Obama’s ‘birth certificate’ not acceptable in Hawaii?
Even state requires long-form document for some eligibility, identification issues
WASHINGTON – The Hawaiian certification of live birth Barack Obama posted on his campaign website and distributed to select news organizations as proof he was a “natural born citizen” would not be accepted as a “birth certificate” even for some Hawaiian state government eligibility issues, WND has learned.
The investigation follows a Honolulu Star Bulletin column Saturday, which quotes a state Department of Health spokeswoman as saying the state’s current certification of live birth is recognized “as an official birth certificate meeting all federal and other requirements.”
The website of the Department of Hawaiian Home Lands, however, states clearly the certification of live birth touted by the Obama campaign, White House press secretary Robert Gibbs and a host of other Obama defenders is not acceptable as a form of identification to qualify under this program.
The Star Bulletin column goes on to report: “The issue of what constitutes an official Hawaii birth certificate received national attention during last year’s presidential campaign. Those who doubted Barack Obama’s American citizenship called the copy of the Hawaii birth document posted on his campaign website a fake.”
However, Obama’s “citizenship” was never the question raised during the campaign or after the election. The issue raised by WND has consistently been that Obama failed to prove he was actually born in Hawaii and thus constitutionally qualified to become president as a “natural corn citizen” – which requires that the birth took place in the United States.
The qualifications for the Hawaiian Home Lands program require a certified copy of a standard birth certificate – also known as the “long-form certificate” filled out in the hospital and including details such as the name of the hospital and the attending physician.
“In order to process your application, DHHL utilizes information that is found only on the original Certificate of Live Birth, which is either black or green,” the qualifications state. “This is a more complete record of your birth than the Certification of Live Birth (a computer-generated printout). Submitting the original Certificate of Live Birth will save you time and money since the computer-generated Certification requires additional verification by DHHL.”
According to Hawaii’s Department of Health spokeswoman Janice Okubo, the state only issues “certifications” of live births since 2001 when the health department went paperless. It is only available in electronic form, she said.
“At that time, all information for births from 1908 (on) was put into electronic files for consistent reporting,” she is quoted as telling the Star Bulletin. “The electronic record of the birth is what (the Health Department) now keeps on file in order to provide same-day certified copies at our help window for most requests,” Okubo said.
She did not explain how those needing a standard long-form birth certificate to qualify for programs such as those offered by the Department of Hawaiian Home Lands or to establish proof of eligibility to be president could be fulfilled. She said the U.S. Supreme Court has recognized the state’s current certification of live birth “as an official birth certificate meeting all federal and other requirements.” She did not, however, cite any specific rulings, and the Supreme Court has not taken up the issue of whether the certification of live birth would qualify a presidential candidate as eligible under the “natural born citizen” clause.
Many of members of the public commenting on the Star Bulletin column raised similar questions:
- “I’m fifty years old and I need to apply for a passport,” wrote one. “So I scan some representation of COLB onto my Facebook page. If I take my laptop to the DMV, can I just open my laptop to show my web page to the clerk who will then verify my citizenship and issue me a legal passport? I’m sorry but some documents need a paper trail.”
- “To be president you need to be a ‘natural born citizen,’” said another. “That means you are born in this country of ‘parents that are citizens.’ Note that both ‘parent’ and ‘citizen’ are plural. His father was a British subject and, yes, under the laws of both the United States and the UK at the time [when] he was born, Obama’s citizenship was passed by descent of the father. These are the facts. We have laws and no one is above them.”
- “There seems to be a great deal of secrecy surrounding this whole situation,” said another. “I’ve read that he has three legal teams keeping his info private. He has also had all his college records sealed. So this is transparency and change? Why all the mystery?”
Additional controversy over where Obama was born came when the woman the president says is his paternal grandmother, Sarah Obama, claimed to have been present at her grandson’s birth in Mombasa, Kenya.
Joseph Farah, WND editor and chief executive officer, launched a national billboard campaign last month in an effort to keep the issue before the American people. The billboards, being leased around the country, ask the simple question, “Where’s the birth certificate?” Farah is asking the public to support his campaign with donations. So far, more than $75,000 has been collected.
Last week, CBS, the largest provider of outdoor advertising in the country, announced it would refuse requests for space for the campaign. But Farah says CBS’ refusal to lease space for the campaign will not hinder it.
“There are plenty of other billboard companies willing and eager to take our money,” said Farah. “The only obstacle to this campaign is raising the money necessary to make it truly a national phenomenon.”
The campaign got a boost last week when WND White House correspondent Les Kinsolving asked Obama’s press secretary, Robert Gibbs, why the president wouldn’t release his birth certificate. Gibbs’ response was covered live on C-SPAN and by Fox News Channel and others – excluding CBS.
It was the first time any member of the press corps has publicly asked a member of the administration a question directly related to Obama’s constitutional eligibility for office as a “natural born citizen.”
Congressional hearings were held to determine whether Sen. John McCain was constitutionally eligible to be president as a “natural born citizen,” but no controlling legal authority ever sought to verify Obama’s claim to a Hawaiian birth.
Both the petition and the billboard campaign are part of what Farah calls an independent “truth and transparency campaign.”
The first sign to be posted under the campaign, a digital, electronic one, is up and online on Highway 165 in Ball, La. – the result of a donation by the owner. In addition, based on the heavy volume of financial donations in the first days of the campaign, WND was able to commit to leasing three more standard billboards – one in Los Angeles, another in Orange County, Calif. and a third in Pennsylvania.
 Birth certificate question being raised in Ball, La. |
Many have asked why Obama’s name is not included in the billboard. Farah said the matter was carefully considered.
