New Age ILLEGAL immigrants (i.e. Felons according to U.S.A. law)
– or even ACCIDENTAL — a foreign ship full of very pregnant foreign women has a shipwreck on a State border – and the women come ashore and give birth.
Since the foreign nation-state parents are NOT subject to the jurisdiction of the U.S.A. the kids are ALL aliens.
Wong Kim Ark is one more case with horrific research like Plessy v. Ferguson, 163 U.S. 537 (1896) OVER-ruled in the well known Brown v. Bd of Ed in 1954.
———
Citizenship sentence. 14th Amendment, Section 1 [regardless of anything before the 14th Amendment took effect in 1868].
Congressional Globe, 39th Congress, 1st Session
May 29, 1866, P. 2869, col. 1. Senator Howard [amendment to Sec. 1 of H.[J.]R. 127 – which became the 14th Amendment]
All persons born in the United States and subject
to the jurisdiction thereof are citizens of the United
States and of the States wherein they reside.
[the second “States” was a typo error - see P. 2892, col. 3 top]
—-
May 30, 1866, P. 2890, col 2. Senator Howard. ***
This amendment which I have offered is simply
declaratory of what I regard as the law of the
land already, that every person born within the
limits of the United States, and subject to their
jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and
national law a citizen of the United States.
This will not, of course, include persons born
in the United States who are foreigners, aliens,
who belong to the families of embassadors or
foreign ministers accredited to the Govern-
of the United States, but will include
every other class of persons.
[NOTE the ***will NOT** ]
***
P. 2890, col. 3. Senator Doolittle. *** I
move *** to amend the amendment -*** by
inserting after the word “thereof” the words
“excluding Indians not taxed.” The amend-
ment would then read:
All persons born in the United States, and subject
to the jurisdiction thereof, excluding Indians not
taxed, are citizens of the United States and of the
States wherein they reside.
Senator Howard. I hope that amendment
to the amendment will not be adopted. Indians
born within the limits of the United States,
and who maintain their tribal relations, are not,
in the sense of this amendment, born subject
to the jurisdiction of the United States. They
are regarded, and always have been in our
legislation and jurisprudence, as being quasi
foreign nations.
——
P. 2892, col 3. Senator Trumbull
*** The provision
is, that “all persons born in the United States,
and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are cit-
izens.” That means, “subject to the complete
jurisdiction thereof.”
***
[referring to Indian tribes] We make
treaties with them, and therefore they are not
subject to our jurisdiction. If they were, we
would not make treaties with them.
P. 2893, col. 2.
It is only those persons who come
completely within our jurisdiction, who are sub-
ject to our laws, that we think of making citi-
zens; and there can be no objection to the
proposition that such persons should be citi
zens.
——–
Senator Johnson.
Now, all that this amendment provides is
that all persons born in the United States and
not subject to some foreign Power – for that,
no doubt, is the meaning of the committee who
have brought the matter before us – shall be
considered as citizens of the United States.
****** I
know of no better way to give rise to citizen-
ship than the fact of birth within the territory
of the United States, born of parents who at
the time were subject to the authority of the
United States.
—-
P. 2895, col. 2. Senator Howard
I concur entirely with the honorable Senator
from Illinois, in holding that the word “juris-
diction,” as here employed, ought to be con-
strued so as to imply a full and complete
jurisdiction on the part of the United States,
coextensive in all respects with the constitu-
tional power of the United States, whether
exercised by Congress, by the executive, or
by the judicial department; that is to say,
the same jurisdiction in extent and quality as
applies to every citizen of the United States
now. [The Illinois Senator was Trumbull].
—–
P. 2896, col. 3 Senator Howard
*** We desired to put this question
of citizenship and the rights of citizens and
freedmen under the civil rights bill beyond the
legislative power of such gentlemen as the Sen-
ator from Wisconsin, who would pull the whole
system up by the roots and destroy it, and ex-
pose the freedmen again to the oppressions of
their old masters.
—–
P. 2897 col. 2 Senator Williams
In one sense, all persons born within the
geographical limits of the United States, are
subject to the jurisdiction of the United States,
but they are not subject to the jurisdiction of
the United States in every sense. Take the
child of an embassador. In one sense, that
child born in the United States is subject to
the jurisdiction of the United States, because
if that child commits the crime of murder, or
commits any other crime against the laws of
the country, to a certain extent, he is subject
to the jurisdiction of the United States, but
not in every respect; and so with these In-
dians. **** I understand the
words here, “subject to the jurisdiction of the
United States,” to mean fully and completely
subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.
