Wednesday, September 30, 2009

Why I Believe Obama is a Natural-Born Citizen

Buried in the comments section of a Jay Bookman blog post at ajc.com, I've had a conversation with one fellow who asked me why I believe Barack Obama is a natural-born citizen. When he didn't like my first answer enough, here's what I wrote:

---

I’m going to do it kinda bullet-point style, to keep things relatively short. So here goes. These first several assume birth in Hawaii, and all take into account the 'two-citizen-parent' theory of natural-born citizenship; I will deal with the Kenyan birth allegations further down.

- I have a copy of Black’s Law Dictionary in front of me. It defines “natural born citizen” as “A person born within the jurisdiction of a national government.” It then defines “naturalized citizen” as being “A foreign-born person who attains citizenship by law.” It does not list any other kinds of citizen, only by birth or naturalization. It does not require two citizen parents. This points to the conclusion that Obama is a natural-born citizen.

- I have an undergraduate degree in Political Science and a law degree. Everything I learned in school, both undergraduate and graduate, points to the conclusion that Obama is a natural-born citizen, and nothing I learned suggests otherwise.

- Two hundred plus years of electoral precedent and the public understanding of what constitutes a natural-born citizen (for instance, see WWI draft cards), and the lack of any prior eligibility challenges akin to the one made against Obama (and there have been other Presidential candidates who were not born to two citizen parents) supports the conclusion that Obama is a natural-born citizen.

- The consensus opinion of the legal scholarly community as to the meaning of “natural-born citizen” supports the conclusion that Obama is a natural-born citizen. Whereas there are essentially zero legal scholars who have given support to the ‘two-citizen-parent’ theory, which suggests that it is a fringe and wholly Constitutionally unsupported theory.

- Obama faced seven opponents in the Democratic primary, in addition to Republican opponent John McCain. All of them had election lawyers. Out of those eight, precisely zero of them ever so much as accused him of being ineligible for not being a natural-born citizen. Even Hillary, who refused to concede until the eleventh hour and who would have been the automatic Democratic nominee if he had been declared ineligible, never even suggested that he was ineligible. This supports the conclusion that he is a natural-born citizen.

So assuming a birth in Hawaii, my belief that Obama is a natural-born citizen is supported by the preeminent legal dictionary, my own legal and political education, two centuries of precedent, the legal scholarly community, and everyone who had a personal stake in Obama’s eligibility status.

As for why I believe he was born in Hawaii:

- The Certification of Live Birth says Obama was born in Honolulu, Hawaii. The newspaper birth announcements say he was born in Hawaii. The director of the Hawaii State Department of Health has said “Barack Hussein Obama was born in Hawaii.” Obama has consistently said, for 48 years, that he was born in Hawaii.

- There was never *any* doubt that Obama was born in Hawaii until spring 2008, four years after his name started getting mentioned as a Presidential contender, and over a year after he started his campaign. And the claims that he was born outside Hawaii were started and spread by anonymous and pseudonymous folks online, without any sources to back up their claims that ‘I heard that his mother had gone to Kenya…’ And in the year and a half since those initial rumors started being written online, not a single bit of evidence has turned up that the rumor-authors could have been relying on.

- Evidence ’supporting’ a Kenyan birth has consistently proven to be falsified, manipulated, grossly exaggerated, or non-existent. Meanwhile, the ‘experts’ who claimed that the Hawaii evidence was faked or forged consistently turned out to be liars and frauds themselves.

- And as obvious as this seems, I feel I should say it anyway: the notion that Ann Dunham traveled from Hawaii to Kenya to give birth is really, really stupid. I could mince words here, but I’m not. It’s just absurd on its face, and it’s barely even internally coherent. It’s a 10,000 mile plane trip from a first-world nation to a third-world nation, with no direct flights in-between. (By contrast, Joe Biden was born just a 200-mile car trip from Toronto, but no one claims he could’ve been born in Canada, even though it’s 1/50 the distance and could be driven in a few hours.) Until spring 2008, there had never been so much as the suggestion that Ann Dunham had ever set foot in Kenya during her lifetime, much less while she was pregnant. There is still no actual evidence that she ever traveled to Kenya. She knew no one there, and didn’t speak the language. And for her to obtain a birth registration by August 8, which said that her son was born in Honolulu, would have required a considerable amount of deception and fraud (which of course raises the internal consistency problem of: why go to Kenya in the first place to give birth if you want your child’s vital records to say he was born in Hawaii, and want it so hard that you’re willing to commit fraud?)

