I Just KO’d an Obama-bot (O-bot) on the Birth Certificate Issue
Updated: 8/5/09 –See at end of post.
If you don’t know what an Obama-bot (O-bot) is, it’s essentially a person whose sole purpose it to hunt down websites/blogs where issues are being discussed that make the Obama administration look bad and then aggressively defend the administrations policies. Sometimes they are everyday citizens who just really admire the president and don’t want him to look bad, but in some cases you’ll get bombarded by the worst and most evil kind of O-bot, one who is paid by the administration (our tax dollars) to do this dirty work. It’s a bit too Orwellian for my liking, but this is the hand we have been dealt.
I recently posted a blog entry that gave more legitimacy to those of us who are suspicious of all of Obama’s secrecy and want to see his birth certificate to confirm he is in fact a “natural born citizen.” If he’s not, he isn’t eligible to be President.
Anyways, there was a very long and well written response to my post. It was completely void of facts and didn’t seem like the type of a response an average person would post. I googled the first few sentences of his response and sure enough, it had been used on other sites where people are questioning Obama’s eligibility. I then googled the email address he used and nearly EVERY result that came up was him responding to people questioning Obama’s eligibility. I would understand if there were a few posts on this topic along with other posts about sports, television, computers, art, or whatever. That was not the case with this guy and that is when realized my blog was being infected by an O-bot.
Go to Google and search on his ID to see for yourself.
The email address he uses is smrstrauss@aol.com. With a little bit of work, I was able to find out this O-bot was likely Obama Superdelegate from DC, Shadow Senator Paul Strauss.
View this piece of trashes website here. He has been spending our tax dollars by posting numerous blog replies defending his hero, Barack Obama. The phone number listed for Senator Strauss is 202-727-7890.
To further show how despicable this guy is, he pleaded guilty to DUI charges recently.
Anyways, below is my latest response to him on my blog. Thanks to the Primer, I was able to short circuit this O-bot in no time.
Enjoy…….
O-bot: You too say the same stuff over and over. In this case, where you originally discuss the assertion that Obama was not born in Hawaii, and I show the proof, you come back with a reference to an article you wrote that claims that Obama would not be a Natural Born Citizen even if he were born in Hawaii.
Me: Are you really that delusional? I never once claimed I knew where he was born. The only thing I have ever said to anyone is I don’t know and there are too many unanswered questions for any rational thinking person not to be suspicious.
O-bot: First, the facts that demonstrate that he was born in Hawaii are overwhelming. Show something that proves that he was born somewhere else. His grandmother never said he was born in Kenya. There are no documents showing he was born in Kenya. Yet your original post revolves around claims that Obama was born outside of the country.
Me: Do you always make shit up? I absolutely never claimed that I had evidence that could prove Obama was born in Kenya.
O-bot: Moving on to the Constitutional issue of whether Obama is a Natural Born Citizen because he was born in Hawaii despite the fact that his father was not a US citizen. You cite the Minor case, but the Minor case was overcome by the Wong case, which said simply that a Natural Born Citizen is a synonym for a Natural Born Subject.
Me: Now you’re just lying.
Wong Kim Ark was born in the United States sometime between 1868 and 1873. When he was born, his parents were Chinese immigrants and were permanent legal residents of the United States; but they were not U.S. citizens. In the Wong Kim Ark (1898) case, the Supreme Court ruled that Mr. Ark was a U.S. citizen, even though his parents were not.
The Wong Kim Ark case does not apply to Obama’s eligibility because the SCOTUS only ruled that he was a citizen, not a natural born citizen. Ark’s job didn’t require him to be a natural born citizen. In order to be president one must be a natural born citizen.
O-bot: And what was a Natural Born Subject? In the colonies before the Revolution it was simply someone who was born in the colony, regardless of the number of parents who were already subjects.
Me: Thankfully we are sovereign citizens in America and not subjects anymore. Your point is moot considering you point above this one was a lie. I could take the time to refute it, but like I said, it’s a moot point.
O-bot: 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)”
Me: You think I really give a crap what a any member of our fascist Congress says? You are sadly mistaken if you think you’re going to out-point me using a left vs. right argument.
O-bot: They could, of course, be wrong. But I ask you whether there are five votes on the Supreme Court for the “two US parent” definition, or if instead the majority–and probably a lot more than the majority–are for the born in the USA definition. Among the conservative justices most are strict constructionists, which means that unless the Constitution actually says “two parents,” they would not vote for the “two parent” theory. Others are “originalists,” meaning that they know the history of the Constitution, and hence know that “Natural Born Citizen” stems from Natural Born Subject.
Me: I don’t need you to educate me on the Constitution. It is apparent that you could use a refresher course that I would be happy to provide to you for a nominal fee. You even suggesting that we have a single strict constitutionalist or an originalist is comical. We haven’t had a SCOTUS justice that adheres to the true meaning of the Constitution for nearly 100 years. We’re talking about the same SCOTUS that has twisted everything around to the point where peoples right to a fair trial under the jurisdiction of common law has been Orwellian style shape-shifted into statutory and administrative law, both of which are unconstitutional. Not to mention, the complete and utter warping of the General Welfare Clause, the Interstate Commerce Clause, etc, etc. You know exactly what I’m talking about but you are a lawyer yourself, so you benefit from being able to manipulate people and subvert peoples natural rights.
O-bot: And two of the Conservative justices had fathers who were at one time Italian citizens. It is possible that the fathers became naturalized before giving birth to the sons. Still the sons might ask: “I have friends whose fathers were naturalized after they were born–does that make them less loyal US citizens than I? Should they not be eligible to be president?” And then they would ask: “The writers of the constitution barred foreigners from being president, and they barred naturalized US citizens from being president. But what evidence is there that they barred US-born children of foreigners from becoming president?”
Me: Once again, you show your ignorance. A naturalized citizen is completely different than a natural born citizen.
