Monday, May 10, 2010

Why Obama Hates "Natural Born" Arizonans

A Certificate of United States Birth Alone Does Not a "Natural Born Citizen" Make.

Remember those quaint little laws in the U.S. Constitution which define citizenship? You know, like the Fourteenth Amendment and the clause defining requirements for the President of the United States to be a "natural born" citizen? When Obama runs for President again in 2012, he faces a new hurdle. The state of Arizona will demand he show his birth certificate before it allows his name on the ballot. Arizona to Candidates - Prove Your Citizenship

And matters worsen for poor beleaguered Obama as other uppity states are following Arizona's lead. No wonder Barack Obama and the Obamabots really, REALLY hate, hate, hate all those "Natural Born" citizens of Arizona.
Obama eligibility: a birth certificate alone does not prove 'natural born' citizenship

Everyone who reads the U.S. Constitution knows that a certificate of a United States birth alone does not prove 'natural born' citizenship. However, according to Democrats, Obama's Birth Certificate does just that. The Obama campaign released a statement from "Hawaiian officials" who personally verified that they saw the original Obama birth certificate and even went further --"I, Dr. Chiyome Fukino, ... verifying Barack Hussein Obama was born in Hawaii and is a natural-born American citizen."

There you have it America. Hawaii officially certifies Barack Obama as a "natural-born" citizen, and it has the "original" birth certificate to prove it. So citizens of Arizona ask, why cannot we see it for ourselves? Well, funny you should ask. Unfortunately ... Hawaii law prevents Hawaiian officials from releasing Obama's "original" birth certificate to you, the masses. So sad. So ... NA NA NA NA NA NA! What they don't tell is that there is no prohibition against the President himself obtaining a copy and releasing it to America.

Obama supporters twist logic into knots as they justify reasons for Barack Obama's decision not to show America his original birth certificate. The usual one is to quote State Department regulations on citizenship. Some whip out an old moldering birth announcement published in a Hawaiian newspaper at the time. A birth announcement qualifies one for the U.S. Presidency? None of Obama's apologists ever mentions the U.S. Constitutional requirements for President, except to remind you that Senator John McCain was so NOT a "natural born citizen" that the Congress passed special legislation for him.

The U.S. of A. is supposedly governed by a Constitution which spells out qualifications for the President. It is not what you think, or I think, or the polls say, or state-run media MSNBC and Chris Matthews' slander of Americans as "Birthers," it is a matter of law. The Constitution is a simply written, concise document, not 2400 pages of ObamaCare legalese, which you can find on the Internet: "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;"

The key phrase is "natural born citizen" because Obama certainly was NOT "a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution..." None of the Founding Fathers who were our first Presidents was born in the U.S.A. but they qualified as citizens and served as Presidents. They were exempted from being "natural born citizens." Obama is not exempted.

Being born in Hawaii does not make a person a "natural born Citizen." Having one parent who is a "natural born citizen" as obviously was the mother of Obama, does not qualify one as "natural born."

The legal problem is not the birthplace of Obama which seems to be the U.S., but that Obama's father was foreign-born and a British Citizen at the time of his son's birth. This fact is what calls into question the "natural born" status of President Obama. And guess where this fact originated? From crazy Birthers you scream? No! It was Obama himself who told us so in his books about his father.

That he was sworn into office by the Supreme Court suggests they were probably unconcerned. But the Founding Fathers certainly were concerned about handing over the Presidency to a person of questionable loyalties. They feared someone who had been a citizen of another land, (Obama was born with dual citizenship) or had been influenced in childhood by foreign-born parents, or had grown up in other lands (Indonesia), speaking foreign tongues. Such a person would not truly understand American history and culture, would be oblivious to American Exceptionalism, would bow before foreign potentates and apologize to the world for the sins of America. The Founders were correct in their thinking, weren't they?

