Another Supreme Court Case Docketed Obama Birth Certificate

Dallas -

Yep - this thing has popped up from time to time.  Originally, I think it was introduced in 2003 to allow Arnold Schwartznegger to run for President (see: http://www.rense.com/general42/ldle.htm).  Similar proposed amendments to the Constitution were introduced as:

H.J. Res. 2 [109th] (1/4/05) - Makes non-natural-born citizens of the U.S., but who have been citizens of the U.S. for 20 years eligible to hold the Office of President.

H.J. Res. 15 [109th] (2/1/05) - Makes non-natural-born citizens of the U.S., but who have been citizens of the U.S. for 20 years eligible to hold the Office of President.

H.J. Res. 42 [109th] (4/14/05) - Makes non-natural-born citizens of the U.S., but who have been citizens of the U.S. for 20 years eligible to hold the Office of President and Vice-President.

H.J. Res. 67 [108th] (9/3/03) - Makes a person who has been a citizen of the United States for at least 20 years eligible to hold office of President or Vice-President.

H.J. Res. 59 [108th] (6/11/03) - Makes a person who has been a citizen of the U.S. for at least 35 years and who has been a resident within gthe U.S. for at least 14 years eligible to hold office of President or Vice-President.

H.J. Res. 47 [107th] (5/2/01) - Makes a person who has been a citizen of the U.S. for at least 20 years eligible to hold office of President or Vice-President.

H.J. Res. 88 [106th] (2/29/00) - Makes a person who has been a citizen of the U.S. for at least 20 years eligible to hold office of President or Vice-President.

So - a similar Constitutional Amendment has been proposed in every session of Congress from the 106th to the 109th. (there may be earlier ones as well - but I'm too pooped to look).  There is a bill [H.J. Res. 8 (1/4/07)] sitting in Committee right now that proposes to repeal the 22nd amendment (limiting Presidental terms of office).  In fact, there has been a bill introduced to repeal the 22nd amendment in each Congressional Session since the 99th Congress.  There is also a bill sitting in Committee to abolish the Electoral College.  So - Congress has been trying to tweak the Constitution forever with respect to Presidential elections.  I wouldn't read too much into the re-introduction of S.J. Res. 15.

Recently, some folks have turned up a Chicago-Kent College of Law Review article (see: http://lawreview.kentlaw.edu/articles/81-1/Herlihy.pdf) that discusses the matter - and those folks have attributed it to Obama because the writer works at Kirkland & Ellis, a Chicago-based law firm.  I don't think that's so - mainly because the article was written in 2006, and secondarily because it's not a very well-written article (in my opinion).

I can't see how anybody can think that the Obama supporters believe that Congress can convene a Constitutional Convention and have an amendment to allow non-natural-born U.S. citizens be President resurrected and ratified before December 15th when these things have been going down in flames since at least 2000.

Yep, they should have brought this up long before now...

Dallas -

Thanks.  I had read the Buchanan passage that you linked to.  Very interesting, huh?

Anyway - apparently James Sr. arrived in Philadelphia penniless in 1783 and went to live with his relatives in York until 1787 when he moved farther west and bought the trading post.  So - James Sr. didn't own land in 1783.

I've looked for land ownership conveying citizenship per your suggestion, but haven't found anything yet.  I have found some discussions about: a) difference between U.S. citizen and U.S. national, b) citizenship being the responsibility of states in the early periods, and c) various Nationalization Acts - but I haven't sorted through all that yet.

If LadySaidy can't find any record of James Sr. taking the Oath of Allegiance before 1794, and if James Sr. didn't own land in 1783 - I'm afraid that things are looking bleak for James Sr. being a U.S. citizen when James Jr. was born.  However - hope springs eternal and I'll keep looking.  This is very interesting - don't you think?

What if we find that C.A. Arthur's father wasn't a citizen?  Would that disqualify C.A. Arthur as being President?  If so - would that negate the legislation he signed into law during his Presidency?  If so - do we have to do away with the Civil Service Administration?  Whew!  You have to admit - this is pretty interesting - I don't care who you are!

Maybe I'll wander down to the Smithsonian one day and ask some folks what they think.

I'm still digging for the oath's of allegiance. I'm trying to figure out which county he would have been in when he took the oath. So far it could be either York county, Franklin county, or Cumberland county.

I did find an entry about Sr. bought a trading post in Cove Gap 1787. I'll see if I can find that again.

If Sr. stayed with relatives in New York, I may want to also look there. Or is it York, PA?

Hmm. Another avenue.

I guess I'll keep digging. And since I'm going to be digging the New York stuff, I guess I'll also check up on Chester's dad.

Dang. I love this stuff!

