Main Menu

Petition for Redress of Grievances – Examined

Revised Draft Redress Petition
PETITION FOR REDRESS OF GRIEVANCES
REGARDING THE FAILURE TO CHALLENGE THE CONSTITUTIONAL QUALIFICATIONS THE PRESIDENT ELECT, BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA II TO SERVE AS PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES.

INTRODUCTION
WHEREAS, the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution provides, in part, that “Congress shall make no law…abridging the freedom of…or the right of the people…to petition the government for a redress of grievances”;

TRUE.

WHEREAS, no Member of Congress raised an objection over the qualifications of the presidential candidates in Congress on January 8th 2009, when the President of the Senate called for objections on the reading of each State’s electoral certificates for Barack Hussein Obama II ( 3 U.S.C. Ch. 1, §15, §17, §19(a) (1), and §19);

TRUE as reported here (assumed true, given no reporting on issue).

WHEREAS no Member of Congress raised a Point of Order before the President of the Senate challenging his qualifications for President when Barack Obama II was declared President elect, thereby committing misprision and failing to perform their sworn duty to uphold Amendment 20 of the U.S. Constitution.

TRUE as reported here (assumed true, given no reporting on issue).

FACTS
WHEREAS, Article II Section 1 2 of the United States Constitution specifies that “no person except a natural born citizen….shall be eligible to hold the office of the President of the United States”;

TRUE. (Actually, it’s Section 2, not Section 1, but we assume this is a typo)

WHEREAS, by Article II Section 2 President needs qualify as Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States;

TRUE ….

WHEREAS, John Jay, Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, wrote George Washington July 25, 1787: “Permit me to hint, whether it would be wise and seasonable to provide a strong check to the admission of Foreigners into the administration of our national Government; and to declare expressly that the commander in chief of the American army shall not be given to, nor devolve on any but a natural born citizen”;

TRUE as quoted here.

WHEREAS, John A. Bingham, framer of the 14th Amendment wrote: “Every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty”;

TRUE (as stated/quoted here) … BUT … Whatever the merits of the argument that Bingham framed the 14th Amendment, Congress deliberated on it. This petition ignores the express statements of other framers of the amendment regarding the impact of the language.

For example, as former AG Dellinger noted in a statement to Congress (as quoted here):

“The Fourteenth Amendment initially contained no definition of citizenship. Senator Howard of Michigan proposed to insert the definition that became the opening sentence of the Fourteenth Amendment:

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.

He explained that this was not meant to include those discrete classes of persons excluded by the common law, “but will include every other class of persons.”

The Framers intended the amendment to resolve not only the status of African-Americans and their descendants, but members of other alien groups as well. This is reflected in the exchange between Senators Trumbell and Conness, supporters of the Fourteenth Amendment and the Civil Rights Act, and Senator Cowan, a strong opponent of both. Senator Cowan expressed his reluctance to amend the Constitution in such a way as would “tie the[] hands” of the Pacific states “so as to prevent them . . . from [later] dealing with [the Chinese] as in their wisdom they see fit.” (12) The supporters of the citizenship clause responded by confirming their intent to constitutionalize the U.S. citizenship of children born in the United States to alien parents.

Senator Cowan . . . . I am really desirous to have a legal definition of ‘citizenship of the United States.’ What does it mean? . . . Is the child of the Chinese immigrant in California a citizen? Is the child of a Gypsy born in Pennsylvania a citizen?

Senator Conness . . . . The proposition before us . . . relates . . . to the children begotten of Chinese parents in California, and it is proposed to declare that they shall be citizens. We have declared that by law; now it is proposed to incorporate the same provision in the fundamental instrument of the nation. I am in favor of doing so.

Additionally, this petition ignores the express holdings of multiple cases decided since the 14th Amendment was passed (and before), many of which are compiled here.

WHEREAS, Perkins v Elg, 307 U.S. 325, 328 (1939) found that Ms. Elg, born in Brooklyn NY to a Swedish father and an American mother was considered a US citizen but not a natural born citizen;

FALSE.

Perkins v Elg, 307 U.S. 325 (1939), at page 328, states the following procedural history of the case:

“In April, 1935, Miss Elg was notified by the Department of Labor that she was an alien illegally in the United States, and was threatened with deportation. Proceedings to effect her deportation have been postponed from time to time. In July, 1936, she applied for an American passport, but it was refused by the Secretary of State upon the sole ground that he was without authority to issue it because she was not a citizen of the United States.

Thereupon she began this suit against the Secretary of Labor, the Acting Commissioner of Immigration and Naturalization, and the Secretary of State to obtain (1) a declaratory judgment that she is a citizen of the United States and entitled to all the rights and privileges of citizenship, and (2) an injunction against the Secretary of Labor and the Commissioner of Immigration restraining them from prosecuting proceedings for her deportation, and (3) an injunction against the Secretary of State from refusing to issue to her a passport upon the ground that she is not a citizen.

