Dear readers, the day has come to discuss a rather hairy issue. For some time, I’ve been pondering the major questions surrounding our current President’s eligibility to hold the office. It’s a touchy subject, I know, but let me warn you in advance: I’m not going to be drawn into any discussions of racism, so don’t even go there. As with everything else we’ve seen so far, let’s look at the topic objectively and from the point of view of Constitutional law, which regardless of anyone’s personal feelings, has the final say.
So, before we can begin to discuss the question of eligibility, we need to actually establish just what Constitutional law says about a citizen’s qualifications to be President of the United States, so we’re all on the same page. There are three requirements:
- First, the person must be a natural citizen of the United States. (More on this in a minute.)
- Second, the person must be at least 35 years old.
- Finally, the person must reside in the United States for a minimum of 14 years at the time of his election.
We all know that President Obama meets requirements 2 and 3, so let me expand on the first requirement for just a minute. What makes a person a natural citizen? Well, he could be born in the United States, regardless of who his parents are. That automatically makes him a natural citizen. Also, he could be born abroad to two citizens of the United States. That also makes him a natural citizen, as in the case of Mr. Obama’s opponent in the 2008 elections, John McCain, who was born in Panama to two American parents. Finally, if only one of the parents is an American citizen and the child is born abroad, then that parent must have had citizenship for at least 5 years after the age of 14. In other words, if the parent was a citizen at age 14, then the parent must be at least 19 for the child to be born a natural citizen. Pretty convoluted, huh? Anyway, those are the rules.
Oh, one more thing. If a natural citizen at any point in time renounces his citizenship, he automatically loses his eligibility to be president, even if he later regains his citizenship through re-naturalization. This makes him a naturalized citizen, just like any foreign immigrant who comes into the country and gets citizenship. Got it? Good.
Now I’m not even going to touch the birth question. If you want to read a really good analysis of the birth dilemma, go here. The author, Mr. Paul Hollrah, is a recent member of the Electoral College and much more qualified than me to address that part of it (best and brightest, remember?)
Incidentally, a loyal reader and cherished friend asked me a while back, after I wrote that very first post about the Electoral College, whether the College hadn’t in fact verified President Obama’s eligibility before voting him into office. That was part of their job, yes. In fact, a candidate is supposed to be vetted on three different occasions: first, by their party at the time of their nomination, then by the Electoral College during the election process, and finally by Congress before the inauguration. That’s how important it is to our nation that our President be properly qualified! BUT, in terms of the Electoral College, it’s not like they get together and discuss the eligibility of each candidate over coffee or drinks. It’s a secret ballot. Each member of the College has the individual responsibility of deciding for himself whether the candidates are qualified, and they vote based on their personal findings. No member of the Electoral College knows for sure who any other member voted for, though they can probably take a good guess based on their party!
Anyway, for purposes of today’s discussion, I’m going to simply assume that Mr. Obama was born in Hawaii. Why? Because he said so, and I’m going to give him the benefit of the doubt. In fact, I’m going to take everything he’s said at face value and assume he’s telling the truth: that he was, in fact, born a natural citizen.
I’m also going to assume he’s telling the truth when he states in his autobiography that he traveled to Indonesia (to visit his mother, who had renounced her American citizenship) and Pakistan in 1981. And THAT’s what causes a major problem in my mind. You see, no American citizen could have traveled legally to either of those countries on an American passport in 1981. They were considered nations that harbored terrorists and therefore enemies of the United States. So…how did he get there?
I’ve heard some say that Mr. Obama was born with dual citizenship, American and British, because his father was Kenyan and a British subject, and that he could have traveled on a British passport. While it is true that he could have been born with dual citizenship, by 1981 Kenyans were no longer British subjects and he would have had to exchange his British passport for a Kenyan passport, and there’s the catch: Kenya does not allow dual citizenship with the USA for adults. Mr. Obama would have had to choose between his U.S. citizenship and Kenyan citizenship! I’ve also heard the argument that since his mother had obtained Indonesian citizenship, maybe he had dual citizenship with Indonesia. The same rule applies: dual citizenship between the United States and Indonesia is not allowed. The only way Mr. Obama could have traveled to Indonesia and Pakistan legally would have been to renounce his American citizenship!
Which then makes you (or should make you) wonder…how did he get back into the United States? Well, he could have gotten re-naturalized, in which case he is an American citizen, but no longer a natural citizen, and is therefore not eligible for the Presidency. But…why isn’t there a record of that? Even worse scenarios, which I don’t even want to think about, are that we elected a resident alien, or WORSE, an illegal alien! (Maybe that’s why he’s in such a snit over Arizona’s immigration law?)
