Editor:
Is there a real possibility that our President may be ineligible for the Office he holds? Opposing voices proclaim bigotry or racism or some other –ism or -phobe. The language of the Constitution – namely Article II Section 1, paragraph 6 states: “No person except anatural born citizen or a citizen at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President: neither shall any person be eligible for that office who shall not have attained the age of thirty five years and been fourteen years a resident within the United States.”
Our President was born in Hawaii (the fiftieth State) with one parent a non citizen and a British Subject. Because Mom was a U.S. citizen our President is a citizen, but, is the President “natural born” within the meaning of the framers of the Constitution? The fact that our Pres. delayed producing the long form birth certificate should at least raise some eyebrows. A senior Army Officer questioned the legitimacy of the President as Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces refusing deployment to Afghanistan. He stood Court Martial and was sentenced to prison where he now resides. Our President did not produce the birth document to save this Officer prison time, but did produce it within two weeks or so of “The Donald” demanding it be produced. Hmmm? One writer to the news attempted to quote Title 8 of the U.S. Code Section 1401 defining who can be called a “citizen”. No mention is made of a definition of what is a “natural born” citizen or the residency requirement. The same writer referenced the XIV amendment - but, there again no definition of "natural born".
The following is a definition of the term “natural born”:
John Bingham stated in the House of Representatives in 1862: Who are natural-born citizens but those born in the Republic? […] [P]ersons born within the Republic, of parents owing allegiance to no other sovereignty, are natural born citizens. Gentleman can find no exception to this statement touching natural-born citizens except what is said in the Constitution relating to Indians.He reiterated his statement in 1866: 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.
This definition raises serious issues with what we are confronted today. Google search “Natural Born Citizen” and see for yourself. The clause “born…of parents owing allegiance to no other sovereignty, are natural born citizens.” -- Our President’s Father, as stated earlier, was a British Subject owing allegiance to another Sovereign Nation. Years of residency is also open to question.
This is only one quote – there are others that can further muddy the waters. This issue should have been thoroughly explored before the primary season. It was not, very likely, because of the race of the Candidate
One other important point: Congress passed a special resolution in the case of John McCain. Senator McCain was born at an Armed Forces Hospital on U.S. territory in Panama. Would Senator McCain have been “natural born” if he had been born at a foreign hospital -- even though both parents were U.S. Citizens? Congress should pass a resolution or law defining once and for all what a “natural born” citizen means. I do not believe that our President should be ousted from office, but I do wonder if he can legally seek a second term?
In sum: Two important questions, (1) what is a “natural born” citizen, and (2) what constitutes a fourteen year residency requirement? Congress should clarify these two points so that we do not have this problem in the future. I do hope Congress acts so we can move on to really important topics, i.e. the economy, jobs, and energy. Question with boldness.
Comments
Submit a CommentPlease refresh the page to leave Comment.
Still seeing this message? Press Ctrl + F5 to do a "Hard Refresh".
I would also like to mention that during the debate of S511 the term natural born citizen was discussed and agreed to. Sen Obama, a co-sponsor, was present. So allowing him to remain in office is not something I think we should readily sign onto. He committed fraud, and those who helped him should suffer the same fate.
On another note, he did tell us he was ineligible during the campaign, but the dumbed down electorate didn\'t see it, and the MSM let it slide.
-- US Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O\'Connor (retired)
Bingham was excluding the families of ambassadors, who are by treaty exempt from our jurisdiction, not talking about the children of resident aliens. This is verified by reading the debate in which Bingham\'s remarks appear.
As one court said in 1844:
\"Although the government of one country may grant to persons owing allegiance to that of another, the rights and privileges of citizenship, it is not intended to intimate that the government making such grant would thereby, and without their consent or change of domicil, become entitled to their allegiance in respect to any of their political duties or relations.\" Calais v Marshfield 30 Maine Rep 520
Regards,
John
R.S. You just don\'t see it.
Have to admit I agree with you on the Republican candidates, give me another Bush, it was refreshing to have a leader who said what he meant and you didn\'t have to guess what he thought!