So you want facts, huh?
The 14th Amendment citizenship clause states:
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.
The 14th Amendment was enacted at a time when citizenship was, to some extent, managed and controlled by individual states. Each state had its own citizenship laws. Anyone who became a citizen of a state immediately and automatically became a citizen of the United States.
The 14th Amendment defined a certain class of people, which we call the “14th Amendment Citizen” (14AC) class. This 14AC class consists of every person who is both (a) born or naturalized in the United States, and (b) subject to U.S. jurisdiction at the time of his or her birth or naturalization.
The 14th Amendment required every state to accept, as a citizen, anyone belonging to the 14AC class. Each state could grant or deny citizenship to non-14AC people. But the 14th Amendment prohibited any state from denying citizenship to 14AC-class members.
Even though the citizenship clause of the 14th Amendment only mentions citizens and never mentions natural born citizens, Obama apologists, or O-bots like yourself argue that the 14th Amendment implicitly redefined “natural born citizen” to mean anyone who meets two requirements:
* born in the United States, and
* subject to U.S. jurisdiction at the time of his or her birth.
Here’s your argument: Obama was born in Hawaii, which was, in 1961, a part of the United States. Therefore he met the first requirement. His mother was a U.S. citizen; and his father, though not a U.S. citizen, was nevertheless in the United States legally. Since both of his parents were subject to U.S. law, Obama himself was under U.S. jurisdiction at the time of his birth. Consequently the President meets both requirements of natural born citizenship, as redefined by the 14th Amendment.
This “14th Amendment natural born citizen” argument depends heavily on the meaning of “jurisdiction.”
During the debates over the 14th Amendment’s citizenship clause, both of its primary framers, Sen. Jacob Howard and Sen. Lyman Trumbull, made it clear that the word “jurisdiction”, as used in the 14th Amendment, means sole, complete, absolute, exclusive U.S. jurisdiction and the absence of any other jurisdiction or allegiance.
Sen. Lyman Trumbull: The provision is, that “all persons born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens.” That means “subject to the complete jurisdiction thereof.” What do we mean by “complete jurisdiction thereof?” Not owing allegiance to anybody else. That is what it means.
Sen. Jacob Howard: [I] concur entirely with the honorable Senator from Illinois [Trumbull], in holding that the word “jurisdiction,” as here employed, ought to be construed so as to imply a full and complete jurisdiction on the part of the United States, coextensive in all respects with the constitutional power of the United States, whether exercised by Congress, by the executive, or by the judicial department; that is to say, the same jurisdiction in extent and quality as applies to every citizen of the United States now. (What ‘Subject to the Jurisdiction Thereof’ Really Means)
In 1884, the Supreme Court said:
The persons declared to be citizens are “all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof.” The evident meaning of these last words is not merely subject in some respect or degree to the jurisdiction of the United States, but completely subject to their political jurisdiction and owing them direct and immediate allegiance. And the words relate to the time of birth in the one case, as they do to the time of naturalization in the other. Persons not thus subject to the jurisdiction of the United States at the time of birth cannot become so afterwards except by being naturalized… (Page 112 U. S. 101-102, Elk v. Wilkins, 1884)
Sole U.S. jurisdiction was a core requirement for 14th Amendment citizenship. The 14th Amendment granted citizenship to emancipated slaves and their descendants, because they were, and have always been, under sole U.S. jurisdiction. Native Americans were subject to tribal jurisdiction and thus were not under sole U.S. jurisdiction. That’s why the 14th Amendment did not grant citizenship to American Indians, even though virtually all American Indians were born in the United States.
For sake of argument, if the 14th Amendment had redefined “natural born citizen” to mean anyone “born in the U.S. and subject to the jurisdiction thereof” (where “jurisdiction” is understood to mean sole U.S. jurisdiction), Obama would still fail to meet the natural born citizen requirement.
On his web site, Obama claims that his father was a British subject and that, in 1961, the citizenship status of children of British subjects was “governed” (that’s Obama’s word) by the British Nationality Act of 1948. Thus Obama’s citizenship status, at birth, was “governed” by British law, in addition to U.S. law.
If Obama’s citizenship status at birth was “governed” by the laws of a foreign country, how could he, at birth, be subject to sole U.S. jurisdiction, which is an essential requirement for 14th Amendment citizenship?
—-
For the record, it disgusts me that my tax dollars are paying for you to look for websites questioning Obama’s eligibility and pass off your bullshit propaganda. How do you think our SCOTUS justices would rule on the Constitutional merit of your actions?
–UPDATE–
smrstrauss posted this: “My first name is Samuel. My middle name is Michael. And I was not an Obama superdelegate.”
http://patterico.com/2009/07/31/what-we-dont-know-about-obama-a-lot/
If his name is Samuel, then why did he post as Paul using the same ID of smrstrauss@aol.com here: http://www.slashlegal.com/showthread.php?t=53073&page=2
Did he randomly decide to use Paul on that day?
Also, please explain this: http://img13.imageshack.us/img13/6366/smrstrausspaulgoogle.png
I eagerly await your response.
Related posts:
- 2008 NYT Article Questions John McCains Birth Certificate
- More From Lou Dobbs on the Obama Birth Certificate Issue
- Obama Presidential Eligibility – An Introductory Primer
- Hawaii Attorney General’s Office Refuses to Corroborate Obama’s Birth Certificate
- New Obama Birth Certificate Posted
43 Responses to “I Just KO’d an Obama-bot (O-bot) on the Birth Certificate Issue”
jtx says:
January 25, 2010 at 11:50 am
Perhaps the pretend-attorney “smrstrauss” is merely uninformed (aks stoopid) since there are a plethora of websites that have huge amounts of information showing clearly that Obama is clearly not legally eligible to hold the office he now occupies.
