Arianna joins Keith Olbermann to talk about the Supreme Court's refusal to hear a lawsuit on whether Obama is a natural-born citizen, and whether accusations of illegitimacy from the far Right will follow Obama throughout his presidency.
Arianna joins Keith Olbermann to talk about the Supreme Court's refusal to hear a lawsuit on whether Obama is a natural-born citizen, and whether accusations of illegitimacy from the far Right will fo...
Arianna joins Keith Olbermann to talk about the Supreme Court's refusal to hear a lawsuit on whether Obama is a natural-born citizen, and whether accusations of illegitimacy from the far Right will fo...
With regard to the Supreme Court's denial of Leo Donofrio's application for an emergency stay of the Electoral College vote, we may at least thank Mr. Donofrio for shedding light on the origin of the phrase "natural born citizen" in the U.S. Constitution.
Emerich de Vattel was a Swiss jurist, whose textbook "The Law of Nations" was highly influential in the period from 1758 to 1900. The Founding Fathers were very familiar with Vattel, who stated "natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens."
Ben Franklin wrote of Vattel's book, "It . . has been continually in the hands of the members of our Congress.” The librarian at Carpenters Hall reported that Vattel was the primary source read by the delegates of the Continental Congress. Chief Justice John Marshall quoted from Vattel more than from any other author.
Vattel's definition was repeated by the Supreme Court in Minor v. Happersett (1885): “It was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves . . . natural-born citizens.”
Furthermore, in U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark (1898) Justice Gray re-affirmed the Minor v. Happersett interpretation: “In Minor v. Happersett, Chief Justice Waite . . . said: ‘The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that.’ And he proceeded to resort to the common law as an aid in the construction of this provision.”
hurst198: With regard to the Supreme Court's denial of Leo Donofrio's
All the blogging on either side of the issue will mean nothing other that to shape perhaps the minds of the potential jurors.
The issue of concern before the court will either be considered or it won't. If the proponents of the issue succeed in getting their day in court the Jurors will address an issue that is very Unique indeed. Of all the political offices the presidency follows both the same path as a local alderman to get elected and the unique path of the single nationally elected office.
This path is called the candidate filing form. One thing is for certain, neither Barack Obama nor any of the other candidates were required to provide any documentation of proof of birth, proof of parentage, or birth location on any candidate form. It simply doesn't exist in any state in the Union. Its not part of the Federal election commission rules or regulations. Its not even explicitly required in the constitution.
If any real benefit can come from this is that both federal and state authorities need to enact legislation.The party's also need to adopt rules that require proof of birth, finger printing,and credit reports. They also need to adopt rules that compel the testing of a candidates biometrics and a background check. The current form and practices are a travesty and as such now has Barack under the gun.
Most private firms require a relinquishment of privacy but election officials don't.
Azrblogger: All the blogging on either side of the issue will
The U. S. Constitution provides the basic legal framework of our government. The U. S. Code is the codification of the permanent federal law of the United States.
It appears from U. S. Code that there can be only two categories of U. S. citizenship:
--citizens of the United States who are citizens at birth (natural-born or native-born citizens)
--citizens of the United States who were not citizens at birth (nationalized citizens)
The following Section 1401 of Title 8 defines who are U. S. citizens at birth:
U. S. CODE > TITLE 8 > CHAPTER 12 > SUBCHAPTER III > Part I > § 1401. Nationals and citizens of United States at birth http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/8/1401.html
The following Section 1101 of Title 8 defines the words "national" and "alien":
U. S. CODE > TITLE 8 > CHAPTER 12 > SUBCHAPTER I > § 1101. Definitions http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/8/1101.html
evekendall: The U. S. Constitution provides the basic legal framework of
if they were "just sore losers" ignoring them would be reflexive. --they are far more than that. those who can recall kennith star and the multi-millions of tax payer money spent by the GOP "shadow government" to take down bill clinton and reclaim power know what's coming. the politics of destruction is the GOP's ONLY mastery.
in4success: if they were "just sore losers" ignoring them would be
So many poster ask questions like "Where is this inanity coming from?" Besides coming from just plain right wing, wingnuts, it's also stoked by the people who ask me for my "green card" when they find out my father was Puerto Rican.