Is Obama a "Natural Born" Citizen?
What exactly is the meaning of the phrase "natural born citizen" that establishes the eligibility for the office of President of the United States?  "Natural born citizen" means anyone born on American soil whose parents are citizens of the United States. The father of President Barack Obama's was never a citizen of the U.S. I refer you to Michigan Law Review explaining how Senator John McCain was NOT a "natural born citizen."

Obama's Eligibility for the U.S. Presidency

8 comments:

TellerIP said...

Obama is a native born citizen and hence a Natural Born Citizen. All US citizens who were born in the USA are natural born citizens. Obama has already proved that he was born in Hawaii by showing the official birth certificate of Hawaii.

Hawaii does not and did not in 1961 allow a birth certificate to be issued that says on it "born in Hawaii" unless there was proof that the child was born in Hawaii. Obama's official birth certificate, the Certification of Live Birth, says on it "born in Hawaii" and the the two top officials of the Department of Health of Hawaii and the governor of Hawaii have repeatedly confirmed that the facts on the document--that he was born in Hawaii in 1961--are accurate.

Hence, Obama has proven native born citizenship. And, ALL native born US citizens are Natural Born Citizens. The citizenship of a parent or of two parents has nothing to do with it.

“Natural born citizen. Persons who are born within the jurisdiction of a national government, i.e. in its territorial limits, or those born of citizens temporarily residing abroad.” — Black’s Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition

That is why such prominent conservative Senators who are also lawyers as Orren Hatch and Lindsay Graham say that a Natural Born Citizen is simply one who was born in the USA:

Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC), said:

“Every child born in the United States is a natural-born United States citizen except for the children of diplomats.” (December 11, 2008 letter to constituent)

Senator Orrin G. Hatch (R-UT), said:

“What is a natural born citizen? Clearly, someone born within the United States or one of its territories is a natural born citizen.” (Senate Judiciary Committee hearing hearing on OCTOBER 5, 2004)


And there are numerous federal law cases in which the judges and justices ruled that the US-born children of foreign citizens are Natural Born Citizens, such as:

Mustata v. US Dept. of Justice, 179 F.3d 1017 (6th Cir. 1999) (children born in US to two Romanian citizens described as “natural born citizens” of the US):

Petitioners Marian and Lenuta Mustata are citizens of Romania. At the time of their petition, they resided in Michigan with their two minor children, who are natural born citizens of the United States.

Edna Barney said...

@ TellerIP -- There is general agreement on the core of the original meaning of the phrase that establishes the eligibility for the office of President of the United States: Anyone born on American soil whose parents are citizens of the United States is a "natural born citizen." The father of President Barack Obama's was never a citizen of the U.S.

Now you can explain to me how the sayings of Black's Law Dictionary, Senators Oren Hatch, Lindsay Graham or anyone else, and Mustata v. US Dept. of Justice, 179 F.3d 1017 override what is written in the U.S. Constitution?

I refer you to Michigan Law Review explaining how Senator John McCain was NOT a "natural born citizen."

TellerIP said...

You said: "There is general agreement on the core of the original meaning of the phrase that establishes the eligibility for the office of President of the United States: Anyone born on American soil whose parents are citizens of the United States is a "natural born citizen."

The answer is that there is general agreement that anyone born in the USA who becomes a citizen is a Natural Born Citizen and the citizenship of her or his parents do not affect the matter. That is why Obama was sworn in by the Chief Justice of the United States, because he--like Senators Hatch and Graham, and Black's Law Dictionary, and the Wong Kim Ark Supreme Court ruling (which said that every child born in the USA is Natural Born) all hold that every child born in the jurisdiction of the United States who becomes a citizen is a Natural Born Citizen.

In addition to the federal law case I cited above, there are at least five others I can find that describe the US-born children of one or two foreign citizens as Natural Born US Citizens.

TellerIP said...

I see that I have ignored the discussion of John McCain's eligibility. That is because it is an entirely different matter. McCain was born outside the USA (unless the Canal Zone was totally sovereign US territory, which it was not).