LadySaidy -

Buchanan stayed with relatives in York, PA - not New York.  But, as you say, you may as well dabble up there for info on Chet's dad.  His father's name was William (MacArthur) Arthur.  He first moved from Canada to Fairfield (Franklin County) Vermont in 1822, and Chet was born there (supposedly) in 1829, so William would have had to take his oath of allegiance there - rather than in New York for it to make Chet a natural-born citizen.  Apparently, Franklin County has always been "Franklin County" as it was one of the original counties that comprised Vermont when it became independent from New York in 1777.

This is interesting stuff - isn't it?!  Now I've started dabbling in my own genealogy - just what I need - another distraction!

I realized it was York PA after I wrote that. oops. And I do understand about the genealogy distraction. I've been working part time on mine (maternal and paternal) for several years.

I did find something rather interesting on the City of Philadelphia Naturalization site. It seems people didn't have to become a citizen to buy land. :)

UNNATURALIZED ALIENS

During the 19th century, the only reason for an alien to become a citizen was in order to achieve the right to vote. He (or she) did not need to become a citizen in order to buy or sell property, hold a job, get married, or to do anything of a personal or social nature. Many aliens lived most of their lives in this country and never began and/or completed the process of naturalization. This connection between naturalization and the franchise explains why the majority of naturalizations occur during Presidential-election years. During any year, the majority of petitions are filed in the weeks just before the primary or general election. It also explains why very few women bothered to become citizens on their own.

LadySaidy -

Nice find.  I had turned up some discussion of 'U.S. citizens' versus 'U.S. nationals' that seemed to say the same thing - but the text you turned up is much clearer and on point.  Thanks.

Well, I guess I'll burn that bridge if I have to cross it.

And I wouldn't say the debate has been for nothing. I, personally, have found it to be very informative. And interesting. A definite exercise for the brain.

Cheers!

And this means what? Some dudes blog that says that Hawaii hospitals say that he was not born there? Where are the press releases from the hospitals? Where are the court documents backing this up? Just a bunch of people calling around to different hospitals and asking if Obama was born there won't work... a lot of places won't just hand out information like that over the phone.

 Dallas to answer one of your questions: names of patients can be withheld per request of patient.  You do have to give them a list of people who can be told but the general public the answer would be no.

 Generally though you can find a patient with just a name ( unless you use the have some agreement in place with hospital). I called the state in which I was born directly to the hospital to see what they would tell me about COLB. They told me the COLB is held by the state vital records and not the hospital anymore as they can only hold records for so long.

 I believe a good solution would be for PE Obama to go to the Supreme Court and show the darn thing. He doesn't need to show it to everybody but at least show it to the USSC. They have the final word on this and what they say goes. If they don't want to take the case , then that's the end of it.

 I was surprised to find it on The Chicago Tribune site yesterday and in a few other papers which I was reading.

I called the state in which I was born directly to the hospital to see what they would tell me about COLB. They told me the COLB is held by the state vital records and not the hospital anymore as they can only hold records for so long.

You know, you're right... after a while, the hospital has to turn those records over to the state. So, if someone called asking for 30 year old records, the hospital wouldn't know, because the wouldn't have records going back that far. But, of course, in the skeptic's case, the state records offices are run by politicians, and cannot be trusted...

Dallas -

That's OK.  I don't have that thin a skin.  Thanks for the flowers and candy - let me put on come coffee while I put the flowers in water.  I'll bring back a couple of cups and we'll share the candy.

Obama certainly doesn't need me for protection.  At first blush - I'd probably agree and say that he should just go ahead and show his birth certificate - but I'm not sure I have as broad or deep a perspective as a Constitutional lawyer has.  What sort of precedent would that set? Would that truly end things? (better to fight the fight you know you'll win than to move the battle to unknown ground)

No - I don't mean to protect Obama.  It's just that I believe he has complied with the law - and to do more than simply move through the courts in the way that he's doing would be to step out of the legal system.  That's something that I'd be surprised to see a lawyer do.

You mention in one of your previous posts that "Why he continues to avoid the Courts is anyone's guess."  I don't see him as avoiding the courts.  Showing his birth certificate would be avoiding the courts.  He's actually participating in the legal process the way it was designed.

Anyway - I thought that your perspective on the father's nationality was interesting, and I was having a good time with LadySaidy pursuing that, finding out a little more about two former Presidents, learning some about early American history, and learning more about Internet research.  I've been around the 'Vine long enough to recognize when the messages get too close to the slippery slope of commenting on the person rather than the topic - so I'll wish you well and will now move on.

Can I warm that coffee up some for you ...?

So you have gone from arguing that Obama cannot be a natural born citizen because his father wasn't a US citizen to saying he wasn't even born in the US.

Interesting.

Not to state the obvious, but did you notice that on the CoLB that is being talked about there is one very important line:

"City, Town, or Location of Birth"

Call me silly if you must, but:

1. If (and this is only a generic if) someone was born out of country / state.

AND

2. Said birth was REGISTERED in Hawaii as Hawaiian regulations allow,

CONCLUSION

Would aforementioned line (City, Town or Location of Birth) read something other then Honolulu?

