2 votes
I disagreeI vote that a new amendment be added making clear that the privilege of American Citizenship pertains only to humans and, therefore, no mindless lab rats are allowed to vote in presidential elections.
... or run for president.
-14 votes
I disagreeEveryone should be allowed to pass down money to there loved ones. But to a certain point. I think a responsible limit of money should be set, so people will have to contribute in life but as well have a break. Obviously there should be minimal exceptions, like handicap and stuff.The rest of the money collected if it was not given away should be thrown into grant programs to help the poor, students struggling from loans, ...more »
Everyone should be allowed to pass down money to there loved ones. But to a certain point. I think a responsible limit of money should be set, so people will have to contribute in life but as well have a break. Obviously there should be minimal exceptions, like handicap and stuff.The rest of the money collected if it was not given away should be thrown into grant programs to help the poor, students struggling from loans, and some low income families.
« less full details »
-27 votes
I disagreeThere should be a salary cap on every job. And it should be the same amount of money. If a person exceeds that amount of money they should be forced to quite there job, and live of interest or go into Philanthropy to make a few more dollars.Thus you have to help other people in order to get more money. And Forcing people to quite their job will free up opportunities for other trying to make money. Money is a reflection ...more »
There should be a salary cap on every job. And it should be the same amount of money. If a person exceeds that amount of money they should be forced to quite there job, and live of interest or go into Philanthropy to make a few more dollars.Thus you have to help other people in order to get more money. And Forcing people to quite their job will free up opportunities for other trying to make money. Money is a reflection of resources, and its a shame that people can horde any resources.
« less full details »
-9 votes
I disagreeThe judicial system is one of our biggest problems. Their should be a clear guidelines for the penal system. It should be similar to the ncaa bowl system. In which you have categories that are worth more in points than others. For example people who work for Government and Global Corps will be penalized harder than those of private corps.(because they know how much there decisions affect people) And private Corps and ...more »
The judicial system is one of our biggest problems. Their should be a clear guidelines for the penal system. It should be similar to the ncaa bowl system. In which you have categories that are worth more in points than others. For example people who work for Government and Global Corps will be penalized harder than those of private corps.(because they know how much there decisions affect people) And private Corps and individuals next. Another category would be how many people you affect. The more people you affect the harsher the penalty. There are more categories..but i think i have explained the idea.
« less full details »
-11 votes
I disagreejust like back in the day, land should be based on what a person can grow on there land. This will make sustainable ideas and nature at the base of our decisions. Why should people in cities pay 1000 and up a month for a tiny apartment that you cant grow anything on, as well as everything that makes most building makes us sick and contributes to the destruction of our planet. At a minimum make a certain percentage of ...more »
just like back in the day, land should be based on what a person can grow on there land. This will make sustainable ideas and nature at the base of our decisions. Why should people in cities pay 1000 and up a month for a tiny apartment that you cant grow anything on, as well as everything that makes most building makes us sick and contributes to the destruction of our planet. At a minimum make a certain percentage of every piece of property healthy enough to grow something. And the more property one owns, the more they are required to have a larger piece of land in which to grow things.
« less full details »
-1 votes
I disagreeIf you you dont use a credit card, you should have a lower credit score. It should get higher.
-31 votes
I disagreeBecause the republicans are so upset about losing the election that they're trying to interfere with any attempt Obama is making at helping the people. They can't even let the people who want to give him ideas get those ideas to him. No, they have to flood this site with birfer bullcrap that just makes us all wonder, why the hell SHOULD the government help the people? You idiots are making fascism seem better and better ...more »
Because the republicans are so upset about losing the election that they're trying to interfere with any attempt Obama is making at helping the people. They can't even let the people who want to give him ideas get those ideas to him. No, they have to flood this site with birfer bullcrap that just makes us all wonder, why the hell SHOULD the government help the people? You idiots are making fascism seem better and better by the day. Furthermore, who CARES if Obama was born in America or if he's a Muslim? You're just making yourselves look like racists! So, to the right-wing extremists who are trying to ruin America just to satisfy their own selfish delusions, I say to you, open your eyes and learn what democracy is supposed to be about. It's not about whether your party wins or loses. It's about making America a better place to live, and if you right-wing nutjobs don't stop ruining this site, then Obama will just have to shut it down, because right now, I don't see how he and his administration can accomplish ANYTHING with it filled with all these messages of hate directed toward him.
Note: The part about shutting down this site is sarcastic. I think it's a great idea for the government to have a site where people can express their ideas for change, as long as people don't just use it to troll the president.
« less full details »
-12 votes
I disagreeHave health insurance companies follow the same rules walmart does. If walmart refuses to sell you something you can sue them, if walmart gives someone 20% off the price and not you, you can sue them, so why do we let the health insurance companies do this? I say do not let the health insurance companies turn people away, instead sell them insurance, also if the health insurance plan is the same the price should be the ...more »
Have health insurance companies follow the same rules walmart does. If walmart refuses to sell you something you can sue them, if walmart gives someone 20% off the price and not you, you can sue them, so why do we let the health insurance companies do this? I say do not let the health insurance companies turn people away, instead sell them insurance, also if the health insurance plan is the same the price should be the same. Then give a tax credit to get everyone to have health insurance.
« less full details »
-16 votes
I disagreeObama said that he supports the Employee Free Choice Act, but since taking office he has done nothing to get this bill out of committee and onto his desk to be signed into law. Despite the fact that Obama chief of staff Rahm Emmanuel has said that the EFCA is a back burner issue that is certainly not the case for the embattled labor unions who did so much to get Obama elected or the millions of unorganized workers who ...more »
Obama said that he supports the Employee Free Choice Act, but since taking office he has done nothing to get this bill out of committee and onto his desk to be signed into law. Despite the fact that Obama chief of staff Rahm Emmanuel has said that the EFCA is a back burner issue that is certainly not the case for the embattled labor unions who did so much to get Obama elected or the millions of unorganized workers who yearn to belong to a union were the opportunity made available to them.
« less full details »
45 votes
I disagreeStop all prescription drug advertising and save all that money. Furthermore, we would no longer be subjected to offensive and disturbing reminders of our physical fears. An additional side benefit would be not having to watch candle lit intimate scenes implying private chemical induced virility.
29 votes
I disagreeWhy don't you limit the lawyers from filing frivolous lawsuits? When someone slips and falls on a grape in the supermarket, they sue and get paid off. This is ridiculous. When a doctor tries to save someone’s life and they die, they get sued. If you truly want to bring down the cost of health insurance, STOP THE LAWYERS that are adding hundreds of millions of dollars to the cost. Oh yea, after thinking about my question ...more »
Why don't you limit the lawyers from filing frivolous lawsuits? When someone slips and falls on a grape in the supermarket, they sue and get paid off. This is ridiculous. When a doctor tries to save someone’s life and they die, they get sued. If you truly want to bring down the cost of health insurance, STOP THE LAWYERS that are adding hundreds of millions of dollars to the cost.
Oh yea, after thinking about my question for about two seconds I realized why you never mention the lawyers. The biggest campaign contributions come from lawyers.
And by the way these scum suckers add to the cost of EVERYTHING. It is time for people to be responsible for their own actions.