“There are several reasons we chose the message: ‘Where’s the birth certificate?’” he explained. “There is only one birth certificate controversy in this country today – despite the near-total absence of this issue from coverage in the non-WND media. This is a grass-roots issue that resonates around the country, as our own online petition with nearly 400,000 signers suggests. In addition, I like the simplicity of the message. I like the fact that the message will cause some people to ask themselves or others about the meaning of the message. It will stir curiosity. It will create a buzz. I’m assuming when these billboards are springing up all over the country, it might even make some in the news media curious. And there’s one more factor that persuaded me this was the way to go.
“Come 2012, campaign laws will pose restrictions on political advertising mentioning the names of presidential candidates. This one clearly doesn’t. I would like to see the federal government make the case that this is somehow a political ad,” he said. “Imagine the problems we’d have finding billboard space if Obama’s image or name was part of the message. CBS is afraid of four innocent words – even though it is a purveyor of highly offensive four-letter words in its entertainment portfolio.”
Farah said the campaign was born of frustration with timid elected officials in Washington, corrupt judges around the country and a news media that show a stunning lack of curiosity about the most basic facts of Obama’s background – especially how it relates to constitutional eligibility for the highest office in the land.
“As Obama transforms this country from self-governing constitutional republic to one governed by a central ruling elite, the simple fact remains that no controlling legal authority has established that he is indeed a ‘natural born citizen’ as the Constitution requires,” Farah said. “Obama’s promises of transparency have become a bad joke as he continues to hide simple, innocuous documents like his birth certificate and his student records.”
If you are a member of the media and would like to interview Joseph Farah about this campaign, e-mail WND.
‘The issue raised by WND has consistently been that Obama failed to prove he was actually born in Hawaii and thus constitutionally qualified to become president as a “natural corn citizen” – which requires that the birth took place in the United States.’
WND got it wrong! Born in USA alone does not make a person a natural born citizen. Even if Obama proves he was born in Hawaii, he is not a nbc, because a nbc is one born to 2 US citizen parentS! Obama has a non-US citizen father so he is NOT a nbc.
Re: “The qualifications for the Hawaiian Home Lands program require a certified copy of a standard birth certificate – also known as the “long-form certificate” filled out in the hospital and including details such as the name of the hospital and the attending physician.”
The department you are referring to, Department of Hawaiian Homelands, does not require an original birth certificate, which Hawaii no longer sends out. It says it prefers the original. Some people do have the original, which their family has retained since the time of birth.
But what about those who no longer have it? I asked DHHL what do they do in this case since Hawaii no longer sends out copies of the original. DHHL replied that it will accept the Certification of Live Birth as proof of birth in Hawaii and t then will try to prove Hawaiian race through other documents.
So DHHL, like all the other departments in Hawaii, and the US State Department, accepts the Certification of Live Birth as proof of birth in Hawaii.
Does the state of Hawaii send out copies of the original birth certificate? No, and here is proof. http://www.starbulletin.com/features/20090606_kokua_line.html
What is the official birth certificate of Hawaii? The same article shows that the official birth certificate is the Certification of Live Birth.
Will DHHL accept it? Yes.
Correct njresident , this is something I am worrying about there is too much riding on the location of birth while the proven fact that his father was not an American Citizen is sufficient. He is no natural born citizen and hence doesn\t qualify for the Presidency.
But let remember the school records too. And also the pass port what does it say. Birth Certificate can be prove that he is not born here . Why does it take every other country to call The Usurper a criminal but America fails to do it? I think they are a bunch of cowards not to bring this forward.
Re: “a nbc is one born to 2 US citizen parentS!”
Where does it say that in the Constitution?
John Jay said in a letter to George Washington that the commander in chief of the US should be a Natural Born Citizen. But Jay did not say that a natural born citizen should have two US parents.
Jay was a lawyer and future chief justice of the US. He was familiar with Blackstone, and Blackstone uses the term “Natural Born Subject.” A natural born subject is just someone born in Britain with the exception of the children of foreign diplomats.
And that is why 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.
This is surely Obamaton PELOSI (B.S.)
I’m having major problems with my computer and E-mails after sending an E-mail to Channing Phillips at the DC DOJ.
Que Pasa? WTF? I think they are running scared! Keep it up my friends.
smrstrauss, you need to be re-educated.
Go to
http://www.puzo1.blogspot.com/
and read carefully. You will be enlightened!
(You really think anybody, say, V. Castro, can come to USA have a baby here with a US woman and that baby is a ntaural born citizen eligible to be US president?)
Sorry, typing error: natural not ntaural.
Evidence also shows he was adopted by an Indonesian citizen, so he became an Indonesian citizen and he was in the US on a student visa even after his parents were divorced when he was over 18 years old. That is why he did not register for the selective service, he was not required to, being a foreign citizen. Then he had to create one for the campaign when questions were asked.
The charges and evidences against Barack Obama are on my website, court style:
http://www.divine-way.com/forgery_evidences_sss_reg_colb_birth_cert_for_obama_impeachment.html
and
http://obama-birth-cert-forged-sss-impeach.blogspot.com
A copy was sent to Barack Obama and US Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald. Both were sent about 2-11-09. Barack Obama clearly thinks he has something to hide.
Email the president that you want this controversy ended, http://www.whitehouse.gov/contact/ The government, including the president, and media will only press him for this simple clarification if the people press them.
Can Hawaii ever be truthful? The word “live was taken out of the certificates/certifications now it’s:
A certified copy of Certificate of Birth;
A certified copy of Certificate of Hawaiian Birth, including testimonies; or
A certified copy of Certificate of Delayed Birth
Certificate of birth-out of State Birth -issued by the State( parents resided for 1 year in Hawaii before birth)
Certificate of Hawaiian Birth (born in Hawaii)-issued by Hospital or local dept. of health transmitted to State Dept.
