Monday, April 11, 2011

After Trump Works to Expose The Birth Certificate Issue, Mike Gallagher Exclaims the Birthers Should Be Heard

I don't know whether or not Obama was born in Hawaii, and to me that is not the issue at hand. Eligibility is, however, in question, because the original definition of "natural born citizen" included the citizenship of the parents. By Barack Obama's own admission, his father is not an American citizen.

Regardless of if Obama was born in Hawaii, or not, the issue should receive attention, and the fact that Obama has avoided revealing the long copy of his birth certificate should make us ask, "Why?"

Mike Gallagher says the birthers should be heard.



-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

11 comments:

Anonymous said...

Obama has shown the official birth certificate of Hawaii, the one that thousands of people in Hawaii use to get their US passports every year. It is only birthers who claim that there is anything wrong with the official birth certificate of Hawaii, and three Republican officials in Hawaii have repeatedly confirmed the facts on Obama's birth certificate. And there were notices of Obama's birth in the Hawaii newspapers, and these were not ads (Hawaii newspapers did not accept short birth notice ads in 1961). They were only publications of the official notices sent out by the Hawaii government, which only sent them out for births IN Hawaii, and which could not have been fooled by claims of a birth at home because in such cases they insisted on witness statements.

Douglas V. Gibbs said...

As I indicated in the post, it doesn't matter, in my opinion, if he was born in Hawaii or not. As per the definition of "natural born citizen," since his father was not a citizen at the time of his birth, Obama is not constitutionally eligible. However, I live in the world of reality, and despite the eligibility, the country accepts him as president, so my goal is to make him a one term president by encouraging everyone not to vote for him in 2012.

Anonymous said...

Re: "Since his father was not a citizen at the time of his birth, Obama is not constitutionally eligible."

Answer: Who told you that? It is wrong. The reason that the US Congress voted to confirm Obama UNANIMOUSLY is that not one single member in the 535 believes that the citizenship of Obama's father has any effect on his Natural Born Citizen status.

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

“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 on OCTOBER 5, 2004)--Senator Orrin G. Hatch (R-UT).

“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.]

Moreover, although there have been birther bills sponsored in about 11 states and in Congress that would make future candidates for office prove their birth in the USA (which, by the way, Obama will be able to show easily since they all will have to accept the official birth certificate of Hawaii), there has not been a federal or state bill that would make candidates prove that their parents were US citizens.

Douglas V. Gibbs said...

And all of that is not in line with the original intent of the constitution and is only valid through amendment, not legislation, or just saying so.

Anonymous said...

Re: "And all of that is not in line with the original intent of the constitution and is only valid through amendment, not legislation, or just saying so. "

Ronald Reagan's attorney general is right, and you are wrong. There is absolutely nothing in the US Constitution or the Federalist Papers or any of the writings of the writers of the US Constitution or any other American leaders at the time that ever said that to be Natural Born you have to have two US citizen parents.

In fact, to require two US citizen parents would conflict with this, from the Declaration: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal."

Well, if a child born in the USA to foreigners was not considered equal to a child born in the USA to US citizens, the writers of the Constitution would have told us about that fact--and they didn't.

Douglas V. Gibbs said...

http://nobarack08.wordpress.com/2009/05/13/thomas-jefferson-natural-born-citizen/