Obama was born in Hawaii, a US state, and the original meaning of Natural Born, as shown in the Michigan Law Review that you cited, was "born in the country with the exception of the children of foreign diplomats." Neither of Obama's parents were diplomats, and he was born in the country.

Edna Barney said...

@TellerIP -- Look at the second paragraph of the Michigan Law Review that I posted: "Anyone born on American soil whose parents are citizens of the United States is a 'natural born citizen.'

Obama, born in Hawaii, is a native born citizen, but he is not a "natural born citizen" as specified in the U.S. Constitution. Neither am I, and I was born in Maryland. I was born as a dual citizen, as was Obama, because my father was a British subject, as was the father of Barack Obama.

TellerIP said...

Yes, everyone agrees that if you have two US parents and are born in the USA you are a Natural Born Citizen.

And, if you wear both suspenders and a belt you will hold your pants up. But, although it is certain that if you wear both suspenders and a belt your pants stay up, is is also true that you can wear either suspenders and a belt and under most circumstances your pants will stay up.

The overwhelming majority of Constitutional scholars hold that the meaning of Natural Born Citizen, which stems from the common law, was simply "born in the USA with the exception of the children of foreign diplomats."

That is why you have this definition in Black's Law Dictionary.

“Natural born citizen. Persons who are born within the jurisdiction of a national government, i.e. in its territorial limits, or those born of citizens temporarily residing abroad.” — Black’s Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition.

Obama was born in Hawaii, in the jurisdiction of the USA. The definition says nothing about his parents being US citizens.

And these two senators do not mention the parents of citizens who were born in the USA:

Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC), said:

“Every child born in the United States is a natural-born United States citizen except for the children of diplomats.” (December 11, 2008 letter to constituent)

Senator Orrin G. Hatch (R-UT), said:

“What is a natural born citizen? Clearly, someone born within the United States or one of its territories is a natural born citizen.” (Senate Judiciary Committee hearing hearing on OCTOBER 5, 2004)


And the findings in these federal legal cases say that the US-born children of foreigners are Natural Born Citizens:

Mustata v. US Dept. of Justice, 179 F.3d 1017 (6th Cir. 1999) (children born in US to two Romanian citizens described as “natural born citizens” of the US):

Petitioners Marian and Lenuta Mustata are citizens of Romania. At the time of their petition, they resided in Michigan with their two minor children, who are natural born citizens of the United States.

Diaz-Salazar v. INS, 700 F.2d 1156 (7th Cir. 1983) (child born in US to Mexican citizen is “natural born citizen” of US):

Petitioner, Sebastian Diaz-Salazar, entered the United States illegally [from Mexico] in 1974 and has been living and working in Chicago since that time. *** The relevant facts which have been placed before the INS, BIA, and this court can be summarized as follows: The petitioner has a wife and two children under the age of three in Chicago; the children are natural-born citizens of the United States.

Nwankpa v. Kissinger, 376 F. Supp. 122 (M.D. Ala. 1974) (child born in US to two Biafra citizens described as “natural born citizen” of the US):

The Plaintiff was a native of Biafra, now a part of the Republic of Nigeria. His wife and two older children are also natives of that country, but his third child, a daughter, is a natural-born citizen of the United States.

While all these US-born children of foreigners are Natural Born US citizens, the US-born children of US citizens are ALSO Natural Born US citizens. Suspenders and a belt does work, but it is not necessary.

As the Wong Kim Ark case ruled, EVERY child born in the USA is natural born. And, as Yale Law Review put it: ": It is well settled that “native-born” citizens, those born in the United States, qualify as natural born. "

Edna Barney said...

Why cite Case Law when we are "supposedly" governed by a Constitution, which "supposedly" can be changed only by Amendments? Because, citing Case Law is a method to undermine the Constitution.

TellerIP said...

Citing case law shows how justices are interpreting the Constitution. The Constitution itself says that only Natural Born Citizens may be president, and the meaning of Natural Born was "born in the country with the exception of the children of foreign diplomats."

This is confirmed by the Wong Kim Ark ruling and by the cases cited.