Obama does not have a “Certificate of Hawaiian Birth “from a Hospital or local dept of health. He was not born in Hawaii.
Out of State birth does not Resolve the NBC issue-
Links of support
http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/hrscurrent/Vol06_Ch0321-0344/HRS0338/HRS_0338-0017_0008.htm
http://hawaii.gov/dhhl/applicants/appforms/applyhhl
Re: “You really think anybody, say, V. Castro, can come to USA have a baby here with a US woman and that baby is a ntaural born citizen eligible to be US president?)”
Yes, and so does Orren Hatch and Lindsey Graham.
The constitution does not say that the children of criminals are not eligible to be president. It does not say that the children of traitors are not eligible to be president. For that matter, it does not say that the criminals themselves or the traitors are not eligible to be president. It leaves that matter up to US.
And the same thing for the nationality of the parent. So long as the child was born in the United States (and at least 35 and 14 years a resident), the matter is up to the voters.
So as to your question about the child of V Castro (or Stalin or Hitler), would she or he be eligible to be president? Yes. Would she or he be elected–probably not, unless she or he were FAR different from the parent and we could clearly see the difference.
Re: “Evidence also shows he was adopted by an Indonesian citizen, so he became an Indonesian citizen.”
What evidence? If Obama were adopted, there would be documents available from the district court in Jakarta. You cannot say that Indonesia has sealed those documents because Indonesia is a democracy these days and if there were documents, they would have been found by now.
So what is your evidence? That he used his step-father’s name? I had a Chinese name when I lived in Asia. That was purely for convenience, and did not require an official change of name much less an adoption.
Re Obama having become an Indonesian citizen. Indonesia says that he never did. All you have to do is call up the Indonesia Embassy in Washington and they will confirm this. (202) 775 - 5200. I recommend asking for the press officer.
Re: “WND got it wrong! Born in USA alone does not make a person a natural born citizen. Even if Obama proves he was born in Hawaii, he is not a nbc, because a nbc is one born to 2 US citizen parentS! Obama has a non-US citizen father so he is NOT a nbc.”
Where does it say in the Constitution that to be a Natural Born Citizen you have to have two US parents?
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.
I
Re: ‘a nbc is one born to 2 US citizen parentS”
Where does it say that in the Constitution?
Why do such prominent conservative senators 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 others too:
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.”
Why? Because the Constution’s use of Natural Born Citizen is the US version of a Natural Born Subject, which was discussed by Blackstone (whose commentaries were read by the lawyers who wrote the Constitution), and in British common law a Natural Born Subject is simply a person that was born in the British realm and NOT the child of a foreign diplomat.
John Jay, who apparently was the first to use the term Natural Born Citizen among prominent people in the USA in his letter to Geroge Washington never defined Natural Born Citizen. But Jay was a lawyer and would become the first Chief Justice. He was also the author of the first Constitution of the state of New York, and that document embraces the British common law, saying that it will remain the law of New York specifically changed by New York State Law. And, a Natural Born Subject was part of British common law.
So a Natural Born Citizen does not require two US parents. It does not require four US grandparents. It only requires that someone be born in the USA.
Re: “because a nbc is one born to 2 US citizen parentS!”
Let us assume that you are right, and that the 55th or 66th president of the United States is asked to prove that both parents were citizens at the time of birth. You can bet that if the precedent is established that the president has to prove that his parents were US citizens then future presidents will be questioned as to the citizenship of their parents.
It is relatively easy to prove that the president’s mother was a citizen. All the president has to do is find her birth certificate. Opponents of the president would then say: “Is it the original birth certificate?” (Imagine, however, if her birth certificate or the father’s were lost in a flood, as recently happened in New Orleans.)
More difficult is the proving the citizenship of father. The 55th or 66th president would have to take a blood test and submit a sample of his father’s DNA (dig him up if necessary) to prove that his father is really his father, and then provide the birth certificate of the father, and then opponents would say: “Is it the original birth certificate?”
But all this is NOT necessary. The Constitution does not say “two parents.” It says “a Natural Born Citizen.” And Natural Born Citizen refers to something in British common law, which had the exact equivalent: a Natural Born Subject. And what was a Natural Born Subject? Simply someone who was born in the British realm other than a child of a foreign diplomat.
And that is why 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)
Re: “the proven fact that his father was not an American Citizen is sufficient. ”
Actually, it’s not proven. The man you are referring to is the man that Obama thinks was his father.
For you to prove that Obama is not eligible because his father was not a citizen, either you must prove that the man you referred to who was not a citizen WAS his father. Or you must convince the Supreme Court that all future presidents must prove who their fathers are and then prove that they were citizens.
I don’t think the Supreme Court would do that. Especially when “natural born citizen” is clearly the USA version of the common law “natural born subject,” which was merely someone born in Britain other than the child of a foreign diplomat.
Re: “because a nbc is one born to 2 US citizen parentS!”
Let us assume that you are right, and that the 55th or 66th president of the United States is asked to prove that both is parents were citizens at the time of birth. You can bet that if the precedent is established that the president has to prove that his parents were US citizens then future presidents will be questioned as to the citizenship of their parents.
For this future president it is relatively easy to prove that his mother was a citizen. All the president has to do is find her birth certificate. Opponents of the president would then say: “Is it the original birth certificate?”
More difficult is the proving the citizenship of father. The 55th or 66th president would then have to take a blood test and submit a sample of his father’s DNA (dig him up if necessary) to prove that his father is really his father, and then provide the birth certificate of the father, and then opponents would say: “Is it the original birth certificate?”