« less full details »
6 votes
I disagreeTHE WORKING CLASS IS GETTING LESSER WE HAVE TOO MANY YOUNG PEOPLE NOT WORKING TOO MANY YOUNG LADYS AS SINGLE PARENT'S BEING REWARDED FOR BAD DECISIONS.MOST ARE RECIEVING CASH HOUSING AND EDUCATION.OUR SYSTEM OF GIVING MUST BE UP DATED WERE WE ARE NOT TAKING CARE OF THE FATHER'S NOR THE BOYFRIEND'S OF THESE MOTHER'S THAT'S NEEDING HELP NO GIRL CHILD IS BORN PREGANTE IT'S THE DECISIONS THEY ARE MAKING IT'S NOT THE GOVERNMENT'S ...more »
THE WORKING CLASS IS GETTING LESSER WE HAVE TOO MANY YOUNG
PEOPLE NOT WORKING TOO MANY YOUNG LADYS AS SINGLE PARENT'S
BEING REWARDED FOR BAD DECISIONS.MOST ARE RECIEVING CASH HOUSING AND EDUCATION.OUR SYSTEM OF GIVING MUST BE UP DATED WERE WE ARE NOT TAKING CARE OF THE FATHER'S NOR THE BOYFRIEND'S OF THESE MOTHER'S THAT'S NEEDING HELP NO GIRL CHILD IS BORN PREGANTE IT'S THE DECISIONS THEY ARE MAKING IT'S NOT THE GOVERNMENT'S THE PEOPLE'S TO KEEP REWARDING BAD CHOICE WHEN IS ENOUGHT IS ENOUGHT THESE BENIFITS NEED NOT BE TAKING AWAY ALL AT ONCE,THAT'S NOT GOOD FOR THE CHILD BUT THE MOTHER SHOULD GIVE TIME BACK TO THE COMMUINTY 24 HOUR DAY CARE REHAB-HOMES TAKING MEALS TO THE OLD VISITING OUR SOLDIER'S THAT BEING SENT AWAY FROM THEIR FAMILY FOR THE SAFTY OF OUR'S TEN / TWENTY HOURS AN MONTH IS NOT TO MUST TO GIVE BACK
« less full details »
20 votes
I disagreeRepeal: The Commodities Modernization Acts. These treasonable affronts to economic logic and honest markets must be repealed. They are the root cancer that has metastasized in every household budget in this country. They are the major factor in hurting the "real economy". Repeal: All banking Modernization Regulations beginning in 1996 must be repealed as soon as is possible. The "fire walls" FDR and his educated market ...more »
Repeal: The Commodities Modernization Acts. These treasonable affronts to economic logic and honest markets must be repealed. They are the root cancer that has metastasized in every household budget in this country. They are the major factor in hurting the "real economy".
Repeal: All banking Modernization Regulations beginning in 1996 must be repealed as soon as is possible. The "fire walls" FDR and his educated market economists put in place in the 1930s must be restored.
Demand the DOJ investigate and then prosecute to the fullest extent of the law the treasonable and possible RICO CABALS that tried to subvert our economy and enrich themselves at the peril of our national security, our constitutional rights, our foreign policy, and the expectation of honest commerce and a fair exchange on value offered.
The content of more than half of the ideas on this site are an affront to logic. The educational system on evidence in this dialogue is an embarrassment to our country, and proof that we have miserably failed and must overhaul the educational system from PRE-K-12th. Grade!
« less full details »
-17 votes
I disagreeThere should be a government run website that citizens can log-in to with their Social Security Number and vote for bills and such. This website is doing nothing but stirring debates, not to say that is not important.
25 votes
I disagreeThis is a danger to our freedoms our Republic and all Americans should know of the Dangers of these evils.
68 votes
I disagreeRon Paul’s Bill To Audit The Federal Reserve Now Has 182 Co-Sponsors By admin • June 3, 2009 Ron Paul’s bill to audit the Federal Reserve (HR 1207) now has 182 co-sponsors, and the numbers keep growing! This is history in the making, and victory is within reach. Imagine what will happen if HR 1207, The Federal Reserve Transparency Act, comes up for vote in Congress! With more than 40% of the House of Representatives ...more »
Ron Paul’s Bill To Audit The Federal Reserve Now Has 182 Co-Sponsors
By admin • June 3, 2009
Ron Paul’s bill to audit the Federal Reserve (HR 1207) now has 182 co-sponsors, and the numbers keep growing!
This is history in the making, and victory is within reach. Imagine what will happen if HR 1207, The Federal Reserve Transparency Act, comes up for vote in Congress!
With more than 40% of the House of Representatives already co-sponsoring this bill, it has real potential to pass — BUT only if we educate and rally the people to support it and get our Congresspeople to put it to vote and pass it.
« less full details »
29 votes
I disagreeTerminate direct financial aid to Foreign governments to enable them to purchase goods and services from other countries. The aid that is provided is viewed as Bribes by their citizens who do not appreciate the U.S.
45 votes
I disagreeILLEGALS HAVE NO RIGHTS IN THE USA UNDER OUR CONSTITUTION. SO MR HOLDER YOUR WITHDRAWAL OF THE BUSH DEPORTATION RULE, ALLOWING ILLEGALS WITH NO RIGHTS TO ARGUE THEIR LAWYERS DID A BAD JOB TO STAY HERE LONGER IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL. EITHER FOLLOW THE CONSTITUTION OR GET OUT OF OFFICE.
21 votes
I disagreeObama Presidential Eligibility - An Introductory Primer Last revised: June 2, 2009 Abstract Despite the mainstream news media's silence regarding this matter, an increasing number of Americans are concerned that Barack Obama might not be legally eligible, under the Constitution, to serve as President. According to the U.S. Constitution, an individual born after 1787 cannot legally or legitimately serve as U.S. ...more »
Obama Presidential Eligibility - An Introductory Primer
Last revised: June 2, 2009
Abstract
Despite the mainstream news media's silence regarding this matter, an increasing number of Americans are concerned that Barack Obama might not be legally eligible, under the Constitution, to serve as President.
According to the U.S. Constitution, an individual born after 1787 cannot legally or legitimately serve as U.S. President unless he or she is a "natural born citizen" of the United States.
Among members of Congress and the mainstream news media, the consensus of opinion is that anyone born in the United States is a "natural born citizen". However, when we researched this issue a bit more carefully, we found that the consensus opinion is not consistent with American history.
In Minor v. Happersett (1874), the Supreme Court said that, if you were born in the United States and both of your parents were U.S. citizens at the time of your birth, you are, without doubt, a natural born citizen. In the same case, the Supreme Court also said that, if you were born in the United States and one of your parents was not a U.S. citizen when you were born, your natural born citizenship is in doubt. So far, the Supreme Court has not resolved this doubt because, until now, there has never been any need to do so.
With only two exceptions, every American President, who was born after 1787, was born in the United States, to parents who were both U.S. citizens. The two exceptions were Chester Arthur and Barack Obama. When Chester Arthur ran for office, the public did not know about his eligibility question. Only recently did historians learn that, when Arthur was born, his father was not a U.S. citizen. The 2008 election was the first time in history that the United States knowingly elected a President who was born after 1787 and whose parents were not both U.S. citizens.
Barack Obama publicly admits that his father was not a U.S. citizen. According to Minor v. Happersett, there is unresolved doubt as to whether the President is a natural born citizen. This doubt is not based on the imaginings of some tin-foil-hat-wearing conspiracy theorists on the lunatic fringe of society. This doubt comes from what the Supreme Court has actually said, as well as a variety of other historical and legal sources which are presented and discussed here.
This Primer introduces and explains the Obama Eligibility Controversy, in question-and-answer format, for a non-technical general audience. We've double-checked the facts presented here, and we've cited the sources of each fact.
Questions and Answers
1. What is a "birther"?
2. What are the eligibility requirements for President?
3. Why do birthers think Barack Obama is not eligible to be President?
4. How is "natural born citizen" defined?
5. In a nutshell, what is the Obama eligibility controversy?
6. Does the birthers' viewpoint have any historical or legal merit?
7. What was the original purpose of the presidential "natural born citizen" requirement?
8. What is the difference between a "Constitutional" and a "statutory" natural born citizen?
9. Wouldn't the most recent modern-day statutory meaning of "natural born citizen" take precedence over the original Constitutional meaning?
10. If Obama is not a "Constitutional natural born citizen", so what? Why should anyone care?
11. Why has every birther lawsuit been dismissed?
12. What is a 14th Amendment natural born citizen?
13. In the 14th Amendment, what does "jurisdiction" mean?
14. Doesn't the Wong Kim Ark decision make Obama a "natural born citizen"?
15. Doesn't the Julia Lynch case show that Obama is a "natural born citizen"?
16. Could "natural born citizen" be based on the British Common Law principle of jus soli?
17. What's the "beef" with President Obama's birth certificate?
18. Didn't the State of Hawaii recently verify that President Obama was born in Hawaii?
19. Doesn't the mere existence of Barack Obama's original Hawaiian birth certificate prove that he was born in Hawaii?
20. If President Obama's birth certificate shows conclusively that he was born in Hawaii, would it end the eligibility controversy?
21. Where do we go from here?
1. What is a "birther"?
News commentators and Internet bloggers invented the word "birther" as a term of derision and contempt towards people who question Barack Obama's presidential eligibility. Ironically, many birthers accepted the label and adopted it as their own. See, for example, The Birthers Web Site.