So there’s a lot of credible evidence to support a Hawaiian birth, as opposed to a lot of speculation and non-credible evidence to dispute a Hawaiian birth or support a birth anywhere else. There is no more credible reason to doubt that Obama was born in Hawaii than there is to doubt that Joe Biden was born in Pennsylvania, or that Bill Clinton was born in Arkansas, or that Ronald Reagan was born in Illinois. There is simply no reason to demand extraordinary birthplace evidence from Obama that was not demanded of previous candidates or Presidents.

Finally, to preempt any questions as to where my political loyalties lie, I am not a Democrat. I regularly vote Libertarian, and I have rarely voted Democratic for a federal office. I have never voted for a Democrat for President, and I did not vote for Obama last November. Rather, I voted for, and strongly supported, Libertarian candidate Bob Barr. And I fully stand by my choice, because I continue to oppose much of what Obama has done in office. But despite that, I can’t abide denialism, so I find myself forced to defend his eligibility against unsourced, unsubstantiated, and unsupported allegations. It’s something of a Golden Rule thing, really.

12 comments:

  1. Very well said, Loren.

    And it IS a "golden rule" kind of thing...that's what integrity and honor are all about. Regardless of our political differences, you've always displayed those traits.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Loren,

    here is why LucasSmith is a fraudster. On the top left corner of his hoax is a stamp with a signature. Both read Helton Maganga. The true name of this Doctor is Heltan Maganga not Helton.
    This is confirmed by this Kenyan listing of doctors:
    http://www.healthoutsource.co.ke/directory/healthdirectory.php?id=1199
    and by this video of an interview to him:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2vL2ErPz7Qk&feature=player_embedded

    How did he make such a mistake ? While searching he name he came across some secnd handarticles that mispelled tha name. The original Kenyan articles spell the name correctly.
    Soit is obvious he made the stamp himself, unfortunately he mispelled the name.

    ReplyDelete
  3. I think I understand where you are coming from - a common sense sort of view. However, I have to disagree with you on several points and ask for clarification on others.

    First you state: A person born within the jurisdiction of a national government. So, are you saying that foreign born parents can produce a natural born citizen if that child is born on US Soil? So for example, Hugo Chavez and his wife could come to the US and have their baby and that baby would be eligible to be POTUS one day?

    You also fail to address the jurisdiction of another government over that child. Obama, as he freely admits was born with dual-citizenship, hence dual-allegiances. Would you not think common sense might give pause to consider whether a natural born citizen of the US could also be governed by British Law at the time of his birth, this citizenship passed on to him by his father?

    YES, there was an eligibility challenge of a VP, who eventually became Pres. Are you not aware of Chester Arthur's eligibility challenge by Hinman? He was born with dual-citizenships (US / British)...British being passed to him via his father who was not naturalized prior to Chester's Birth. Chester lied about his age, his mother's historical travels, and the port of entry for his father. Speculation has it that he assumed the vital statistics of a younger brother who died at an early age.

    There have been no other challenges because there have been no others so bold as to try and run for President whose parent(S) plural were not US Citizens at the time of their birth - save for the few who were grandfathered in.

    You state: The consensus opinion of the legal scholarly community as to the meaning of “natural-born citizen” supports the conclusion that Obama is a natural-born citizen. Could you name a few of these people from this scholarly community?

    Of his eight opponents, the one who ended up running against him, was himself, NOT eligible. The other 7 idiots were fooled by the smokescreen Obama very cleverly set up. One would almost believe Obama studied Chester Arthur thoroughly, since his campaign on this issue was run almost identical. Hinman was today's Berg. Hinman accused Chester of being born in Canada, when the real issue of eligibility was the fact that Chester was a dual-citizen at birth. Berg accused Obama of being born in Kenya, when the real issue of eligibility is the fact that he was a dual-citizen at birth.

    I agree with you on the fact that he was born in Hawaii. I think there is almost no doubt about that. What is in doubt, is why he won't release the Long-Form BC. Evidence has now surfaced that the BC has been amended - but what could possibly be on the original that he doesn't want people to see?