But all this is NOT necessary. The Constitution does not say “two parents.” It says “a Natural Born Citizen.” And Natural Born Citizen refers to something in British common law, which had the exact equivalent, a Natural Born Subject. And what was a Natural Born Subject? Simply someone who was born in the British realm other than a child of a foreign diplomat.
And that is why 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)
Smearstrauss:
Is the 14th Amendment the US Constitution?
I believe it is:
” All persons BORN or naturalized, IN THE US and subject to the jurisdiction thereof are citizens of the USA and of the State wherein they reside”
Senators HATCH, GRAHAM or even Mao Tse Tung have no power to change
the US Contitution and the14th Amendment that defines that the persons born in the USA are not Natural Born Citizens but only Citizens of the USA,
and the Immigration Act of 1790 that stipulates:
“And the children of citizens of the US that may be born beyond sea…shall be considered as NATURAL BORN CITIZEN; provided that the right of citizenship shall not descent to persons whose fathers have never been residents in the US”
It is very simple.
A child born abroad of American parents is a Natural Born Citizen.
The right of natural born citizenship of the USA, is a right that is confered by descendance of US citizens parents (plural= sole allegiance=only one flag for both parents).
But the US Constitution Art 2 sec1 doesnt states that only the Natural Born Citizen that are born abroad
are eligible to hold the Office of President.
The US states that only a Natural Born Citizen of the USA is eligible, specialy the NBC residing in the USA.
The US Soil is not suffiscient to confer the Nat Born Citizenship status, but confers only the status of Citizen of the USA.
As you know, the Indians being born in the USA and residing or not in the USA, where not US Citizens, but Natural born subjects of their Tribe.
So, American People need to know how B.O and the US CONGRESS Presided by Dick CHENEY managed to make become B.O a Natural Born Citizen….being the son of a UK Subject that have never been a resident in the USA, but a Kenyan National resident of Kenya?
The US Constitution states that only a Natural Born Citizen is eligible to hold the Office of President:
The election being managed by the US Congress and Dick CHENEY: the eligibility must be managed by the US Congress.
The US Supreme Court or FEC or FBI must tell to the people if a son of an alien, that never was naturalized US citizen and never had been a US citizen becames a Natural Born Citizen?
Also, is irrational to say that the British Nat Born Subject had the exact equivalent of the Constitutional Nat Born Citizenship status, because it is the opposite.
A person that is a British Nat Born Subject is a person that is submited (subjection) to the power of the king automaticly if born in the soil of the British King. (
But a Natural Born Citizen is person who is a member of a community of a State or a Nation, and that membership ( a right) when it is confered by the familly cellula, naturally by birth, by succession, that membership is called the Status of Natural born Citizensh
How a UKC Kenyan father had the power to confer to his son a right of US citizenship that he never owned?
He had the power to confer naturally to his own nationality to his son, on August 4th 1961:
the UK nationality.
B.O senior died in Kenya being a Kenyan citizen, because his choice was to be a Kenyan citizen not a US citizen… he never decided to acquiere by naturalization the US citizenship.
So he never had any right of US citizenship to confer to his son.
Where the US constitution or a Law says that the son of an alien is eligible to be President of the USA?
Where the US Constitution or any Law states that a person that is born in the USA to an alien is eligible to be President ?
Re: “a nbc is one born to 2 US citizen parentS! Obama has a non-US citizen father so he is NOT a nbc.”
Let us assume that what you say is true and that it applies to all future presidents. The result will be that every candidate must prove not only that she or he is a citizen but that both parents were citizens at the time of birth.
Let’s just discuss the parents. It is relatively easy to prove that the mother was a citizen because no one doubts who the mother was. There are records of births. So, the birth certificate of the candidate shows who the mother is and then the candidate merely has to show her birth certificate or her naturalization.
But things are different with the father of the candidate. Although the father of the candidate appears on the birth certificate of the candidate, that is not necessarily the real father. We all know that. So, to prove that her or his father was a citizen, the candidate must prove who the father was. This requires two tests, a DNA test for the candidate, and a DNA test for the father or the father’s remains, and then the birth certificate or naturalization certificate for the father.
Fortunately, this is not necessary. The term “Natural Born Citizen” does not require two parents who were citizens. It only requires birth in the USA. That is because the term Natural Born Citizen comes from the Natural Born Subject of British common law, and that merely required birth in Britain (other than a child of a foreign diplomat.)
Re: “All persons BORN or naturalized, IN THE US and subject to the jurisdiction thereof are citizens of the USA and of the State wherein they reside”
I agree with you. Obama was born in Hawaii.
Re: “The US Soil is not suffiscient to confer the Nat Born Citizenship status, but confers only the status of Citizen of the USA.”
Birth on US soil is sufficient to confer Natural Born Citizenship.
And that is why 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)
Very interesting discussion, however, many of the comments are irrelevant. The senators quoted, alone, do not have the power to change Constitution, no matter how knowledgeable lawyers are. The Constitution can only be changed by a Constitutional Amendment.
If you look up Leo Donofrio’s papers, you will find that he presented a very compelling argument that the birthplace is not the issue. I suggest that all of you who are interested in this matter to read them.
It seems that if he was not born in HI. He may not even be an ordinary citizen. (due to age of mother etc – plenty of explanation on this on WND). Consequently, he should be compelled to prove that he born there by a verifiable long-form-BC, showing the doctor’s name etc. So the BC does matter.
Once this is done, and all other so far undisclosed documents prove that he did not loose his citizenship by living in other countries etc, we will know if he is an (ordinary) citizen or not. If he is not, he is not eligible. This step would be very easy, all he has to do disclose all the missing documents.
The second step can not be achieved without SCOTUS. Once all facts are known from the first step, and if he has proven himself a US citizen, SCOTUS must rule if the eligibility clause of the Constitution is met for BHO’s particular case. At this point there is no other way – only SCOTUS can do it.