In this paper, "birther" does not refer to any particular group or organization. Rather, it refers respectfully to people who think Barack Obama is not eligible to serve as U.S. President.
2. What are the eligibility requirements for President?
Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 of the Constitution states:
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; 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.
This means that, in modern times, you cannot legally or legitimately serve as President of the United States, unless you are:
• at least 35 years of age
• a resident of the United States for at least 14 years
• a natural born citizen.
Regarding the third requirement ("natural born citizen"), the Constitution made a special exception for people who were citizens when the Constitution was adopted. Such people did not need to be natural born citizens. Their pre-Constitution citizenship, by itself, was sufficient to meet the third requirement.
Today, this special exception is no longer applicable. No one alive today was a citizen when the Constitution was adopted. In modern times, if you wish to be President, it is not enough to be a U.S. citizen. You must be a natural born citizen in order to be "eligible to the Office of President".
3. Why do birthers think Barack Obama is not eligible to be President?
Birthers believe Barack Obama is not a natural born citizen and, for that reason alone, he is not eligible to serve as President. They say that, in order to be a natural born citizen, you must meet two requirements:
• You must be born in the United States; and
• Both of your parents must be U.S. citizens at the time of your birth.
According to birthers, it does not matter how your parents became U.S. citizens. They could have acquired citizenship at birth. They could have been immigrants who became citizens through naturalization. At one time in American history, a woman's citizenship was that of her husband. A woman became a U.S. citizen automatically when she married a man who was already a U.S. citizen. For you to be a natural born citizen, your parents had to be citizens at the time of your birth, but they did not have to be natural born citizens.
There is some question as to whether President Obama meets the first requirement. Unsubstantiated rumors suggest he might have been born in Kenya (Affidavit of Reverend Kweli Shuhubia, Affidavit of Bishop Ron McRae, and Interview with Kenyan Ambassador).
But far more importantly, Obama publicly admits he does not meet the second requirement. His father was a British subject who never became a U.S. citizen. (FactCheck.org: Does Barack Obama have Kenyan citizenship?)
At the time of this writing, to the best of our knowledge and belief, Barack Obama has referred to himself as a native born citizen but has never publicly claimed to be a "natural born citizen".
4. How is "natural born citizen" defined?
4.1 "Natural born citizen" is not defined in the Constitution or in existing Congressional legislation
The U.S. Constitution, and the Naturalization Acts of Massachusetts (1776-1790), use the term "natural born citizen" but do not define it.
So far, Congress has not passed any law that defines "natural born citizen". In 1790, Congress passed the Naturalization Act of 1790, which extended the meaning of "natural born citizen" to include the foreign-born children of U.S.-citizen parents:
And the children of citizens of the United States, that may be born beyond the sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born citizens (Naturalization Act of 1790)
Five years later, Congress repealed the 1790 Act and replaced it with the Naturalization Act of 1795. The wording of the 1795 Act was essentially the same as the 1790 Act, except that the term "natural born citizens" was deleted and replaced with "citizens".
Thereafter, Congress never again passed any law that explicitly clarified, defined or extended the meaning of "natural born citizen". Senate Bill S.2128 was supposed to define "natural born citizen", but it was never enacted. The bill was referred to the Judiciary Committee in 2004, where it has remained ever since. In 2008, the Senate passed Resolution 511 regarding Presidential candidate John McCain's natural born citizenship, but the resolution was nonbinding and had no legal effect.
4.2 A similar term, "natural-born Subject", appeared in British Common Law
In 1736, Matthew Bacon defined "natural-born Subject" as:
All those are natural-born Subjects whose Parents, at the Time of their Birth, were under the actual Obedience of our King, and whose Place of Birth was within his dominions. (Page 77 in this 724-page (48MB) PDF file: Matthew Bacon, A New Abridgement of the Law, Vol 1, 1736).
The "parental obedience" requirement does not appear in later definitions of "natural-born Subject".
In 1765, William Blackstone defined "natural-born Subject" as anyone born in British territory, regardless of the parents' allegiance or citizenship. A child born in England, for example, was a natural-born subject, even if the child's parents were aliens:
The children of aliens, born here in England, are, generally speaking, natural-born subjects, and entitled to all the privileges of such. (Blackstone, Commentaries, 1765).
Sir Alexander Cockburn, Lord Chief Justice of England, leaves little doubt that, under British Common Law, a "natural-born Subject" was someone born in British territory, regardless of parental nationality:
By the common law of England, every person born within the dominions of the Crown, no matter whether of English or of foreign parents, and, in the latter case, whether the parents were settled or merely temporarily sojourning, in the country, was an English subject, save only the children of foreign ambassadors (who were excepted because their fathers carried their own nationality with them), or a child born to a foreigner during the hostile occupation of any part of the territories of England. No effect appears to have been given to descent as a source of nationality. (Alexander Cockburn, Nationality, 1869, page 7).
When the Constitution was written, British natural-born Subject status was determined by birthplace alone. If you were born in British territory, you were automatically a British natural-born Subject. The nationality or citizenship of your parents didn't matter.
But did the same principle also apply to natural born citizen? If natural born Subject status was determined by birthplace alone, was natural born citizen status also determined by birthplace alone, without regard to parental citizenship?
4.3 "Natural born citizen" appeared in English-language Literature
In 1774, Patsall translated Institutio Oratoria from Latin to English. Patsall's work might be the earliest English-language writing in which the term natural born citizen appears (What is a Natural Born Citizen of the United States?).
Institutio Oratoria is a twelve-volume classic written by Marcus Fabius Quintilianus during the first century AD. It contains this Latin sentence:
Quare, si fieri, potest et verba omnia et vox huius alumnum urbis oleant, ut oratio Romana plane videatur, non civitate donata. (Quintilianus, Institutio Oratoria, Book 1, Chapter VIII)
Patsall translated this sentence as:
Therefore, if possible, every word and the very tone of voice, should bespeak the natural born citizen of Rome, that the language may be purely Roman, and not so by a right different from birth and education.
Other English translations of Institutio Oratoria, such as Guthrie's translation in 1756, use "native" instead of "natural born citizen".
In Patsall's work, natural born citizen is an English rendering of alumnum urbis.
• Alumnum means "nourished, brought up; reared/fostered by; native, brought up locally" (Latin-English Dictionary 1.97FC). It refers to a "child not born of the family, but brought up and educated as one's own child" (Meaning of Alumni).
• Urbis means "city".
Thus alumnum urbis -- the "natives" or "natural born citizens" of a city -- are those who were not merely born in the city, but were raised or parented by the city -- specifically, by residents or citizens of the city.
In 1797, an English translation of Emmerich de Vattel's Law of Nations gave this definition of "natural born citizen":
The natives, or natural born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. (Vattel, Law of Nations, Book 1, Chapter 19)
In both Patsall and Vattel, "natural born citizen" meant much more than someone who was born in a particular country. Parentage, upbringing and education also contributed to the meaning of "natural born citizen".
4.4 "Natural born citizen" appeared in Supreme Court decisions
In 1874, the U.S. Supreme Court affirmed Vattel's definition of "natural born citizen":
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 (Minor v. Happersett, 1874)
The Supreme Court said, in effect:
• There is no doubt that, if you were born in the United States and both of your parents were U.S. citizens at the time of your birth, you are a natural born citizen.
• Throughout American history, various "authorities" (judges, district attorneys, legal experts, etc.) have expressed support for the "citizenship-by-birthplace-alone" theory. According to this theory, U.S.-born children of non-citizen parents are citizens at birth and presumably natural born citizens as well.
• The "citizenship-by-birthplace-alone" theory is unproven and remains subject to doubt.
In 1898, in the Wong Kim Ark case, the Supreme Court reexamined the "citizenship-by-birthplace-alone" theory, but did not decide whether it applied to natural born citizenship. The Court ruled that Mr. Ark was a citizen, but did not rule that he was a natural born citizen (SCOTUS in 'Wong Kim Ark').
To summarize, we know for sure that persons born in the U.S., of parents who are U.S. citizens, are definitely, without doubt, natural born citizens. So far, the Supreme Court has not decided whether natural born citizenship also includes U.S.-born children of non-citizen parents.