The defendants moved to dismiss the complaint, asserting that plaintiff was not a citizen of the United States by virtue of the Naturalization Convention and Protocol of 1869 (proclaimed in 1872) between the United States and Sweden (17 Stat. 809) and the Swedish Nationality Law, and Section 2 of the Act of Congress of March 2, 1907, 8 U.S.C. § 17. The District Court overruled the motion as to the Secretary of Labor and the Commissioner of Immigration and entered a decree declaring that the plaintiff is a native citizen of the United States but directing that the complaint be dismissed as to the Secretary of State because of his official discretion in the issue of passports. On cross-appeals, the Court of Appeals affirmed the decree, 69 App.D.C. 175, 99 F.2d 408. Certiorari was granted, December 5, 1938, 305 U.S. 591.

However, the holding of the case was as follows (at page 350):

“We conclude that respondent has not lost her citizenship in the United States and is entitled to all the rights and privileges of that citizenship.

Fifth. The cross-petition of Miss Elg, upon which certiorari was granted in No. 455, is addressed to the part of the decree below which dismissed the bill of complaint as against the Secretary of State. The dismissal was upon the ground that the court would not undertake by mandamus to compel the issuance of a passport or control by means of a declaratory judgment the discretion of the Secretary of State. But the Secretary of State, according to the allegation of the bill of complaint, had refused to issue a passport to Miss Elg “solely on the ground that she had lost her native born American citizenship.” The court below, properly recognizing the existence of an actual controversy with the defendants [page 350] ….. declared Miss Elg “to be a natural born citizen of the United States,” and we think that the decree should include the Secretary of State as well as the other defendants. The decree in that sense would in no way interfere with the exercise of the Secretary’s discretion with respect to the issue of a passport, but would simply preclude the denial of a passport on the sole ground that Miss Elg had lost her American citizenship.

The decree will be modified accordingly so as to strike out that portion which dismisses the bill of complaint as to the Secretary of State, and so as to include him in the declaratory provision of the decree, and as so modified the decree is affirmed.

Modified and affirmed.


WHEREAS, the ‘natural born citizen’ qualification has thus been construed to require birth in the United States or its territories and to two American citizens, without allegiance to any foreign nation;

FALSE .

Petition cites no case or legal authority addressing this issue, which has construed “natural born citizen,” as used in Article 2, or implied in the 14th Amendment, to mean a child born in the U.S.A. to U.S. citizen parents. Moreover, there is a long line of legal precedent holding that a child born in the U.S.A. is a “natural born citizen” without regard to the citizenship of his/her parents, many of which are excerpted here.

WHEREAS, the 14th Amendment to the Constitution does not confer the ‘natural born citizen’ title on naturalized U.S. citizens;

TRUE, but … irrelevant. The 14th Amendment provides, at Section1, that “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside.” As explained by several subsequent courts (e.g., here, at 682):

The real object of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution, in qualifying the words, “All persons born in the United States” by the addition “and subject to the jurisdiction thereof,” would appear to have been to exclude, by the fewest and fittest words (besides children of members of the Indian tribes, standing in a peculiar relation to the National Government, unknown to the common law), the two classes of cases — children born of alien enemies in hostile occupation and children of diplomatic representatives of a foreign State — both of which, as has already been shown, by the law of England and by our own law from the time of the first settlement of the English colonies in America, had been recognized exceptions to the fundamental rule of citizenship by birth within the country.

WHEREAS, Barack Hussein Obama II acknowledged that his father was a Kenyan National, and that at birth Mr. Obama was born of first allegiance to the British Crown, through the citizenship of his father under the British Nationality Act of 1948;

TRUE that Obama’s father was a Kenyan National and that, under UK law, Obama was a citizen of the UK at birth, as reported here.

FALSE (or at least unsubstantiated) that under US law, the above fact means that Obama’s first allegience was to the British Crown.

WHEREAS, the divorce decree D. No. 57972 of Stanley Ann D. Obama and Barack Hussein Obama acknowledged that Barack Hussein Obama was the biological father of Barack Hussein Obama II;

TRUE that the divorce decree states that one child was born to Mr. and Mrs. Obama as reported here.

WHEREAS, Barack Hussein Obama admits he was adopted by an Indonesian National named Lolo Soetoro;

No evidence provided to support this.

WHEREAS, the Hawaiian divorce decree No. 117619 of Stanley Ann D. Soetoro and Lolo Soetoro, acknowledged Barry Soetoro as their child, by affirming they had one child below 18, and one child above 18;

TRUE that the divorce decree states that they had one child below 18, and one child above as reported here.

WHEREAS, Gradebook No. 203 Fransiskus Assisi school in Jakarta records Mr. Obama having used the legal name “Barry Soetoro”, born on Honolulu 4-8-1961, with parents named Mr./Ms.: L. Soetoro M A (Lolo Soetoro)” and that he was a citizen of Indonesia;

TRUE as shown here.

