Saturday, August 01, 2009

Obama Place of Birth Not The Issue, Eligibility Is

A recent poll shows that 47% of southerners question whether Obama was born in the U.S. That’s the wrong question. Obama was probably born in Honolulu, but he is still not a natural born citizen. Read the next 550 words and decide for yourself.

Article II of the Constitution says that, “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”.

But what does it mean to be a “Natural Born Citizen”? Since its passage in 1868 the 14th amendment is the supreme law of the land for citizenship matters. It reads; “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.”

Senator Jacob M. Howard of Michigan—the author of the citizenship clause—described the “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” clause as excluding “persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers.” Howard said the word "jurisdiction" meant the United States possessed a “full and complete jurisdiction” over the person described in the amendment. That meaning would deny citizenship by birth to a person who had divided loyalties.

Obama’s father was a foreign national (Kenya was a possession of England at the time) and was in Hawaii under a commission from his government to get an education and go back to Kenya to serve in the government. He did that. He was in the United States as an agent of a foreign government, and therefore any children born here would not be under the “full and complete jurisdiction” of the United States. The British Nationality Act of 1848 also claimed jurisdiction over the offspring of their nationals abroad. Such children may become “naturalized” citizens of the United States, but they are not “natural born citizens”.

Thomas Lifson reports that there is another serious challenge to Obama’s eligibility regarding his time in Indonesia as Barry Soetoro. He writes, “The records of the Catholic school Obama/Soetoro attended for three years identify him as a citizen of Indonesia. Thus Obama probably obtained Indonesian citizenship through his adoption by Soetoro in Hawaii. That inference is bolstered by the 1980 divorce submission of Ann Dunham and Lolo Soetoro, filed in Hawaii state court. It said "the parties" (Ann and Lolo) had a child (name not given) who was no longer a minor (Obama was 19 at the time). If Soetoro had not adopted Obama, there would have been no basis for the couple to refer to Obama as their child - he'd have been only Ann Dunham's child.”

Indonesia did not permit dual citizenship until 2007. Under Indonesian law at the time, an Indonesian man who adopted a child under six years old (Obama was four or five) made that child an Indonesian citizen. There are provisions in U.S. law for such children to re-claim their U.S. citizenship as naturalized, not natural born, citizens once they reach age of majority. If Obama ever completed the paperwork to do this, we have no record of it, and again this would only make him a naturalized, not natural born, citizen of our country.

Obama travelled to Pakistan in 1981 at a time when U.S. Citizens were denied travel there. What country’s passport did he use? We don’t know, as Obama has sealed his passport records. Are the rumors that he attended Occidental College with the help of a foreign student aid program true? We don’t know. Obama has sealed all of those records too.

8 Comments:

Anonymous tophat said...

This could end up causing a constitutional crisis... if we still had a constitution.

3:32 PM, August 01, 2009  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

What group has the ability, will, or desire to prosecute this issue?

6:26 AM, August 02, 2009  
Blogger Mark Moore (Moderator) said...

No group has all three of those, but it is important anyway because it is the truth. The government will lose legitimacy if it keeps doing business as usual. Once they know that they are losing legitimacy it will pressure them to behave with some integrity and earn back legitimacy,

4:01 PM, August 04, 2009  
Blogger rob_star said...

Some of the most twisted logic and blatent misreading of the constitution that I have ever seen. Mark, you are smarter than that. If you read Article 11, section 1 literally, then nobody alive today is eligible for the presidency, except maybe Larry King. I don't know why the framers were so vague on this issue but Obama was born from a woman with U.S. citizenship in a U.S. state which is good enough for me.
Dwell on it if you will, but you should probably get used to having a black president.

10:39 AM, August 07, 2009  
Blogger Mark Moore (Moderator) said...

Rob baby, great to hear from you. It is a better blog when the loyal opposition shows up.

Re the black president part, I assume you are joking as the "1 drop rule" is a legacy of a racist past. Obama is less than one-quarter black. The rest is a combo a Japhethic European blood and Semitic Arab blood, all Caucasian races.

I do advise you to ease up on the cannibas and such, as the old Rob Starr would at least attempt to explain how my logic was twisted, not simply assert that it is.

The Founders made very clear their intentions with Article 11 section 1. The only thing unclear is which then-current definition of Natural Born Citizen they were referring to. Since the 14th amendment, that choice was superseeded anyway. It was replaced by what amounts to the definition with more leeway but still not enough to help Obama.

While one citizen being a parent and birth coming on U.S. soil might be "good enough" for you, it is not your intent the courts are supposed to rule on, but rather the intent of those who drafted the Constitution/amendments. Their meaning was that birth citizenship applied only to those children on whom there was no competing claim of foreign jurisdiction. Clearly, Obama fails to meet that standard. There are processes by which such children can become NATURALIZED citizens, but that is not the same as a citizen by birth.

3:00 PM, August 07, 2009  
Blogger reillyhartigan said...

...where was McCain born? Look that up. your interpretation of the constitution is flat wrong and misguided. Your whole argument is predicated on a sentaor's interpretation of "natural born citizen" and not the actual accepted interpretation.

3:02 PM, November 23, 2009  
Blogger Mark Moore (Moderator) said...

1) If you will search this site, I also was leaning towards the view that McCain was ineligible but that is a moot point now since he lost.

2) Accepted by whom? Who has a different interpretation and why should theirs matter more than that of the author of the amendment? The "senator" whose interpretation I lean on is the one who authored that portion of the amendment and who was explaining to his colleagues what that meant. That is, THE ORIGINAL INTENT of the author is where I get my conclusions.

Have you got a better source? Will your source allow for a fixed standard for law?

You are simply telling me I am wrong without giving any facts to back it up. We have a much higher standard for intellectual discourse around here. If you have a rational argument, let's hear it!

4:21 AM, December 10, 2009  
Anonymous M1STERT said...

I REALLY DONT GIVE A DAMN IF HE IS GREEN WITH PURPLE POLKA DOTS.
WHAT HE STANDS FORIS SOCIALISTIC PRINCIPLES AND HE WANTS TORULE WITH AN IRON HAND............ AT LEAST UNTIL THE 2010 MID TERMS FINALLY GOT THROUGH TO HIM JUST HOW UNPOPULAR HE IS WITH THE AMERICAN PUBLIC AND NOT TO HIS BUDDIES IN CONGRESS. HOW HE HAS CHANGED HIS TUNE SINCE NOV. 2010. NOW HE WANTS TO TRY TO MAKE US BELIEVE HE WANTS TO BE A MIDDLE OF THE ROADIE. NO THANKS HE IS STILL A SOCIALIST IDIOT AND NOT GOOD FOR THIS COUNTRY

6:46 PM, January 31, 2011  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home