There is, of course, the best case scenario: that he never gave up his citizenship but simply traveled illegally on his American passport, in which case we simply have a criminal in the Oval Office. Seeing as how this particular crime doesn’t involve smoking marijuana (and not inhaling) but illegally traveling to countries that are Enemies of the State, while his eligibility would then not be in question, in my mind (and hopefully in yours) his loyalty to the United States would be. Still not a good scene.
Even in the best case scenario above, Mr. Obama slipped past his own party, the (mostly Democrat in 2008) Electoral College, and (again, Democrat-controlled) Congress. In their zeal to get him elected, all these people were willing to overlook real (and obvious) issues with Mr. Obama’s eligibility and/or questionable loyalty to the country he is supposed to protect, for our nation’s highest and most powerful office. And they didn’t even need to look further than what he himself admitted to! Why??
I don’t know about you, but to me, Obamacare is the least of our worries…
If your parents are American citizens, but you are born in Italy, where do your loyalties lie?
If you were born on American soil, but your mother is an Italian citizen and you have no clue who your father is, where do your loyalties lie?
If you were born on American soil, your mother is an American citizen, but your father is a Brit, where do your loyalties lie?
The thing is – none of these questions should NEVER have to be asked of an American President. There should NEVER be any question of his heritage so as to cloud any issue of loyalty or allegiance, because the only one person who can answer that question; therefore, in order to alleviate ever having to ask the question, the founding fathers knew that both parents needed to be US citizens and the child needed to be born on US soil in order to be eligible to be POTUS. It was the only way of trying to ensure that POTUS had no outside influences of loyalty or allegiance and would put the US interests first.
We have no way of knowing where Obama’s loyalties/allegiances lie – American, Britain, Kenyan, Indonesian?
You say you want to take the President’s word – well, he has said he was a dual citizen at birth, governed by British Law AT BIRTH. I believe him.
The President is on the record as saying his father served in WWII, so who was his father b/c Obama Sr. certainly was not old enough to have served in WWII, nor was in the correct location at the time of the war to have served. But he said it, and I believe him – do you? If you don’t, why would you believe anything else he has said?
Simply put, how can you believe anything Obama says? He would tell you the moon was mad of cheese, if he though it would make you like him. He isn’t eligible, but not for the reasons you give, and neither was McCain (where does his loyalties lie, Panama or the US?) – The question shouldn’t ever have to even be asked!
If you have to ask a person about loyalties, then that person is not a NBC.
Kismetique – I read your post and what is seems is that you are agreeing with Rosa. However, since I’ve seen some things in your post that raised my eyebrow, I’m going to address some of your points to hopefully clarify them in my own head.
I think we can all agree that we have a problem in the White House. As Cicero said so eloquently:
“”A nation can survive its fools, and even the ambitious. But it cannot survive treason from within. An enemy at the gates is less formidable, for he is known and carries his banner openly. But the traitor moves amongst those within the gate freely, his sly whispers rustling through all the alleys, heard in the very halls of government itself. For the traitor appears not a traitor; he speaks in accents familiar to his victims, and he wears their face and their arguments, he appeals to the baseness that lies deep in the hearts of all men. He rots the soul of a nation, he works secretly and unknown in the night to undermine the pillars of the city, he infects the body politic so that it can no longer resist. A murderer is less to fear. The traitor is the plague.”
Here are some of my thoughts:
Kismetique said: “…in order to alleviate ever having to ask the question, the founding fathers knew that both parents needed to be US citizens and the child needed to be born on US soil in order to be eligible to be POTUS. It was the only way of trying to ensure that POTUS had no outside influences of loyalty or allegiance and would put the US interests first.”
CCBARRON responds: “Our first three U.S. Presidents were not born U.S. citizens; they were born subjects of the British crown and were British citizens. The writers of the Constitution lived in a world where diplomats and citizens would travel abroad for years. They therefore knew that citizenship requirements would have to go far beyond just where a person was born. Through the years we have had numerous issues with eligibility questions from Chester Arthur (born: Canada) to Barry Goldwater (born: Arizona territories before statehood) to Al Gore (born: Washington DC) to John McCain (born: Panama). In fact, Andrew Jackson’s eligibility was even called into question because he once wore women’s undergarments! I’ve never heard Obama say that he was a dual U.S./British national. What Rosa said is that we have to believe him on his assertion of Hawaii as his birthplace because we simply have not been able to refute it. (Don’t blow a gasket, more on this in a sec.) I would be very interested to see quotes from Obama where he mentioned dual citizenship or his father’s service in WW2. Can you point me to them?”
