Bob Robbins has forwarded the following link to Count Us Out:
>Our full-page Open Letter to Mr. Obama will be published in the Chicago Tribune on both Monday, December 1, 2008 and Wednesday, December 3, 2008. It will appear in the main news section. Click here to view a copy of the final ad.
>...The Open Letter to Mr. Obama is a formal Petition for a Redress (Remedy) for the alleged violation of the “natural born citizen” clause of the Constitution of the United States of America.
>Mr. Obama is respectfully requested to direct the Hawaiian officials to provide access to his original birth certificate on December 5-7 by our team of forensic scientists
>...We are now in the process of selecting the forensic scientists who would travel to Hawaii to examine Mr. Obama’s original birth certificate...
In addition, Bob also forwarded Steady John's post on SteadyHabits.com
Steady John writes about the Obama dual citizenship issue. He writes:
"I will be writing here only about the issue of Barack Obama’s dual citizenship, acknowledged as fact on his website, because of his Kenyan Father’s status as a British subject."
Read the whole thing here.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
There are three approaches to the not-eligible-despite-being-born-in-Hawaii theory:
(1) Obama allegedly lost his US citizenship due to dual nationality with Indonesia, when he went there when his mother re-married and when he attended Indonesian schools.
(2) Obama allegedly lost his US citizenship due to allegedly having traveled on a foreign passport (an Indonesian passport).
(3) Obama allegedly is not a natural-born US citizen due to the combination of his having dual nationality at birth because of his father’s being a Kenyan (at the time a British subject since Kenya was a colony at the time).
Taking these up in order.
As to (1) there have been several Supreme Court rulings on this, with the decision being in all cases that a child cannot lose his US citizenship due to having the combination of dual nationality and his parents renouncing his US citizenship when he was a child. The court ruled that only when a person becomes an adult can she or he themselves relinquish US citizenship, and they cannot do this by accident.
You will see the proof of this at:
http://www.richw.org/dualcit/cases.html
In particular look at the Elg case:
Perkins v. Elg, 307 U.S. 325 (1939)
Marie Elizabeth Elg was born in the US to Swedish parents, who took her back with them to Sweden when she was a baby. Shortly after her 21st birthday, she obtained a US passport and returned to the US.
Some years later, the US government attempted to deport her on the grounds that when her parents had taken her to live in Sweden, she had become a Swedish citizen (under Swedish law), and as a result had lost her US citizenship. It was argued that an 1869 citizenship treaty between the US and Sweden, providing for the orderly transfer of citizenship by immigrants, called for loss of US citizenship following Swedish naturalization. This was one of the so-called "Bancroft Treaties" enacted between the US and numerous other countries between 1868 and 1937.
The Supreme Court ruled, unanimously, that the actions of Elg's parents in obtaining Swedish citizenship for their daughter could not prevent her from reclaiming US citizenship and returning to the US as an adult, provided she did so within a reasonable time after reaching adulthood.
Obama returned to the USA before he was an adult.
As to (2). It turns out that this is based on a completely mistaken premise. The US has no policy that would strip someone of US citizenship due to she or he traveling on a foreign passport. This is simply not mentioned in the State Department’s advice on the matter. See:
http://travel.state.gov/law/citizenship/citizenship_778.html
In addition to travel on a foreign passport not being a reason that one can lose US citizenship, the State Department stress that it is difficult to lose citizenship by accident. This is because its standard for loss of citizenship requires someone to take an active role in relinquishing citizenship. In its words, “with the intention of relinquishing U.S. citizenship.” The State Department guidelines read:
“…the actions listed above can cause loss of U.S. citizenship only if performed voluntarily and with the intention of relinquishing U.S. citizenship. The Department has a uniform administrative standard of evidence based on the premise that U.S. citizens intend to retain United States citizenship when they obtain naturalization in a foreign state, subscribe to a declaration of allegiance to a foreign state, serve in the armed forces of a foreign state not engaged in hostilities with the United States, or accept non-policy level employment with a foreign government.”