It's just a thought.

As for this line:

How does one "qualify" for being a Citizen at birth? By being born on the land.

Now you are arguing jus soli?

Read a little bit more about British Citizenship laws and the three classes of British Citizens.

Final point: factcheck.org is not Obama's website. Here. Read about it.

Barack Obama, born August 4, 1961 (not 1963) In Hawaii.

I've been reading the internet rumors, and I don't buy the scenario that Ann and Obama went on "vacation" to Kenya where she gave birth. Apparently, Obama Sr. was, shall we say, deeply flawed.

Some here have trouble with the birth certificate because the legality is confusing? Maybe the human story will make it easier to understand why Ann going to Kenya is improbable.

Obama's father already had a wife in Kenya, who was pregnant at the time, with their second child. He didn't tell Ann.

Betcha despite her expansive worldview, she wouldn't have wanted to be involved in polygamy or bigamy. In a biographical article in the Daily Mail, a UK paper, that turns out to be the reason she divorced him-- would have worked as a reason for me too. Why would he have wanted to bring her to Kenya?

Why would she have ever wanted to go to Kenya?

The father returned to this Kenyan wife, had more children with her, and then piled on yet another Kenyan wife with more children.

A Washington Post article, describing Obama's father, "During his time in Hawaii, the elder Obama seemed adept at walling off various aspects of his life. He eventually told Ann about a former marriage in Kenya but said he was divorced, which she would discover years later was a lie."

And to add to this, Obama became a multiple citizen at age 2. That means he was a citizen of the U.S., the U.K. and Kenya. When he turned 21, the Kenya citizenship lapsed and he became a dual citizen once again.

Actually he was born with a dual citizenship to Britain, which became a Kenyan citizenship upon Kenya's independence.

Obama lost the secondary citizenship when he turned 21. Now he is just a plain old fashioned US Citizen.

I don't know if this is a 'legitimate' factor in the citizenship debacle, but there is another curious issue.

If Obama's father was married to another woman in Kenya, bigamy laws in the US and Britian would not recognize his marriage to Obama's mother as valid. Actually, validity wouldn't be the only problem, but that's something else.

It may be that polygamy, or bigamy, is legal in Kenya, but the couple was not married in Kenya.

While I don't think anyone is questioning his paternity, and this is a delicate subject, because I don't think anyone is even talking about the marriage, according to British law at that time, only children born to legally married parents were entitled to the benefit of the father's British citizenship.

Interesting article about British family law,

On 1st July 2006 the concept of illegitimacy will no longer exist in British nationality law.

Under the British Nationality Act 1981, a father could only pass British citizenship automatically to his child if he was married to the child's mother at the time of the child's birth. If he was not married to the mother at the time of birth, the child is referred to as 'illegitimate'. If British nationality is not passed down to the child by the mother, then the child had to apply to the Home Office to be 'registered' as a British citizen.

In addition, here is another British law that is relevant:

In the United Kingdom the notion of bastardy was effectively abolished by The Children Act 1989, which came into force in 1991. It introduced the concept of parental responsibility, which ensures that a child may have a legal father even if the parents were not married. It was, however, not until December 2003, with the implementation of parts of The Adoption and Children Act 2002, that parental responsibility was automatically granted to fathers of out-of-wedlock children, and even then only if the father's name appears on the birth certificate.

But you have swayed from your original assertion that he was more then likely born in Hawai'i.

And it doesn't matter about the secondary citizenship inherited from his father. It's moot.

Barack Obama was born in Hawai'i. According to the 14th Amendment, and confirmed by the USSC in US v Wong Kim Ark those born in the United States and subject to it's jurisdiction are natural born citizens.

And also contrary to popular belief, having a dual citizenship at birth DOES NOT affect your natural born status. AND Obama's secondary citizenship expired on his 21st birthday and can no longer be claimed.

Unless you are not going to assert that the laws of another country take precedence over US law?

This is from the Opinion published for US v Wong Kim Ark

It thus clearly appears that, by the law of England for the last three centuries, beginning before the settlement of this country and continuing to the present day, aliens, while residing in the dominions possessed by the Crown of England, were within the allegiance, the obedience, the faith or loyalty, the protection, the power, the jurisdiction of the English Sovereign, and therefore every child born in England of alien parents was a natural-born subject unless the child of an ambassador or other diplomatic agent of a foreign State or of an alien enemy in hostile occupation of the place where the child was born.

III. The same rule was in force in all the English Colonies upon this continent down to the time of the Declaration of Independence, and in the United States afterwards, and continued to prevail under the Constitution as originally established.

...