Kimetique said: “Simply put, how can you believe anything Obama says? He would tell you the moon was mad of cheese, if he though it would make you like him.”
CCBARRON says: “It might be helpful to read the underlying tone in what Rosa is saying. Essentially what I read was this — She isn’t a big fan of Obama, particularly because she is viewing him through the lens of his actions. Not a great track record, for sure. What I see her is saying is that it is just as bad for Obama to taken 100% at his word as it is to think he is lying about everything. By his own written account, Mr. Obama has engaged in behavior that is both illegal (use of cocaine/marijuana) and possibly worse, as in the “T” word worse. He wrote that he went to both Indonesia and Pakistan during a time when it was severely illegal for a U.S. citizen to do that. So, in consistent spirit, Rosa believes everything that he says. By doing that, we can ignore the “birther” controversy altogether and focus on the felonies that Obama has admitted to by his own hand. So the logical question remains, “How did a U.S. citizen get to Indonesia and Pakistan in the early 80s and then get back into the country?” I think that’s where Rosa is trying to focus our attention.”
Many, many presidents have had their eligibility questioned. If you want to understand better where his loyalties may lay, watch what he does and definitely take him at his word when it comes to the books he’s written.
Re: “And THAT’s what causes a major problem in my mind. You see, no American citizen could have traveled legally to either of those countries on an American passport in 1981.’
Who told you this? Boy is it ever wrong. the world was a lot different in 1981. For example, US newspapers ran travel articles recommending visiting Pakistan. Pakistan International Airlines had an office on Fifth Avenue in New York, and it flew from JFK Airport via London to Karachi. Pakistan was NOT on any “no travel list,” nor did it bar US citizens from visiting. So, any US citizen could visit using a US passport, which is what Obama used.
Obama never had an Indonesian passport, nor was he an Indonesian citizen. You doubt this? Just call up the Indonesian Embassy and ask for the press officer and he will tell you.
Obama had a US passport in 1981 because he had one earlier when he returned to Hawaii from Indonesia. He did not travel with his mother at that time, so he must have had his own passport. It was a US passport and not a foreign passport because if it were a foreign passport, Obama would have had to get a US visa on that passport. To get a US visa he would have had to have applied in Jakarta. The Republican were in charge of the US State Department for eight years until 2001. If Obama had applied for a US visa when he returned to Hawaii, they would have found it.
Re; ‘If you were born on American soil, your mother is an American citizen, but your father is a Brit, where do your loyalties lie?”
The question cannot be answered by actual allegiance. Even people born in the USA to American parents can be disloyal. The question is legal allegiance. What is the criterion of legal allegiance? According to James Madison there is only one criterion of legal allegiance in the United States. The PLACE of birth. Not the parents, not the parents and the place of birth. Only the place of birth.
He 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.” (In a speech before the House of Representatives in May of 1789.)
Did you know, by the way, that Thomas Jefferson was a dual national? He was granted FULL citizenship by France (not just honorary citizenship. It included the right to vote and to run for office).
Re” 14 CONSECUTIVE years of residence. No, just 14 years total. They do not have to be consecutive. In the case of Eisenhower, of course, they were not. He was busy in Africa and Europe from 1942 through late 1945.
Re: “I’ve never heard Obama say that he was a dual U.S./British national. ‘
Actually, he did. He said that his father’s citizenship made him a British citizen at the time of his birth in his first book. But dual nationality has no effect on Natural Born Citizenship status, as the Jefferson example holds. There are a couple of JAG rulings in which it was shown that it is possible to be a Natural Born Citizen of at least two countries at the same time since the two do not affect each other. The rulings held that because of birth in the USA a soldier in each case was a Natural Born Citizen. But, because his parents were German nationals, he was also a Natural Born Citizen of Germany.
There was some discussion of what would happen if the Germans captured the soldiers and tried them for treason. The answer was that if Germany did anything like that, we would try the people who tried him at the end of the war. (The cases were in WWI by the way.)
Re: “since his mother had obtained Indonesian citizenship, ‘
Actually, his mother also never had Indonesian citizenship, as recent FOIA document releases show. Also, you can call the Indonesian embassy and ask about that too.
