The Court's Duty in the Constitutional Issue of Native Born vs. Dual Citizen

First off let me state that I did not vote for Obama. HOWEVER, since then, I have become very satisfied and, to be sure, encouraged by this air of change that could happen. I am not an anti-Obamaian. I can't wait to see what he'll try to do (and I mean that in a good way). I am now FOR Obama and sincerely hope he is as good a leader as he appears he might be.

OK, that being said... I love the U.S. and our constitution and cannot fathom why the courts have not addressed this issue. It would seem they would WANT to get it behind us... BUT, instead they are saying that the plaintiffs have no standing to bring the suit.

In common law, and under many statutes, standing or locus standi is the ability of a party to demonstrate to the court sufficient connection to and harm from the law or action challenged to support that party's participation in the case. In the United States, for example, a person cannot bring a suit challenging the constitutionality of a law unless the plaintiff can demonstrate that the plaintiff is (or will be) harmed by the law. Otherwise, the court will rule that the plaintiff "lacks standing" to bring the suit, and will dismiss the case without considering the merits of the claim of unconstitutionality. In order to sue to have a court declare a law unconstitutional, the party suing must have something to lose in order to sue unless they have automatic standing by action of law.

By dismissing this case for lack of standing, they are saying to you and me and all citizens of the U.S. that we aren't affected by who is serving as President of the U.S. Additionally, IMHO they are being affected by politics and our whole checks and balances thing is disrupted. Yes, I know that is not such a surprise to anyone, but I can't believe we are sitting back and taking it.

On January 20, 2009, Barack Obama will make the following statement: "I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

In my opinion, if he is not answering questions as to his eligibility to BE president then he is not defending the constitution.

This has NOTHING to do with his being born in Hawaii as I believe he was. It has EVERYTHING to do with the question - is a dual citizen the same constitutionally as a natural born citizen. Why won't the courts do their JOB and answer the question???

Am I the only one who finds this offensive?

In order to find that a citizen would suffer harm as a result of Obama becoming president (relative to what would happen otherwise) the court would have to speculate on subjective matters.

To ignore that would be seen as the court trying to issue a de facto advisory opinion, and would threaten a constitutional backlash against the court, so the court doesn't go anywhere near it. If they are seen as trying to get advisory authority and fail, they could end up losing elements of judicial review along with it; their grasp on authority is far more tenuous than that of the other branches of gov't.

The court knows it has to wait for someone whos standing is a slam dunk, and it may be afraid to touch Obama even then. They may even be leaving him alone because they know they can't remove him without causing national disorder, and don't want to set a precedent that would prevent them from dealing with future, less historically charged cases.

Obama is not a dual citizen.

So what's your problem?

Yes you are, the courts have answered your questions including the highest court in the land.

You know the real silliness in this argument that everyone seems to hold dear to the is the term "natural born". No one seems to read the rest of the very same sentence:

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.

This is why the courts tossed out the lawsuits. Obama clearly is an American Citizen which even dual citizenship covers.

Hinky, one had to be a citizen at the time the constitution was adopted for that clause to apply. It was there to cover American revolutionaries who were born in England.

reply to post by hinky


Clearly???? None of the evidence presented constitutes "clearly". Please, do not answer with a link to the factcheck.org picture.....

The only natural born citizens of the US are the Native Americans/Indians - the rest of you are just 'lodgers'.

One just needs to look up what really constitutes a legal citizen as defined by the Constitution. Then further refined by US case law.

Bottom line, Obama's mother was a legal US Citizen, where he was born does not matter, as long as never gave up his right to his citizenship and met the 14 year requirement and is over 35 years of age.

As for the wording that appears to embrace the adoption of the Constitution only in 1776, this is why a person can be born in another land and still be a US Citizen. The Constitution is considered a living document, otherwise, an American born in Europe, or anywhere else, would be considered a Citizen of that country, only, and not the USA. Hence the wording and punctuation.

I tend to agree with you Wotan....