Thomas Jefferson – Natural Born Citizen
Posted on May 13, 2009 by nobarack08
In Letters of Delegates to Congress, 1774-1789, Volume 21, Pages 250-251 ( http://tinyurl.com/8zvmgy ), we see notes from Thomas Jefferson from December 1783.
The first question is
“Qu. 1. Can an American citizen, adult, now inherit lands in England?”
to which Thomas Jefferson begins his answer with
“Natural subjects can inherit–Aliens cannot.
There is no middle character–every man must be the one or the other of these.”
(In other words, dual nationality did not exist. Citizenship was singular.)
Thomas Jefferson also wrote this in his answer:
“An alien is the subject or citizen of a foreign power.
The treaty of peace acknowleges we are no longer to owe allegiance to the king of G.B. It acknowleges us no longer as Natural subjects then.
It makes us citizens of independent states; it makes us aliens then.”
(So, in the context of these notes, an “alien” is an American citizen and not a British subject.)
The second question is
“Qu.2. The father a British subject; the son in America, adult, and within the description of an American citizen, according to their laws. Can the son inherit?”
and Thomas Jefferson answers, before dealing with an objection,
“He owes allegiance to the states. He is an alien then and cannot inherit.”
(For the adult “alien” citizen son, the state of the British father does not descend to him, neither with respect to nationality/allegiance nor with respect to property.)
The third question is
“Qu. 3. The father a British subject. The son as in Qu. 2. but an infant. Can he inherit?”
Thomas Jefferson’s answer:
“1st. by the Common law.
We have seen before that the state of the father does not draw to it as an accessory that of the son where he is an adult. But by the common law.”
(Thomas Jefferson wrote that there was “no middle character” between a “natural subject” and an “alien”. Further, he called the ADULT AMERICAN CITIZEN son of the British subject an ALIEN who could not inherit from the British father. So, it stands to reason that Thomas Jefferson is calling the MINOR son of the British subject a NATURAL SUBJECT by the common law in following the state of the father, even though the minor son is in America following the Treaty of Paris, called the “treaty of peace” in Thomas Jefferson’s answer to Question 1.)
“An alien is the subject or citizen of a foreign power.
The treaty of peace acknowleges we are no longer to owe allegiance to the king of G.B. It acknowleges us no longer as Natural subjects then.
It makes us citizens of independent states; it makes us aliens then.”
Here is the bomb-
When Barack Obama Jr. was born on Aug. 4,1961, in Honolulu, Kenya was a British colony, still part of the United Kingdom’s dwindling empire. As a Kenyan native, Barack Obama Sr. was a British subject whose citizenship status was governed by The British Nationality Act of 1948. That same act governed the status of Obama Sr.‘s children.
Therefore Obama is an alien of the United States and an Alien is not, can not, nor EVER be a “Natural Born Citizen”

Anonymous said...

Re: "(In other words, dual nationality did not exist. Citizenship was singular.)"

No your interpretation is wrong. The idea of dual nationality is a relatively modern concept. The American and British leaders at the time held that a person could have only one allegiance, and that in the USA and Britain allegiance went to the country where she or he was born.

James Madison said: "It is an established maxim, that birth is a criterion of allegiance. Birth, however, derives its force sometimes from place, and sometimes from parentage; but, in general, place is the most certain criterion; it is what applies in the United States.'

It is interesting, if you delve into this quotation, that Madison skirts the idea that a person can have one allegiance due to his parents under one legal system and one allegiance due to the place of birth due to the US system. And he states that there is only one criterion for allegiance in the USA: PLACE.

Blackstone put it this way: "that every man owes natural allegiance where he is born, and cannot owe two such allegiances, or serve two masters, at once."

Let me point out that the idea that a foreign law (which is what makes dual nationality) can affect US law so fundamentally is a most un-conservative idea. Conservatives have been declaring for years that foreign laws can have no effect in the USA, yet in this case you hold that they can.

Anonymous said...

Continued:

There is a logical problem, as well as there not being any historical proof that the writers of the Constitution worried about dual allegiances. The logical problem is that if a foreign law can affect Natural Born status, any foreign country could declare that candidate X was a citizen of that country, and presto, she or he would not be eligible.

Or, it could pass laws like: "Every child born in Texas starting in X date is a citizen of Mexico"--and, if dual nationality applied, presto, none of them would be eligible.

Also, it is just plain not true. Here is a ruling from the Army JAG during WWI that holds that a man can in fact be a Natural Born Citizen of two countries, Germany under its jus sanguinis approach, and the USA based on jus soli (http://nativeborncitizen.wordpress.com/2010/01/02/opinions-of-the-judge-advocate-general-of-the-army-volume-2/).

(The citation I have above only says a Natural Born Citizen of the USA and a citizen of Germany, but I have seen another more detailed one that said a Natural Born Citizen of Germany).

Moreover, in some of these cases, the US-born children may be dual nationals:

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.”

Finally, there is strict construction. According to strict construction, if a law does not say, "no dual nationals," it does not mean "no dual nationals."

Most likely Alito and Scalia either are or were dual nationals, and since they regard themselves as totally loyal, they are unlikely to believe that the writers of the Constitution barred dual nationals unless the writers of the Constitution actually said "no dual nationals."

Douglas V. Gibbs said...

