Everybody’s tired of the issue of Obama’s birth certificate, especially those like myself who felt it was a big fat red herring to distract from an underlying real issue. Face it, the guy is sure acting like he’s got something to hide.
In fact, the secretiveness reminds me of Chester Arthur, who burned all of his personal papers, perhaps to cover up the fact that his father was not a naturalized U.S. citizen at the time of Chester’s birth, making him ineligible to be President under the Natural Born clause.
Liberals will go to great lengths to tell you there is ambiguity of the clause, but I think it’s intentionally created confusion. It’s clear that a person born of two citizen parents on native soil is a natural born citizen. On this, there is absolutely no ambiguity.
If you look in any depth at all in to the thoughts of the founding fathers, it becomes pretty clear that they thought this clause should be in the Constitution.
I suppose I should post links to what has led me to my conclusion. Consider this post a work in progress.
A friend of mine who happens to be of a liberal bent sent me the following article in defense of an alternative view of the term Natural Born.
Before I go into that, I want to point a couple things out. First of all, I don’t think everybody has the same understanding of lawyers and legal experts as I do. If you’ve ever faced a prosecutor before, you know that they will paint the most sinister picture of the defendant as possible. They will hype up the charges as high as they can, knowing it gives them bargaining room for a plea deal. Lawyers do not give legal opinions, in the sense that a judge’s ruling is a legal opinion. Lawyers twist the evidence of the case to their desired outcome. They are not unbiased. People seem to read something they agree with, and in their mind, it’s settled, and that’s all of the effort they’re willing to put into their position.
The other thing I want to point out, is that this author cites possibly the most obfuscated text to be found of a 1608 case on Rules of Conquest in English law to support his assertion that conquered subjects of the king of England were indeed, subjects of the king, by again, Rules Of Conquest.
So, he starts from this position and twists his way to his conclusion, that this is what a clause in the Constitution is based on, Rules of Conquest. Okay, seems highly improbable it’d pass Occam’s Razor, but let’s give him that this is a possibility.
He concludes his article by saying the Natural Born clause should be removed from the Constitution. Now, if you’re reading critically, wouldn’t you think he just undermined the very foundation of the position he just crafted together? If everything he said up to this point made sense, why would he now say this? Because he’s wrong, and he knows he can’t twist the evidence to support his position.
I copied one of my status updates from the discussions on facebook, and the link afterward.
The author argues that the natural born clause means that foreign born are natural born thru citizenship of the mother, citing a Rules of Conquest law, establishing that a UK subject owes allegiance to the King. Somewhat of an aside, the 1608 case asserts that an alien woman marrying a subject is also subject to the king. By the end of the article the author says we should remove the natural born clause, (if it’s valid, why?). You’ll probably need google translate, if you don’t know latin, but the gist of the argument is The king has dominion over conquered subjects. Read the Declaration of Independence, if you want our founding fathers’ take on that particular subject.
Here’s the article.
There are a lot of people who want to repeal the Natural Born clause. This isn’t about Obama, exclusively, although it includes him. His natural allegiance is ambiguous because of a non-citizen father, (and step-father, I suppose, also).
Allegiance is the key to natural born citizenship. Born of two citizen parents on native soil is undisputable, unambiguously native born. There is no division of allegiance. A naturalized citizen renounces allegiance to all foreign countries. While there may be natural feelings toward their birthplace, (did I just use the word natural? I did), we accept them as fellow citizens.
A person born of one non-citizen parent is still considered a fellow citizen, but there’s a crucial difference. We don’t know what the citizenship laws are of his non-citizenship parent. In essence, a person born of a non-citizen parent is a dual citizen. There is a division of natural allegiances. Could he run for president in both countries? Maybe. There are innumerable possible complications.
Federalist 68 (on electing the President) has a strongly worded paragraph stating “every practicable obstacle” should prevent the ascendancy of foreign influence in our councils.
John Jay, specifically wrote to George Washington to suggest that the Commander in Chief of the United States should be natural born.
To those who say this is an antiquated clause, I couldn’t disagree more.