5. In a nutshell, what is the Obama eligibility controversy?
The following information comes directly from Barack Obama's website:
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. (FactCheck.org, as quoted in Obama's "Fight the Smears" webpage regarding his birth certificate, emphasis added).
The main controversy boils down to this one question:
If Barack Obama Jr. was born in the United States but, at the time of his birth, his father was a citizen of a foreign country and not a U.S. citizen, does Barack Obama Jr. meet the Constitutional "natural born citizen" requirement for presidency?
Obama apologists say "Yes". They believe there are only two kinds of American citizens: naturalized and natural born. A naturalized citizen is someone who becomes a citizen after his or her birth, through a legal process called "naturalization". A natural born citizen is anyone who is a U.S. citizen at birth. Since President Obama was born in the United States and was consequently a U.S. citizen at the time of his birth, he is a natural born citizen, regardless of his parents' citizenship.
Birthers say "No". They believe that, when the Constitution was written, a "natural born citizen" was someone who was born in the United States and whose parents were both U.S. citizens at the time of his or her birth. You cannot be a Constitutional natural born citizen unless both of your parents were U.S. citizens when you were born. If you are not a Constitutional natural born citizen, you are not eligible to serve as President.
Thus we have two opposing viewpoints regarding the meaning of "natural born citizen". Which one is correct? So far, the Supreme Court has not answered this question because, until now, there was no reason to. Now, the Supreme Court needs to do its job and answer the question.
6. Does the birthers' viewpoint have any historical or legal merit?
Birthers believe that, in order to be a natural born citizen, you must be born in the United States and both of your parents, at the time of your birth, must be U.S. citizens. The birthers support their viewpoint with the following information:
• Every U.S. President who was born after 1787 -- except President Barack Obama and President Chester Arthur -- was born in the United States, to parents who were both U.S. citizens. The general public did not learn until recently that, when Chester Arthur was born, his father was not a U.S. citizen. The 2008 election is the first time in American history that America knowingly elected a post-1787-born President whose parents were not both U.S. citizens.
• When Chester Arthur ran for Vice President and later President, he told outright lies and burned historical records, to conceal the fact that, although he was born in the United States, his father was a British Subject and not a U.S. citizen at the time of his (President Arthur's) birth. If "natural born citizen" means anyone born in the United States, regardless of parental citizenship, why did Chester Arthur go through so much trouble to convince the public that his parents were U.S. citizens when he was born? It is inconceivable that Chester Arthur would have taken such extraordinary measures, unless he believed that his birth to non-citizen parents made him ineligible to serve as VP or President (Historical Breakthrough -- Chester Arthur)
• On March 9, 1866, Representative John Bingham of Ohio, considered the father of the 14th Amendment, said the following in a speech before House of Representatives:
[I] find no fault with the introductory clause [S 61 Bill], which is simply declaratory of what is written in the Constitution, that every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen. (John Bingham, 1866, as quoted in Defining Natural Born Citizen)
• The Supreme Court has, on occasion, used the word "citizen" in reference to certain individuals who were either not born in the United States or not born of U.S.-citizen parents. Such individuals were citizens by law or by naturalization, but the Supreme Court has never referred to them as "natural born citizens". In those few cases in which the Supreme Court has declared an individual to be a "natural born citizen", the individual was always U.S.-born to U.S.-citizen parents. For example, in Perkins v. Elg (1939), Miss Elg was declared to be a natural born citizen. She was born in the United States and, when she was born, both of her parents were naturalized U.S. citizens.
• In 1797 (a decade after the Constitution was adopted), the English translation of Emmerich de Vattel's, Law of Nations was revised to include the term "natural born citizen". The revised English translation helps to clarify the meaning of "natural born citizen", as English-speaking people generally understood it towards the end of the 18th Century:
The natives, or natural born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. ... 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. (Vattel, Law of Nations, Book 1, Chapter 19)
• In 1874, in the Minor v. Happersett case, the Supreme Court affirmed the definition of natural born citizen which had appeared in the 1797 English translation of Vattel's Law of Nations:
...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. (Minor v. Happersett, 1874)
• 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.
These sources do not prove the birthers' case. But they show that birthers have a rational basis for requesting a public inquiry into Barack Obama's presidential eligibility.
7. What was the original purpose of the presidential "natural born citizen" requirement?
The presidential natural born citizenship requirement originated with John Jay, who recommended it in a letter to George Washington. The letter said:
Permit me to hint whether it would not 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 command in chief of the American army shall not be given to, nor devolve on any but a natural born citizen. (John Jay letter to George Washington, 25 July 1787)
John Jay believed, and the Founding Fathers agreed, that anyone who is subject to foreign influence should be barred from the presidency. St. George Tucker (1752-1827) explained why:
That provision in the constitution which requires that the president shall be a native-born citizen (unless he were a citizen of the United States when the constitution was adopted) is a happy means of security against foreign influence, which, wherever it is capable of being exerted, is to he dreaded more than the plague. The admission of foreigners into our councils, consequently, cannot be too much guarded against... To have added a [foreign] member to this sacred family in America, would have invited and perpetuated among us all the evils of Pandora's Box. (St. George Tucker, as quoted in Defining Natural-Born Citizen)
The Founding Fathers undoubtedly understood that natural born citizenship is acquired only at birth. Thus the presidential natural born citizenship provision was limited in scope. It could not protect the presidency from all possible forms of foreign intrusion. It could not exclude, from the presidency, people who had developed foreign sympathies or allegiances after their birth. At most, it could only bar, from the presidency, persons who were subject to foreign influence at birth -- specifically, persons who were foreign citizens at birth or were, at birth, subject to the laws of a foreign country.
When the Constitution was written, there were only two ways that a child could acquire foreign citizenship at birth or fall under foreign legal jurisdiction at birth:
• by being born in a foreign country; or
• by being born of parents who were citizens of a foreign country.
At the time, the United States did not recognize dual citizenship. No one could become a U.S. citizen without completely renouncing all foreign allegiance.
Therefore, in 1787, if you were born in the United States and your parents were U.S. citizens at the time of your birth, you were, without doubt, completely free of foreign influence at birth -- you were, without doubt, not a foreign citizen at birth and not subject to foreign legal jurisdiction at birth. On the other hand, if you were born outside of the United States or your parents were not U.S. citizens when you were born, you were probably, at birth, subject to foreign legal jurisdiction to some extent.
Thus the Founding Fathers undoubtedly understood that, in order for the presidential natural born citizen provision to be effective, the term "natural born citizen" had to mean "U.S.-born of U.S.-citizen parents". Otherwise, the provision would permit, in some cases, a President who was subject to foreign influence at birth -- the very situation the Founding Fathers had undoubtedly hoped to prevent, given their abhorrence of foreign influence in general.
8. What is the difference between a "Constitutional" and a "statutory" natural born citizen?
"Constitutional natural born citizen" refers to the term "natural born citizen" when it appears in the Constitution or in a Constitution-related document such as a Supreme Court decision. It refers to the meaning of "natural born citizen" in the Constitution, whatever the Supreme Court ultimately decides such meaning to be.
"Statutory natural born citizen" refers to someone who is deemed a "natural born citizen" as a result of a Federal or State law.
Currently, there is no Federal or State law that explicitly defines "natural born citizen" or explicitly conveys "natural born citizenship" to anyone. However, existing laws are sometimes understood or interpreted as conveying natural born citizenship to certain individuals at birth. At this point, we do not pass judgment on these understandings and interpretations. We merely say that, if someone is deemed to be a "natural born citizen" pursuant to a law or statute, we refer to such person as a "statutory natural born citizen".
A statutory natural born citizen is not necessarily the same thing as a Constitutional natural born citizen. The U.S. State Department warns against confusing the two concepts:
...the fact that someone is a natural born citizen pursuant to a statute does not necessarily imply that he or she is such a citizen for Constitutional purposes (Top of page 9, in U.S. Department of State Foreign Affairs Manual -- 7 FAM 1130)
If we were to define "natural born citizen" to mean anyone who is a "citizen at birth", our definition of "natural born citizen" would be statutory because it would depend on the statute or law which defines "citizen at birth". Under existing law, all children born in the United States (except the children of foreign diplomats) are "citizens at birth". Therefore, under existing law, almost all children born in the U.S. -- including children of illegal immigrants -- could be regarded as statutory natural born citizens.
