The video is nicely produced and it does a good job of summarizing the misinformation being spread about natural born citizen.
[Video no longer available]
Despite what the video says, there is widespread consensus among constitutional scholars, courts and government officials that being born in the United States is sufficient to be a “natural born citizen” and this is the message many people are getting from their congressmen when they write to them about this natural born citizen redefinition craziness. McCain supporter, Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, wrote: “Every child born in the United States is a natural-born United States citizen except for the children of diplomats.”
Representative Bingham’s comments (and I don’t think they are fairly quoted in context) are still just an isolated remark made by one congressman during one debate over the Civil Rights Act of 1866, which itself was made obsolete by the 14th amendment two years later (replacing the language “born not subject to any foreign power” with “under the jurisdiction of the United States”). The film distorts this fact.
The comment that case law supports the “Meat and Two” citizenship model is blatantly false. The most important case on citizenship is United States v. Wong Kim Ark, in which the 6-2 majority stated plainly that the children of foreign nationals born here are fully and completely under the jurisdiction of the United States (except for ambassadors who by law enjoy exception from our jurisdiction, and invading armies). In fact the Wong case goes so far as to cite British common law (upon which much of American law is based) in saying that anyone born in England is a natural born subject, and then goes on to say that it is appropriate to substitute “citizen” for “subject” when referring to our country.
The comment about Senate Resolution 511 is an example of the formal fallacy of denying the antecedent. It goes:
Anyone born of American citizens is a natural born citizen Barack Obama does not have two American Parents Therefore Barack Obama is not a natural born citizen
That is equivalent to
Anyone with a broken leg will have trouble climbing these steep stairs Joe has no legs at all (broken or otherwise) Joe will not have trouble climbing these steep stairs
Then the sound track says ”McCain…born on a military base in the Panama Canal Zone” over an image of a fake birth certificate that says McCain was not born on the military base but in the city of Colon, outside the Canal Zone. Hit PAUSE and read it! I got a big laugh out of that one.
It is true that Barack Obama was born with dual American/British citizenship (as was President Chester A. Arthur), but this is no disqualification. British law has no power to nullify our Constitution. Presidents and Vice Presidents have the same qualifications for office (12th Amendment) and Vice President Curtis was born in the Kansas Territory (which was not in the United States at the time) of a mother who was an American Indian (and not a citizen).
The video goes on again to emphasize “not subject to any foreign power” from the 1866 act, ignoring the fact that this was replaced by the 14th amendment’s language “subject to the jurisdiction”. And even if that language had lasted more than 2 years, still the argument in the Wong case would have said that a child born in the US is not subject to a foreign power even if that power were to claim him. The Emperor of China could not tell Wong to do this or do that if he were in the US.
I would not call emergency motions for relief to the Supreme Court denied as soon as they are filed “active lawsuits”. The Supreme Court only hears a small fraction of the cases that come before it. If the supreme court had any intention of hearing a presidential qualifications case, they would have done so at the earliest possible time so as to allow arguments and make some kind of a determination before the inauguration. But they did not which tells me that these cases are totally dead.
There is no evidence that I know of that Obama has spent any money to prevent the birth certificate from being revealed. He has defended lawsuits that make broad claims that include the birth certificate, but I know of no case where he has made any legal defense in a case that only demands the birth certificate.
I think the video’s own words: “trickery and deception” best apply to the video itself.
For further reading:
- What “Subject to the Jurisdiction Thereof” Really Means – The Federalist Blog
- Is Barack Obama Natural Born? – Op Ed News
- State Department regulations on citizenship
- The Natural-Born Citizen Clause and Presidential Eligibility: An Approach for Resolving Two Hundred Years of Uncertainty – Yale Law Journal 1988
- ‘Natural Born’ in the USA: The striking unfairness and dangerous ambiguity of the Constitution’s presidential qualifications clause and why we need need to fix it – Boston University Law Review 2005
- The Origins and Interpretation of the Presidential Eligibility Clause in the
U.S. Constitution: Why Did the Founding Fathers Want the President
To Be a “Natural Born Citizen” and What Does this Clause
Mean for Foreign-Born Adoptees? - Defining “American” Birthright Citizenship and the Original Understanding of the 14th Amendment
- The strange case of Chester Alan Arthur – Venia Legendi blog
- Acquisition and Retention of U.S. Citizenship and Nationality – US Department of State
- US v Wong Kim Ark
- What’s Your Evidence?
