Words have meanings.
A native-born individual is one who is born on U.S. soil. (This is the subject of considerable dispute because some broadly interpret the 14th Amendment to mean that all “anchor babies” are automatically U.S. citizens. That was certainly not the intention of the amendment’s authors.)
A natural born citizen is a person born on U.S. soil to two U.S.-citizen parents.
A naturalized citizen is a person born in another country who emigrates to the United States and who goes through the legal process to become a U.S. citizen.
A naturalized citizen is a person born in another country who emigrates to the United States and who goes through the legal process to become a U.S. citizen.
A citizen can be any of the above. (All trees are plants but not all plants are trees. All natural born citizens are citizens but not all citizens are natural born citizens.)
Historical documents form the late 18th century confirm that the Founding Fathers clearly understood the term natural born citizen to mean born on U.S. soil to two U.S.-citizen parents. Further, the grandfather clause in Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 of the U.S. Constitution serves no purpose if “natural born” means nothing more than “native born,” or born on U.S. soil.
Obama has been fighting various eligibility lawsuits not to prove that he was born in Hawaii—which he could do simply by producing his long-form birth certificate, if in fact he was born in Honolulu—but to keep the Supreme Court from ruling on the meaning of the term natural born citizen. Obama knows that the Court would be inclined to rule against him, unless it chose to ignore the U.S. Constitution and supporting historical documents. Justices Sotomayor and Kagan would no doubt rule in favor of Obama (in order to keep their jobs), but he very likely would not be able to get five Justices in his corner to give him a 5–4 win. The Court has refused to hear the eligibility cases because the Justices know they should rule against him, and they fear the nationwide riots that would take place as a result. They do not want to be responsible for billions of dollars in property damage and hundreds of deaths. (They would rather watch the U.S. economy be destroyed by Obama’s actions, which could arguably have far more devastating effects than riots.) It is likely that only three Justices have the courage to hear an eligibility case. If there were four, Kerchner v. Obama would have been heard.
Some Obama supporters improperly point to the 14th Amendment to defend him, but that amendment has nothing to do with the term natural born citizen. It merely states that slaves freed after the Civil War are considered U.S. citizens. (Technically, it was not a Civil War, which is a war within a nation to wrest control of that nation. The 1861-1865 “civil war” was technically a war of independence, with the Southern states establishing a new nation called the Confederate States of America. The South was not fighting to take control of the USA, it wanted a separate CSA. Lincoln and the Northern states were denying the Southern states the right to secede and from a new nation, as the 13 colonies had done in 1776. Lincoln therefore placed the power of the federal government over the individual rights of residents of the Southern states. Lincoln's goal was never to free the slaves—and more than a few times he admitted as such—it was to maintain the power of the federal government.) At any rate, the 14th amendment has nothing to do with Obama's ineligibility to serve as president.
If a majority of Americans want the Constitution changed to remove the natural born citizen requirement, they can lobby their legislators to do so. I am personally opposed to such a change, but if it were to pass, so be it. I respect the U.S. Constitution. I do not respect those who ignore it, or those who believe it is no longer applicable simply because it was written long ago. (Laws against murder have been on the books for a long time as well, but that does not give one the right to violate those laws.)
Let us assume for a moment that Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal is not a natural born citizen. (I do not know if he is or is not, as I do not know if his parents were U.S. citizens at the time of his birth. They may have been in the United States on student visas from India, and were perhaps not yet naturalized U.S. citizens.) The Founding Fathers did not want a person like Jindal to serve as president—not because of his Indian heritage, but because he is not far enough removed from that heritage. Assume Jindal became president even if he is not a natural born citizen. Assume also that India and Pakistan engage in a war. Assume that it is in the best interests of the United States for Pakistan to win that war. Does Jindal support Pakistan? Or does he support India?
The same problem could arise with Marco Rubio, who may or may not be a natural born citizen. (His parents were born in Cuba. I do not know when or whether they became U.S. citizens.) Assume the United States has a confrontation with Cuba. Does a President Rubio act only in the best interests of the United States? What if he still has relatives in Cuba? Does he order his generals not to bomb a strategic location in Cuba simply because his aunt and uncle lives there?
Historical documents form the late 18th century confirm that the Founding Fathers clearly understood the term natural born citizen to mean born on U.S. soil to two U.S.-citizen parents. Further, the grandfather clause in Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 of the U.S. Constitution serves no purpose if “natural born” means nothing more than “native born,” or born on U.S. soil.
Obama has been fighting various eligibility lawsuits not to prove that he was born in Hawaii—which he could do simply by producing his long-form birth certificate, if in fact he was born in Honolulu—but to keep the Supreme Court from ruling on the meaning of the term natural born citizen. Obama knows that the Court would be inclined to rule against him, unless it chose to ignore the U.S. Constitution and supporting historical documents. Justices Sotomayor and Kagan would no doubt rule in favor of Obama (in order to keep their jobs), but he very likely would not be able to get five Justices in his corner to give him a 5–4 win. The Court has refused to hear the eligibility cases because the Justices know they should rule against him, and they fear the nationwide riots that would take place as a result. They do not want to be responsible for billions of dollars in property damage and hundreds of deaths. (They would rather watch the U.S. economy be destroyed by Obama’s actions, which could arguably have far more devastating effects than riots.) It is likely that only three Justices have the courage to hear an eligibility case. If there were four, Kerchner v. Obama would have been heard.