However, H.R.1940, also known as the Birthright Citizenship Act of 2007, would change the existing law so that it would no longer grant "citizenship at birth" to children of illegal immigrants. If Congress were to pass H.R.1940, it would alter the meaning of "citizen at birth", and therefore would alter our statutory definition of natural born citizen. If H.R.1940 were enacted, the U.S.-born children of illegal immigrants could no longer be regarded as statutory natural born citizens.
To summarize:
• "Statutory natural born citizen" is the meaning of "natural born citizen" when such meaning depends on a Federal or State law. As Federal or State laws change, the meaning of "statutory natural born citizen" changes accordingly.
• "Constitutional natural born citizen" is the meaning of "natural born citizen" as used in the Constitution.
If Barack Obama was born in Hawaii, he might be regarded as a statutory natural born citizen. But a statutory natural born citizen is not necessarily a Constitutional natural born citizen.
9. Wouldn't the most recent modern-day statutory meaning of "natural born citizen" take precedence over the original Constitutional meaning?
Not necessarily. The only proper and legitimate means of changing the Constitution is the Constitutional Amendment process. Congress cannot change the Constitution by simply passing a law. Nor can the Constitution be changed by someone's understanding or interpretation of an existing law.
Neither Congress nor society can change the meaning of the Constitution by redefining a word or term that the Constitution uses. As the U.S. State Department has warned (see question 8), we cannot assume that "natural born citizen" by modern-day statute or modern-day word usage is the same thing as "natural born citizen" in the Constitution.
10. If Obama is not a "Constitutional natural born citizen", so what? Why should anyone care?
Understandably, some Americans question the wisdom of "enforcing the law" and "upholding the Constitution" when the specific requirement being upheld or enforced seems to be an antiquated technicality. As long as Barack Obama is doing his job as President, why should his parents' citizenship matter? Obama was elected President, not his parents. His parents passed away many years ago, so how is their citizenship relevant? Is enforcing a parental citizenship requirement really worth the horrific political chaos and unimaginable governmental disruption that might result if Obama were found to be ineligible?
Birthers respond in this way... If the Constitution contains something that is no longer appropriate for modern-day society, the proper remedy is a Constitutional Amendment. If we want to be a nation that is ruled by law and the Constitution, we cannot just ignore a Constitutional requirement, merely because it is inconvenient or we think it doesn't matter. If any one part of the Constitution doesn't matter, why would any other part of the Constitution matter?
Many of our rights -- free speech, freedom of religion, privacy, trial by jury, and so on -- come from the Constitution. If we say it's OK to ignore the Constitution regarding Obama's eligibility, we open the door for someone else to say it's OK to ignore the Constitution regarding issues which may directly affect our rights as citizens.
11. Why has every birther lawsuit been dismissed?
So far, every lawsuit challenging Obama's presidential eligibility has been dismissed on a technicality -- lack of standing, lack of jurisdiction, mootness, etc. So far, neither the Supreme Court nor any other court has considered, in an open hearing, the actual substance or merit of any of these cases. As of this writing, no court has ruled on whether or not Barack Obama is a Constitutional natural born citizen.
12. What is a 14th Amendment natural born citizen?
Some Obama apologists argue that the 14th Amendment, adopted in 1868, had implicitly redefined "natural born citizen". They say that, under the new definition, Barack Obama qualifies as a natural born citizen.
The 14th Amendment citizenship clause states:
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.
The 14th Amendment was enacted at a time when citizenship was, to some extent, managed and controlled by individual states. Each state had its own citizenship laws. Anyone who became a citizen of a state immediately and automatically became a citizen of the United States.
The 14th Amendment defined a certain class of people, which we call the "14th Amendment Citizen" (14AC) class. This 14AC class consists of every person who is both (a) born or naturalized in the United States, and (b) subject to U.S. jurisdiction at the time of his or her birth or naturalization.
The 14th Amendment required every state to accept, as a citizen, anyone belonging to the 14AC class. Each state could grant or deny citizenship to non-14AC people. But the 14th Amendment prohibited any state from denying citizenship to 14AC-class members.
Even though the citizenship clause of the 14th Amendment only mentions citizens and never mentions natural born citizens, Obama apologists argue that the 14th Amendment implicitly redefined "natural born citizen" to mean anyone who meets two requirements:
• born in the United States, and
• subject to U.S. jurisdiction at the time of his or her birth.
The argument goes as follows: Barack Obama was born in Hawaii, which was, in 1961, a part of the United States. Therefore he met the first requirement. His mother was a U.S. citizen; and his father, though not a U.S. citizen, was nevertheless in the United States legally, on a student visa. Since both of his parents were under U.S. legal jurisdiction, Barack Obama himself was under U.S. jurisdiction at the time of his birth. Therefore Obama met both requirements of natural born citizen, as redefined by the 14th Amendment.
This "14th Amendment natural born citizen" argument depends heavily on the meaning of "jurisdiction", which is discussed next.
13. In the 14th Amendment, what does "jurisdiction" mean?
During the debates over the 14th Amendment's citizenship clause, both of its primary framers, Sen. Jacob Howard and Sen. Lyman Trumbull, made it clear that the word "jurisdiction", as used in the 14th Amendment, means sole, complete, absolute, exclusive U.S. jurisdiction and the absence of any foreign jurisdiction or allegiance.
Sen. Lyman Trumbull: The provision is, that "all persons born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens." That means "subject to the complete jurisdiction thereof." What do we mean by "complete jurisdiction thereof?" Not owing allegiance to anybody else. That is what it means.
Sen. Jacob Howard: [I] concur entirely with the honorable Senator from Illinois [Trumbull], in holding that the word "jurisdiction," as here employed, ought to be construed so as to imply a full and complete jurisdiction on the part of the United States, coextensive in all respects with the constitutional 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. (What 'Subject to the Jurisdiction Thereof' Really Means)
The Supreme Court ruled in 1884:
The persons declared to be citizens are "all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof." The evident meaning of these last words is not merely subject in some respect or degree to the jurisdiction of the United States, but completely subject to their political jurisdiction and owing them direct and immediate allegiance. And the words relate to the time of birth in the one case, as they do to the time of naturalization in the other. Persons not thus subject to the jurisdiction of the United States at the time of birth cannot become so afterwards except by being naturalized... (Page 112 U. S. 101-102, Elk v. Wilkins, 1884)
Sole U.S. jurisdiction was a core requirement for 14th Amendment citizenship. The 14th Amendment granted citizenship to emancipated slaves and their descendants, because they were, and have always been, under sole U.S. jurisdiction. Native Americans were subject to tribal jurisdiction and thus were not under sole U.S. jurisdiction. That's why the 14th Amendment did not grant citizenship to American Indians, even though virtually all American Indians were born in the United States.
For sake of argument, if the 14th Amendment had redefined "natural born citizen" to mean anyone "born in the U.S. and subject to the jurisdiction thereof" (where "jurisdiction" is understood to mean sole U.S. jurisdiction), Obama would still fail to meet the natural born citizen requirement. Here's why...
On his web site, Obama claims that his father was a British subject and that, in 1961, the citizenship status of children of British subjects was "governed" (that's Obama's word) by the British Nationality Act of 1948. Thus Obama's citizenship status, at birth, was "governed" by British law, in addition to U.S. law.
If Obama's citizenship status at birth was "governed" by the laws of a foreign country, how could he, at birth, be subject to sole U.S. jurisdiction, which is an essential requirement for 14th Amendment citizenship?
14. Doesn't the Wong Kim Ark decision make Obama a "natural born citizen"?
Wong Kim Ark was born in the United States sometime between 1868 and 1873. When he was born, his parents were Chinese immigrants and were permanent legal residents of the United States; but they were not U.S. citizens. In the Wong Kim Ark (1898) case, the Supreme Court ruled that Mr. Ark was a U.S. citizen, even though his parents were not.