As to (3): This is a completely novel legal theory brought by Leo C. Donofrio, which argues that even if Obama was born in Hawaii the simple fact that his father was from Kenya and did not have US citizenship at the time of Obama’s birth meant that Obama was not “natural born” because natural born means more than the place of birth. Donofrio argues that the natural-born citizenship requirement of Article II should be read in the context of the 14th Amendment which says that a citizen must be born or naturalized AND “subject to the jurisdiction” of the USA.
Donofrio argues that Obama was not subject to the jurisdiction of the USA because his father was not a citizen and hence Obama was under the jurisdiction of the other country.
This is a highly novel theory, but the Supreme Court does not often accept novel theories. Moreover, this flies in the face of the simple fact that Article II of the Constitution does not specifically rule out dual nationality, and that the common-language definition of a natural-born citizen has so far meant a person who was born in the USA. The issue revolving around the meaning of the word "jurisdiction" is unclear, as is the meaning of the word.
"Jurisdiction" is unlikely to mean what Donofrio says, which was that Obama at the time of his birth was under the “jurisdiction” of Kenya or Britain.
More likely, jurisdiction means only that Obama was not born in a foreign embassy or consulate, where he would be under the jurisdiction of a foreign government.
To be sure, he had dual nationality, but the constitution does not rule out people who have dual nationality from being president. If it had intended to do so, it would have.
So, the Donofrio theory is unlikely to get the votes of the strict constructionists on the court, and the theory is certainly not likely to get the votes of the liberals or the swing votes. In other words, it is a very very remote possibility. I’d say one in a 100 that there are four votes to consider the issue. We will find out on Dec. 6 or perhaps a couple of days later, since Dec. 5 is a Friday.
Obama may have never been a natural born citizen and his mother has not been proven to be either.
*****************************
"If, at the time of your birth, both your parents were U.S. citizens and at least one had a prior residence in the United States, you automatically acquired U.S. citizenship with no conditions for retaining it.
"If only one parent was a U.S. citizen at the time of your birth, that parent must have resided in the United States for at least ten years, at least five of which had to be after the age of 16. There are no conditions placed on retaining this type of citizenship. If your one U.S. citizen parent is your father and you were born outside of marriage, the same rules apply if your father legally legitimated you before your 21st birthday and you were unmarried at the time. If legitimization occurred after November 14, 1986, your father must have established paternity prior to your 18th birthday, either by acknowledgment or by court order, and must have stated in writing that he would support you financially until your 18th birthday."
Obama’s mother was 18 years old when Obama was born. His father was a citizen of Kenya.
******************************
“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.
"Since Sen. Obama has neither renounced his U.S. citizenship nor sworn an oath of allegiance to Kenya, his Kenyan citizenship automatically expired on Aug. 4,1982.” That is a direct admission Barack Obama was a British citizen "at birth".
"Article 2, Section 1, Clause 5 of the Constitution of the United States:
"No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States."
"The most overlooked words in that section are: "...or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution..." You must recall that most, if not all, of the framers of the Constitution were, at birth, born as British subjects.
"The chosen wording of the Framers here makes it clear that they had drawn a distinction between themselves - persons born subject to British jurisdiction - and "natural born citizens" who would not be born subject to British jurisdiction or any other jurisdiction other than the United States. And so the Framers grandfathered themselves into the Constitution as being eligible to be President. But the grandfather clause only pertains to any person who was a Citizen... at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution. Obama was definitely not a Citizen at the time of the adoption of the Constitution and so he is not grandfathered in.
*****************************
http://obama.senate.gov/press/050922-remarks_of_sena/
Let me also say that I remain distressed that the White House during this confirmation process, which overall went smoothly, failed to provide critical documents as part of the record that could have provided us with a better basis to make our judgment with respect to the nomination. This White House continues to stymie efforts on the part of the Senate to do its job. I hope with the next nominee who comes up for the Supreme Court that the White House recognizes that in fact it is its duty not just to the Senate but to the American people to make sure we can thoroughly and adequately evaluate the record of every single nominee who comes before us.
http://federalistblog.us/2008/11/natural-born_citizen_defined.html
Fourteenth Amendment framer, Rep. John A. Bingham, argued before the House in 1871 that Dr. John Emilio Houard was a natural-born citizen of the United States. According to Bingham he was a natural-born citizen because he was “born of naturalized parents within the jurisdiction of the United States” by the “express words of the Constitution, as amended today.” A naturalized male (women became naturalized through their husbands) were required to “absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity” to other nations, and thus, could no longer be said to owe allegiance to anyone but the United States.