Practically, both the first and second steps are difficult or impossible to achieve without the GOP’s active involvement or some major media support. GOP is in disarray. Even conservative radio talk show hosts are under imposed virtual silence. The judges hide behind the very flexible Standing Doctrine, to avoid ruling on merit.
At SCOTUS 4 votes are required to hear it on merit. No legibility lawyer has achieved that number yet. With the new Supreme Court appointment achieving the 4 votes is even less likely.
So we may never find out if he is eligible or not. One thing is sure: The Constitution is no longer enforceable.
Smerstrauss,
The mother was a minor of 19 years, and had no power to confer her US right of citizenship to her son….naturaly at birth.
The father was an alien, as you know without any power to confer the a US right of citizenship to his son.
By birth in Hawaii (true or not true) the Government of the State of Hawaii confered to B.O a right of citizenship.
The Hawaiian government has no power to confer to B.O the Natural Born Status of the USA, but only the State of Hawaii’s citizenship…all citizens of the the State of Hawaii being…US Citizens…not Natural Born Citizens.
Only US Parents that are citizens of the USA have the power to confer, by birth and succession (jus sanguinis) the Status of Natural Born Citizenship of the
USA ….!!! Or the US congress, by virtue of the US Constitution’ Naturalization stipulations.
The State of Hawaii as the power to confer the status of Natural Born Citizen of the State of Hawaii, but not the status of Natural Born Citizenship of the Union, by virtue of a CERTIFICATION of LIVE BIRTH in HONOLULU, with the seal of the STATE of HAWAII….that is not the the seal of the USA.
The State of Hawaii is fooling the ELECTORAL COLLEGE and the US Congress with that certification of hawaiian live birth exciping that it is the CERTIFICATION of NATURAL BORN CITIZENSHIP
STATUS of B.O.
B.O is, with the sole decision of the State of Hawaii, a Natural Born Citizen of the State of Hawaii.
The US Constitution requires a Federal Status of Natur
SmearStrauss
Call the US Congress,
call Senator LEAHY and
the Judiciary Committee and
the US Constitution SubCommittee of the US Senate….
ask them if John McCAIN possesses a Federal Certification and a US Certification of Nat. Born Citizenship of the USA.
They will answer YES.
See the seal of the USA , US Congress and of the
US Senate on the US SR.511
certifying that John Mc CAIN has the Constitutional status of Nat. Born Citizen of the USA.
Ask for them for the same status NBC for Obama: they will answer they have not any Federal certification of NBCUS regardin B.O !
Then call Mr GIBBS at the WHITE HOUSE
and demand him also for the Federal Certification of the Constitutional Nat Born Citizen Status of B.O….
he will respond to you:
“We dont have any Congress or Federal Certification proving that B.O is a Natural Born Citizen of the USA, but just the Hawaii certification of live birth of the internet.
then go to the internet and see the certification of B.O
you will axknowledge….that there is no Federal or US Congress seal in such Hawaiian certification of B.O…….just the State of Hawaii seal.
The US Constitution stipulates that a State can confer the US Citizenship status to a person, being such a State a State member of the Union……
But the US Constitution doesnot stipulate that a State has the power to confer the Natural Born Citizenship Status…….
of the USA….!!!!
ONLYTHE US CITIZENS PARENTS AND THE US CONGRESS HAVE THE POWER TO CONFER THE NAT BORN CIT OF THE USA’ STATUS.
That is why,
the 44th President of the USA is……
John McCAIN (NBCUSA)
B.O not being a Federal NBC is not eligible to hold the Fedral Office of President of the USA,
but like SCHWARTZENNEGGER, (14th Amendment citizens)
he is eligible to be Governor of Hawaii,
by virtue of the State of Hawaii certification of Live Birth, under the seal of Hawaiii.
He is eligible to be Governor of another State, because the Hawaiian certification of birth,
confers to B.O the US (ordinary not NBC) Citizenship status.
About the DNA tests of fathers, in order to confer by succession the Nat Born Citizenship of the USA, the US Supreme Court is competent for that matter.
But the problem of the father is not to be the biological father or a not biological father….the problem is that the father must be, in the familly cellula, a Citizen of the USA, in order to confer by succession and parentage to the children, his right of US citizenship.
B.O senior was married with StanleyAnn DUNHAM, then divorced (see district court of Hawaii)
B.O senior, an alien, confered to his son:
- his UKC Kenyan last name
- his UKC Kenyanname
- his second UKC Kenyan name
In the same maner he confered to his son, by succession, his UKC Nationality.
The State of Hawaii, hawing no power to confer to B.O his UKC KENYAN names, only his father.
Re the most recent posting.
You claim that only US citizen parents can create a Natural Born Citizen, and I assume you mean two of them because one of Obama’s parents was a US citizen, his mother.
His father was not a US citizen, which he does not deny.
So you seem to be saying that even though a child is born in Hawaii and has a US mother, he cannot be a Natural Born Citizen unless his father was also a US citizen.
But this is not true. The term “Natural Born Citizen” comes from British common law (no, not from Vattel. It has been demonstrated that he did not use the term in any translation published before the Constitution was written).
And British common law had a term “Natural Born Subject.” And a natural born subject was simply someone who was born in Britain regardless of the number of British parents, with the one exception being a child of a foreign diplomat.
In my opinion, but some disagree, McCain was also a Natural Born Citizen because even though he was born outside of the USA (He wasn’t actually born on the US base in Panama. He was born in Colon Hospital, which was outside of the base.) having two US parents also makes one a Natural Born Citizen. But that is my opinion. Some disagree.