WHEREAS, Barack Hussein Obama has stated that he is a ‘native’ born U.S. Citizen under the 14th Amendment;

(looking for this)

Obama has also stated, under oath, that he is a “natural born citizen,” as shown here.

WHEREAS, Barack Hussein Obama signed notarized documents regarding his eligibility to serve as President under the U.S. Constitution, including sworn statements of his ‘natural born’ citizenship;

TRUE, as shown here.

WHEREAS, except for an ambiguous Hawaiian Certification of Live Birth, Mr. Obama has sealed of his birth certificates and educational records and has expended nearly one million dollars to avoid providing evidence that he is a natural born citizen and qualifies to serve as President;

FALSE/UNSUBSTANTIATED.

The COLB (here and/or here) unambiguously shows Hawaiian birth. There is no evidence that Obama has “sealed” his birth certificate, and Hawaii officials deny that it has been sealed by them or that they directed that it be “handled in a manner different from any other vital record in the possession of the State of Hawai’i .” The amount of money spent to respond to the couple complaints that have required a response, is wholly speculative and not supported by any evidence.

As noted here, the same document relied upon to support claims of Indonesian adoption also unambiguously state that Obama was born in Hawaii. See also this discussion of Indonesian law.

WHEREAS, to date no legal authority has received unambiguous evidence verifying that Barack Hussein Obama is a ‘natural born citizen’ as required by Article II of the United States Constitution;

TRUE, all such challenges have been dismissed as shown here.

WHEREAS, 33 Democracies descended into tyranny in the 20th century for failing to uphold their constitutions, resulting in over 100 million people being killed by their own governments;

UNSUBSTANTIATED.

WHEREAS, Amendment 20 Section 3 provides that “if the President elect shall have failed to qualify”, the Constitution thus requires a challenge to the qualifications of the President elect, and that thereafter the legal burden of proof lies with the President elect to demonstrate that he has qualified to be President per Article II Sections 1 and 2 including being a “natural born citizen” having only ever had undivided loyalty to the United States as required for the Commander in Chief;

FALSE.

Amendment 20, Section 3 provides as follows:

“If, at the time fixed for the beginning of the term of the President, the President elect shall have died, the Vice President elect shall become President. If a President shall not have been chosen before the time fixed for the beginning of his term, or if the President elect shall have failed to qualify, then the Vice President elect shall act as President until a President shall have qualified; and the Congress may by law provide for the case wherein neither a President elect nor a Vice President elect shall have qualified, declaring who shall then act as President, or the manner in which one who is to act shall be selected, and such person shall act accordingly until a President or Vice President shall have qualified.”

There is nothing to the effect of the above statement. (It is true that a federal statute sets forth the process of properly registering any challenge to the qualifications of a President-Elect — however, as noted above and reported here, no such challenge was made.)

WHEREAS, the information on record strongly indicates that Mr. Obama has not and does not qualify to be President of the United States;

Statement of Opinion. If based on above allegations, this is an opinion not supported by fact or law.

Counter-Opinion Information on record, combined with applicable US law (see index to this blog and see also here), strongly indicates that President-Elect Obama is qualified to be President.

WHEREAS, while every member of Congress has an affirmative duty to ensure the protection of the U.S. Constitution, Congress willfully ignored the disqualifying information, the danger to our Constitution, the Country, and the Citizenry, and nevertheless certified the Electoral College vote for Mr. Obama;

Statement of Opinion that Congress willfully ignored any information submitted to or otherwise obtained by them.

WHEREAS, Congress has violated the trust of the people by failing to conduct due diligence and verify the eligibility of Mr. Obama thereby endangering the Citizenry by precipitating a constitutional crisis.

Statement of Opinion.

NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT,
WE, the undersigned, do pray Congress provide relief and redress as follows:
1. Challenge the qualifications of President elect, under Amendment 20 Section 3, and placing the President elect on notice that the burden of proof that he qualifies lies with him to provide unambiguous objective original evidence beyond doubt that Mr. Obama is a natural born citizen under Article II Section 1, and qualifies to be Commander in Chief having only held undivided allegiance to the United States, and having been born within US jurisdiction of two US citizens in allegiance to the United States;

Unsupported by Amendment 20, as shown above.

2. Enter into the Congressional record the available documentation regarding the qualifications of Barack Hussein Obama II including each case filed in US Courts challenging his qualifications to become President, including: Berg v. Obama, U.S.C. 08-570; Hollister v. Soetoro a.k.a. Obama; Broe v Reed U.S.C. Cause No. 8-2-473-8, Lightfoot v. Bowen U.S.C. No. 08A524;

Cases filed by litigants do not constitute “documentation” regarding his qualifications.