Lest this notorious, well-known OBOT fall into this category (which he clearly seems to if he has any honesty at all) fall further into the abyss of diminutive knowledge acquisition, he could view these two short videos that start slowly and ramp up to give a clear view of why his Hero’s legal problems are likely to merely snowball over the upcoming months:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OsX5DzZHkIU Three Little Words
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LNGG8tIJNMY Merry Christmas OmeriKa!!
If Paul (which is apparently what his folks ironically named him) can spare a bit of his tax-supported day job as Shadow Senator from DC, he can peruse the many informative treatises in links on this site that clearly demonstrate the obvious – the guy in the Oval Office is a usurper:
http://puzo1.blogspot.com/
admin says:
November 13, 2009 at 10:31 pm
@KMACK,
You are one of the most ignorant people ever to post on this blog.
1) I equally despise Republicans
2) The stock market is all smoke and mirrors. The economy is on the brink of collapse but you wouldn’t understand that because you judge the economy based on the stock market.
3) You didn’t refute a single point I made.
4) If you continue to debate left vs. right, you will continue to be a part of the problem.
KMack says:
November 10, 2009 at 1:44 pm
Pathetic. You conspiracy theorists are all nuts. I don’t care if he was born in HELL as long as he doesn’t make us look like a bunch of idiots in the “Worlds View”, as Bush the moron did for eight years. Bottom line is, no president has the power to ruin a nation by what they actually do. The perception of what they represent and their ability to gain respect far outweighs any policy issues. For that reason alone, I think he is doing a great job. Stock market @ 6000 when he took office… now its over 10,000 again. Nobel Peace Prize. FINALLY insisting on health care reform ( which Bush ignored ). Pushing for Greener Country. ( you richbitch republicans can whine all you want about money. If there is no world to be rich in, what’s the point? ) Eventually something has to be done to come up with an alternative fuel source and his clean energy policies will only help in that endeavor. Are ppl that afraid of a man because of the color of his skin?? Still? As I said, …. PATHETIC.
admin says:
September 17, 2009 at 11:53 pm
@portlandia,
Apparently you didn’t read a thing. I refuted everything you stated. If you don’t think the birthers discussed McCain, you weren’t paying attention.
portlandia says:
September 17, 2009 at 11:13 pm
There are two kinds of US citizens: natural born (including those born on US soil, like Obama) and naturalized (born elsewhere, came to the US and then became citizens, like Governor Schwarzenegger).
With all due respect to the Founding Fathers, the 14th Amendment is the relevant authority as to US citizenship. The 14th Amendment says: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.” BORN or NATURALIZED: the two kinds of US citizens.
Anyone born in the US, irrespective of parental citizenship, is a natural born US citizen. Even the Republicans George Romney (born while his parents were on a trip to Mexico) and John McCain (born of US citizens in the Panama canal zone) were somehow deemed natural born US citizens and qualified to serve as President. It is universally acknowledged that John McCain was not born in the United States. Why is it that during the Presidential campaign the birther movement did not concern itself with McCain’s place of birth?
admin says:
August 25, 2009 at 8:23 pm
I despise Republicans as well. Read around a bit.
Kull says:
August 24, 2009 at 4:04 am
You stupid racist republicans are wonderful…entertaining us for free!
Go ahead please!!!
You crack me up!
admin says:
August 16, 2009 at 7:21 pm
“Do you actually believe that the Obama administration pays people to hang out on the net & refute your posts? I knew you people were stupid, but this takes the cake. You can’t seem to grasp that overwhelming numbers of average Americans support their president, and comments you see are from ordinary people who stumble across your poisoned & twisted material and feel the need to comment. We won the election, and you need to get over it.”
—
LOL. Do intentionally ignore history? This didn’t start with Obama.
I’m not anti-Obama, I’m anti government. Please learn to think for yourself and get out of the left vs. right debates. Until then, you will remain part of the problem.
Nunuvyerbizniz says:
August 16, 2009 at 7:15 pm
Do you actually believe that the Obama administration pays people to hang out on the net & refute your posts? I knew you people were stupid, but this takes the cake. You can’t seem to grasp that overwhelming numbers of average Americans support their president, and comments you see are from ordinary people who stumble across your poisoned & twisted material and feel the need to comment. We won the election, and you need to get over it.
admin says:
August 5, 2009 at 12:26 pm
smrstrauss aka Paul Strauss,
You posted this here: http://patterico.com/2009/07/31/what-we-dont-know-about-obama-a-lot/
““My first name is Samuel. My middle name is Michael. And I was not an Obama superdelegate.”
–
BTW, If your name is Samuel, then why did you post as “Paul” using the same ID of smrstrauss@aol.com here: http://www.slashlegal.com/showthread.php?t=53073&page=2
Did you randomly decide to use Paul on that day? Did you change your name?
Also explain this..
http://img13.imageshack.us/img13/6366/smrstrausspaulgoogle.png
I’m eagerly awaiting your response.
admin says:
August 4, 2009 at 11:48 pm
“One does have to be born in Hawaii to receive a certificate of live birth or a certification of live birth that says on it: “Location of Birth: Hawaii.”
And when Obama was born, that was not possible. Someone had to be born in Hawaii to have his birth registered at all. Foreign birth certificates were not accepted.”
—
@smrstrauss
Paul,
Once again, you don’t have your facts straight. Call up the Hawaii Dept. of Health and ask for yourself. The phone number is (808) 586-4400. Please respond back with your findings.
Sonic Ninja Kitty says:
August 4, 2009 at 9:47 pm
Ryan, excellent information on this post! As to your last question there, all I hear is ‘crickets chirping’. I guess Paul cannot answer it. The O camp is full of liars.
Heinrich says:
August 4, 2009 at 9:42 pm
Bary Soreto is a fraud, a liar and a Narcicist. All he has to do is provide a legitmate birth certificate, not a certificate of live birth. Barry Soreto has used over 200 social security numbers. This coward has something to hide besides the fact that he was born in Kenya. His father was a member of the Communist Party-Malcom X.
