Sunday, August 22, 2010

Defend Obama Against Birth Certificate Lies

We at the Trotwod Democratic ask you take a few minutes to help us defend against the continuing belief by some in our city and country that President Obama's Birth Certificate and his right as a natural born US Citizen is somehow in doubt.

During Senator Obama's campaign for the presidency a valid copy of his birth certificate was provided and displayed on the internet. No legal challenge has convinced any judge in this country that this document is flawed.

In addition, according to the 14th Amendment, in the abscence of a valid birth certificate no other claims or accusation presented by anyone would cause him to be disqualified as a natural born citizen.

We encourage you to challenge anyone who continues to beleive President Obama is not a natural born citizen of our great country. This lie does not deserve to go unanswered.

Excerpt from USConstitution.net
Who is a natural-born citizen? Who, in other words, is a citizen at birth, such that that person can be a President someday?

The 14th Amendment defines citizenship this way: "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." But even this does not get specific enough. As usual, the Constitution provides the framework for the law, but it is the law that fills in the gaps. The Constitution authorizes the Congress to do create clarifying legislation in Section 5 of the 14th Amendment; the Constitution, in Article 1, Section 8, Clause 4, also allows the Congress to create law regarding naturalization, which includes citizenship.

Currently, Title 8 of the U.S. Code fills in the gaps left by the Constitution. Section 1401 defines the following as people who are "citizens of the United States at birth:"

•Anyone born inside the United States *
•Any Indian or Eskimo born in the United States, provided being a citizen of the U.S. does not impair the person's status as a citizen of the tribe
•Any one born outside the United States, both of whose parents are citizens of the U.S., as long as one parent has lived in the U.S.
•Any one born outside the United States, if one parent is a citizen and lived in the U.S. for at least one year and the other parent is a U.S. national
•Any one born in a U.S. possession, if one parent is a citizen and lived in the U.S. for at least one year
•Any one found in the U.S. under the age of five, whose parentage cannot be determined, as long as proof of non-citizenship is not provided by age 21
•Any one born outside the United States, if one parent is an alien and as long as the other parent is a citizen of the U.S. who lived in the U.S. for at least five years (with military and diplomatic service included in this time)
•A final, historical condition: a person born before 5/24/1934 of an alien father and a U.S. citizen mother who has lived in the U.S.
* There is an exception in the law — the person must be "subject to the jurisdiction" of the United States. This would exempt the child of a diplomat, for example, from this provision.

Anyone falling into these categories is considered natural-born, and is eligible to run for President or Vice President. These provisions allow the children of military families to be considered natural-born, for example.

4 comments:

Micheal said...

"No legal challenge has convinced any judge in this country that this document is flawed." Please note that no judge could have ever ruled on the birth documents one way or another, simply because no case has yet been tried, as of this date August 22, 2010.

Also, you quote that the Constitution, in Article 1, Section 8, Clause 4, also allows the Congress to create law regarding naturalization, which includes citizenship. And thereunder Congress has defined a number of situations making "citizens of the United States at birth". The author then takes a leap of logic and concludes "Anyone falling into these categories is considered natural-born" when that was never said in the materials you quote.

The problem is that there is a critical difference between a "citizen" and a "natural born citizen". A "natural born citizen" is the child of two "citizens", that is, a 2nd generation citizen of the US. That is what Obama is not - he admits his father was a British citizen.

No lies here, these are just facts.

Admin said...

Micheal,

I said no judge was 'convinced'. None of these cases provided enough evidence to covince a judge to proceed to trial. I doubt there will ever be a case tried because there is insufficient evidence.

The constitution makes no difference between the terms "citizens of the United States at birth" and "natural-born". To suppose otherwise is grasping at straws. The passage clearly states that both parents need not be US citizens.
-Bruce

Micheal said...

Bruce,

Thank you for your comment. But I must clarify your first point. The reason no cases have been tried is because judges have denied "standing" to the plaintiffs. The issue is not lack of evidence. No case has considered any evidence. Only when a case gets beyond the judicially created "standing" barrier is evidence reviewed. It will be informative for everyone when we get beyond technicalities to the real issues.

On your second point, remember that in law qualifying words are always presumed to have meaning. I recommend the cited article below as a careful legal explanation of what "natural born" means when placed before "citizen". Those words are right there in the Constitutional requirement for the Presidency, and not elsewhere.

http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2010/03/obama-maybe-citizen-of-united-states.html

Admin said...

Micheal thank you for the info. I have read your suggested explanation and beleive the author did a nice job of trying to make a case but failed.