    One other issue I would like to ask you about is why you hyphenate natural-born? It is not hyphenated in the Constitution. I ask because it was very curious that Fukino's last press release on the subject stated that BHO was a "natural-born American citizen". I find it curious that she stated it that way. Politicians will NEVER issue a press release without having chosen their words and wording VERY carefully.

    Allow me to speculate. Fukino is a medical doctor. Natural-born usually refers to a baby who is born naturally, not by c-section. It's odd that she stated redundant information - If he were born in Hawaii as she states that would make him an American - so why does she need to say it twice? "....verifying Barack Hussein Obama was born in Hawai‘i and is a natural-born American citizen."

    I would think that if the Constitution calls for someone to be a "natural born Citizen" - that you would declare them as such and not to be a "natural-born American citizen". There are 3 major differences between those 2 phrases. One contains a hyphen, one adds the word American, and one doesn't capitalize Citizen.

    Have you visited the blog at http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/ - if not, it's quite enlightening.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Re: "You also fail to address the jurisdiction of another government over that child. Obama, as he freely admits was born with dual-citizenship, hence dual-allegiances."

    NO. He had then and has now only one allegiance, to the United States, the place of his birth. Our system says that allegiance comes from the place of birth. Our system says that TOTAL allegiance comes from the place of birth.


    Re: "The consensus opinion of the legal scholarly community as to the meaning of “natural-born citizen” supports the conclusion that Obama is a natural-born citizen. Could you name a few of these people from this scholarly community?"

    Here are three: 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:

    Gov. Bobby Jindal, who delivered the Republican response to Obama’s speech, said: “Regardless of party, all Americans are moved by the President’s personal story - the son of an American mother and a Kenyan father, who grew up to become leader of the free world.”

    Jindal, of course, would be even less of a citizen under Vattel’s concept because neither of his parents were citizens at the time of his birth. His mother was about three months pregnant when they came to the USA.

    ReplyDelete
  5. The guy's a troll, so don't expect a coherent conversation.

    A few of the nutcases, the really stupid ones, actually believe their own crap. But most of them know they are just throwing paint against the wall.

    Was Obama naturalized? NO.
    So what other kind of citizen could he be?

    Yet these nutcases want people to believe that we have three classes of citizenship, not two.

    ReplyDelete
  6. "So, are you saying that foreign born parents can produce a natural born citizen if that child is born on US Soil? So for example, Hugo Chavez and his wife could come to the US and have their baby and that baby would be eligible to be POTUS one day?"

    Yes. And the likelihood of the electorate actually voting for this person is extremely rare.


    "Would you not think common sense might give pause to consider whether a natural born citizen of the US could also be governed by British Law at the time of his birth, this citizenship passed on to him by his father?"

    In addition to this no-dual-citizenship not being accepted anywhere, Obama has not be a citizen of another country for at least 25 years. So what is the actual fear of dual allegiances with respect to Obama?


    "Could you name a few of these people from this scholarly community?"

    Akhil Amar, for starters. He teaches at Yale. Here's what he had to say: http://slate.com/id/2183588/

    Who do you have?


    "The other 7 idiots were fooled by the smokescreen Obama very cleverly set up."

    The Clintons are Yale-trained lawyers. They're idiots? So stupid they not only don't know the law themselves, but couldn't even find anyone who might know about this mythical two-parent rule?


    "Hinman was today's Berg."

    You said a mouthful, there.



    "What is in doubt, is why he won't release the Long-Form BC."

    Because that would have resolved absolutely nothing.


    "Evidence has now surfaced that the BC has been amended"

    There's no evidence; just a gross misreading of overly parsed words.


    "One other issue I would like to ask you about is why you hyphenate natural-born?"

    See what I'm talking about? There's absolutely no legal difference between "natural-born citizen" and "natural born Citizen."


    Oh: Donofrio talks out of his ass; you really ought to try a few other blogs on for size.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC) and Senator Orrin G. Hatch (R-UT) are incorrect.

    SluggoJD said...
    Was Obama naturalized? NO.
    So what other kind of citizen could he be?

    Native Born.

    There are only two types of citizens, and they are "native born" and naturalized.