James says:Today, 7:51:34 PM“Oklahoma Legislator Introduces Bill to Require Candidates to Submit Birth Certificate
January 1st, 2009
Oklahoma Representative Mike Ritze (R-Broken Arrow) has pre-filed a bill, requiring candidates for public office to submit a copy of their Birth Certificates. Ritze is a professor of Forensic Science and a physician, and was just elected to his first term in the legislature in November 2008. Ritze introduced his bill because he does not believe that President-Elect Barack Obama has demonstrated that he meets the constitutional qualifications.
Ritze also says that he is trying to persuade U.S. Senator Jim Inhofe to object to counting electoral college votes for Obama, when Congress counts the electoral votes on January 8.
The Oklahoma legislature does not convene until February. Oklahoma legislators are free to pre-file bills, but the Oklahoma legislature’s web page does not yet have the text of pre-filed bills, so the text of Ritze’s bill is not available. Since presidential nominees of qualified parties do not actually file for the November ballot in any state, it is not clear how Ritze’s bill can accomplish its objective, relative to general election presidential nominees of qualified parties.
Every one needs to contact Mike Ritz and Jim Inhofe Today!!!
Above from the Doc Orly blog/comment by blogger.
You know, I wonder…
They say that Obama has spent a lot of time and money on this. Is there any evidence that Obama has actually spent any considerable amount of money on this?
Andrew,
Funny you should ask this. Here is the only answer I have gotten from those who spread this information:
http://drorly.blogspot.com/2008/12/obot-on-divorce-decree.html#links
Read the 4th comment by Robert Stevens. Then go down to the 6th comment by Loren.
No “factual evidence”, only “opinions.”
Nice article and nice to see someone addressing the issue in a responsible matter.
However – please be completely honest about your examples. Chester Arther was deceitful about his birth year, the year his father immigrated to the US, the residency location of his mother, and the year his father naturalized. He, like Obama, helped to further the smokescreen where the real problem lay. Hinman (researching his NBC status) was looking at WHERE he was born (thinking he was born in Canada in 1830), when he was actually born in the US in 1829, but of only 1 US citizen – his father did not naturalize until 14 years AFTER Arther’s birth (a fact that Arther flat out lied about). Arther was POTUS, but only through lies and deceit. That is NO precedent – unless you consider his deceit and Obama’s deceit the precedent.
As far as Curtis – according to Senator Leahy (while TRYING to affirm McCain’s NBC status) addressed Curtis. “Historical practice confirms that birth on soil that is under the sovereignty of the United
States, but not within a State, satisfies the Natural Born Citizen Clause.” – Kansas Territory was under the sovereignty of the US at his birth; therefore he was considered to be born on US soil. Same goes for Barry Goldwater. On the issue of Curtis’ mother, she would have been granted US Citizenship by the Act of February 1855, which stated “any woman who might lawfully be naturalized under existing laws, married, or shall be married to a citizen of the United States, shall be deemed and taken to be a citizen.” Therefore, Curtis, born in 1860 met the requirements AT BIRTH to be a NBC.
It’s fine to quote historical precedent, but please be honest and state the whole truth and not just the truth that suits your position.
There are some fine lines for definition of NBC and there needs to be a discussion and a decision handed down by Congress / SCOTUS to this issue.
In my opinion, Obama was born with dual-citizenship. He may have lost it at age 21, but after that age, he travelled to Kenya to campaign for a paternal relative that believes in Sharia Law. I think that debunks his claim that he no longer has dual-allegiences. Kenya may not have any legal standing to claim him (although they overwhelming do claim him as one of their own) – he seems to likewise claim Kenyan loyalty.
When considering the Wong case, one needs to be aware that Judge Gray, who wrote the seminal opinion in that case was, in fact, appointed by none other than our famous usurper Chester Arther! I believe that calls into question the relationship between Arther and Gray and whether that relationship effected the decision in the Wong case. At the very least, it is suspect.
The only president in history that was NOT born to 2 US citizens on US controlled soil was Chester Arther – but he did so only through lies and deceit. Now – if you want your next president to serve under that precedent – fine, but I’d prefer my president to have a much more solid and integral foundation than that.
http://leahy.senate.gov/issues/Judiciary/McCainAnalysis.pdf
http://www.cyberdriveillinois.com/departments/archives/ogle.html
Andrew, as far as I know, there is no evidence that Obama has spent a nickel specifically to keep the original birth registration copy private.