3. Recognize that:
a. Mr. Barack Hussein Obama II is not qualified to serve as President because he is not a natural born citizen as required by Article II, Section 1 and 2 of the Constitution, having “Foreign Allegiances” at birth and by adoption, by renouncing US citizenship, and by failing to provide unambiguous evidence that he is “a natural born Citizen” fit to be Commander in Chief without other allegiances. In particular:

FALSE, as noted above.

i. Recognize that Mr. Obama had first allegiance to the British Crown and to Kenya, being born a British Citizen under the British Nationality Act of 1948 and then a citizen of Kenya through his Kenyan biological father Barack Obama, Sr.

FALSE, as noted above.

ii. Recognize that Barry Soetoro, a.k.a. Barack Obama, also has primary allegiance to Indonesia, having Indonesian citizenship by adoption Lolo Soetoro Mangunharjo, a citizen of Indonesia, by Constitution of Indonesia, Law No. 62 of 1958, Art. 2 (1), and as required to enroll in Indonesian schools. As evidenced by school records and travel to Pakistan in 1981, Mr. Obama retains his Indonesian citizenship.

FALSE, as to “primary allegience.”  Under US law, Obamam, as a person born in the US, has primary allegience to the U.S., regardless of whether the laws of another country operate to grant him citizenship in that country.

UNSUBSTANTIATED as to any alleged adoption.

FALSE as to theory that Obama traveled to Pakistan in 1981 on an Indonesian passport, as shown here.

FALSE as to Indonesian Citizenship, as demonstrated in this discussion of Indonesian law.

As noted here, the same document relied upon to support claims of Indonesian adoption (to support this argument) also unambiguously state that Obama was born in Hawaii.

b. Recognize that Barack Obama II has failed to produce unambiguous evidence that he is a “natural born Citizen” born to two U.S. citizens “in the allegiance of the United States” and that he has retained that exclusive allegiance to the United States, in that the Hawaiian Certification of Live Birth may be obtained for births out of the State, is ambiguous as to the citizenship of the parents, and requires no independent witnesses to the birth or parents;

FALSE constructs regarding Obama’s obligations:

There is no evidence that Obama failed to comply with any state’s laws regarding “evidence” required to be on the ballot.

There is no requirement that the President be “born to two U.S. citizens ‘in the allegiance of the United States,'” or that “he has retained that exclusive allegiance to the United States,” given that there is no such requirement in order to be “natural born citizen” under Article 2.

Petition cites no case or legal authority addressing this issue, which has construed “natural born citizen,” as used in Article 2, or implied in the 14th Amendment, to mean a child born in the U.S.A. to U.S. citizen parents. Moreover, there is a long line of legal precedent holding that a child born in the U.S.A. is a “natural born citizen” without regard to the citizenship of his/her parents, many of which are excerpted here.

4. By Amendment 20, Section 3, declare that the President elect has failed to qualify;

Given that Congress has already certified the results, with no member of either house or either party raising an objection, and declared Obama the President-Elect, the provisions of Amendment 20 do not apply at this time.

5. Invoke the 20th Amendment to appoint an ‘Acting President’, and that the first order of business of the Congress is thereby to elect a President who does qualify;

See 4, above.

6. Seek whatever guidance is needed from the U.S. Supreme Court.

See 4, above.

7. Develop federal regulations and procedures to ensure that Presidential Candidates are natural born citizens qualifying to be Commander In Chief, and are fully vetted for their eligibility to serve by each of the States before any election for President.

Such a process likely would be an unconstitutional infringement on states’ rights to govern the selection of Electors, established by the Constitution (Article 2, Section 1).

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

41 Responses to Petition for Redress of Grievances – Examined

  1. avatar
    bogus info January 9, 2009 at 8:30 pm #

    Dr. C.,

    WHEREAS, Barack Hussein Obama admits he was adopted by an Indonesian National named Lolo Soetoro;

    (looking for this)

    Remember that so called phone conversation that Michele Obama had with some radio station/magazine, can’t remember, think it was Ebony? Which turned out to be bogus as I recall, anyway, that was where allegedly Michele Obama stated that Obama had been adopted by Soetoro. Whole thing turned out to be false.

  2. avatar
    mimi January 9, 2009 at 11:34 pm #

    Wasn’t a radio station. It was Chief Editor Sammy (scammy) Korir of “African Press International”. And, there are still folks over there waiting for the tape and Imam documents. In the chat room. It’s really funny.

  3. avatar
    bogus info January 9, 2009 at 11:56 pm #

    mimi,

    Yes, that was it. Thanks.

  4. avatar
    Cee Cee January 10, 2009 at 2:48 am #

    OMG people are still believing that crap.

    I feel really really sorry for them all…… NOT.

  5. avatar
    C.S. March 27, 2009 at 1:39 pm #

    “WHEREAS, the 14th Amendment to the Constitution does not confer the natural born citizen’ title on naturalized U.S. citizens;

    TRUE, but … irrelevant. ”

    It is not irrelevant and just as we can look to the founders Federalist Papers and debates and what not to find out what they really meant so too can we do this here.

