Over the last week or so, the public battle has raged over President Obama's birth certificate. That battle has been fueled by the rhetoric of potential Presidential candidate Donald Trump. Now, don't get me wrong, I am NO fan of Donald Trump. I think he is making a mockery of our electoral process.
But the question of whether President Obama meets the Constitutional qualifications to be President is significant. I don't think it had to do with where he was born. I've accepted that he was born in Hawaii forever. Nor do I, or have I, questioned if he was a Untied States Citizen. But let's look at the qualifications as expressly stated in the Constitution:
"Article 2, Section 1 of the Constitution states, "No person except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President; neither shall any person be eligible who shall not attained to the age of thirty-five years, and been fourteen years a resident within the United States."
The interesting Constitutional argument is over the definition of "natural born citizen". The battle rages more quietly over this, but this argument is much more profound. What the constructionists will tell you is that "natural born" means that you are a citizen both of whose parents were also citizens. One can be, and is, a "citizen" by virtue of being born to one parent who is a citizen. But to be "natural born", BOTH of your parents are required to be citizens at the time of your birth.
But the difference between "citizen" and "natural born citizen" is belied in the "grandfather clause" that follows it: "or a citizen of the United States at the time of the adoption of this Constitution". Why did they include THIS language if a "natural born citizen" was interchangeable with "citizen". Because it is proof that they intended to define it differently. Why? Because MANY of the colonists had fathers who were English citizens.
The Framers wanted to set the bar higher for President than they did for simple citizenship. They were striving for "purity" of lineage and more so, purity of loyalty. The loyalty between a man and his father is epic. It was just too much of a risk to bet the safety of our Republic to a man who might have split loyalties.
And it looks as if, by arguing the wrong argument, we may have taken that risk.
But the question of whether President Obama meets the Constitutional qualifications to be President is significant. I don't think it had to do with where he was born. I've accepted that he was born in Hawaii forever. Nor do I, or have I, questioned if he was a Untied States Citizen. But let's look at the qualifications as expressly stated in the Constitution:
"Article 2, Section 1 of the Constitution states, "No person except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President; neither shall any person be eligible who shall not attained to the age of thirty-five years, and been fourteen years a resident within the United States."
The interesting Constitutional argument is over the definition of "natural born citizen". The battle rages more quietly over this, but this argument is much more profound. What the constructionists will tell you is that "natural born" means that you are a citizen both of whose parents were also citizens. One can be, and is, a "citizen" by virtue of being born to one parent who is a citizen. But to be "natural born", BOTH of your parents are required to be citizens at the time of your birth.
But the difference between "citizen" and "natural born citizen" is belied in the "grandfather clause" that follows it: "or a citizen of the United States at the time of the adoption of this Constitution". Why did they include THIS language if a "natural born citizen" was interchangeable with "citizen". Because it is proof that they intended to define it differently. Why? Because MANY of the colonists had fathers who were English citizens.
The Framers wanted to set the bar higher for President than they did for simple citizenship. They were striving for "purity" of lineage and more so, purity of loyalty. The loyalty between a man and his father is epic. It was just too much of a risk to bet the safety of our Republic to a man who might have split loyalties.
And it looks as if, by arguing the wrong argument, we may have taken that risk.
Re: "What the constructionists will tell you is that "natural born" means that you are a citizen both of whose parents were also citizens.'
ReplyDeleteThe constructionists are WRONG.
The reason that the Electoral College gave Obama exactly the same number of electoral votes as he won in the general election is that not a single elector believes in the two parent theory. The reason that the US Congress voted to confirm Obama's election UNANIMOUSLY is that not a single member of congress believes in the two parent theory.
“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
“Under the longstanding English common-law principle of jus soli, persons born within the territory of the sovereign (other than children of enemy aliens or foreign diplomats) are citizens from birth. Thus, those persons born within the United States are "natural born citizens" and eligible to be President. Much less certain, however, is whether children born abroad of United States citizens are "natural born citizens" eligible to serve as President ..."---- Edwin Meese, et al, THE HERITAGE GUIDE TO THE CONSTITUTION (2005) [Edwin Meese was Ronald Reagan’s attorney general, and the Heritage Foundation is a well-known Conservative organization.]
Where does Obama's loyalties lie?
ReplyDeleteThe loyalty between a man and his father is epic. It was just too much of a risk to bet the safety of our Republic to a man who might have split loyalties.
The Janjaweed militias who carried out much of the Sudanese genocide rode shouting joyfully, "Hail the name of Allah". That much is recorded in the docket of the International Criminal Court. The hundreds of thousands murdered, countless more raped and mutilated, in the name of Allah. Indonesia's 1950's and 60's massacres which claimed over a million lives began with shouts of "Allahu Akbar" and moved on to parading their heads around, disemboweling their bodies, burying them alive and even cannibalism. Obama's beloved stepdaddy, Colonel Lolo Soetoro, likely played a role in directing these atrocities. And these are only two drops in an ocean of blood still flowing to Mecca. A red tide that threatens to sweep humanity away.
Sourse:http://sultanknish.blogspot.com/ "Allahu Akbar"
John Gittings
The Indonesian Massacres, 1965-66
http://www.johngittings.com/id58.html
The Soetoros and the Indonesian Massacres 1965-1999
http://patriotdems.wordpress.com/2009/03/24/the-soetoros-and-the-indonesian-massacres-1965-1999/
The definition of Natural Born Citizen is:
ReplyDelete““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.”
All US-born citizens are Natural Born Citizens. 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
The Wall Street Journal put it this way:
“Some birthers imagine that there is a difference between being a “citizen by birth” or a “native citizen” on the one hand and a “natural born” citizen on the other. “Eccentric” is too kind a word for this notion, which is either daft or dishonest. All three terms are identical in meaning
We are a simple and sovereign nation… Several documents reflect (and clarify) the framers concerns against Presidencies of Paternal (father) Foreign Citizenship:
ReplyDelete(---)"society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens; those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights"
I have never doubted Obama’s birthplace; but I believe that we must have a hearing on this matter (and many others) to preserve our future… http://bit.ly/lEkO6I
THREE years have passed since this article was posted, and over that time Obama was re-elected, with nearly five million more votes than Mitt Romney, and he was also officially elected by the US Electoral College without a single member changing her or his vote to vote against Obama, and he was also conformed UNANIMOUSLY by the US Congress with that vote including even Rep. Michele Bachmann and Rep. Ron Paul. Why did not a single member of the US Electoral College not change her or his vote to vote against Obama (and not all states have legal provisions requiring that the electors vote the way that the popular vote went)? Why did the US Congress vote in 2008 to confirm and in 2012 to reconfirm Obama's election UNANIMOUSLY?
ReplyDeleteBecause not one of them, not one of the 332 electors that Obama won in the general election, and not one of the 535 members of Congress believes either the nutty story that Obama was born in a foreign country or the birther legal theory that two citizen parents are required in order to be a Natural Born Citizen. Senators Hatch and Graham and the Wall Street Journal are correct. The term does come from the common law and it does refer to the place of birth, and every child born on US soil except for the children of foreign diplomats and enemy invaders is a Natural Born Citizen.