Most of the estimates are simply wild guesses, which explains numbers from $200,000 up to $2.1 Million I’ve seen on the net. I do not know of any instance where Obama has opposed a lawsuit asking only that his birth certificate be produced or verified. Typically the lawsuits are against other people, or they make a laundry list of false accusations that Obama really has to object to. It is important to note that while there are many lawsuits, most are NOT suing Obama.
Berg v. Obama et al. is suing Obama, the Federal Elections Commission and the Secretary of State of Pennsylvania. Obama did oppose that laundry list of Indonesian/canadian birth/fraud whatever and the case was dismissed. When that case was appealed to the Supreme Court, Obama did not file anything (hence no legal fees).
The only lawsuit naming Obama and asking only for proof of natural born citizenship is the Essek suit in Kentucky. I have not got any information on what may have been filed there subsequently, nor whether Obama has opposed it. If he did, then there may have been some legal expense associated with that case.
That’s essentially what I thought.
I just find it funny (well, sad, really) that they claim that he’s spending all this money when all I can find are the motions to dismiss in the Berg case.
kismetique,
“When considering the Wong case, one needs to be aware that Judge Gray, who wrote the seminal opinion in that case was, in fact, appointed by none other than our famous usurper Chester Arther! I believe that calls into question the relationship between Arther and Gray and whether that relationship effected the decision in the Wong case. At the very least, it is suspect.”
The relationship between Arthur and Gray might be suspect IF it had benefitted Chester Arthur. However, Chester Arthur was President from 1881-1885. The Supreme Court decision of Wong Kim Arc was 1898.
My opinion is if you are born in America, then you are a natural born citizen.
However, why any of us are even debating this issue is a mystery to me. We can argue about the definition of NBC until the cows come home but the bottom line is that only Congress or the U.S. Supreme Court has the power to define NBC.
Your claims of “dishonesty” and the claim that I am purposefully withholding information are out of line. You are welcome to dispute the information here and present whatever evidence you wish, but you are not welcome to put forward personal attacks.
The remarks about Arthur in the preceding article are necessarily brief asides to the main point. I do not say that Arthur’s presidency is a precedent, merely that it happened. One cannot discuss everything everywhere and keep the attention span of someone who is more attuned to YouTube. There are 3 separate articles on this web site about Chester A. Arthur and one on Charles Curtis that discuss these in more detail.
http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2008/12/the-mysterious-mr-hinman/
http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2008/12/the-assassination-of-chester-a-arthur/
http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2008/12/definitive-biography-of-chester-a-arthur/
http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2008/12/little-known-natural-born-citizens/
I have been at a disadvantage due to the lack of reference material available at my local library and this is reflected in the articles above. A copy of Gentleman Boss, the definitive Arthur biography, came in today through interlibrary loan, so I will be able to fill in more authoritatively. When I get time, I will work in your objections (which I think are without validity) into the new material and update the content listed above.
I have an inquiry submitted to the Shawnee County Historical Society in an attempt to confirm the citizenship status of Curtis’ mother. The best information I have now is that she was prevented by law from becoming a citizen. If I get better information, I will correct my site.
And if you are interested in full disclosure about Judge Gray, I would remind you that Chester A. Arthur had been dead for a decade when the Wong case was decided, and the vote in favor of it was 6-2.
“unless you consider his deceit and Obama’s deceit the precedent.”
I don’t quite follow the “deceit” reference to Obama. He hasn’t hidden the fact that his Father was from Kenya. Where is the “deceit?”
kismetique wrote (in italics)
Nice article and nice to see someone addressing the issue in a responsible matter.
However – please be completely honest about your examples. Chester Arther was deceitful about his birth year, the year his father immigrated to the US, the residency location of his mother, and the year his father naturalized. He, like Obama, helped to further the smokescreen where the real problem lay. Hinman (researching his NBC status) was looking at WHERE he was born (thinking he was born in Canada in 1830), when he was actually born in the US in 1829, but of only 1 US citizen – his father did not naturalize until 14 years AFTER Arther’s birth (a fact that Arther flat out lied about). Arther was POTUS, but only through lies and deceit. That is NO precedent – unless you consider his deceit and Obama’s deceit the precedent.