Hey “TedStevens”, I’d love to see some, any, source material for what you listed in your comments above. Since your information is so detailed, the source material should be easy for you to share. Telling us to place a call to the Indonesian embassy doesn’t count!
I’m familiar with the Madison quote although you have misapplied it to your argument. You stated that, according to Madison, birthplace is the *only* criterion for the determination of citizenship. The quote is quite clear in expressing that birthplace is merely the most *certain* arbiter of citizenship.
While I agree with you that the Constitution does not require consecutive years but only 14 total years of residency, the way you applied it to Eisenhower is incorrect. Soldiers on overseas deployment are considered active residents in the United States within their official state of domicile.
http://www.robins.af.mil/shared/media/document/AFD-090317-037.pdf
http://www.brooks.af.mil/library/factsheets/factsheet.asp?id=6248
According to the Geneva convention and older military tradition, the uniform of a soldier is the sole arbiter for making determination as to nationality. That is what defines a “legal combatant”. If the uniform is worn as subterfuge, the prisoner is considered a “spy” and is not covered under the Geneva Convention articles.
Thanks for the correction re: consecutive years in residence. Duly noted and corrected above. I’ve also corrected the Supreme Court thing. It is Congress that must verify eligibility before inauguration. Makes the case even worse, though, since Congress was controlled by Democrats. I stand by all my other arguments, as calling Embassies or the State Department today is unlikely to generate an honest reponse.
Re; “Soldiers on overseas deployment are considered active residents in the United States within their official state of domicile.”
I accept that, but I must point out that Eisenhower himself was no sure. Another president who was not sure was Hoover, who also had not been in the USA for the full 14 years prior to the election. But as we both agree, it does not matter, the Constitution does not say “consecutive.”
I am saddened by your willingness to believe professional birthers, some of whom published as facts forged birth certificates “from Kenya” and others of whom lied about the grandmother saying that he was born in Kenya when she clearly said on the tape that they are referring to that he was born in Hawaii. When a site like this said “he must have been an Indonesian citizen,” surely it makes sense to check out the allegation with the authority in that area, the Indonesian government.
As the the Pakistan claim, it is another made up story. I remember the Pakistan International Airlines office on Fifth Avenue. The New York Times ran a travel article recommending visiting Pakistan in 1981 (http://www.nytimes.com/1981/06/14/travel/lahore-a-survivor-with-a-bittersweet-history.html?scp=1&sq=lahore&st=nyt).
Once again, you could check the allegation that Pakistan was on a “no travel list” in 1981 by calling the embassy of Pakistan or the US State Department or both, but then you undoubtedly think that they would lie.
Wikipedia wrote this (but then Wikipedia is a left-wing source):
“It has also been claimed that Obama could not be a natural-born citizen because he traveled to Pakistan at a time when there was a ban on United States passport holders entering that country, which means he must have traveled using a non-U.S. passport. The OC Weekly comments that these assertions are not true:
” The Pakistan “travel ban” is a complete fabrication based on zero evidence and completely contradicted by State Department records and a 1981 New York Times article.[56]
The New York Times article mentioned, along with U.S. State Department travel advisories from 1981, make it clear that travel to Pakistan by U.S. passport holders was possible at that time.[57][58]” (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barack_Obama_citizenship_conspiracy_theories#Claims_about_travel_to_Pakistan_using_a_non-U.S._passport)
Re: It is the responsibility of Congress to check. According to the conservative judicial approach of strict construction, if the words ‘Congress must check eligibility” or something to that effect do not appear in the Constitution, then it is not the law. There is not a word to that effect. To be sure, you may feel that it should be the responsibility of somebody to check or that the responsibility is implied, but we cannot deduce a legal responsibility when there are no words that say it.
The same of course, applies to the “two parent theory,” If the Constitution does not actually say “two citizen parents” or the Federalist Papers, or the letters or articles of the writers, then neither a strict-constructionist nor an originalist would vote that they are required.
In the future, we can pass a law making it the responsibility, but there is nothing now. As you know, the Congress did not check on the eligibility of any president or candidate prior to Obama. (Some say that the Senate checked on McCain but it was more of a discussion of Natural Born Citizen than a fact-checking session as to whether McCain really was born on the Naval Base).
I stand corrected on the Madison quotation. He only listed one source of Allegiance and he said that that one source is what applies in the USA, but he did not say that there was only one source of allegiance.