The evident intention, and the necessary effect, of the submission of this case to the decision of the court upon the facts agreed by the parties, were to present for determination the single question, stated at the beginning of this opinion, namely, whether a child born in the United States, of parents of Chinese descent, who, at the time of his birth, are subjects of the emperor of China, but have a permanent domicile and residence in the United States, and are there carrying on business, and are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under the emperor of China, becomes at the time of his birth a citizen of the United States. For the reasons above stated, this court is of opinion that the question must be answered in the affirmative. (Page 169 U.S. 705, Wong Kim Ark, 1898)
The Wong Kim Ark decision does not directly apply to Barack Obama's presidential eligibility, for two reasons:
• The Supreme Court did not rule that Mr. Ark was a natural born citizen. It merely ruled that he was a citizen. Even if Barack Obama's circumstances at birth were identical to those of Mr. Ark, the Wong Kim Ark decision would, at most, only convey citizenship to the President. It would not convey natural born citizenship, which is what the President needs in order to be eligible to hold office (SCOTUS in 'Wong Kim Ark').
• Mr. Ark was granted citizenship because, at the time of Mr. Ark's birth, his parents had "permanent domicile and residence" in the United States and was "carrying on business" in the United States. President Obama's father did not meet these conditions. He was not a permanent resident and he was not doing business in the U.S. He was merely visiting the U.S. temporarily, on a student visa, for the purpose of getting an American education.
Obama apologists argue that the reasoning of the Wong Kim Ark decision, when carried to its logical conclusion, supports the viewpoint that natural born citizenship is determined by birthplace alone:
It thus clearly appears that by the law of England for the last three centuries, beginning before the settlement of this country, and continuing to the present day, aliens, while residing in the dominions possessed by the crown of England, were within the allegiance, the obedience, the faith or loyalty, the protection, the power, and the jurisdiction of the English sovereign; and therefore every child born in England of alien parents was a natural-born subject, unless the child of an ambassador or other diplomatic agent of a foreign state, or of an alien enemy in hostile occupation of the place where the child was born. The same rule was in force in all the English colonies upon this continent down to the time of the Declaration of Independence, and in the United States afterwards, and continued to prevail under the constitution as originally established. (Page 169 U. S. 658, Wong Kim Ark, 1898)
The Wong Kim Ark decision was based largely on the assumption that the "rule" of British Common Law "continued to prevail" under the Constitution. In its dissenting opinion, the minority in the Wong Kim Ark case argued that the majority's assumption was factually incorrect. On this one point, the minority and majority disagreed, not over a matter of law, but over a matter of historical fact:
And it is this rule, pure and simple, which it is asserted determined citizenship of the United States during the entire period prior to the passage of the act of April 9, 1866, and the ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment, and governed the meaning of the words "citizen of the United States" and "natural-born citizen" used in the Constitution as originally framed and adopted. I submit that no such rule obtained during the period referred to, and that those words bore no such construction... (Page 169 U. S. 707, Wong Kim Ark, 1898)
According to the Federalist Blog, the minority in the Wong Kim Ark case was correct. As matter of American history, some States retained certain aspects of British Common Law for their own purposes, but overall, British Common Law did not "continue to prevail" at the Federal level (Why U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark Can Never Be Considered Settled Birthright Law; see also discussion of Wong Kim Ark in Amicus Curiae Brief in Hamdi v. Rumsfeld).
In a recent speech to the Federalist Society, Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia confirmed that British Common Law had little, if any, "control" in the USA after 1787:
The common law is gone. The federal courts never applied the common law and even in the state courts it's codified now. (Audio/Video: Justice Scalia speech, Nov 22, 2008)
Wong Kim Ark's circumstances, though different from Barack Obama's, were virtually identical to those of President Chester Arthur. Mr. Ark and President Arthur were born in the United States. When each was born, his parents were permanent legal residents of the United States, but were not U.S. citizens; the parents were, in both cases, citizens of a foreign country. Under the laws in effect at the time (prior to the Wong Kim Ark decision), neither Wong Kim Ark nor Chester Arthur was a U.S. citizen at birth.
The Wong Kim Ark decision was written by Justice Horace Gray. Justice Gray was appointed to the Supreme Court by President Chester Arthur. At the time, the general public did not know that, when Chester Arthur was born, his father was a British subject and not a U.S. citizen; therefore Arthur was not a U.S. citizen at birth under then-existing laws.
In Wrotnowski v. Bysiewicz, the plaintiff (Cort Wrotnowski) suggests that the Wong Kim Ark decision was based, not on an impartial objective reading of history and the law, but on a desire to grant U.S. citizenship retroactively to Chester Arthur, so as to legitimize Arthur's presidency and thereby legitimize Justice Gray's own appointment to the Supreme Court (Wrotnowski supplemental brief regarding Chester Arthur).
15. Doesn't the Julia Lynch case show that Barack Obama is a "natural born citizen"?
Julia Lynch was born in New York in 1819. At the time of her birth, her parents were not U.S. citizens -- they were Irish citizens visiting the United States. Shortly after Julia's birth, the Lynch family returned to Ireland, where Julia remained until adulthood.
In the Lynch v Clarke (1844) case, the First Circuit Court (not the U.S. Supreme Court) ruled that Julia was a U.S. citizen at birth. In the opinion of Vice-Chancellor Lewis Halsey Sandford, the judge who presided over this case, there is "no doubt" that Julia Lynch was also a natural born citizen:
After an exhaustive examination of the law, the Vice-Chancellor said that he entertained no doubt that every person born in within the dominions and allegiances of the United States, whatever the situation of his parents, was a natural-born citizen; and added, that this was the general understanding of the legal profession, and the universal impression of the public mind. (pp 581-582, in Cases on Constitutional Law - Part 2)
An article in the New York Legal Observer elaborated:
The only standard which then existed, of a natural born citizen, was the rule of the common law, and no different standard has been adopted since. 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 rule of the common law, in force when the constitution was adopted, he is a citizen." (Dicta from Lynch v. Clarke (1844), cited by Article in New York Legal Observer).
Later in American history, the Opinion of Lincoln's Attorney General Edward Bates (1862) and the dissenting opinion in Dred Scott v. Sandford (1856), echoed the same viewpoint -- that you are a U.S. citizen (and presumably a U.S. natural born citizen as well) if you were born in the United States, regardless of your parent's citizenship.
Birther Response: Birthers do not deny that, throughout American history, various "authorities" (judges, attorney generals, legal experts, etc.) have expressed the opinion that birth within the United States is, by itself, sufficient to convey U.S. citizenship.
However, throughout history, other authorities have expressed the opinion that citizenship at birth properly belongs only to children whose parents are U.S. citizens. For example:
• When we apply the term "citizens" to the inhabitants of States, it means those who are members of the political community. The civil law determined the condition of the son by that of the father. A man whose father was not a citizen was allowed to be a perpetual inhabitant, but not a citizen, unless citizenship was conferred on him. (Rep. A. Smyth (VA), House of Representatives, December 1820, as quoted in Defining Natural-Born Citizen)
• As a man is a "citizen" of the country to which his father owes allegiance, it was incumbent on one alleging in an election contest that a voter was not a citizen of the United States to show that such voter's father was not a citizen thereof during his son's minority. (Savage v. Umphries (TX) 118 S. W. 893, 909, as quoted in Defining Natural-Born Citizen)
Thus we have an ongoing debate between "authorities" who believe that natural born citizenship is determined by birthplace alone and "authorities" who believe that parental citizenship is a requirement for natural born citizenship. So far, the Supreme Court has not decided the issue, one way or the other. However, in 1874, the Supreme Court said there were "doubts" regarding the citizenship status of U.S.-born children of non-citizen parents:
...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." (Minor v. Happersett, 1874)
The Supreme Court has yet to resolve these doubts.
British Common Law: Prior to the Declaration of Independence in 1776, the thirteen colonies were under British rule and were governed by British Common Law. Under British Common Law, if you were born on British territory, you were automatically, at birth, a British natural-born Subject, even if your parents were aliens. This principle -- that one's citizenship is derived from one's place of birth -- is called jus soli ("the right of soil"):
The children of aliens, born here in England, are, generally speaking, natural-born subjects, and entitled to all the privileges of such. In which the constitution of France differs from ours; for there, by their jus albinatus, if a child be born of foreign parents, it is an alien. (Blackstone, Commentaries, 1765).
When the thirteen colonies gained their independence and became States, they were no longer bound by the jus soli principle of British Common Law. Each State was free to enact its own birthright citizenship laws. When a state enacted its own laws, such laws replaced the citizenship provisions of British Common Law in that particular state.