There is significant misstatements in what you say. You said Arthur was “deceitful about…the year his father naturalized” and you said “his father did not naturalize until 14 years AFTER Arther’s birth (a fact that Arther flat out lied about)”. The fact of the matter is that there is no recorded statement from Arthur about his father’s naturalization. If you have evidence that you are speaking accurately, present it.
As far as Curtis – according to Senator Leahy (while TRYING to affirm McCain’s NBC status) addressed Curtis. “Historical practice confirms that birth on soil that is under the sovereignty of the United States, but not within a State, satisfies the Natural Born Citizen Clause.” – Kansas Territory was under the sovereignty of the US at his birth; therefore he was considered to be born on US soil. Same goes for Barry Goldwater.
I doubt that Leahy is correct. Congress has passed laws just to make citizens of those born in certain US possessions, and those born, for example, in American Samoa are NOT even citizens at birth, much less natural born citizens. So Leahy is just wrong in my opinion. But this question is just an aside. The real point is whether Curtis’ mother was a citizen.
On the issue of Curtis’ mother, she would have been granted US Citizenship by the Act of February 1855, which stated “any woman who might lawfully be naturalized under existing laws, married, or shall be married to a citizen of the United States, shall be deemed and taken to be a citizen.” Therefore, Curtis, born in 1860 met the requirements AT BIRTH to be a NBC.
The problem with this conclusion is the phrase “might lawfully be naturalized under existing laws”. Indians could not become naturalized in 1855. The Supreme Court in 1884 in the case of Elk v. Wilkins said that not only were Indians not citizens, but could not become citizens even if they renounced their tribal allegiance. One correctly notes that this case was after Curtis’ birth, but the reason for Elk to bring the case was to overturn the previous practice (unsuccessfully).
It’s fine to quote historical precedent, but please be honest and state the whole truth and not just the truth that suits your position.
I hope you have been enlightened by the whole truth.
There are some fine lines for definition of NBC and there needs to be a discussion and a decision handed down by Congress / SCOTUS to this issue.
Actually, I think this will require a constitutional amendment.
In my opinion, Obama was born with dual-citizenship. He may have lost it at age 21, but after that age, he travelled to Kenya to campaign for a paternal relative that believes in Sharia Law. I think that debunks his claim that he no longer has dual-allegiences. Kenya may not have any legal standing to claim him (although they overwhelming do claim him as one of their own) – he seems to likewise claim Kenyan loyalty.
This has nothing to do with the constitutional requirements to be president.
When considering the Wong case, one needs to be aware that Judge Gray, who wrote the seminal opinion in that case was, in fact, appointed by none other than our famous usurper Chester Arther! I believe that calls into question the relationship between Arther and Gray and whether that relationship effected the decision in the Wong case. At the very least, it is suspect.
Wong was decided 10 years after Arthur’s death, and by a 6-2 vote (in the interests of telling the WHOLE truth).
The only president in history that was NOT born to 2 US citizens on US controlled soil was Chester Arther – but he did so only through lies and deceit. Now – if you want your next president to serve under that precedent – fine, but I’d prefer my president to have a much more solid and integral foundation than that.
Arthur is being demonized to justify an otherwise unsupportable fringe view of “natural born citizen”. Arthur was actually a very good president. It was said of him (paraphrasing) that no president entered office with less expectations, and none left with more respect.
http://leahy.senate.gov/issues/Judiciary/McCainAnalysis.pdf
http://www.cyberdriveillinois.com/departments/archives/ogle.html
and for you I offer my own article:
The Assassination of Chester A. Arthur
The following (cut n pasted) example denying the antecedent isn’t exactly accurate. For until it is officially published what the Government considers NBC, you can’t judge it as denying the antecedent.
Anyone born of American citizens is a natural born citizen (THIS IS FACTUAL)
Barack Obama does not have two American Parents (THIS IS FACTUAL)
Therefore Barack Obama is not a natural born citizen (THIS IS TBD, and for now just your word against theirs. Maybe SCOTUS will tell us soon, Doubtful.)
That is equivalent to…(NOT REALLY, But its YOUR STORY, Tell it however you want.)
Anyone with a broken leg will have trouble climbing these steep stairs
Joe has no legs at all (broken or otherwise)
Joe will not have trouble climbing these steep stairs
The argument is exactly denying the antecedent because the first two premises came from Senate resolution 511, and the conclusion was drawn by people who say “Senate resolution 511 proves Obama is not a natural born citizen”. That is the fallacy.