BUT NO legal experts disagree that anyone who was born in the USA other than the children of foreign diplomats is a Natural Born Citizen.
And that is why 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)
Dear smrstrauss
you wrote:
You are working on the assumption that the conventional meaning of the phrase of art “natural born citizen” for those learned in the law in the eighteenth century was equivalent to the meaning of the analogous phrase “natural born subject” in nineteenth century English law.
But is this assumption correct? Does the substitution of the term “citizen” for “subject” alter the meaning of the phrase? And if they did recognize a difference, what implications does that have for the meaning of the natural born citizen clause?
The language of the Constitution recognizes a distinction between the terms “citizen” and “subject.” For example, in Article III Section 2, which confers “judicial power” on the federal courts, “citizens” of the several states are differentiated from “citizens” or “subjects” of foreign states—corresponding to the distinction between diversity and
alienage jurisdiction. In the framing era, these two terms reflected two distinct theories of the relationship between individual members of a political community and the state.
In feudal or monarchical constitutional theory, individuals were the subjects of a monarch or sovereign, but the republican constitutional theory of the revolutionary and postrevolutionary period conceived of the individual as a citizen and assigned sovereignty to the people.
The term “citizen” reflects the notion that individual citizens are sovereign in a republic, whereas the term “subject” reflects feudal and monarchical conceptual of the monarch as sovereign and the individual as the subject, owing a duty of allegiance and duty to the monarch.
This conceptual distinction may be relevant to the original understanding of the phrase “natural born citizen” which was used instead of “natural born subject,” the phrase that served as a term of art in English legal usage. The notion of a natural born
subject may reflect a feudal understanding of political obligation: those born in the kingdom owed a natural duty of allegiance to their king and were his natural subjects.
Given a republic theory of popular sovereignty, citizens are sovereign and the notion of a “natural born subject” would be anathema. This leaves a gap in the theory of citizenship—a gap that the Constitution fills with the concept of a natural born citizen.
The difference in the term (“citizen” versus “subject”) used to refer to members of the political community. This could result in the interpretation suggested above—which would limit “natural born citizens” to persons born of American parents on American soil.
Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC), statement:
Doesn’t hold and so your assertions
Best regards
David Crockett
David CROCKETT
Excellent explanation.
The term “subject” is sometimes used.
A citizen can be “Subject” to the jurisdiction of the USA.
This shows that in a Republic the “KIng” is the Constitution.
In the USA, citizens are subjects to the US Constitution, subject meaning “subjection, submission.
A Constitution make citizens, but not naturally, by physcal birth.
Very simple: A Natural born citizen of the USA is a citizen born of US Citizens.
If a person is born of a US Citizen and an Alien,
the person is Natural Born DUAL Citizen of USA and a Foreign Country.
In the case of B.O, his father was not a citizen of the USA. B.O senior was not a citizen at all.
Being UKC subject, he had no citizenship to confer to his son at birth, in 1961……but a subjection to the UK KING to confer to B.O by succession.
See the Nationality Act of the UK 1948.
B.O is a dual citizen and a subject of the Queen Elizabeth II, by succession of his father at birth in 1961.
B.O is not eligible to hold the office of President of the USA.
And he knows it. Because he signed personnaly the US Senate resolution of the Committee on Judiciary Presided by Sen LEAHY, at the 110th US Congress April 10th 2008.
David,
Is it possible to send to Sarah PALIN the dossier of Constitutional legitimists § birthists, and demand to her to send it to the US Supreme Court Conference and to the US Congress, the FBI, the RNC and the FEC?
She has standing.
Who has her phone number?
Because the votes counted for B.O, not being a Natural Born Citizen, belong to John McCAIN and Sarah PALIN, Constitutional NBC winers of the Presidential election.
Thank you
God Bless you
Re: “Given a republic theory of popular sovereignty, citizens are sovereign.”
Agreed! I agree very strongly.
But do citizens have fewer rights than subjects? Of course not!
Then how can it be that a Natural Born Citizen must have two parents born in the USA plus be born in the USA himself or herself, while a Natural Born Subject would merely have to be born in the USA? In this, the subject has more rights than the citizen. Under the two-parents theory, a citizen requires more to be Natural Born than a subject does.
I thoroughly agree that Citizens are different from Subjects. But, it is the “Natural Born” part of the Natural Born Citizens that counts. And where does it come from?
If it came from any place other than British common law, the writers would have told us about the difference in the meaning between the “Natural Born” in Natural Born Subject and the “Natural Born” in Natural Born Citizen. But there is no discussion of the term in any letters or articles written by the founders.
It is often pointed out that the first American statesman who used the term “Natural Born Citizen” was John Jay in a letter to George Washington. But Jay does not define the term in the letter. What we know about Jay is that he was a lawyer and became the first Chief Justice. He is also well known in New York as being one of the authors of New York’s first Constitution, which was written in 1777 (just after the Declaration), and of course he wrote major sections of the Federalist Papers. But the Federalist Papers do not discuss Natural Born Citizen.
The papers do not define it, and they do not say anything like: “A natural born citizen” is different from a “natural born subject” (meaning the natural born part) ”
So, as far as we can see, Jay was not asking for anything significantly different than what had been the practice in law and experience in the US and in the colonies before he wrote, when he wrote the words “Natural Born Citizen.” He was referring to something familiar, not something new. Something that everyone then knew, not a new definition.
And in the Constitution of New York that he helped write, (http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/New_York_Constitution_of_1777) the common law of Britain is referred to specifically. The Constitution of New York says that the British common law continues as the law of New York unless a new law of the state says something different from the British common law.