Because “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” requires not owing allegiance to any other nation, and because the nation does not recognize double allegiances that can be created at common law, narrows the possibilities to what “natural-born citizen” can mean.
Rep. Bingham commenting on Section 1992 said it means “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 national law does not endow upon any person allegiance through birth alone as was the custom under the old English common law practice but only recognizes citizenship of those born to parents who do not owe allegiance to another nation. In other words, national law prevented the creation of conflicting dual citizenships between other nation’s citizens.
Secretary of State Bayard ruled under Section 1992 of U.S. Revised Statutes in 1885 that although Richard Greisser was born in the United States, his father at the time of his birth was a subject of Germany, and thus, Richard Greisser could not be a citizen of the United States. Furthermore, it was held his father was not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States under the Fourteenth Amendment.
The constitutional requirement for the President of the United States to be a natural-born citizen had one purpose according to St. George Tucker:
That provision in the constitution which requires that the president shall be a native-born citizen (unless he were a citizen of the United States when the constitution was adopted,) is a happy means of security against foreign influence, which, wherever it is capable of being exerted, is to he dreaded more than the plague. The admission of foreigners into our councils, consequently, cannot be too much guarded against; their total exclusion from a station to which foreign nations have been accustomed to, attach ideas of sovereign power, sacredness of character, and hereditary right, is a measure of the most consummate policy and wisdom. … The title of king, prince, emperor, or czar, without the smallest addition to his powers, would have rendered him a member of the fraternity of crowned heads: their common cause has more than once threatened the desolation of Europe. To have added a member to this sacred family in America, would have invited and perpetuated among us all the evils of Pandora’s Box. Additionally, Charles Pinckney in 1800 said the presidential eligibility clause was designed “to insure … attachment to the country.”
Therefore, we can say with confidence that a natural-born citizen of the United States means those persons born whose father the United States already has an established jurisdiction over, i.e., born to father’s who are themselves citizens of the United States. A person who had been born under a double allegiance cannot be said to be a natural-born citizen of the United States because such status is not recognized (only in fiction of law). A child born to an American mother and alien father could be said to be a citizen of the United States by some affirmative act of law but never entitled to be a natural-born citizen because through laws of nature the child inherits the condition of their father.
Absolutely with you it agree. In it something is also to me it seems it is excellent idea. I agree with you. achat levitra Between us speaking, I recommend to look for the answer to your question in google.com
[quote]Bob Robbins has forwarded the following link to Count Us Out:>Our full-page Open Letter to Mr. Obama will be published in the Chicago Tribune on both Monday, December 1, 2008 and Wednesday, December 3, 2008. It will appear in the main news section. Click here to view a copy of the final ad.>...The Open Letter to Mr. Obama is a formal Petition for a Redress (Remedy) for the alleged violation of the “natural born citizen” clause of the Constitution of the United States of America.>Mr. Obama is respectfully requested to direct the Hawaiian officials to provide access to his original birth certificate on December 5-7 by our team of forensic scientists>...We are now in the process of selecting the forensic scientists who would travel to Hawaii to examine Mr. Obama’s original birth certificate...In addition, Bob also forwarded Steady John's post on SteadyHabits.comSteady John writes about the Obama dual citizenship issue. He writes:"I will be writing here only about the issue of Barack Obama’s dual citizenship, acknowledged as fact on his website, because of his Kenyan Father’s status as a British subject."Read the whole thing here.[/quote] i agree
PS offtopic [url=http://vidbar.tv]watch movies online[/url] yes all new movies here
Post a Comment