    [Because the text of this comment is very long, and the article is readily available on the web, I have replaced the text with a link. Doc C.]

    The UnConstitutionality of Citizenship by Birth to Non-Americans

    Whether or not you publish this comment I hope you have read it. I was an Obama supporter, but the more I look at what our founders intended I no longer believe he’s leading the country in the right direction. AS a matter of fact I KNOW he’s not and neither are most of the congress or the judiciary.

  6. avatar
    C.S. March 27, 2009 at 1:58 pm #

    See the reason it’s relevant is because Obama’s father was here on a student visa (not as an immigrant) which means he owed no allegiance to the USA but to his native country.

    So, with one parent NOT being a citizen, even if he was Born in Hawaii, He is still not a natural born citizen.

  7. avatar
    NBC March 27, 2009 at 2:43 pm #

    The status of the parents has no impact on whether or not a child is natural born. This is not about Obama’s father but the allegiance under which Obama himself was born, which was US.

  8. avatar
    Expelliarmus March 27, 2009 at 4:14 pm #

    CS… if there is a conflict between a 1967 US Supreme Court holding and some comment made during debate over the 14th Amendment, then the US Supreme Court ruling governs. That is ALWAYS the case — it is called stare decisis. The decisional law is the last rule, and the more recent the case holding is, the more significance it has.

    So, except as a historical exercise, it makes no sense to argue that there is something you found in the history of the drafting of the 14th amendment that is at odds with a 1967 Supreme Court decision. The case law governs.

  9. avatar
    C.S. March 27, 2009 at 6:56 pm #

    Right, that’s only if you ignore the very people who wrote the legislation.

  10. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy March 27, 2009 at 6:57 pm #

    I read this article when I was starting to research “natural born citizenship” the very first time. It looked pretty good at the start and then it started to run off the road. What Madison has done is to list basically to take the opinions of a few people and make them the law, while ignoring the actual laws and court decisions by which such things are decided under our form of government.

    Of course Bingham’s comments were not made about the 14th amendment at all, but in the debate over the Civil Rights Act of 1866 which had very different language “subject to no foreign power” which the Congress in its wisdom replaced with “subject to the jurisdiction”. The Supreme Court in US v. Wonk Kim Ark states unequivocally that anyone who is in the United States (except ambassadors…) is fully and completely under the jurisdiction of the United States.

    P. A. Madison is pretty good at persuasion until you look at the other side. While P. A. Madison argues that the Supreme Court is wrong, they nevertheless get to decide what the law is, not you or P. A. Madison. [And what qualifications does P. A. Madison have that we should accept him as an authority?]

    So now let me suggest some reading for you:

    The Great Mother of All Natural Born Citizenship Quotation Pages

    or the other articles under Citizenship (Conspiracies link upper right on this page).

    By the way, what do you think The Federalist Papers say about citizenship?

  11. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy March 27, 2009 at 7:00 pm #

    Everything I can find in British North American law (the law before the Constitution) and in the Constitution and in court cases since has led me to disagree with you completely. There has never been a parental requirement for citizenship. There are laws which grant citizenship based on parentage, but none that require it.

  12. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy March 27, 2009 at 7:04 pm #

    For my edification, which 1967 case are you referring to? Afroyim v. Rusk?

  13. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy March 27, 2009 at 7:11 pm #

    There are several thing that might be said there.

    First Bingham did not write the legislation. The house version (Bingham was a representative) of the 14th amendment didn’t even have the jurisdiction clause. It was added in the Senate. Others in the debate, however, expressed opposite views and for that, I suggest a more complete reading of the main article preceding on which you are commenting.

    In construing a statute, whatever was said or given prominence in debate gives way to its actual language as passed; all reasons that induced its enactment and all of its purposes must be supposed to be satisfied and expressed by its words as finally enacted.

    Mackenzie v. Hare, 239 U.S. 299 (1915)

    OK you legal eagles, are you proud of me for coming up with THAT one?

  14. avatar
    elmo March 27, 2009 at 7:27 pm #

    I wonder if the people who argue that in order to be a citizen, a person must both be (1) born in the U.S., and (2) his/her father must be a citizen, realize the implications of their argument. If this is the case, most Americans would not be citizens.

    Think about it. The 2nd prong can only be satisfied through naturalization, or being the patrilineal descendant of a naturalized citizen. No matter how many generations your family has been born on American soil, that wouldn’t make you a citizen unless somewhere back in history someone took the steps to become naturalized.

    Under this theory, I’d be very surprised if any U.S. president met their ridiculous definition.

  15. avatar
    Expelliarmus March 27, 2009 at 7:33 pm #

    I’d also point out that the 14th Amendment is not mere “legislation” — it is a Constitutional Amendment that required ratification by 3/4 of the state legislatures. So you’d have to pull up the debates of all 28 states that ratified the amendments as well.

    And, as noted previously, nothing that anyone said at the time would have any bearing on issues that the Supreme Court has subsequently ruled upon.