This thug may be able to intimidate Illionois and Chicago residents. He will not intimidate the rest of who are objectively paying atention. Soreto is a Marxist Thug.
admin says:
August 4, 2009 at 8:37 pm
Hey Mattie,
I have yet to delete any comments and I haven’t had anyone call me a loon (on this blog). I assume they see that I know my facts and take their BS to other places where it’s easy to confuse people with legal mumbo jumbo and revisionist history.
I will gladly let anyone post opposing points of view until it gets to the point of spamming. If someone posts the same nonsense over and over again w/o answering my questions then I’ll delete responses to keep things clean.
Comments aren’t moderated before they are posted, so if someone claims I am deleting anything, I’d ask them to post something, take a screenshot of it, wait for me to delete it, then post a link to the screenshot.
I haven’t heard anything about the passport breach investigation. Got a link?
mattie says:
August 4, 2009 at 8:05 pm
Sorry about the typos.
mattie says:
August 4, 2009 at 8:03 pm
Hi Ryan.
Excellent job.
I’ve never bothered to discuss the Constitution because no citizen has standing to challenge barry’s eligibility. Plus I don’t have your grasp on it.
The fact that s/he has such extensive familiarity shows that s/he must be a high ranking barrybot – maybe even a lawyer or paralegal and works at it ful time. I wonder how much s/he knows about what Dr Fukino is vouching for?
At this point the folks whoever have been covering barry had better think about themselves and their families. Especially the perrson(s) made that COLB. They are going to be run over by the bus.
Where are the folks calling you a racist anti-muslim loony? Do you just delete? I think it’s good to post them so folks see how ignorant and absolutely nasty they are.
Just a thought: I know they are aggravating but cooler heads prevail and give your argument more legitimacy – especially if folks want to quote your posts/comments. There are folks who are just now seeing that this is a real issue and they’re out looking for information and facts.
Just a suggestion.
Heard anything about the passport breach investigation?
admin says:
August 4, 2009 at 11:54 am
Paul,
Why don’t you respond to my questions? If you continue to evade my questions, I’ll simply delete your nonsensical circular comments in the future.
Now, for the 11th time..
During the debates over the 14th Amendment’s citizenship clause, both of its primary framers, Sen. Jacob Howard and Sen. Lyman Trumbull, made it clear that the word “jurisdiction”, as used in the 14th Amendment, means sole, complete, absolute, exclusive U.S. jurisdiction and the absence of any other jurisdiction or allegiance.
Sen. Lyman Trumbull: The provision is, that “all persons born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens.” That means “subject to the complete jurisdiction thereof.” What do we mean by “complete jurisdiction thereof?” Not owing allegiance to anybody else. That is what it means.
Sen. Jacob Howard: [I] concur entirely with the honorable Senator from Illinois [Trumbull], in holding that the word “jurisdiction,” as here employed, ought to be construed so as to imply a full and complete jurisdiction on the part of the United States, coextensive in all respects with the constitutional power of the United States, whether exercised by Congress, by the executive, or by the judicial department; that is to say, the same jurisdiction in extent and quality as applies to every citizen of the United States now.
In 1884, the Supreme Court said:
The persons declared to be citizens are “all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof.” The evident meaning of these last words is not merely subject in some respect or degree to the jurisdiction of the United States, but completely subject to their political jurisdiction and owing them direct and immediate allegiance. And the words relate to the time of birth in the one case, as they do to the time of naturalization in the other. Persons not thus subject to the jurisdiction of the United States at the time of birth cannot become so afterwards except by being naturalized… (Page 112 U. S. 101-102, Elk v. Wilkins, 1884)
Sole U.S. jurisdiction was a core requirement for 14th Amendment citizenship. The 14th Amendment granted citizenship to emancipated slaves and their descendants, because they were, and have always been, under sole U.S. jurisdiction. Native Americans were subject to tribal jurisdiction and thus were not under sole U.S. jurisdiction. That’s why the 14th Amendment did not grant citizenship to American Indians, even though virtually all American Indians were born in the United States.
For sake of argument, if the 14th Amendment had redefined “natural born citizen” to mean anyone “born in the U.S. and subject to the jurisdiction thereof” (where “jurisdiction” is understood to mean sole U.S. jurisdiction), Obama would still fail to meet the natural born citizen requirement. Here’s why…
On his web site, Obama claims that his father was a British subject and that, in 1961, the citizenship status of children of British subjects was “governed” (that’s Obama’s word) by the British Nationality Act of 1948. Thus Obama’s citizenship status, at birth, was “governed” by British law, in addition to U.S. law.
If Obama’s citizenship status at birth was “governed” by the laws of a foreign country, how could he, at birth, be subject to sole U.S. jurisdiction, which is an essential requirement for 14th Amendment citizenship?
admin says:
August 3, 2009 at 2:15 pm
Paul,
We’ve been over this 10 times.
During the debates over the 14th Amendment’s citizenship clause, both of its primary framers, Sen. Jacob Howard and Sen. Lyman Trumbull, made it clear that the word “jurisdiction”, as used in the 14th Amendment, means sole, complete, absolute, exclusive U.S. jurisdiction and the absence of any other jurisdiction or allegiance.
Sen. Lyman Trumbull: The provision is, that “all persons born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens.” That means “subject to the complete jurisdiction thereof.” What do we mean by “complete jurisdiction thereof?” Not owing allegiance to anybody else. That is what it means.
Sen. Jacob Howard: [I] concur entirely with the honorable Senator from Illinois [Trumbull], in holding that the word “jurisdiction,” as here employed, ought to be construed so as to imply a full and complete jurisdiction on the part of the United States, coextensive in all respects with the constitutional power of the United States, whether exercised by Congress, by the executive, or by the judicial department; that is to say, the same jurisdiction in extent and quality as applies to every citizen of the United States now.