For example, Virginia enacted this law, written by Thomas Jefferson in 1779:
Be it enacted by the General Assembly, that
• all white persons born within the territory of this commonwealth and all who have resided therein two years next before the passing of this act, and all who shall hereafter migrate into the same; and shall before any court of record give satisfactory proof by their own oath or affirmation, that they intend to reside therein, and moreover shall give assurance of fidelity to the commonwealth; and
• all infants wheresoever born, whose father, if living, or otherwise, whose mother was, a citizen at the time of their birth, or who migrate hither, their father, if living, or otherwise their mother becoming a citizen, or who migrate hither without father or mother,
shall be deemed citizens of this commonwealth, until they relinquish that character in manner as herein after expressed: And all others not being citizens of any the United States of America, shall be deemed aliens. (Thomas Jefferson, 1779, A Bill Declaring Who Shall Be Deemed Citizens of This Commonwealth, formatting and line spacing added for readability and clarity).
The Virginia law made citizenship available to all white people who were born in Virginia. If you were born in Virginia and you were not already a citizen, you could, in adulthood, become a citizen by taking an oath. But the Virginia law did not grant immediate and automatic citizenship, at birth, to every white baby born in Virginia. Under Virginia law, automatic citizenship at birth was controlled by the principle of jus sanguinis ("the right of blood"), whereby the citizenship of a child, at the moment of its birth, is the citizenship of its parents. (What 'Subject to the Jurisdiction Thereof' Really Means)
New York State law: New York State made a choice to retain the jus soli principle of British Common Law. Anyone born in New York was, at birth, automatically a citizen of New York, regardless of parental citizenship.
The Lynch v. Clarke (1844) case, and other cases such as Munro vs. Merchant (1858), were decided in accordance with British Common Law, not because British Common Law was the national law of the United States, but because it was the applicable State law in New York State. Under New York State law, Julia Lynch was a citizen at birth and therefore she was deemed to be a statutory natural born citizen.
Her natural born citizenship was "statutory" because it depended on the State law that was in effect in the State in which she was born. Had she been born in Virginia instead of New York State, she would not have been a U.S. citizen at birth, and she would not have been a statutory natural born citizen.
The fact that Julia Lynch was deemed to be a statutory natural born citizen in New York State does not necessarily mean that she was a Constitutional natural born citizen (see Question 8), especially since the Supreme Court has, so far, not decided whether Constitutional natural born citizenship extends to children of non-citizen parents.
16. Could "natural born citizen" be based on the British Common Law principle of jus soli?
Not likely, for two reasons:
First, if the British Common Law principle of jus soli (citizenship by birthplace alone) had been adopted at the national level, what would have been the point of granting each state the right to enact its own birthright citizenship laws?
After the Constitution was adopted, every state had the right to enact laws that deny citizenship at birth to some children born in that state, such as children of African or Native-American descent, or children whose parents were not U.S. citizens. How could the states have acquired or exercised such a right if the nation, as a whole, had embraced the doctrine that "everyone born in the U.S. is a U.S. citizen"? (Defining Natural Born Citizen).
Second, all states were unanimous in granting citizenship at birth to children who met both the jus soli criterion (they were born in the United States) and the jus sanguinis criterion (their parents were U.S. citizens). Some states routinely denied citizenship at birth to children who met one but not both criteria.
A more inclusive definition of "natural born citizen" -- which required either jus soli or jus sanguinis but not necessarily both -- is unlikely because it would have included people whom some states were denying citizenship to. It is improbable that the Founding Fathers would have permitted states to deny citizenship to natural born citizens. More likely, "natural born citizen" referred to a class of people that all states were already recognizing as undeniable U.S. citizens.
U.S. citizenship is undeniable only in individuals who, at birth, meet both the jus soli and the jus sanguinis criteria. Consequently, the only plausible definition of an undeniable U.S. citizen is the birthers' definition of "natural born citizen" -- a U.S.-born individual whose parents are both U.S. citizens.
17. What's the "beef" with President Obama's birth certificate?
President Obama has published, on the internet, a digital photograph of a short-form Certification of Life Birth. He has not released his original 1961 typewritten long-form birth certificate containing the names and signatures of people who witnessed his birth.
His Certification of Live Birth confirms two facts:
• The State of Hawaii has, in its files, Barack Obama's original 1961 typewritten long-form birth certificate; and
• Barack Obama's original 1961 birth certificate says that he was born in Hawaii.
Birthers do not dispute these two facts. Birthers merely want to know the extent, if any, to which the information on Barack Obama's original 1961 long-form birth certificate -- particularly his birthplace information -- was independently verified by someone other than an immediate family member.
18. Didn't the State of Hawaii recently verify that President Obama was born in Hawaii?
On October 31, 2008, Dr. Chiyome Fukino, Director of Health for the State of Hawaii, released this public statememnt regarding (then Senator) Barack Obama's birth certificate:
There have been numerous requests for Sen. Barack Hussein Obama's official birth certificate. State law (Hawai'i Revised Statutes 338-18) prohibits the release of a certified birth certificate to persons who do not have a tangible interest in the vital record.
Therefore, I as Director of Health for the State of Hawai'i, along with the Registrar of Vital Statistics who has statutory authority to oversee and maintain these type of vital records, have personally seen and verified that the Hawai'i State Department of Health has Sen. Obama's original birth certificate on record in accordance with state policies and procedures.
No state official, including Governor Linda Lingle, has ever instructed that this vital record be handled in a manner different from any other vital record in the possession of the State of Hawai'i. (Statement by Dr. Chiyome Fukino).
Dr. Fukino confirmed that Barack Obama's original 1961 long-form Hawaiian birth certificate exists, and the Hawaii State Department of Health has possession of it. Dr. Fukino did not confirm or verify any information contained in Barack Obama's original Hawaiian Birth Certificate. Under Hawaii State law, the contents of a birth certificate are private and confidential. Therefore, Dr. Fukino could not legally disclose or confirm any information contained in Barack Obama's birth certificate.
Nonetheless, President Obama's original Hawaiian birth certificate undoubtedly says he was born in Hawaii. Under the laws in effect in Hawaii when Barack Obama was born, the State of Hawaii would not have knowingly issued a Hawaiian birth certificate to an individual who was born outside of Hawaii.
Act 96 of Laws of the Territory of Hawaii was adopted in 1911. Under this Act, Hawaiian birth certificates were issued only to individuals who were born in Hawaii:
The Secretary of Hawaii may, whenever satisfied that any person was born within the Hawaiian Islands, cause to be issued to such person a certificate showing such fact. (pp 127-128, Laws of the Territory of Hawaii)
A subsequent law, enacted in 1955, continued to restrict Hawaiian birth certificates to Hawaii-born individuals only. However, the 1955 law acknowledged that the State of Hawaii may issue Hawaiian birth certificates in cases in which birth in Hawaii was not independently confirmed by an attending physician or midwife. In such cases, when a Hawaiian birth certificate is offered as evidence, the judicial or administrative body or official receiving such evidence is responsible for determining, for itself, the probative value of the birth certificate and the affidavits on which it is based:
In 1961, if a person was born in Hawaii but not attended by a physician or mid wife, then, up to the first birthday of the child, an adult could, upon testimony, file a "Delayed Certificate", which required endorsement on the Delayed Certificate of a summary statement of the evidence submitted in support of the acceptance for delayed filing, which evidence must be kept in a special permanent file. The statute provided that the probative value of the Delayed Certificate must be determined by the judicial or administrative body or official before whom the certificate is offered as evidence. (See Section 57-18, 19 & 20 of the Territorial Public Health Statistics Act in the 1955 Revised Laws of Hawaii which was in effect in 1961). (Hawaii Birth Records Law)
Hawaiian Statute 338-17.8, Certificates for children born out of State, allowed Hawaiian birth certificates to be issued to foreign-born children of Hawaii-resident parents. But Statute 338-17.8 was not enacted until 1982, well after Barack Obama was born.
In 1961, the State of Hawaii would not have issued a birth certificate to Barack Obama unless the State believed he was born in Hawaii. Undoubtedly, Barack Obama's original 1961 typewritten birth certificate says he was born in Hawaii. But the probative value of his original birth certificate has not yet been determined by any judicial or administrative body, at least not publicly.