You’re 100% right to label the conclusion TBD based on the validity of that argument form. But I would disagree that “Anyone born of American citizens is a natural born citizen” is “factual”, since the Senate thought they had to pass a resolution to affirm it for Senator McCain. I believe that it is TRUE, but it has less law to support it than the statement that “all persons born in the United States and subject to its jurisdiction (meaning ambassadors children and invading armies are excepted) are natural born citizens” does. The Senate saw no need to pass a resolution for Obama because natural born citizenship by birth in the United States is so firmly established.
The important point that everyone seems to be missing is that SR 511 was non-binding. In other words, not worth the paper it was written on. It was a show of support.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/05/01/AR2008050103224.html
That is the good news for the presumptive Republican nominee, who was born nearly 72 years ago in a military hospital in the Panama Canal Zone, then under U.S. jurisdiction. The bad news is that the nonbinding Senate resolution passed Wednesday night is simply an opinion that has little bearing on an arcane constitutional debate that has preoccupied legal scholars for many weeks.
But Sarah H. Duggin, an associate law professor at Catholic University who has studied the “natural born” issue in detail, said the question is “not so simple.” While she said McCain would probably prevail in a determined legal challenge to his eligibility to be president, she added that the matter can be fully resolved only by a constitutional amendment or a Supreme Court decision.
Hmmmm, I wonder if they were to make an amendment how it would be worded? Actually, that is sarcasm, I’m pretty sure how Obama’s people would have it worded.
Truth,
There have been several proposals. Dr. C posted them here recently. You might be surprised at what you find if you bother to go take a look at them.
I personally would offer something like: “all persons who are citizens of the United States at the time of their birth are deemed natural born citizens.”
This would handle the case of John McCain. Some folks would argue for a more or less stringent than this. My opinion is that this is how the Supreme Court would rule, should they hear a case requiring a definition. Any of the Democratic candidates could have brought such a suit and probably had it heard, in my opinion.
Do you grandfather it or as of today?
bogusinfo, dispensing bogus info, writes:
>That is the good news for the presumptive Republican nominee, who was born nearly 72 years ago in a military hospital in the Panama Canal Zone, then under U.S. jurisdiction.<
Despite what you’ve heard, the available records indicate Mr McCain was born in Colon Hospital (Colon, Republic of Panama) and not in a Canal Zone military hospital (Mr McCain’s unretracted contention). Colon was exempt from US jurisdiction. The Senate resolution calling him natural-born did not make him so. ‘You might be surprised at what you find if you bother…’
Regards,
Hitandrun
I’ve been back and forth on this. I don’t even have a good guess where John McCain was born.
On one side we have many newspaper articles and official biographies that McCain was born in the Canal Zone. We have an assertion by McCain on his campaign web site that he was born in the Canal Zone. He showed some kind of birth certificate to a journalist signed by the Base Commander that showed he was born on the base. There is a contemporary newspaper birth announcement saying he was born on the base. I saw a report that his mother (still living) confirms he was born on the base.
Contrast that to a birth certificate image (along with affidavits) submitted as part of the Hollander v. McCain lawsuit and archived on the Ohio State University law school site that says McCain was born in Colon, and also a birth registry from the Canal Zone health department that omits McCain.
Finally there is a “short form” birth certificate showing McCain born in Colon, but I can find no provenance for it, and it strikes me as a fake.
Reference links are on the Bookmarks page of this web site.
Hitandrun,
My point was NOT where John McCain was born. My point was that SR511 was a non-binding show of support for John McCain.
There are only two ways this NBC can be resolved:
1. Constitutional Amendment
2. U.S. Supreme Court decision
That was my point.
Dr. Conspiracy writes:
>He showed some kind of birth certificate to a journalist signed by the Base Commander that showed he was born on the base.<
If memory serves, the journalist in question was shown this unauthenticated document by a high campaign functionary. It has never been adduced for public inspection. Sound familiar? Which (or who) is the true fake?
Hitandrun
It was shown to Michael Dobbs of the Washington Post.
If I had to guess, I’d say the document was a souvenir birth record, and not a government issued birth certificate. But that is only a guess. Of course, I firmly believe McCain is a natural born citizen, wherever he was born, because of his parentage. In fact, I don’t think being born in the Canal Zone adds anything to his claim.