Some Obama supporters improperly point to the 14th Amendment to defend him, but that amendment has nothing to do with the term natural born citizen. It merely states that slaves freed after the Civil War are considered U.S. citizens. (Technically, it was not a Civil War, which is a war within a nation to wrest control of that nation. The 1861-1865 “civil war” was technically a war of independence, with the Southern states establishing a new nation called the Confederate States of America. The South was not fighting to take control of the USA, it wanted a separate CSA. Lincoln and the Northern states were denying the Southern states the right to secede and from a new nation, as the 13 colonies had done in 1776. Lincoln therefore placed the power of the federal government over the individual rights of residents of the Southern states. Lincoln's goal was never to free the slaves—and more than a few times he admitted as such—it was to maintain the power of the federal government.) At any rate, the 14th amendment has nothing to do with Obama's ineligibility to serve as president.
If a majority of Americans want the Constitution changed to remove the natural born citizen requirement, they can lobby their legislators to do so. I am personally opposed to such a change, but if it were to pass, so be it. I respect the U.S. Constitution. I do not respect those who ignore it, or those who believe it is no longer applicable simply because it was written long ago. (Laws against murder have been on the books for a long time as well, but that does not give one the right to violate those laws.)
Let us assume for a moment that Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal is not a natural born citizen. (I do not know if he is or is not, as I do not know if his parents were U.S. citizens at the time of his birth. They may have been in the United States on student visas from India, and were perhaps not yet naturalized U.S. citizens.) The Founding Fathers did not want a person like Jindal to serve as president—not because of his Indian heritage, but because he is not far enough removed from that heritage. Assume Jindal became president even if he is not a natural born citizen. Assume also that India and Pakistan engage in a war. Assume that it is in the best interests of the United States for Pakistan to win that war. Does Jindal support Pakistan? Or does he support India?
The same problem could arise with Marco Rubio, who may or may not be a natural born citizen. (His parents were born in Cuba. I do not know when or whether they became U.S. citizens.) Assume the United States has a confrontation with Cuba. Does a President Rubio act only in the best interests of the United States? What if he still has relatives in Cuba? Does he order his generals not to bomb a strategic location in Cuba simply because his aunt and uncle lives there?
If war broke out between the United States and Austria, what would a President Schwarzenegger do? (Schwarzenegger, of course, cannot be president. Not only were his parents not U.S. citizens, he was born in Austria—where Obama thinks they speak “Austrian.”)
In the unlikely event that a war erupts between Great Britain and Kenya, will Obama support Kenya? Even if it is in the best interests of the United States to support Great Britain?
The issue is not the integrity of Governors Jindal or Rubio. I assume they are good, decent people and I likely agree with them on many issues. The point is that the Founding Fathers wanted to reduce as much as possible the likelihood that a president would be placed in a compromising position, where his loyalty to the United States might be in conflict with his loyalty to the nation of his parents' birth. The farther removed the president is from such a conflict, the safer the United States will be. If a president’s parents emigrated to the United States and relinquished their foreign citizenship to become U.S. citizens, the Founding Fathers believed that their subsequent children would be far enough removed from that foreign land to be able to serve as president. The issue is “divided loyalties,” not race or religion or accent or political philosophies.
Obama’s father was not a citizen of the United States. He was a British subject when Obama was born. (Kenya did not yet exist in 1961; the area was a British Protectorate.) Obama's father’s loyalties later transferred to the Republic of Kenya at its founding in 1964. Obama has clearly demonstrated divided loyalties, in his atrocious and insulting treatment of Great Britain, and his support for the radical, Sharia-law-promoting Raila Odinga in his failed attempt to win the Kenyan presidency. Obama not only acted against the interests of the United States in his support of Odinga, he probably violated the Logan Act in the process.
The issue is not the integrity of Governors Jindal or Rubio. I assume they are good, decent people and I likely agree with them on many issues. The point is that the Founding Fathers wanted to reduce as much as possible the likelihood that a president would be placed in a compromising position, where his loyalty to the United States might be in conflict with his loyalty to the nation of his parents' birth. The farther removed the president is from such a conflict, the safer the United States will be. If a president’s parents emigrated to the United States and relinquished their foreign citizenship to become U.S. citizens, the Founding Fathers believed that their subsequent children would be far enough removed from that foreign land to be able to serve as president. The issue is “divided loyalties,” not race or religion or accent or political philosophies.
Obama’s father was not a citizen of the United States. He was a British subject when Obama was born. (Kenya did not yet exist in 1961; the area was a British Protectorate.) Obama's father’s loyalties later transferred to the Republic of Kenya at its founding in 1964. Obama has clearly demonstrated divided loyalties, in his atrocious and insulting treatment of Great Britain, and his support for the radical, Sharia-law-promoting Raila Odinga in his failed attempt to win the Kenyan presidency. Obama not only acted against the interests of the United States in his support of Odinga, he probably violated the Logan Act in the process.
It is the issue of divided loyalty that the Founding Fathers sought to avoid with their inclusion of the natural born citizen requirement. It is clear that they were correct to have those concerns.
Was Obama born in Kenya? That is irrelevant—although if he was that would make it easier for most Americans to understand why he is an illegal occupant of the Oval Office. The issue is that Obama is not a natural born citizen, because his father was not a U.S. citizen.
Don Fredrick
April 19, 2011
An election for President and Commander in Chief of the Military must strive to be above reproach. Our public institutions must give the public confidence that a presidential candidate has complied with the election process that is prescribed by our Constitution and laws. It is only after a presidential candidate satisfies the rules of such a process that he/she can expect members of the public, regardless of their party affiliations, to give him/her the respect that the Office of President so much deserves.
Thanks for posting what is IMO the best, so far, in explaining the N.B.C. classification in simple, yet precise language. It behooves us Constitutionalists to see that this explanation -- or others as succinct, are placed in the Op Ed sections of all American newspapers.
ReplyDeletePlease fix the typo toward the end of the article.
ReplyDeleteCzechoslovakian, Ivanka Obama cannot legally serve
should read
Czechoslovakian, Ivanka Trump cannot legally serve