  16. avatar
    Expelliarmus March 27, 2009 at 7:38 pm #

    Yes — I was replying to the criticism of Afroyim v Rusk (“the court completely discarded the fourteenth’s Citizenship Clause scope and intent by replacing it with their own invented Citizenship Clause.”)

    My point is that the Supreme Court has the last word on these things. So you always have to look at the decisional law, first — you go to legislative history only in the absence of court authority on the subject.

  17. avatar
    thisoldhippie March 27, 2009 at 8:56 pm #

    That is the best argument I’ve seen yet for this “theory.” I seriously doubt any of my ancestors, some of whom actually fought in the American Revolution, took the steps to be naturalized because they knew their children would be natural born American citizens.

  18. avatar
    C.S. March 27, 2009 at 10:29 pm #

    The problem is that the courts aren’t always right. They should be looking to the debates, papers, legislation, etc. and what it was understood to mean when it was passed. Most tend to go by what they ASSUME themselves or previous court cases where somebody else assumed. Again they aren’t always right and if are system ran as it should it wouldn’t be such a problem.

  19. avatar
    C.S. March 27, 2009 at 10:35 pm #

    Bingham didn’t put it in and contrary to what is written above neither did Howard… it was Sen. Lyman Trumbull, Chairman of the Judiciary Committee.

    Have any of you even read it in the congressional globe yourselves?

  20. avatar
    C.S. March 27, 2009 at 10:41 pm #

    Here’s how it is suppose to work. Your ancestors came here and became naturalized citizens… meaning they denounced allegiance to any other country and professed allegiance to the USA. Thereafter as long as they didn’t denounce allegiance to the USA their children are considered Natural Born Citizens.

    Do you understand now?

  21. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy March 27, 2009 at 10:47 pm #

    I think it rather pretentious of you to say that that the US Supreme Court is wrong and that you have a better understanding of the law and the Constitution than they do and that maybe a million American citizens (those children of resident aliens) are suddenly “not citizens” any more.

    Do you know of any contemporary legal scholar who agrees with your position?

  22. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy March 27, 2009 at 10:49 pm #

    It hardly matters who put it in. At the end, it is the language of what got voted on. In this country we presume the laws mean what they say.

  23. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy March 27, 2009 at 10:54 pm #

    Yes I read the Congressional Globe and on page 2890 it says that Sen. Howard offered the amendment to add the first sentence to the House version of the 14th amendment NOT Mr. Trumbull. Now I suggest you read United States v. Wong Kim Ark from which the following comes:

    During the debates in the Senate in January and February, 1866, upon the Civil Rights Bill, Mr. Trumbull, the chairman of the committee which reported the bill, moved to amend the first sentence thereof so as to read,

    “All persons born in the United States, and not subject to any foreign power, are hereby declared to be citizens of the United States, without distinction of color.”

    Mr. Cowan, of Pennsylvania, asked, “Whether it will not have the effect of naturalizing the children of Chinese and Gypsies born in this country?” Mr. Trumbull answered, “Undoubtedly,” and asked, “is not the child born in this country of German parents a citizen?” Mr. Cowan replied, “The children of German parents are citizens; but Germans are not Chinese.” Mr. Trumbull rejoined: “The law makes no such distinction, and the child of an Asiatic is just as much a citizen as the child of a European.” Mr. Reverend Johnson suggested that the words, “without distinction of color,” should be omitted as unnecessary, and said:

    “The amendment, as it stands, is that all persons born in the United States, and not subject to a foreign power, shall, by virtue of birth, be citizens. To that I am willing to consent, and that comprehends all persons, without any reference to race or color, who may be so born.”

    And Mr. Trumbull agreed that striking out those words would make no difference in the meaning, but thought it better that they should be retained to remove all possible doubt. Congressional Globe, 39th Congress, 1st sess. pt. 1, pp. 498, 573, 574.

    The Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution, as originally framed by the House of Representatives, lacked the opening sentence. When it came before the Senate in May, 1866, Mr. Howard, of Michigan, moved to amend by prefixing the sentence in its present form (less the words “or naturalized”), and reading,

    “All persons born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State herein they reside.”

    Mr. Cowan objected upon the ground that the Mongolian race ought to be excluded, and said:

    “Is the child of the Chinese immigrant in California a citizen? . . . I do not know how my honorable friend from California looks upon Chinese, but I do know how some of his fellow citizens regard them. I have no doubt that now they are useful, and I have no doubt that, within proper restraints, allowing that State and the other Pacific States to manage them as they may see fit, they may be useful; but I would not tie their hands by the Constitution of the United States so as to prevent them hereafter from dealing with them as in their wisdom they see fit.”

