Tag Archives: House of Representatives

When will the Birthers be happy?

by Guest Contributor on 07. Aug, 2009 in Guest Essays

Once again, we read a long discussion, with a rational-sounding style, laying out the facts, so it appears, about citizenship in the United States. Is it reasonable and is it true?

Our guest commentator has doubts, and responds to When will the Birthers be happy?

ARTICLE SAYS: World Net Daily, has actively covered many of these issues relating to Obama’s eligibil[i]ty over the last 8 months and have a collection of all eligib[i]lity related articles. See http://bit.ly/147bkD

RESPONSE: Interesting to note that, before the issue seemed such a potential publicity boon, WND reported that its own experts determined the COLB to be authentic:

“OBAMA’S CERTIFICATION OF LIVE BIRTH UTILIZING FORGERY EXPERTS ALSO FOUND THE DOCUMENT TO BE AUTHENTIC. The investigation also revealed methods used by some of the bloggers to determine the document was fake involved forgeries, in that a few bloggers added text and images to the certificate scan that weren’t originally there.”

WND also reported that the claims that Obama lost any hypothetical American citizenship he had as a child is not supported by US citizenship law:

“In short, the suit claims Obama was not born an American citizen; lost any hypothetical American citizenship he had as a child [ITALICS IN ORIGINAL(Editor's note: This point is not supported by U.S. citizenship law)END ITALICS]; may not now be an American citizen and even if he is, may hold dual citizenships with other countries. ….

(more…)

Read full story • Comments { 89 }

Response to Eligibility Primer (Part 2)

by Dr. Conspiracy on 21. Jun, 2009 in Citizenship

This is a continuation of the discussion of the June 5, 2009, article titled Obama Presidential Eligibility – An Introductory Primer by Stephen Tonchen. We resume at the end of his section 4:

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’).

This is a major gloss over one of the most sweeping surveys of citizenship ever appearing in US jurisprudence. The question before the court was whether Wong Kim Ark, born in California of Chinese subjects at a time when racist legislation (the Chinese Exclusion Act) prohibited the Chinese from becoming naturalized citizens, was a citizen. The Court said that he was. But in the majority opinion, the Court said a great many things of importance, specifically:

  1. Citing Smith v. Alabama, the court said that the Constitution is framed in the language of English Common Law
  2. The Court cited English Common law, saying that those born in England are natural born subjects of England, without regard for the citizenship of their parents
  3. The Court asserted the equivalence of “citizen” and “subject”.

While US v. Wong did not decide the natural born citizen question, the majority opinion leads inevitably to the conclusion that those born within the United States (except the children of ambassadors) are our natural born citizens, without regard to the citizenship of their parents. (more…)

Read full story • Comments { 254 }

James Madison on Birth and Allegiance

by Dr. Conspiracy on 15. May, 2009 in Citizenship

James Madison

James Madison

James Madison of Virginia, framer of the Constitution, member of Congress and 4th President of the United States is often called “The Father of the Constitution”. The Federalist Papers, co-authored by Madison, was influential in turning the tide of popular opinion in favor of the ratification of the Constitution.

In a speech before the House of Representatives in May of 1789, Madison said:

It is an established maxim, that birth is a criterion of allegiance. Birth, however, derives its force sometimes from place, and sometimes from parentage; but, in general place is the most certain criterion; it is what applies in the United States.

Abridgment of the Debates of Congress, from 1789 to 1856 From Gales and Seatons’ Annals of Congress; from Their Register of Debates; and from the Official Reported Debates, by John C. Rives By United States. Congress, Thomas Hart Benton

Thanks to contributor Ballantine for the citation.

Read full story • Comments { 32 }

The Naturalization Acts of 1790 and 1795

by Dr. Conspiracy on 22. Jan, 2009 in Research Notes

I was contacted by one our readers challenging why I didn’t talk about the Naturalization Act of 1795, since I had cited the Act of 1790. The real short answer is because the Act of 1795 doesn’t have the phrase “natural born citizen in it” (nor any bit of naturalization and citizenship law since). What’s so special about 1795?