In United States v. Rhodes (1866), Mr. Justice Swayne, sitting in the Circuit Court, said:

All persons born in the allegiance of the King are natural-born subjects, and all persons born in the allegiance of the United States are natural-born citizens. Birth and allegiance go together. Such is the rule of the common law, and it is the common law of this country, as well as of England. . . . We find no warrant for the opinion that this great principle of the common law has ever been changed in the United States. It has always obtained here with the same vigor, and subject only to the same exceptions, since as before the Revolution.

...

And if, at common law, all human beings born within the ligeance of the King, and under the King's obedience, were natural-born subjects, and not aliens, I do not perceive why this doctrine does not apply to these United States, in all cases in which there is no express constitutional or statute declaration to the contrary. . . . Subject and citizen are, in a degree, convertible terms as applied to natives, and though the term citizen seems to be appropriate to republican freemen, yet we are, equally with the inhabitants of all other countries, subjects, for we are equally bound by allegiance and subjection to the government and law of the land.

2 Kent Com. 258, note.

...

The right of citizenship never descends in the legal sense, either by the common law or under the common naturalization acts. It is incident to birth in the country, or it is given personally by statute. The child of an alien, if born in the country, is as much a citizen as the natural born child of a citizen, and by operation of the same principle.

...

IV. It was contended by one of the learned counsel for the United States that the rule of the Roman law, by which the citizenship of the child followed that of the parent, was the true rule of international law, as now recognized in most civilized countries, and had superseded the rule of the common law, depending on birth within the realm, originally founded on feudal considerations.

But at the time of the adoption of the Constitution of the United States in 1789, and long before, it would seem to have been the rule in Europe generally, as it certainly was in France, that, as said by Pothier, "citizens, true and native-born citizens, are those who are born within the extent of the dominion of France," and

mere birth within the realm gives the rights of a native-born citizen, independently of the origin of the father or mother, and of their domicil;

...

During the debates in the Senate in January and February, 1866, upon the Civil Rights Bill, Mr. Trumbull, the chairman of the committee which reported the bill, moved to amend the first sentence thereof so as to read,

All persons born in the United States, and not subject to any foreign power, are hereby declared to be citizens of the United States, without distinction of color.

Mr. Cowan, of Pennsylvania, asked, "Whether it will not have the effect of naturalizing the children of Chinese and Gypsies born in this country?" Mr. Trumbull answered, "Undoubtedly," and asked, "is not the child born in this country of German parents a citizen?" Mr. Cowan replied, "The children of German parents are citizens; but Germans are not Chinese." Mr. Trumbull rejoined: "The law makes no such distinction, and the child of an Asiatic is just as much a citizen as the child of a European." Mr. Reverdy Johnson suggested that the words, "without distinction of color," should be omitted as unnecessary, and said:

The amendment, as it stands, is that all persons born in the United States, and not subject to a foreign power, shall, by virtue of birth, be citizens. To that I am willing to consent, [p698] and that comprehends all persons, without any reference to race or color, who may be so born.

And Mr. Trumbull agreed that striking out those words would make no difference in the meaning, but thought it better that they should be retained to remove all possible doubt. Congressional Globe, 39th Congress, 1st sess. pt. 1, pp. 498, 573, 574.

...

Upon the facts agreed in this case, the American citizenship which Wong Kim Ark acquired by birth within the United States has not been lost or taken away by anything happening since his birth. No doubt he might himself, after coming of age, renounce this citizenship and become a citizen of the country of his parents, or of any other country; for, by our law, as solemnly declared by Congress, "the right of expatriation is a natural and inherent right of all people," and

any declaration, instruction, opinion, order or direction of any officer of the United States which denies, restricts, impairs or questions the right of expatriation, is declared inconsistent with the fundamental principles of the Republic.

Rev.Stat. § 1999, reenacting act of July 7, 1868, c. 249, § 1; 15 Stat. 223, 224. Whether any act of himself or of his parents during his minority could have the same effect is at least doubtful. But it would be out of place to pursue that inquiry, inasmuch as it is expressly agreed that his residence has always been in the United States, and not elsewhere; that each of his temporary visits to China, the one for some months when he was about seventeen years old, and the other for something like a year about the time of his coming of age, was made with the intention of returning, and was followed by his actual return, to the United States, and

that said Wong Kim Ark has not, either by himself or his parents acting or him, ever renounced his allegiance to the United States, and that he has never done or committed any act or thing to exclude him therefrom.

....

If you would actually read the opinion, the justices based it on the concept of Jus Soli in Common Law as being the prevalent law in the United States when it comes to the natural status of a person's birth.

In layman's terms: If you are born in the United States, you are a citizen by virture of your birth. You are a natural born American Citizen.

So, unless you can quote case law, or US statue where it explicitly states that a child must be the product of two US citizens to claim the right of being a natural born citizen, your interpretation is mistaken.