    Perez v. Brownell, 356 U.S. 44 (1958)
    http://supreme.justia.com/us/356/44/case.html
    "...But we made it when we adopted the Fourteenth Amendment and provided that the native-born is an American citizen. Once he acquires that right, there is no power in any branch of our Government to take it from him."

    Schneider v. Rusk, 377 U.S. 163 (1964)
    http://supreme.justia.com/us/377/163/case.html
    "We start from the premise that the rights of citizenship of the native born and of the naturalized person are of the same dignity, and are coextensive. The only difference drawn by the Constitution is that only the "natural born" citizen is eligible to be President. Art. II, § 1.(Page 377 U. S. 166) While the rights of citizenship of the native born derive from § 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment and the rights of the naturalized citizen derive from satisfying, free of fraud, the requirements set by Congress, the latter, apart from the exception noted, "becomes a member of the society, possessing all the rights of a native citizen, and standing, in the view of the constitution, on the footing of a native."

    A "natural born citizen" is a native born citizen who has two citizen parents at the time of birth.

    ReplyDelete
  8. A "natural born citizen" is a native born citizen who has two citizen parents at the time of birth.

    Senator John A. Bingham said while speaking about the rights of citizens in the U.S. House of Representatives on March 6, 1866 the following:
    "[I] find no fault with the introductory clause [S 61 Bill], which is simply declaratory of what is written in the Constitution, that every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen…. . . "
    - John Bingham in the United States House on March 9, 1866 (Cong. Globe, 39th, 1st Sess., 1291 (1866))
    http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llcg&fileName=071/llcg071.db&recNum=332
    Note that he said "of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty".

    A more modern cite from July 2000:
    http://commdocs.house.gov/committees/judiciary/hju67306.000/hju67306_0.htm

    "The natural-born citizen qualification continues to provide to the political system of the United States a certain level of protection against the influence of foreign nations. In addition to this safeguard, the requirement also secures the ability of the President to make decisions involving domestic and foreign policy that are in the best interests of the United States without an inherent emotional or familial attachment to another nation."

    "It is well known that the Founding Fathers were mindful in the extreme of foreign influences, and the dangers therefrom to the Republic. While experience has shown that a native-born Chief Executive is not necessarily immune to foreign influence, the odds are certainly more favorable if the president is an American plain and simple, who has never been, and is not at the time of taking office, anything else."

    "James Madison's detailed notes on the proceedings of the Constitutional Convention reveal that the delegates were deeply concerned about foreign influence on the national government, and in particular on the President."

    ReplyDelete
  9. Native born to two citizen parents also happens to be the definition that the Supreme Court has consistently used.

    In Minor v. Happersett (1874) http://supreme.justia.com/us/88/162/case.html
    "The Constitution does not in words say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners."
    The court said that there was no doubt that children born in the country of citizen parents were "natural born citizens".

    "Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first."
    So, in addition, they said that there were doubts that children born in the country without reference to the citizenship of the parents were citizens at all. Those doubts were later resolved by the Supreme Court case of United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898)
    http://supreme.justia.com/us/169/649/case.html
    where the 14th amendment was interpreted to mean that a person born on US soil was a native citizen, no matter their parentage.

    Also see Kwock Jan Fat v. White (1920)
    http://supreme.justia.com/us/253/454/case.html
    and Perkins v. Elg (1939)
    http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=307&invol=325
    (Keep in mind that until 1922, when the husband was or became a citizen (native born or naturalized), the wife automatically was naturalized.)

    ReplyDelete
  10. TJ, you're a liar and a nutcase.

    If what you say was true, then clearly Obama was not eligible to be President.

    And yet, no one complained 2 years ago.
    No Sec of State disapproved him as a candidate.
    No court ruled against him.
    No action in Congress, based on your BS.
    Nothing.

    And you weren't saying a word about it, 2 years ago, now were you?

    His mom was a US citizen.

    Nowhere can you show US legal code that says a native born (natural) citizen must have 2 citizen parents.

    Nowhere.

    So "FOAD."

    ReplyDelete
  11. Loren,

    I'm having trouble finding the definition of "natural born citizen" that you attribute to Black's. What Edition are you quoting?

    ReplyDelete
  12. Black's Law Dictionary, Pocket Edition, Copyright 1996.

    "natural born citizen - A person born within the jurisdiction of a national government."

    ReplyDelete