Originally posted by The Vagabond
In order to find that a citizen would suffer harm as a result of Obama becoming president (relative to what would happen otherwise) the court would have to speculate on subjective matters.

You see, I think that any degradation of the US Constitution hurts every american citizen especially when it comes to the highest office of the government. I find it offensive that the Supreme Court appears to think, or for political reasons, would like it to appear that they think that we have nothing to lose here. Constitution integrity is what we lose by them not ruling. Additionally, the 10th Amendment to the Constitution states that powers not delegated to the federal government, nor prohibited to the states, remain with the states or the people. Therefore it seems that any state or any person has standing to sue to enforce not just the Natural Born Citizen Clause, but other constitutional requirements and rights, absent some expressly written bar within the Constitution itself.

Kailassa, Obama was a dual citizen (British & American) at the time of his birth.

Hinky, you, yourself didn't read the rest of the sentence you posted: "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;" It included a grandfathering clause. Since there are no people living now that were around at the time of the adoption of the constitution, it could be read "No person except a natural born Citizen of the United States shall be eligible to the Office of President;" It does not address dual citizenship. It clearly states that ONLY natural born citizens are eligible. The court really should clarify this.

Wotan, I know you're talking tongue in cheek but really...

[edit on 28/12/2008 by Iamonlyhuman]

Good grief, another one of these threads.

On a similar note, did anyone see the headline (not the main one) on Drudge a couple of weeks back that said something about 3-4 senators or congressman (current?) had not been minimal age specified in the constitution when they were sworn in?

There was no link to it, I checked back several times, and then it was gone.

delius

Originally posted by Wotan
The only natural born citizens of the US are the Native Americans/Indians - the rest of you are just 'lodgers'.

Actually, I would think that would be incorrect, as the native Americans/Indians had several of thier own nations in North America,
They were "citizens" of thier own Nations, The "United States of America" did not exist..North America did, But the USA. did not..

Also being of Native American Decent, I know a few people that would consider Being called natural borne US. citizens an insult... No offense meant, and I understand what you were trying to say.. Hopefully you will understand my point with no offense taken..

I didnt mean to insult any natural Native Americans/Indians by saying they were/are US by birth, I know it should mean North American as in the geography. Its a bit like saying those from the UK are British, whereas actually I am English ...... I prefer to be known as English.

I have nothing but the upmost respect for the North American Indian as I do for all indigenous peoples and as the ELO song says ''I would be the Indians friend''.

No problem, no offense taken here, Although I am of Native American descent (personally I consider myself a "Proud American") But, It is a pet peeve of mine that alot of people don't understand that This continent was home to alot of small "Nations" before it ever became the USA.

I know your statement was "tounge in cheek" and I do appreciate the humor.. Also it was nice to hear someone state that they are proud to be English...It seems to be the in thing nowadays to be ashamed of your "homeland" especially in the west..

As for the topic at hand, I understand the Courts reluctance to get too involved, especially after the 2000 election debacle.. And I'm sure that even if they stated that Obama is a "natural borne citizen" it is too late now.. IE. the conspiracy would just keep going, only that the Courts had been "bought off"...

reply to post by habu71


Why not? Does it bother you that every credible website out there disagrees with you?

I won't post any factcheck.org websites if you guys quit using blogs.

Originally posted by Iamonlyhuman
Obama was a dual citizen (British & American) at the time of his birth.

Just curious... Do YOU think that having a father who is a citizen of another country and passing that citizenship onto a baby precludes that baby, born on US soil from being a "natural-born citizen"?

And do YOU think that current citizenship law should be changed?

US CODE 1401

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;

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic

Originally posted by Iamonlyhuman
Obama was a dual citizen (British & American) at the time of his birth.

Just curious... Do YOU think that having a father who is a citizen of another country and passing that citizenship onto a baby precludes that baby, born on US soil from being a "natural-born citizen"?

And do YOU think that current citizenship law should be changed?