    Mr. Conness, of California, replied:

    “The proposition before us relates simply, in that respect, to the children begotten of Chinese parents in California, and it is proposed to declare that they shall be citizens. We have declared that by law; now it is proposed to incorporate the same provision in the fundamental instrument of the Nation. I am in favor of doing so. I voted for the proposition to declare that the children of all parentage whatever, born in California, should be regarded and treated as citizens of the United States, entitled to equal civil rights with other citizens of the United States. . . . We are entirely ready to accept the provision proposed in this Constitutional Amendment that the children born here of Mongolian parents shall be declared by the Constitution of the United States to be entitled to civil rights and to equal protection before the law with others.”

    Congressional Globe, 39th Congress, 1st sess. pt. 4, pp. 2890-2892. It does not appear to have been suggested in either House of Congress that children born in the United States of Chinese parents would not come within the terms and effect of the leading sentence of the Fourteenth Amendment.

    Senator Conness is referring to the Civil Rights Act of 1866 (two years prior) when he says “we have declared by law”. The “Chinese in California” were not citizens because of the Chinese Exclusion Act. It would seem to me that based on this exchange, that the Senators understood that Wong Kim Ark would be a citizen under the Civil Rights Act of 1866 and subsequently under the 14th Amendment. Therefore, US v Wong was decided correctly, both based on law, precedent AND the Congressional debate.

    http://supreme.justia.com/us/169/649/case.html

    [Not very Rogerian, am I?]

  24. avatar
    NBC March 27, 2009 at 11:50 pm #

    That’s so wrong. Parents can denounce allegiance and the children will still retain their birthright US citizenship until they reach the age of adulthood.

    Surely you must be familiar with the laws?

  25. avatar
    C.S. March 28, 2009 at 12:32 am #

    It still points to “the jurisdiction” sentence. The Chinese had already immigrated… became naturalized … then the act was passed (as were the “black codes”)… hence the civil rights act. Then people questioned whether or not congress had the constitutional authority to do this… hence the 14th amendment.

  26. avatar
    C.S. March 28, 2009 at 12:34 am #

    NBC says:
    March 27, 2009 at 11:50 pm

    That’s so wrong. Parents can denounce allegiance and the children will still retain their birthright US citizenship until they reach the age of adulthood.

    Surely you must be familiar with the laws?

    Now they do but hat’s not how it’s suppose to be… Not if the child was still a child (now,18 or younger).

  27. avatar
    Expelliarmus March 28, 2009 at 3:12 am #

    MANY American citizens are the the offspring of immigrants who did not become naturalized citizens. There is no requirement that a permanent resident every become a citizen.

    I have many friends & family members who are Americans who are married to non-citizens who have retained their citizenship with their country of origin. The kids are born in the US and may be dual nationals, depending on the laws of their parent’s country – but they are also natural born citizens.

  28. avatar
    myson March 28, 2009 at 3:46 am #

    i love how CS argues, legislation & case law are presented to show that status of parents are irrelevant unless they be diplomats, when a child is born in the US, he doesnt contend with case law or other legislation but how he feels the law should be because he wants to exclude Obama because he feels that what the founding fathers would have wanted
    I always find it funny when someone (like CS) tell us he used to support Obama but later because of his citizenship issues changed there mind, Obama NEVER hid the fact about his father neither did he hide the fact of his Kenyan ancestry so what new info make them just change their mind ??? i am not saying pple cant change their minds i just find it funny !!!
    CS i am not against you in any way as your agruements are reasonable & coherent, i just disagree with them ()

  29. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy March 28, 2009 at 6:10 am #

    No, they had not naturalized. The Chinese Exclusion Act prevented Chinese Immigrants from naturalizing until the Magnuson Act of 1943.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_Exclusion_Act_of_1882

    You really need to listen to what we’re saying instead of making assumptions like the “Chinese had naturalized”. I assure you, the folks over here have done a lot more research than you give us credit for. If I tell you something, then I am prepared to back it up.

  30. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy March 28, 2009 at 6:13 am #

    I’m not sure which side you’re arguing. The Supreme Court in Perkins v. Elg states that parents can renounce citizenship and the children gain dual citizenship in another country, and the children still be natural born citizens of the United States.

  31. avatar
    C.S. March 28, 2009 at 10:09 am #

    My not supporting now wasn’t because of his “citizenship issue” it’s because of his collectivist policies. I just posted here to say why I thought the 14th amendment was relevant to what they were saying.

    See the Constitution is suppose to be the supreme law of the land and if our Laws are left to interpretation with no care to what the founders and amendment writers intended then that means the law is changeable on whim or on a few persons views then the law itself becomes “unstable” and can’t be relied upon and when people realize this you get Anarchy

    It’s the judges job to try to adhere to the supreme law which means they should be looking first to original intent then maybe to other cases, not the other way around.

  32. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy March 28, 2009 at 1:06 pm #

    Obama’s policies are out of the scope for this web site, which deals just with conspiracy theories and fringe theories about Barack Obama.