In 1884, the Supreme Court said:
The persons declared to be citizens are “all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof.” The evident meaning of these last words is not merely subject in some respect or degree to the jurisdiction of the United States, but completely subject to their political jurisdiction and owing them direct and immediate allegiance. And the words relate to the time of birth in the one case, as they do to the time of naturalization in the other. Persons not thus subject to the jurisdiction of the United States at the time of birth cannot become so afterwards except by being naturalized… (Page 112 U. S. 101-102, Elk v. Wilkins, 1884)
Sole U.S. jurisdiction was a core requirement for 14th Amendment citizenship. The 14th Amendment granted citizenship to emancipated slaves and their descendants, because they were, and have always been, under sole U.S. jurisdiction. Native Americans were subject to tribal jurisdiction and thus were not under sole U.S. jurisdiction. That’s why the 14th Amendment did not grant citizenship to American Indians, even though virtually all American Indians were born in the United States.
For sake of argument, if the 14th Amendment had redefined “natural born citizen” to mean anyone “born in the U.S. and subject to the jurisdiction thereof” (where “jurisdiction” is understood to mean sole U.S. jurisdiction), Obama would still fail to meet the natural born citizen requirement. Here’s why…
On his web site, Obama claims that his father was a British subject and that, in 1961, the citizenship status of children of British subjects was “governed” (that’s Obama’s word) by the British Nationality Act of 1948. Thus Obama’s citizenship status, at birth, was “governed” by British law, in addition to U.S. law.
If Obama’s citizenship status at birth was “governed” by the laws of a foreign country, how could he, at birth, be subject to sole U.S. jurisdiction, which is an essential requirement for 14th Amendment citizenship?
admin says:
August 3, 2009 at 2:14 pm
Paul,
What if they change their minds again tomorrow?
admin says:
August 3, 2009 at 2:12 pm
Hello Paul,
During the debates over the 14th Amendment’s citizenship clause, both of its primary framers, Sen. Jacob Howard and Sen. Lyman Trumbull, made it clear that the word “jurisdiction”, as used in the 14th Amendment, means sole, complete, absolute, exclusive U.S. jurisdiction and the absence of any other jurisdiction or allegiance.
Sen. Lyman Trumbull: The provision is, that “all persons born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens.” That means “subject to the complete jurisdiction thereof.” What do we mean by “complete jurisdiction thereof?” Not owing allegiance to anybody else. That is what it means.
Sen. Jacob Howard: [I] concur entirely with the honorable Senator from Illinois [Trumbull], in holding that the word “jurisdiction,” as here employed, ought to be construed so as to imply a full and complete jurisdiction on the part of the United States, coextensive in all respects with the constitutional power of the United States, whether exercised by Congress, by the executive, or by the judicial department; that is to say, the same jurisdiction in extent and quality as applies to every citizen of the United States now.
In 1884, the Supreme Court said:
The persons declared to be citizens are “all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof.” The evident meaning of these last words is not merely subject in some respect or degree to the jurisdiction of the United States, but completely subject to their political jurisdiction and owing them direct and immediate allegiance. And the words relate to the time of birth in the one case, as they do to the time of naturalization in the other. Persons not thus subject to the jurisdiction of the United States at the time of birth cannot become so afterwards except by being naturalized… (Page 112 U. S. 101-102, Elk v. Wilkins, 1884)
Sole U.S. jurisdiction was a core requirement for 14th Amendment citizenship. The 14th Amendment granted citizenship to emancipated slaves and their descendants, because they were, and have always been, under sole U.S. jurisdiction. Native Americans were subject to tribal jurisdiction and thus were not under sole U.S. jurisdiction. That’s why the 14th Amendment did not grant citizenship to American Indians, even though virtually all American Indians were born in the United States.
For sake of argument, if the 14th Amendment had redefined “natural born citizen” to mean anyone “born in the U.S. and subject to the jurisdiction thereof” (where “jurisdiction” is understood to mean sole U.S. jurisdiction), Obama would still fail to meet the natural born citizen requirement. Here’s why…
On his web site, Obama claims that his father was a British subject and that, in 1961, the citizenship status of children of British subjects was “governed” (that’s Obama’s word) by the British Nationality Act of 1948. Thus Obama’s citizenship status, at birth, was “governed” by British law, in addition to U.S. law.
If Obama’s citizenship status at birth was “governed” by the laws of a foreign country, how could he, at birth, be subject to sole U.S. jurisdiction, which is an essential requirement for 14th Amendment citizenship?
admin says:
August 3, 2009 at 2:09 pm
“That’s right. What it said was that Wong was born in the USA. And then it said that being born in the USA is a synonym to being a Natural Born Citizen. “Natural Born” means born in the USA. It stems from Natural Born Subject.”
—-
Once again you are wrong.
The SCOTUS decision in Wong Kim Ark has caused more confusion regarding the natural born citizen issue than any other case in US history. One particular passage has been fervently relied upon by Obama eligibility supporters in claiming the case establishes children of aliens – born in the US – as natural-born citizens.
I can understand such reliance. The passage below has been confusing for me as well. Yet, I never truly believed SCOTUS was stating that Wong Kim Ark could be President and Commander In Chief. I just couldn’t find the words to thoroughly distinguish the case.
However, it finally became clear today. The words of the passage suddenly re-arranged the focus of the majority’s intent. Here’s the infamous passage:
The foregoing considerations and authorities irresistibly lead us to these conclusions: The fourteenth amendment affirms the ancient and fundamental rule of citizenship by birth within the territory, in the allegiance and under the protection of the country, including all children here born of resident aliens…Every citizen or subject of another country, while domiciled here, is within the allegiance and the protection, and consequently subject to the jurisdiction, of the United States. His allegiance to the United States is direct and immediate…and his child, as said by Mr. Binney in his essay before quoted, ‘If born in the country, is as much a citizen as the natural-born child of a citizen…’
It appears at first glance that the passage claims children of aliens born on US soil are themselves natural-born citizens. And that’s certainly the hard line taken by Obama eligibility supporters. But a closer inspection reveals this is not what the court held.