US CODE 1401

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;

From Obama's website Fight the Smears

“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.”

For the first 21 years of his life he was a dual citizen. Yes, honestly, I do think that precludes him from this office under the constitution. However, it doesn't matter what I think.. it needs to heard and ruled on!

No, I don't think that current citizenship law should be changed. They wrote it that way so that the holder of the highest office in the United States would not have conflicting allegiances. It makes sense.

What I think is that every single one of us should be diligent in upholding the constitution of the U.S. What that means is that we should always question actions that we believe are not consistent with it. The constitution is VERY clear in the requirements for president... "No person except a natural born citizen of the United States..." What I can't believe is that all these people claiming to be watchdogs for the constitution and bashing our government left and right for taking away our rights a little at a time are not weighing in on this. Is it OK to go against the constitution when it's OUR candidate of choice? No it is not!

The Supreme Court just doesn't want to deal with the politics... the constitutional watchdogs don't want to know the answer to this question because more of them are Obamaians... and normal people just don't care about the constitution anymore unless it means that there's less money in their pockets...

Just because we like the guy or want a change in the way our government's run doesn't mean we can trample the constitution in the mean time.

reply to post by Iamonlyhuman


Where in the Constitution does it say that holding dual citizenship (or more appropriately, previously holding dual citizenship) prevents someone from being "Natural Born" or excludes them from potentially being the POTUS?

[edit on 12/29/2008 by Irish M1ck]

Originally posted by Irish M1ck
reply to post by Iamonlyhuman

 

Where in the Constitution does it say that holding dual citizenship (or more appropriately, previously holding dual citizenship) prevents someone from being "Natural Born" or excludes them from potentially being the POTUS?

[edit on 12/29/2008 by Irish M1ck]

Nowhere. My point in this thread is that the Supreme Court is refusing to hear the case. They are not saying that the case doesn't have merit, they are saying that they don't want to get into it.

But... since you want to discuss the merits of the case...

I have done some more digging since my last post and have found that in 1963 Obama became a citizen of Kenya under the Independence Constitution of Kenya. Therefore, he no longer was a British citizen but a citizen of Kenya (he remains today a citizen of Kenya). The Kenyan constitution automatically took in all British subjects under Kenyan law (grandfathered them in). (Kenyan Citizenship Act) does not recognize dual citizenship, nor does it require a renunciation of ones "other" citizenship (even though they don't acknowledge that he has another citizenship). Obama, in Kenya, is simply a citizen of Kenya today.

Let's assume for argument's sake (I seriously don't know the answer here) that Obama is indeed a natural born citizen of the U.S. Do you honestly think that the framers of the constitution, when they wrote "No person except a natural born citizen of the United States...shall be eligible to the Office of President", foresaw a case where the President of the United States would also be a citizen of a foreign country????????

No they did not. This is just not the intent at all! And, to be sure, it's scary when you look at it that way.

BUT... all that being said... that is not my point. The Supreme Court, when it said that the case didn't have standing, was not taking into account the 10th Amendment that states that powers not delegated to the federal government, nor prohibited to the states, remain with the states or the people. Therefore any state or any person has standing to sue to enforce not just the Natural Born Citizen Clause, but other constitutional requirements and rights, absent some expressly written bar within the Constitution itself.

reply to post by Iamonlyhuman


First, why could the SCOTUS not have taken the case because they felt it had no merit? Why do you have to assume it is because of some obligation they feel to Obama or some other reason that justifies your suspicions? Couldn't it just be them saying, "Meh, this case has no ground to stand on"?

Second, I think if you dig deeper, you'll find that your "he's still a dual citizen with Kenya" argument is incorrect due to his being under 18.

Last, when considering the founder's thoughts, do you honestly think that in todays times, they could would want a person like Obama impeached on a technicality?

Those rules were set up for a reason, and that reason most certainly was not to keep good Americans out of office, but rather to ensure the integrity of the POTUS position.

[edit on 12/30/2008 by Irish M1ck]