The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth:
(a) a person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof;
(b) a person born in the United States to a member of an Indian, Eskimo, Aleutian, or other aboriginal tribe: Provided, That the granting of citizenship under this subsection shall not in any manner impair or otherwise affect the right of such person to tribal or other property;
(c) a person born outside of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents both of whom are citizens of the United States and one of whom has had a residence in the United States or one of its outlying possessions, prior to the birth of such person;
(d) a person born outside of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is a citizen of the United States who has been physically present in the United States or one of its outlying possessions for a continuous period of one year prior to the birth of such person, and the other of whom is a national, but not a citizen of the United States;
(e) a person born in an outlying possession of the United States of parents one of whom is a citizen of the United States who has been physically present in the United States or one of its outlying possessions for a continuous period of one year at any time prior to the birth of such person;
(f) a person of unknown parentage found in the United States while under the age of five years, until shown, prior to his attaining the age of twenty-one years, not to have been born in the United States;
(g) a person born outside the geographical limits of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is an alien, and the other a citizen of the United States who, prior to the birth of such person, was physically present in the United States or its outlying possessions for a period or periods totaling not less than five years, at least two of which were after attaining the age of fourteen years: Provided, That any periods of honorable service in the Armed Forces of the United States, or periods of employment with the United States Government or with an international organization as that term is defined in section 288 of title 22 by such citizen parent, or any periods during which such citizen parent is physically present abroad as the dependent unmarried son or daughter and a member of the household of a person
(A) honorably serving with the Armed Forces of the United States, or
(B) employed by the United States Government or an international organization as defined in section 288 of title 22, may be included in order to satisfy the physical-presence requirement of this paragraph. This proviso shall be applicable to persons born on or after December 24, 1952, to the same extent as if it had become effective in its present form on that date; and
(h) a person born before noon (Eastern Standard Time) May 24, 1934, outside the limits and jurisdiction of the United States of an alien father and a mother who is a citizen of the United States who, prior to the birth of such person, had resided in the United States.
How is telling the truth about the Republican candidates name calling
How is telling the truth about the Republican candidates name calling? I had nothing to do with selecting this goofy potential list. And it seems all right for you to call our duly elected President a marxist/socialist and question whether his term is legitimate.
Patty, It takes a little common sense to understand irony when one sees it. The \"birthers\" talk about an illegitimate presidency when Bush had to have a stacked Supreme Court to give him his time in office. Where was the indignation from the right then?
Obama is not the first president to be born to a mother who was an American citizen and a father who was a British citizen. This was also true of President Arthur, so precedent has already been set for this exact situation. I\'m sure you know that because you have done your research, but that important detail doesn\'t serve your overall argument so of course you left it out.
President Obama was born in the United States and is a citizen under Title 8, Section 1404 as quote above.
I would be curious to learn what was my \"vitriol\"? Was it that I name a shovel a shovel by determining that our Pres is a Marxist/socialist. If that is what he is than he should be able to fess up to that. I do not believe this is a \"stinging argument\", but rather a conclusion I have reached by reading his books and observing his policies. You are right that the writers did not define \"natural born\", but it is obvious they decided that the qualifications for the office of VP and Pres. be at a higher level that other elected officials. To deny that concept is be just thinking of a river in Egypt. In Wikipedia follows:Chester A. Arthur (1829–1886), 21st president of the United States, was rumored to have been born in Canada.[43][44] This was never demonstrated by his Democratic opponents, although Arthur Hinman, an attorney who had investigated Arthur\'s family history, raised the objection during his vice-presidential campaign and after the end of his Presidency. Arthur was born in Vermont to a U.S. citizen mother and a father from Ireland, who was naturalized as a U.S. citizen in 1843, 14 years after Chester was born. Despite the fact that his parents took up residence in the United States somewhere between 1822 and 1824,[45] Arthur additionally began to claim between 1870 and 1880[46] that he had been born in 1830, rather than in 1829, which only caused minor confusion and was even used in several publications.[47] Arthur was sworn in as president when President Garfield died after being shot.
This only further makes my point that this issue should be decided and put to bed! Sir! as you so condescendingly put the title I have not disputed B O\'s citizenship, but only the concept of \"natural born\". Regards
You have way too much time on your hands. May I suggest that you find something more positive to do with your time. We all get it, you have nothing but contempt for our President and when someone challenges you about your machinations, you whine because we are picking on you. If you can\'t take the heat maybe you should stop writing these overblown, self indulgent, and pompous letters. (Did I hurt your feelings?) We would not want that to happen!!