Have another look:
“…and his child… ‘If born in the country, is as much a citizen as the natural-born child of a citizen…”
Justice Gray does a very revealing compare and contrast here:
- he compares two children
- on the one hand, he mentions the US born child of a resident alien
- on the other hand, he mentions the “natural-born” child of a citizen
Do you see the difference?
He clearly states that only one is natural-born: the child of the citizen.
He says that both are citizens. But only the child of the citizen is natural born – for this is what he is comparing the other one to. So the holding indicates Wong Kim Ark was as much a citizen as any other citizen despite not being natural-born.
– The Court does not say that the child of the alien is a natural-born citizen.
Had the court intended to state that both were natural born, they would have said:
“…and his child, if born in the country, is as much a natural-born citizen as the natural-born child of a citizen…”
But that’s not what they said.
- By the Wong Kim Ark decision, both children – the alien born and the natural born – are entitled to the same rights and protections as citizens.
- But only one satisfies the requirements to be President: the natural born child.
- This is because natural born citizen status is only required for one purpose: to be President. There’s no other legal attachment to nbc status.
Being eligible to be President is not a right or protection of citizenship. For example, not all natural born citizens can be President. Those who are not 35 years old and/or have not been residents in the US for 14 years – though they may be natural born citizens – are NOT eligible to be President.
Here’s the final holding of the case:
The evident intention, and the necessary effect, of the submission of this case to the decision of the court upon the facts agreed by the parties, were to present for determination the single question…whether a child born in the United States, of parents of Chinese descent, who, at the time of his birth, are subjects of the emperor of China, but have a permanent domicile and residence in the United States…becomes at the time of his birth a citizen of the United States. (Emphasis added.)
This is the core holding of the case. It states that only one question is presented: whether the child is a citizen. The single question presented is not whether the child is a natural-born citizen.
If Justice Gray and the majority deemed Wong Kim Ark to be a natural-born citizen then that’s what they would have said. But they didn’t. And this in a very detailed and thorough opinion where “natural-born” was used to compare and contrast the children of citizens to the children of aliens.
I still don’t agree with the Court’s analysis of the “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” language in the 14th Amendment, but I’ll save that for another post.
My analysis above doesn’t conclusively establish that Obama is not eligible to be President. His case is distinguished from Wong Kim Ark’s in that Obama’s mother was a US citizen. His father was never a US citizen and as such Obama (admits) he was governed by Great Britain at birth.
This presents a unique question of first impression for the Supreme Court. Based upon my review of history and law, I don’t believe Obama is eligible to be President. But it’s certainly not an easy decision either way you look at it. Yet, this is the kind of difficult decision our Supreme Court exists to answer.
I continue to press this issue for fear that it will continue to erode the chain of command. The brave men and women of our military deserve to know for certain that their Commander is Constitutionally eligible to lead them.
SCOTUS ought to revisit Cort Wrotnowski’s case if they truly care about the future of this nation and the health of our republic… which is being torn apart by this issue as we speak.
smrstrauss says:
August 3, 2009 at 1:33 pm
Re: “Insane for anyone to interpret that a person just being in a country, or within a coutry’s jurisdiction, gives that person allegiance to the country.”
Being born in the country’s jurisdiction gives the person allegiance to the country. To be sure, the kid could grow up and become a traitor, but it is only by having allegiance that one can be a traitor (foreigners cannot be traitors).
James Madison said: “It is an established maxim that birth is a criterion of allegiance. Birth however derives its force sometimes from place and sometimes from parentage, but in general place is the most certain criterion; it is what applies in the United States; it will therefore be unnecessary to investigate any other.’
Birth is what applies in the United States. In the USA, Madison says, birth is the criterion of allegiance. (http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/a1_2_2s6.html)
smrstrauss says:
August 3, 2009 at 1:26 pm
Re: Are you suggesting the President of CNN is a liar?
I am saying that he got it wrong. A spokewoman from Hawaii has now said that Hawaii did not destroy the original birth certificates.
smrstrauss says:
August 3, 2009 at 1:18 pm
Re: “Not to mention, one didn’t have to be born in Hawaii to receive a Certificate of Live Birth.”
One does have to be born in Hawaii to receive a certificate of live birth or a certification of live birth that says on it: “Location of Birth: Hawaii.”
And when Obama was born, that was not possible. Someone had to be born in Hawaii to have his birth registered at all. Foreign birth certificates were not accepted.
smrstrauss says:
August 3, 2009 at 1:12 pm
Re: “When the thirteen colonies gained their independence and became States, they were no longer bound by the jus soli principle of British Common Law.”
And, as you point out, some of the new states adopted Jus Sanguinis.
Yet the issue is not a standard that could satisfy the criterion of all the states. It is simply what Natural Born means. Before the Revolution Natural Born meant simply the location of birth regardless of the number of parents who were citizens. That is what it meant.
If there were a change in the meaning, the writers of the Constitution would have told us. For example, if they had meant that the term Natural Born no longer meant what it had meant in the common law and the laws of the colonies, they would have said: “There is a new meaning of Natural Born, meaning that it must satisfy the laws of all the 13 states.” Or they would have said: “Two US parents.”
But there was nothing to that effect. In fact, the qualifications seem to be setting a relatively low barrier. To have insisted on BOTH jus soli and jus sanguinis would have been a relatively high barrier–like forcing everyone to wear both suspenders and a belt for fear that garments may slip down.
At least two justices of the current US Supreme Court had fathers who were at one time not US citizens. Although the fathers had been nationalized by the time the sons were born, the sons will naturally ask this question: “Would I really be any less loyal if father had been naturalized after I was born instead of before I was born?” And they may have friends whose fathers were naturalized after they were born.