Perhaps because the 1795 Act is the transition between laws with and laws without the “natural born citizen” wording, it’s worth looking at.

(more…)

Read full story • Comments { 38 }

The night the constitution changed

by Dr. Conspiracy on 24. Dec, 2008 in Citizenship

I can remember it clearly. I was watching CNN. It was 11 PM, November 4, 2008. Wolf Blitzer was on the screen when the giant graphic appeared calling Barack Obama our next President. I heaved a great sign of relief never realizing at that moment the Constitution had changed. The realization was slow in coming, but at least on some of the web sites that Obama Conspiracy Theories covers, it was well known. What had happened? The definition of “natural born citizen” had changed.

I’ve been reading this marvelous article from the Boston University Law Review by Sarah Helene Duggin and Mary Beth Collins. While written in 2005, you might think it was written only yesterday when it says:

Any of the many birthright citizens whose natural born status is unclear, however, could become entangled in a battle over the meaning of the natural born citizenship clause in a variety of ways. Early in the Presidential selection process, for example, media coverage of a prospective candidate’s origins could trigger a national controversy over constitutional qualifications. A public credentials contest could, in turn, cause the candidate to withdraw from the race, or persuade supporters that backing the candidate would be too  risky.  Alternatively, vigorous public debate might result in a popular consensus that birthright citizenship should suffice for the Presidency, regardless of the precise meaning of Article II. A popular consensus could  persuade state election officials to include a Presidential hopeful’s name on an election ballot, despite questionable natural born citizenship credentials, and it might dissuade potential challengers from initiating a legal action contesting the eligibility of the candidate to serve as President. Given the nature of present-day political battles, however, it is hard to imagine that competitors would pull any punches in a Presidential contest.

Nor would winning the Democratic or Republican nomination necessarily insulate a Presidential candidate from legal action or convince a disappointed rival to abandon the quest for the Presidency. Moreover, as long as the constitutional standard remains ambiguous, the risk of contentious legal disputes will linger, even in the midst of a national emergency.

‘NATURAL BORN’ IN THE USA: THE STRIKING UNFAIRNESS AND DANGEROUS AMBIGUITY OF THE CONSTITUTION’S PRESIDENTIAL QUALIFICATIONS CLAUSE AND WHY WE NEED TO FIX IT Boston University Law Review, February 2005.

And then the article brings up complications over “standing” should someone try to bring a lawsuit over eligibility, the difficulties involved should the Supreme Court take on the case and even scenarios where the House of Representatives wrestled with the possibility of failing to qualify a popularly elected candidate.

Wow! You might think this describes exactly where we are today, but you would be wrong because what the authors mean by “birthright citizens” are those who are citizens from birth, born in the United States and in US Territories (the latter face ambiguity). Our President-Elect was born in the United States proper. That article goes on to say:

United States citizens born to parents subject to United States jurisdiction in one of the fifty states are unquestionably natural born citizens…

As the foregoing discussion demonstrates, however, even an individual who is indisputably a natural born American can also be a dual national. The  Constitution does not bar dual nationals from becoming President, and, in recent years, United States nationality law has become increasingly tolerant of multiple citizenship, thereby increasing the possibility that a dual national will become President.

According to a CNN report:

“The law has always been understood to be, if you are born here, you’re a natural born citizen,” said Thomas Goldstein, founder of the Scotusblog.com Web site and a lawyer who has argued numerous cases before the high court.

Anyway, that was how it was at 10:59 on November 4, 2008. As soon as the black guy with the funny name walked in the door, it all changed. Now everybody knows. And not only did it change for us, but it changed retroactively so that now everybody knew this in 1776 and knew it in 1880, that to be a natural born citizen (which even has its own acronym, NBC) one must be born in the United States, and BOTH parents must also be citizens. This Constitutional amendment was passed unanimously by the anti-Obama blogosphere and there it is.

Read full story • Comments { 26 }