Your argument relies on the courts, and the courts do not have authority to determine what is constitutional. My argument goes to letters between the founders, and Madison's notes on the debates of the Constitutional Convention. The Founding Fathers were very concerned with divided loyalties, which is a large reason why they required the president to be a natural born citizen, which includes American Parents. Your research is biased by courts with agendas, therefore you have been conditioned to respond as you have. Set aside the Federalist Papers, and the court cases, and read Madison's writings, and Madison's notes on the Constitutional Convention. Also, read the Congressional Record on the debates over the 14th Amendment. Then, perhaps, you will be worthy to come back and try to make a point.

Anonymous said...

Re: "My argument goes to letters between the founders..."

My own research, into the writings of John Adams, John Jay, Alexander Hamilton, James Madison and James Wilson, shows that NONE of these, not even John Jay, ever used the phrase Natural Born to refer to parents. They only used it to refer to citizenship due to the place of birth.

Yes indeed, they did require that the president be a Natural Born Citizen. That means that he or she cannot be a foreigner. That is significant in itself (If you look at the qualifications for members of the US Supreme Court, you will see that they actually can be foreigners--and there isn't even an age requirement).

So, presidents have to be citizens. What else? They have to be natural born? What did Natural Born mean at the time? It was never used in America (not Switzerland) to refer to the parents. NEVER.

The result is that a president must be a citizen and he must be Natural Born, of which the largest group by far are those citizens who are born in the USA.

I have read the Federalist Papers, which does not include a discussion of Natural Born. But it does mention the common law about twenty times, and that is the way that Natural Born was used in the common law.

There is also a wonderful (but very long) set of quotations from a draft treaty with Britain in which Ben Franklin, John Adams, John Jay and Livingstone used the words Natural Born Citizen EXACTLY the way that the British use Natural Born Subject. The draft was not approved because it went too far--but it shows how these leaders used the phrase Natural Born.

In this draft treaty the American leaders proposed that American citizens traveling in Britain (ordinary citizens, not necessarily natural born) should be treated with all the rights and privileges as NATURAL BORN subjects when they are in Britain, and British subjects traveling in the USA should have the same as do Natural Born Citizens when they are in the USA.

It is unlikely that we would offer the British the rights of the children of two-citizen parents if in Britain our citizens could only get the rights of persons born in Britain.

So the historical argument fails, badly.

I have read much of the debate on the 14th Amendment. Bingham, the author of the Equal Protection clause, not the citizenship clause, was THE EXCEPTION. All the others that I could find supported the idea that EVERY child born in the USA should be a citizen at birth, with the exception of the children of foreign diplomats and also Indians (who were excluded due to a legal fiction that their tribes had sovereign rights).

So, the meaning of "under the jurisdiction" in the debates, and certainly in the Wong Kim Ark case (in which EVERY child born in the country is described as Natural Born) simply refers to a person's having to obey the laws of the USA. Foreign diplomats do not have to (sovereign Indian tribes were thought not to have to), but everyone else does.

"Prior to the adoption of the constitution, the people inhabiting the different states might be divided into two classes: natural born citizens, or those born within the state, and aliens, or such as were born out of it. The first, by their birth-right, became entitled to all the privileges of citizens; the second, were entitled to none, but such as were held out and given by the laws of the respective states prior to their emigration. ...St. George Tucker, BLACKSTONE'S COMMENTARIES: WITH NOTES OF REFERENCE TO THE CONSTITUTION AND LAWS OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES AND THE COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA. (1803)

"Therefore every person born within the United States, its territories or districts, whether the parents are citizens or aliens, is a natural born citizen in the sense of the Constitution, and entitled to all the rights and privileges appertaining to that capacity."---William Rawle, A VIEW OF THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. 2d ed. (1829)

Douglas V. Gibbs said...

Ben Franklin owned three copies of Vatell's Law of Nations, one for himself, and two for the Constitutional Convention. In 1789 George Washington checked out a copy from the New York City Library, and never returned his copy. http://www.csmonitor.com/Books/chapter-and-verse/2010/0419/How-George-Washington-racked-up-a-300-000-fine-for-overdue-library-books

Letters from Madison to various other people mentioned it often, and the Constitution even references the Law of Nations (and in the original draft it was capitalized, meaning it was a pronoun) in Article I, Section 8, Clause 10.