With this background, and with the writers of the Constitution never having said that two US parents are needed, it is unlikely that these two justices, Salia and Alito, would vote that the writers of the Constitution required both Jus Soli and Jus Sanguinis.
Others justices might ask such sensible questions as: “Supposing that a US woman is raped while she is overseas. She comes home and gives birth in the USA, and in time the daughter or son runs for president. Why should this person not be eligible?” Why not? Does anyone really believe that because the father was a foreigner, the child’s loyalty will be affected? Affected by what, by the DNA of the father?
admin says:
July 26, 2009 at 9:20 pm
Not to mention, one didn’t have to be born in Hawaii to receive a Certificate of Live Birth.
admin says:
July 26, 2009 at 6:25 pm
“As the document to which I refer was photographed in 2008, it could not have been destroyed in 2001″
So you are calling the President of CNN a liar?
Dimensio says:
July 26, 2009 at 6:18 pm
“Which the President of CNN is now saying the state of Hawaii told him they destroyed in 2001.”
As the document to which I refer was photographed in 2008, it could not have been destroyed in 2001
admin says:
July 26, 2009 at 4:07 pm
“Mr. Obama has made available, for public viewing, a “Certification of Live Birth” that, by Hawaii state law, constitutes “prima facie” evidence of the fact of his birth in the state of Hawaii. Your inquiry is therefore founded upon a false preimise”
–
Which the President of CNN is now saying the state of Hawaii told him they destroyed in 2001. Are you suggesting the President of CNN is a liar?
Dimensio says:
July 26, 2009 at 3:31 pm
” The one question that shuts up my democratic friends is “Why doesn’t he just show us the birth certificate and end ‘this madness’ as the dems call it.”
Mr. Obama has made available, for public viewing, a “Certification of Live Birth” that, by Hawaii state law, constitutes “prima facie” evidence of the fact of his birth in the state of Hawaii. Your inquiry is therefore founded upon a false premise.
Igor Marxomarxovich says:
July 26, 2009 at 8:59 am
Old Russian saying…You can tell same lie 1000 time but not change truth!
Difference between USSR Communist media and USA “mainstream media”
In Russia government make media say what they want – even if lie.
In USA “mainstream media” try make government what they want – even if lie..
…..eventually they become same thing?!
I Igor produce Obama Birth Certificate at http://www.igormaro.org
rollie aden says:
July 26, 2009 at 8:42 am
You have stated the case well and have done your homework. I don’t know you can stand the argument from the other side. Even with the little bit I have followed this case, it angers me to hear to misrepresenting, the ignoring, and the outright lying about the facts surrounding Obama’s citizenship. The one question that shuts up my democratic friends is “Why doesn’t he just show us the birth certificate and end ‘this madness’ as the dems call it.
2Liberty says:
July 26, 2009 at 8:33 am
It is totally insane for anyone to interpret that a person just being in a country, or within a coutry’s jurisdiction, gives that person allegiance to the country.
2Liberty says:
July 26, 2009 at 8:28 am
Make that: It appears the majority opinion of the SCOTUS in wong kim ark screwed up in their opinion of the 14th regarding allegiance.
2Liberty says:
July 26, 2009 at 8:23 am
It appears the majority opinion of the SCOTUS screwed up in their opinion of the 14th regarding allegiance.
John Bingham, 14th amendment framer, March 9, 1866:”
“[I] find no fault with the introductory clause [S 61 Bill], which is simply declaratory of what is written in the Constitution, that 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…. .”
Probably none of this will matter since his records, including long-form birth certificate, will be subpoenead, and then we will find out what they were hiding, but the word allegiance is not written into the 14th!
admin says:
July 26, 2009 at 3:27 am
““Subject’ and ‘citizen’ are, in a degree, convertible terms as applied to natives;”
—-
BTW, that’s an absolutely ludicrous statement.
–
Can you also explain to me how a birth certificate that was thrown away in 2001 could be verified and safely stored in 2008?
admin says:
July 26, 2009 at 3:23 am
British Common Law: Prior to the Declaration of Independence in 1776, the thirteen colonies were under British rule and were governed by British Common Law. Under British Common Law, if you were born on British territory, you were automatically, at birth, a British natural-born Subject, even if your parents were aliens. This principle — that one’s citizenship is derived from one’s place of birth — is called jus soli (“the right of soil”):
The children of aliens, born here in England, are, generally speaking, natural-born subjects, and entitled to all the privileges of such. In which the constitution of France differs from ours; for there, by their jus albinatus, if a child be born of foreign parents, it is an alien. (Blackstone, Commentaries, 1765).
When the thirteen colonies gained their independence and became States, they were no longer bound by the jus soli principle of British Common Law. Each State was free to enact its own birthright citizenship laws. When a state enacted its own laws, such laws replaced the citizenship provisions of British Common Law in that particular state.
For example, Virginia enacted this law, written by Thomas Jefferson in 1779:
Be it enacted by the General Assembly, that
* all white persons born within the territory of this commonwealth and all who have resided therein two years next before the passing of this act, and all who shall hereafter migrate into the same; and shall before any court of record give satisfactory proof by their own oath or affirmation, that they intend to reside therein, and moreover shall give assurance of fidelity to the commonwealth; and
* all infants wheresoever born, whose father, if living, or otherwise, whose mother was, a citizen at the time of their birth, or who migrate hither, their father, if living, or otherwise their mother becoming a citizen, or who migrate hither without father or mother,
shall be deemed citizens of this commonwealth, until they relinquish that character in manner as herein after expressed: And all others not being citizens of any the United States of America, shall be deemed aliens. (Thomas Jefferson, 1779, A Bill Declaring Who Shall Be Deemed Citizens of This Commonwealth, formatting and line spacing added for readability and clarity).