“And this convention doth further, in the name and by the authority of the good people of this State, ordain, determine, and declare that such parts of the common law of England, and of the statute law of England and Great Britain, and of the acts of the legislature of the colony of New York, as together did form the law of the said colony on the 19th day of April, in the year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and seventy-five, shall be and continue the law of this State, subject to such alterations and provisions as the legislature of this State shall, from time to time, make concerning the same.”
In other words, unless specifically changed, the old laws remain. This is hardly surprising.
But it indicates that the common law was on Jay’s mind. It is more likely that he was thinking of the common law definition of “Natural Born” than anything else, and if he had an idea that Natural Born should be different than it was under the common law, then why didn’t he tell George Washington in the letter, or discuss it in the Federalist Papers?
Jay’s Constitution assumes that the British common law will apply unless it is changed. But according to the “two parents” theory, the “Natural Born” aspect of British common law was changed in Article II. If there were documents that indicated that any of the writers of Article II or Jay had said anything like “two parents,” then the large number of legal scholars who hold that Natural Born means just being born in the USA would be willing to change their minds. But there is NOTHING.
As you say, Senators Graham and Hatch could be wrong in their “just born in the USA” definition of a Natural Born Citizen, but what I described is part of the reason they thought the way that they do.
Now as to dual nationality affecting the Natural Born requirement. As you correctly point out, a British law made Obama a subject of Britain (but only for a time. It expired).
However, it is an old, and good principle of US law that a foreign law cannot affect our law, and a foreign law certainly cannot take away the rights of a citizen. If we allow a foreign law to take away the rights of a citizen, aren’t we knuckling down to that foreign country in some way?
Yet in the Obama case we have a US child, born in the USA, and the Dual Nationality theory holds that he loses his Natural Born rights simply because Britain had a certain law.
There are two aspects of this: Legally, British law does not affect our law. And, morally, how is it moral to allow a British law to deprive an American of something that is his right?
If we allow Dual Nationality to affect Natural Born Citizen status, then any country can merely issue citizenship to a US presidential candidate whom that country does not like, and that candidate would no longer be eligible to be president because of dual nationality
IF a person willingly takes on the nationality of another country, that might be grounds for disqualification. But in this case Obama was a child. This is very different from an adult saying that she or he wants to become a citizen of another country. To say that Obama’s British (or Kenyan) father REALLY makes him British or Kenyan in some way is like saying that because my father was a Baptist, I will always be a Baptist in some way. Very few people believe this, and there is no evidence that the writers of Article II did.
Dear smstraus,
you wrote:
Of course I agree that (1) a baby no say in the nationality he/she adopts (2) Obama had the Britisch nationality at birth and therefore never has been in the position to make a choice in the matter.
But the question of intentionality is nowhere mentioned. Surely there are manu babies in this world who would have chosen to have been born an American Citizen rather than say North Korean.
I think that fair or not fair the question of intentionality should be disgarded. Unless of course there would exist specific legislation to that effect.
In abence there of I would say that anyone born on American soil whose parents are citizens of the United States of American is a “natural born citizen.” Anyone whose citizenship is acquired after birth as a result of “naturalization” is not a “natural born citizen.”
You wrote:
However the conception of natural born subjects under British law is tied to the conception of natural allegiance to a sovereign—based primarily on being born within the territory subject to the sovereign’s rule, but with the addition of others (such as the children of Ambassadors or of the Sovereigns themselves) who have a “natural allegiance” to the sovereign.
Noitce that for British common law it would hold that: all children, born out of the king’s ligeance, whose fathers were natural-born subjects, are now natural-born subjects themselves, to all intents and purposes.
This in Obaba’s case would reinforce his status as British natural-born subject.
The question as to citizen’s rights versus natural born citizen/subject rights is an emotional one rather than a legal one. For all intends and puproses there exists not difference with an exception pertainig to Presidential eligtibility.
In repect to John Jay
Jay wrote, “Permit me to hint, whether it would be wise and seasonable to provide a strong check to the admission of Foreigners into the administration of our national Government; and to declare expressly that the Commander in Chief of the American army shall not be given to nor devolve on, any but a natural born Citizen.”
The hint clearly made sense to General Washington. While there was no debate, this presidential qualification was soon introduced by the drafting Committee of Eleven, and then adopted without any discussion by the Constitutional Convention.
Article II has a number of absolute qualifications: It also requires that presidents be at least thirty-five years of age and a United States resident for fourteen years. Accordingly, the natural born citizenship requirement has been treated as a similar absolute. And this requirement has remained the law of the land.
In fact, there are conflicting holdings that only further compound the problem of understanding this clause. United States v. Wong Kim Ark(1898) indicates that foreign born children of Americans are not natural born. But in contrast, Weedin v. Chin Bow (1927) holds that “at common law the children of our citizen born abroad were always natural born citizen from the standpoint of this government.”
It is the consensus of scholars, however, that foreign born children of Americans are natural born citizens. And that would mean that Romney and McCain would certainly qualify.
In Obama’s case however being born from a British Father and an American Mother there can be no doubt that he is not a natural born citizen.
Best Regards,
David Crockett
Dear David Crockett. I greatly appreciate the politeness of your response and the high level of the discussion.
Re: Jay wrote, “Permit me to hint, whether it would be wise and seasonable to provide a strong check to the admission of Foreigners into the administration of our national Government; and to declare expressly that the Commander in Chief of the American army shall not be given to nor devolve on, any but a natural born Citizen.”
Yes. Jay wrote that. But he did not write in that letter or anywhere else that a Natural Born Citizen requires two US parents, and, since he was a lawyer and judge (and would become the first chief justice), it is natural to think that he was referring to Natural Born Subject, which was commonly used in discussions of British common law. He could not have been referring to Vattel, because no translation of Vattel before the Constitution used the phrase.