    The Constitution is described as a “living document” because times change and situations change. But we need not grow the Constitution, nor do we have to rely on the courts alone to tell us that Barack Obama is an eligible president. The Constitution was written largely by American lawyers, practicing British Common Law. The Chairman of the Committee of Detail was trained in England (as were may others). British common law, as well as colonial charters and naturalization acts of several states all say the natural born citizens are those born in the colony. They are silent on parentage. The 14th Amendment’s first sentence (which was not even in the House version) just codifies what was always the case.

    If you want to understand this issue in more depth, click on the link upper right “Citizenship.”

  33. avatar
    C.S. March 28, 2009 at 1:27 pm #

    “Obama’s policies are out of the scope for this web site, which deals just with conspiracy theories and fringe theories about Barack Obama.”

    Myson said:”I always find it funny when someone (like CS) tell us he used to support Obama but later because of his citizenship issues changed there mind”

    I was just pointing out that his citizenship (or lack thereof) had nothing to do with it.

    The constitution is not a “living document in the way you mean and that is precisely why there are steps to change/amend it. Otherwise it means nothing and laws can be changed by the judiciary instead of congress and the people.

    Subject to the jurisdiction means the COMPLETE jurisdiction and if one parent has loyalty/allegiance to another country then they or not under the COMPLETE jurisdiction of the USA.

    “[T]he 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.”

  34. avatar
    Zuzu March 28, 2009 at 1:44 pm #

    Just read this post for the first time. Great discussion, Dr. C. !

    However, I’m not sure that the adoption of federal laws or regs governing the qualification of a candidate for the federal ballot would be unconstitutional. The federal govt generally has authority to set forth the requirements for the conduct of federal elections.

  35. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy March 28, 2009 at 2:04 pm #

    This is article is by a guest contributor, and not by the Doctor.

  36. avatar
    Zuzu March 28, 2009 at 2:23 pm #

    First, the United States has jurisdiction even over foreign nationals living within its territories; those individuals may be prosecuted in U.S. criminal courts and sued in U.S. civil courts.

    Second, the jurisdiction of the United States over citizens born with dual citizenship is not qualified. The citizen must still obey the laws of the United States.

    The USSC has explained the long-established exceptions to the absolute jurisdiction of the United States over its citizens and those within its territory, as they relate to the 14th Amendment:

    In short, the judgment in the case of The Exchange declared, as incontrovertible principles, that the jurisdiction of every nation within its own territory is exclusive and absolute, and is susceptible of no limitation not imposed by the nation itself; that all exceptions to its full and absolute territorial jurisdiction must be traced up to its own consent, express or implied; that upon its consent to cede, or to waive the exercise of, a part of its territorial jurisdiction, rest the exemptions from that jurisdiction of foreign sovereigns or their armies entering its territory with its permission, and of their foreign ministers and public ships of war; and that the implied license, under which private individuals of another nation enter the territory and mingle indiscriminately with its inhabitants, for purposes of business or pleasure, can never be construed to grant to them an exemption from the jurisdiction of the country in which they are found. See, also, Carlisle v. U. S. (1872) 16 Wall. 147, 155; Radich v. Hutchins (1877) 95 U.S. 210 ; Wildenhus’ Case (1887) 120 U.S. 1 , 7 Sup. Ct. 385; Chae Chan Ping v. U. S . (1889) 130 U.S. 581, 603 , 604 S., 9 Sup. Ct. 623.

    U.S. v. WONG KIM ARK, 169 U.S. 649, 686

  37. avatar
    elmo March 28, 2009 at 3:49 pm #

    Well, prove it then. Can you prove that any of your ancestors “denounced” (I think you mean “renounced”) foreign citizenship, and went through the naturalization process? If you can’t, that means you’re not a citizen…if you accept this two pronged theory of citizenship.

  38. avatar
    NBC March 28, 2009 at 4:04 pm #

    I am not sure what Elmo is attempting to argue. I just pointed out that parents cannot renounce their children’s citizenship. This is up to the children when they reach adulthood.

  39. avatar
    NBC March 28, 2009 at 4:05 pm #

    As to renounce and denounce

    Denounce: 5: to announce formally the termination of (as a treaty)

  40. avatar
    NBC March 28, 2009 at 4:06 pm #

    That’s the side I am arguing. Parents cannot renounce citizenship for their children.

  41. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy March 29, 2009 at 7:15 am #

    C. S. A couple of things.

    1. I think you are confusing jurisdiction with loyalty. It doesn’t matter where one loyalty lies–the law applies to them whether they like it or not. If doesn’t matter what country one is a citizen of; if you spit on the sidewalk, you pay the same fine. The Supreme Court in US v Wong did a lengthy analysis of the completeness of jurisdiction.
    2. Your quaint view of an immutable constitution is wholly impractical. I don’t know what country you live in, but in the United States the judiciary has been making common law for a couple hundred years now. If you don’t like how it works, pass a constitutional amendment.
    3. Are you really trying to strip the citizenship from Millions of Americans, who like Barack Obama, were born in the United States to non-citizen parents?