The Virginia law made citizenship available to all white people who were born in Virginia. If you were born in Virginia and you were not already a citizen, you could, in adulthood, become a citizen by taking an oath. But the Virginia law did not grant immediate and automatic citizenship, at birth, to every white baby born in Virginia. Under Virginia law, automatic citizenship at birth was controlled by the principle of jus sanguinis (“the right of blood”), whereby the citizenship of a child, at the moment of its birth, is the citizenship of its parents. (What ‘Subject to the Jurisdiction Thereof’ Really Means)
New York State law: New York State made a choice to retain the jus soli principle of British Common Law. Anyone born in New York was, at birth, automatically a citizen of New York, regardless of parental citizenship.
The Lynch v. Clarke (1844) case, and other cases such as Munro vs. Merchant (1858), were decided in accordance with British Common Law, not because British Common Law was the national law of the United States, but because it was the applicable State law in New York State. Under New York State law, Julia Lynch was a citizen at birth and therefore she was deemed to be a statutory natural born citizen.
Her natural born citizenship was “statutory” because it depended on the State law that was in effect in the State in which she was born. Had she been born in Virginia instead of New York State, she would not have been a U.S. citizen at birth, and she would not have been a statutory natural born citizen.
The fact that Julia Lynch was deemed to be a statutory natural born citizen in New York State does not necessarily mean that she was a Constitutional natural born citizen, especially since the Supreme Court has, so far, not decided whether Constitutional natural born citizenship extends to children of non-citizen parents and that is exactly why the case needs to be heard.
admin says:
July 26, 2009 at 3:18 am
Based on your first response, you obviously didn’t read my post, or aren’t intelligent enough to comprehend it.
Regarding the Natural Born Subjects argument, you’re wrong again.
First, if the British Common Law principle of jus soli (citizenship by birthplace alone) had been adopted at the national level, what would have been the point of granting each state the right to enact its own birthright citizenship laws?
After the Constitution was adopted, every State had the right to enact laws that deny citizenship at birth to some children born in that State, such as children of African or Native-American descent, and children whose parents were not U.S. citizens. How could the States have acquired or exercised such a right if the nation, as a whole, had embraced the doctrine that “everyone born in the U.S. is a U.S. citizen”? (Defining Natural Born Citizen).
Second, all States were unanimous in granting citizenship at birth to children who met both the jus soli criterion (they were born in the United States) and the jus sanguinis criterion (their parents were U.S. citizens). Some states routinely denied citizenship at birth to children who met only one of these criteria but not both.
A more inclusive definition of “natural born citizen” — which required either jus soli or jus sanguinis but not necessarily both — is unlikely because it would have included people whom some states were denying citizenship to. It is improbable that the Founding Fathers would have permitted states to deny citizenship to natural born citizens. More likely, “natural born citizen” referred to a class of people that all states were already recognizing as undeniable U.S. citizens.
U.S. citizenship is undeniable only in individuals who, at birth, meet both the jus soli and the jus sanguinis criteria. Consequently, the only plausible definition of an undeniable U.S. citizen is the birthers’ definition of “natural born citizen” — a U.S.-born individual whose parents are both U.S. citizen
smrstrauss says:
July 26, 2009 at 3:10 am
Re: In the Wong case, SCOTUS only ruled that he was a citizen, not a natural born citizen.
That’s right. What it said was that Wong was born in the USA. And then it said that being born in the USA is a synonym to being a Natural Born Citizen. “Natural Born” means born in the USA. It stems from Natural Born Subject.
The Wong decision said that:
“Natural-born British subject” means a British subject who has become a British subject at the moment of his birth.”
And then it said:
“Subject’ and ‘citizen’ are, in a degree, convertible terms as applied to natives; and though the term ‘citizen’ seems to be appropriate to republican freemen, yet we are, equally with the inhabitants of all other countries, ’subjects,’ for we are equally bound by allegiance and subjection to the government and law of the land.’
It also says: “It thus clearly appears that, by the law of England for the last three centuries, beginning before the settlement of this country and continuing to the present day, aliens, while residing in the dominions possessed by the Crown of England, were within the allegiance, the obedience, the faith or loyalty, the protection, the power, the jurisdiction of the English Sovereign, and therefore every child born in England of alien parents was a natural-born subject unless the child of an ambassador or other diplomatic agent of a foreign State or of an alien enemy in hostile occupation of the place where the child was born.
III. The same rule was in force in all the English Colonies upon this continent down to the time of the Declaration of Independence, and in the United States afterwards, and continued to prevail under the Constitution as originally established.”
The term “Natural Born Citizen” stems from “Natural Born Subject.” Blackstone says of Natural Born Subjects:
“The children of aliens, born here in England, are, generally speaking, natural-born subjects and entitled to all the privileges of such. In which the constitution of France differs from ours; for there, by their jus albinatus, if a child be born of foreign parents, it is alien.” http://www.lonang.com/exlibris/blackstone/
(And the minor exceptions referred to in “generally speaking” refers to the children of foreign diplomats.)
smrstrauss says:
July 26, 2009 at 2:53 am
Re: If Obama’s citizenship status at birth was “governed” by the laws of a foreign country, how could he, at birth, be subject to sole U.S. jurisdiction, which is an essential requirement for 14th Amendment citizenship?
When you are in the USA (I assume you are in the USA), you are subject to the jurisdiction of the USA. The only people who are not subject to the jurisdiction of the USA are foreign diplomats and their children.
Dual nationality has absolutely no effect on this. Our law is supreme over all other laws when someone is in our jurisdiction. Imagine someone with dual nationality US and another country that has not signed a tax sharing law with the USA. Would the fact that the other country taxes the poor guy affect the ability of the USA to tax him? No of course not.
Let us say that Mexico passed a law making all the children in Texas also citizens of Mexico. Would that make those children any less loyal citizens of the USA? Would we allow a Mexican law to take away the ability of a US citizen to become president?
I do not receive any money from the US government, other than my normal refund, and since I earn money I pay taxes. I do not receive anything from the Obama campaign. They receive money from me.