Moreover, he was not talking about some new concept of what “natural born” meant. If he really meant that natural born required two parents, as opposed to the more commonly used “just born in the country” meaning of “natural born subject,” he would have had to tell Washington or at least someone about his new meaning. And he never did.
And, Natural Born Citizen is not discussed in the Federalist Papers. But that was the major source of discussion of the Constitution by Jay, Hamilton and Madison. According to your theory “Natural Born Citizen” is different from “Natural Born Subject” and yet there is no discussion of the difference.
Neither the Constitution itself nor the Federalist Papers defines Natural Born Citizen. Yet, if it was something new, then both would. A strict constructionist would say that a reading that “Natural Born Citizen” requires two US parents is deducing that from some kind of “penumbra” like the right of privacy or executive privilege. It surely means (1) no foreigners; and (2) no naturalized citizens; but for you to deduce that it also means (3) no children of foreigners even though the child was born in the USA is going very far.
Re: “I think that fair or not fair the question of intentionality should be disregarded.”
A fine discussion of this point, but go a little further. The real issue is whether the writers of the Constitution would apply the unfair burden of the nationality of the parents on the child if the child were born in the USA. IF they did, and there were evidence that they did, then the fact that the child did not select the nationality of a parent MUST be disregarded. But since there is no evidence, we can apply the reasonable assumption that the framers would not be unfair and impose that burden.
Re: “This in Obaba’s case would reinforce his status as British natural-born subject.”
No question but that he was a natural born subject at the moment of birth. But that was British law that did it. The analogy of Natural Born Citizen to Natural Born Subject has had weight in US law through, as you point out, the Wong Kim Ark case. In that case, the majority of the SC ruled that because a person was born in the USA even though of two foreign citizens, he cannot be deprived of US citizenship because he was like a Natural Born Subject, which as said before only required birth in the realm.
That is now US law, and US law applies. British law does not affect our citizens. If a British law were to say that John Smith had suddenly become a British subject, as far as US law goes nothing has happened. We would not enforce British claims for him to pay British income taxes. We would not take away his Natural Born status. We would say that it has no effect.
Say that all children born in the USA of Italian grandparents are by some new law in Italy granted Italian nationality. Does that make them Italians? No. Does it mean that they are less loyal than they were before? No. IF we think that, why should we think that the writers of Article II thought that the accident of birth or the accident of birth plus a foreign law made the child British, or Italian, or whatever?
Re: “In Obama’s case however being born from a British Father and an American Mother there can be no doubt that he is not a natural born citizen.”
I am sorry you hold that view. I doubt that you will get five votes (I doubt that you will get two votes) on the Supreme Court for it. The four or five justices with a Conservative frame of mind will, most likely, have identical views to Senators Graham and Hatch who have already said on the record that a Natural Born Citizen is merely someone who was born in the USA and not the child of a foreign diplomat.
There are already madmen (mad persons?) talking about even if the Supreme Court votes against them on this issue, the real criteria for Natural Born was what the framers wrote, and they will continue some kind of resistance.
But what did the framers really believe? You quoted Jay, but Jay did not say “two parents,” and neither did anyone else.
I’ve done a lot of reading in the first constitutions of the US states. Many of them were written right after the Declaration. The New York Constitution of 1777 was written in part by Jay. Does the governor of New York in that document have to be a Natural Born New Yorker? No. He doesn’t have to be a New Yorker at all. He just has to be “a wise and descreet freeholder of this State”–whatever that means.http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/New_York_Constitution_of_1777
In South Carolina, in its constitution of 1776, the state created what it called a president of the state (changed to governor in the next constitution) and the president of the state was also the commander in chief of the state’s military. Did the pres and commander in chief have to be a SC natural born citizen, or even a citizen? No. He only had to have “qualifications of president and commander-in-chief, and vice-president of the colony, and members of the legislative and privy council, shall be the same as of members of the general assembly, and on being elected they shall take an oath of qualification in the general assembly.”
And what were those qualifications? Apparently none that I can see. http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/sc01.asp
In 1778 South Carolina created a new constitution making the “president” a governor. Did the governor have to be a citizen of SC? No, but he did have to have been a resident for ten years and own a freehold worth at least ten thousand POUNDS (still thinking in British terms, I guess).
http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/sc02.asp
Where do we get the idea that the framers of the constitution were very afraid of foreigners running the USA? SC and New York did not worry about people born in some other country running their state.
Yes, in the Constitution, the framers did put in an absolute: no foreigners can be elected president, and another absolute: no natural born citizens can be president. But where do we get the idea that the framers were worried about the CHILDREN of foreigners who were born in the United States? Yes, they were worried about foreigners? But where is the proof that they considered the children of foreigners who were born in the USA to be foreigners?
Re: “It is the consensus of scholars, however, that foreign born children of Americans are natural born citizens. ”
It is even more the consensus of scholars that any child born in the USA and not the child of a foreign diplomat is a Natural Born Citizen.
“Despite its apparent simplicity, the natural-born citizen clause of the Constitution has never been,completely understood. It is well settled that “native-born” citizens, those born in the United States, qualify as natural born. It is also clear that persons born abroad of alien parents, who later become citizens by naturalization, do not. But whether a person born abroad of American parents, or of one American and one alien parent, qualifies as natural born has never been resolved. Eligibility for children of American Indians born on reservations, persons born in United States territories, children born on American military bases, and children of United States diplomats stationed abroad is also uncertain.” Jill A. Pryor, Yale Law Review, 1988, http://yalelawjournal.org/images/pdfs/pryor_note.pdf
If McCain’s eligibility due to having two US parents and being born on a US military base has now been accepted, then the same goes overwhelmingly for Obama’s eligibility due to being merely born in the USA.
Regards
smrstrauss