19. Doesn't the mere existence of Barack Obama's original Hawaiian birth certificate prove that he was born in Hawaii?
Barack Obama's original Hawaiian birth certificate, by its mere existence, shows that the State of Hawaii believed that he was born in Hawaii. His birth certificate would prove that he was born in Hawaii only if his birth in Hawaii was witnessed and confirmed by someone other than an immediately family member. For example:
• If Barack Obama was born in a hospital in Hawaii, his birth certificate would indicate that a hospital had confirmed his birth in that hospital. Such confirmation would show, beyond reasonable doubt, that President Obama was born in Hawaii.
• If Barack Obama was born at home, his birth certificate would show the name of the professional (presumably, a doctor, midwife or paramedic) who assisted with the delivery. The professional's name and signature would confirm, and thus remove any reasonable doubt, that Obama's birth took place in Hawaii.
But consider this hypothetical scenario: Suppose Stanley Ann Obama (President Obama's mother) became a resident of Hawaii in June 1960. Suppose that, in November or December 1960, upon learning of her pregnancy, she received prenatal care from a local doctor in Hawaii. Suppose that, on Monday August 7, 1961, she walked into her doctor's office, carrying a recently-born baby in her arms. Suppose she told her doctor that the baby was born at home on Friday evening, August 4, 1961. Suppose she said that, when she gave birth, no one else was present, except Madelyn Dunham, the baby's maternal grandmother. Suppose the doctor examined this baby and filed a report with the Hawaiian Department of Health.
Given the mother's testimony, her history of prenatal care in Hawaii, her residency in Hawaii, and her doctor's report, the State of Hawaii would have probably issued a birth certificate for her baby, even though NO ONE outside of the baby's immediate family had actually witnessed the baby's birth in Hawaii.
The birth certificate would show no independent corroboration of the baby's birthplace. The State of Hawaii would have believed that the baby was born in Hawaii because the mother had said so and the State had no compelling reason to believe otherwise. But the birthplace indicated on the birth certificate would be based solely on the mother's unsubstantiated testimony.
Could Stanley Ann and her recently-born baby have arrived, on an overseas flight, at Honolulu International Airport, on Sunday, August 6, 1961? Could Madelyn Dunham have registered the baby by merely submitting her own and Stanley Ann's affidavits? In the absence of an original birth certificate, such possibilities, however implausible and remote, cannot be entirely ruled out.
Until Obama releases an original birth certificate showing independent corroboration of his birth in Hawaii, no one can say for sure whether the President meets the first requirement of natural born citizenship -- birth within the United States.
20. If President Obama's birth certificate shows conclusively that he was born in Hawaii, would it end the eligibility controversy?
Definitely not! President Obama has stated publicly that his father was not a U.S. citizen. According to the birthers' understanding of history and law, if his father was not a U.S. citizen, President Obama cannot be a Constitutional natural born citizen, regardless of where he might have been born. If Obama was born in Hawaii, he could be regarded as a statutory natural born citizen, but he would not necessarily be a Constitutional natural born citizen.
Regardless of what his birth certificate says, Obama's presidential eligibility will never be settled or resolved, until the Supreme Court decides whether the U.S.-born children of non-U.S.-citizen parents are Constitutional natural born citizens.
21. Where do we go from here?
2008 was the first time in history that the United States knowingly elected a post-1787-born President whose parents were not both U.S. citizens at the time of his birth. In Minor v. Happersett, 1874, the Supreme Court stated that there is a legitimate unanswered question, or "doubt", as to whether a U.S.-born child of a non-citizen parent is a Constitutional natural born citizen. Until the Supreme Court answers this question, it is by no means "settled" that Barack Obama is Constitutionally eligible to be President of the United States.
The DC District Court has the authority to investigate the eligibility of a sitting President. The DC District Court received this authority from Congress when Congress passed the Federal Quo Warranto Statute in 1901 and revised it, in 1963, to its present form.
The Federal Quo Warranto Statute is thoroughly explained in this three-part series:
Quo Warranto -- Part 1
Quo Warranto -- Part 2
Quo Warranto -- Part 3
A Quo Warranto inquiry is not a prosecution. It does not accuse Barack Obama of breaking any law. The inquiry is a civil proceeding, not a criminal one. In a Quo Warranto inquiry, the DC District Court would say to Barack Obama something to this effect (loosely paraphrased):
Mr. President, you are being asked to show, beyond reasonable doubt, that you are eligible to hold the office that you are currently holding. Please be advised: 1) You bear the burden of proof. It is up to you to show that you are eligible to serve as President. 2) Constitutional questions will be heard and settled by the U.S. Supreme Court. 3) This Quo Warranto proceeding has teeth. It operates under Congressional authority. If you cannot or will not show the Court, beyond reasonable doubt, that you
« less full details »
-24 votes
I disagreeWhy are we not prosecuting for war crimes yet?
You all know who I'm talking about.
I just don't get it.
51 votes
I disagreeEvery law should have an expiration date of at most 30 years. Let the legislature renew the law, but I'm tired of them passing new laws for every new story and forever eroding our rights.
All we do is add laws. What about cleaning the books and removing old laws?
Let's simplify the crazy complexity of our legal system.
-29 votes
I disagreeCreate ONE entry and tell all your buddies to vote that ONE up. It will make a better statement than you frequent, redundant posting.
46 votes
I disagreePart of the vetting process for ALL appointees and candidates for elected office should REQUIRE that they submit to a background check and be able to qualify for the level of security clearance commensurate with the information to which they will have acceess by virtue of their position.
23 votes
I disagreeEnvironmentalists Need to Be Regulated Especially when they enter the lawsuit phase against business enterprises, or potential business enterprises ..... The regulations imposed on Environmentalists for the Environmentalism litigation would be the following : 1. Require them to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement report describing in detail with supporting scientific facts how the proposed land use change, ...more »
Environmentalists Need to Be Regulated
Especially when they enter the lawsuit phase against business enterprises, or potential business enterprises .....
The regulations imposed on Environmentalists for the Environmentalism litigation would be the following :
1. Require them to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement report describing in detail with supporting scientific facts how the proposed land use change, new construction or business enterprise will actually harm the environment, in what ways, and at what cost to the taxpayers and citizens.
2. Require them to prepare a Negative economic impact study of the true cost of the results of their lawsuit, including negative impact on the local economy due to loss of the existing or proposed cash flow to the community and the nation of the proposed land use change, new construction, or existing or new business enterprise (for at least a 20 yeear period). Included in this study will be things like:
A. Job losses and cascading potential new job losses to the community that would have occured if the new jobs were created by the land use change or enterprise, ,
B. Impact of loss of new products to society ( ie. new drugs, new products, new advances in quality of life, etc.)
C. Impact of replacement of the abandoned plan or enterprise to the environment ( ie. Cancellation of a nuclear power plant will result in electricity being produced elsewhere to meet the demand perhaps using more polluting technology such as fossil fuels causing emission of green house gasses to the atmosphere)
3. Require them to prepare a Human Impact statement, detailing the impact on residents and families of workers who will lose their jobs or fail to get new jobs as a result of the actions requested by Environmentalists. Include the negative impact on children, including psychological of having their father or mother lose their employment, or failing to get better employment. Analysis should also include life cycle analysis impact on the children who are deprived of homes with better income stream potential.
Federal guidelines will be prepared controlling how these impact data are to be developed and presented.
In this way the full cost of the Environmental action will be made available to the public and to the judiciary for consideration in any ruling on the environmental issue.
« less full details »
65 votes
I disagreeI propose a bill titled the "Congress Citizen ACT" which would give Congress the same benefits as the American citizens. -Limit to 2 terms -No lifetime pension or a pension of 50k a year standard across the board. Currently 2-3 times more generous than Corporate pensions. -Same health insurance as the rest of the American public. Pay for your own, not with taxpayer money. -Salary cap at 50k a year. Current Salary is ...more »
I propose a bill titled the "Congress Citizen ACT" which would give Congress the same benefits as the American citizens.
-Limit to 2 terms
-No lifetime pension or a pension of 50k a year standard across the board. Currently 2-3 times more generous than Corporate pensions.
-Same health insurance as the rest of the American public. Pay for your own, not with taxpayer money.
-Salary cap at 50k a year. Current Salary is 174,000/year
-responsible for filing AND paying their own taxes. Current cost is 100K each year.
« less full details »
Copyright © 2013 IdeaScaleFeedback Software
| Widget | IdeaScale Privacy Policy
Powered by IdeaScale
Social Web