***
—–
Senator Saulsbury.
I do not presume that
any one will pretend to disguise the fact that
the object of this first section is simply to de-
clare that negroes shall be citizens of the Uni-
ted States.
[[ See the infamous Dred Scott case in SCOTUS in 1857]]
—-
P. 2897 col. 3.
[The Doolittle amendment to the Howard amendment failed 10-30. The Howard original amendment passed - to become the first sentence in the 14th Amdt, Sec. 1.]
————-
Later – See the Acts of Congress regarding the naturalization of the members of American Indian Tribes in the 1900s — even though obviously such American Indians were physically born within the U.S.A.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_Citizenship_Act_of_1924
————
See also the various Acts of Congress regarding added U.S.A. areas and colonies regarding the naturalization of the persons in such areas — Louisiana Territory (ex-part of the French regime), Mexican-American War treaty areas, etc. etc.
————-
Thus OBVIOUSLY –
The physical place of birth does NOT matter.
It is the nation-state status of the father in the second that the child is born that matters.
U.S.A. Citizen fathers (natural born or naturalized) = have U.S.A. NATURAL BORN citizen kids — WHERE EVER THE KID IS PHYSICALLY BORN.
FOREIGN Citizen/subject fathers (FOREIGN natural born or naturalized) = have FOREIGN natural born citizen/subject kids — WHERE EVER THE KID IS PHYSICALLY BORN.
NO such thing as dual citizenships in *modern* Nation-States.
See Const. Art. III, Sec. 2 regarding foreign folks and regimes.
This stuff continues NOT to be atomic physics.
Alexander Hamilton in 1795 legal brief
“where so important a distinction in the Constitution is to be realized, it is fair to seek the meaning of terms in the statutory language of that country from which our jurisprudence is derived”
Chief Justice Marshall, in United States v. Wilson 1833
“The constitution gives to the president, in general terms, “the power to grant reprieves and pardons for offences against the United States.”
“As this power had been exercised from time immemorial by the executive of that nation whose language is our language, and to whose judicial institutions ours bear a close resemblance; we adopt their principles respecting the operation and effect of a pardon, and look into their books for the rules prescribing the manner in which it is to be used by the person who would avail himself of it.”
Justice Wayne in ex parte Wells 1855
“At the time of the adoption of the Constitution, American statesmen were conversant with the laws of England, and familiar with the prerogatives exercised by the Crown. Hence, when the words to grant pardons were used in the Constitution, they conveyed to the mind the authority as exercised by the English Crown or by its representatives in the colonies. At that time, both Englishmen and Americans attached the same meaning to the word “pardon.” In the convention which framed the Constitution, no effort was made to define or change its meaning, although it was limited in cases of impeachment.
We must then give the word the same meaning as prevailed here and in England at the time it found a place in the Constitution. This is in conformity with the principles laid down by this Court in 30 U. S. 280, and in Flavell’s Case,@ 8 Watts & Sargent 197; Attorney General’s brief.”
Chief Justice of the Supreme Court and Former President of the United States William Howard Taft, in Ex Parte Grossman 1925,
“The language of the Constitution cannot be interpreted safely except by reference to the common law and to British institutions as they were when the instrument was framed and adopted. The statesmen and lawyers of the Convention who submitted it to the ratification of the Conventions of the thirteen States were born and brought up in the atmosphere of the common law, and thought and spoke in its vocabulary. They were familiar with other forms of government, recent and ancient, and indicated in their discussions earnest study and consideration of many of them but when they came to put their conclusions into the form of fundamental law in a compact draft, they expressed them in terms of the common law, confident that they could be shortly and easily understood.”
Justice Scalia,
“Of course, the foreign law I think is relevant is very old foreign law — very old English law. Because what is meant by the terms of the Federal constitution is dependent upon what Englishmen in 1791 considered to be due process of law, or what they considered to be cruel and unusual punishment. So I use foreign law all the time – but it is all very old English law.”
That is simple, British only. The US does not grant citizenship to children born to foreign dignitaries as they are not under US jurisdiction.
Simple
This is also simple. The US does not grant citizenship to children born to invading armies as they are not under US jurisdiction.
Also Simple
NBC, did you insert the quotes from the Senator’s debate in Demo Rep’s comments because they do not agree with Demo Rep. They keep talking mentioning those that are not under jurisdiction are foreign dignitaries and diplomats but everybody else is under full jurisdiction.
If Demo Rep included these quotes, he sure does not read very well. They do not help his argument.
I have not inserted anything in Demo Rep’s comments, all internal contradictions are his/hers