One of the two JAG cases reads:
Opinions of the judge advocate general of the army, Volume 2, 1919
ALIEN Citizenship of American Born Son of Nonnaturalized Alien.
A man who was born in this country though of German parents is a natural born citizen of the United States United States Constitution fourteenth amendment. Such a person had a double allegiance by birth but his permanent residence in the United States after attaining his majority indicates an election of United States citizenship. Thus the American view is that he was an American citizen originally and that he has now no other citizenship. 3 Moore’s Dig Int Law 532 539 (http://nativeborncitizen.wordpress.com/2010/01/02/opinions-of-the-judge-advocate-general-of-the-army-volume-2/)
That says that the US-born man is a US Natural Born Citizen, It says that he was a German citizen, not a German Natural Born Citizen. I realize now that that was in the other case, which I cannot locate. However, the ruling is clear that the fact of citizenship in Germany through the parents, has no effect on the Natural Born Citizen status of the soldier.
Re Jefferson becoming a French citizen. Here is the source (http://books.google.com/books?id=NPJBAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA713&dq=dane+jefferson+france+citizen&lr=&as_brr=0&cd=1#v=onepage&q&f=false)
According to this, not only Jefferson but Washington, Franklin, and Hamilton (and Tom Paine and Macintosh, whomever he was) were all made citizens of France. (http://books.google.com/books?id=06mE_qSjWHUC&pg=PA110&dq=Jefferson+%22citizen+of+france%22&hl=en&ei=MtSGTOjtD4H48AbPir39AQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=7&ved=0CEgQ6AEwBg#v=onepage&q=Jefferson%20%22citizen%20of%20france%22&f=false). I had heard that of these only Jefferson was a full citizen and the others honorary citizens, but I may have been misinformed on this.
This indicates that Madison too was named a citizen of France (Presumably the law would still apply even though the French misspelled his name) also Hamilton (they got his first name wrong) (http://books.google.com/books?id=vVD3rK1CscIC&pg=PA313&dq=Jefferson+%22citizen+of+france%22&hl=en&ei=ytiGTOrTDMP-8Aa1gsjdAQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=9&ved=0CEcQ6AEwCDgo#v=onepage&q=Jefferson%20%22citizen%20of%20france%22&f=false).
Of those listed, only Washington, Jefferson and Madison became president. There are some reports that Washington was naturalized by France AFTER he was president, so this would not count. Hamilton did not make it to the presidency, but he had a good chance of becoming president if it were not for the dual.
It seems to be taking while for my comment to be moderated.
Re the final “dual.’ Sorry, that should of course read duel.
I apologize, for some reason I get notified of some comments but not others. And some appear automatically without the need for moderation and others sit there without my knowledge. I’ll check with the site admin about this. Thanks for your patience.
Well, the purpose of this site is to generate commentary and debate, so by those standards it has succeeded wildly in this particular instance. I must admit that I find it difficult to properly respond to you for several reasons.
1. You are resorting to personal attacks:
ex: “Once again, you could check the allegation that Pakistan was on a “no travel list” in 1981 by calling the embassy of Pakistan or the US State Department or both, but then you undoubtedly think that they would lie. ”
ex:”Wikipedia wrote this (but then Wikipedia is a left-wing source):”
I use Wikipedia all the time, albeit with a grain of salt. Same way I use Fox News and MSNBC.
2. Accuse me and/or the author of being a “birther”.
ex:”I am saddened by your willingness to believe professional birthers, some of whom published as facts forged birth certificates….”
The entire article and commentary has indicated explicitly that President Obama has been taken at his word when he lists Hawaii as his birth location.
It’s not fun to debate someone who won’t stick to the original points or bases their arguments on things that *weren’t* said!
3. Misrepresent history to fit an argument about dual citizenship.
ex: “Dual” French citizenship – “According to this, not only Jefferson but Washington, Franklin, and Hamilton (and Tom Paine and Macintosh, whomever he was) were all made citizens of France”.
As I sure that you know, any country can give favors – medals, honorary knighthoods, citizenship – to any U.S. citizen for any reason. The only disqualifier is if the citizen formally accepts the citizenship and renounces allegiance to the U.S. Following the logic of your argument, Iraq could have simply made George W. Bush and Dick Cheney Iraqi citizens prior to the invasion in 2003. Following that line, Bush and Cheney would have become ineligible to hold the presidency and the invasion would have been off.
I appreciate the dialogue and hope you’ll come back for future posts!