More people than you think really don't have a clue.
Aranxa: So many poster ask questions like "Where is this inanity
This is ridiculous..Its simple, If you were born in America then you are an American citizen. This is like discussing why 1 plus 1 equals 2....Writing out the family tree should only come into play if you were not born on US soil, in order to figure out if someone is legitimate. But people are making up scenarios to legitimize an argument to question President Elect Obama citizenship. These nuts that's obsessed with this have to much time on their hands.
yvetteb6374: This is ridiculous..Its simple, If you were born in America
Not to nitpick, but being born on American soil isn't a requirement. John McCain wasn't, Mitt Romney's father wasn't, Barry Goldwater wasn't, but all of them were eligible. It's being born a citizen that counts, which he was under any proposed scenario.
That's the part that makes every "challenge" so ridiculous: That even if every "claim" these idiots are making were proven 100% true, he'd STILL be eligible as a natural born citizen.
Which means it is, as I satirically posted on another site, like trying to make an argument that Boba Fett wasn't proven to be a clone of Jango Fett and therefore isn't a character from Star Wars. Even if the fallacy were proven true, the conclusion is still wrong.
rwt1138: Not to nitpick, but being born on American soil isn't
On behalf of my Alaskan relatives I have to nitpick here...
Obama would still be an American citizen even if he were born in Hawaii BEFORE it became a state. It was a US territory for years before official statehood.
My mother was born in Alaska well before it became a state and she is a fully natural born American citizen:
From Wikipedia:
"All persons born in Alaska on or after June 2, 1924 are natural-born citizens of the United States. Alaska was declared U.S. State on January 3, 1959."
"All persons born in Hawaii on or after April 30, 1900, are natural-born citizens of the United States. Hawaii was declared U.S. State on August 21, 1959."
Original sources: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/8/1404.html http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/8/1405.html
There are similar provisions for Puerto Rico, Guam, the US Virgin Islands and the Panama Canal Zone (McCain's place of birth) and a few other smaller US possessions.
kylennblack: On behalf of my Alaskan relatives I have to nitpick
"He WAS born in Hawaii (after statehood). He IS an American citizen."
CORRECTION NECESSARY: Even before Hawaii became a state, it was a territory of the United States, beginning around 1898. Anyone born in Hawaii after that is a native born citizen. Citizenship for Hawiians did NOT begin only with statehood.
suntzu: "He WAS born in Hawaii (after statehood). He IS an
The funny thing is that not too long ago the right was talking about changing the law to so that the California govenor Arnold S could run for president.
BryantG: The funny thing is that not too long ago the
This is nothing more than Whitewater redux. From 1992-2000, the rethugs went bat-crazy over a failed real estate deal by the Clintons. If the Clintons coughed too loudly it was grounds to appoint a Special Investigator and launch a fool's errand, in search of ??? So, now it's Barack's turn at bat, but we've seen this game before, and we know now how to finish it. LOOOOSERS!!!!!
ThinkLiberal: This is nothing more than Whitewater redux. From 1992-2000, the
Emerich de Vattel was a Swiss jurist, whose textbook "The Law of Nations" was highly influential in the period from 1758 to 1900. The Founding Fathers were very familiar with Vattel, who stated "natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens."
Ben Franklin wrote of Vattel's book, "It . . has been continually in the hands of the members of our Congress.” The librarian at Carpenters Hall reported that Vattel was the primary source read by the delegates of the Continental Congress. Chief Justice John Marshall quoted from Vattel more than from any other author.
Vattel's definition was repeated by the Supreme Court in Minor v. Happersett (1885): “It was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves . . . natural-born citizens.”
Furthermore, in U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark (1898) Justice Gray re-affirmed the Minor v. Happersett interpretation: “In Minor v. Happersett, Chief Justice Waite . . . said: ‘The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that.’ And he proceeded to resort to the common law as an aid in the construction of this provision.”
The issue of concern before the court will either be considered or it won't. If the proponents of the issue succeed in getting their day in court the Jurors will address an issue that is very Unique indeed. Of all the political offices the presidency follows both the same path as a local alderman to get elected and the unique path of the single nationally elected office.
This path is called the candidate filing form. One thing is for certain, neither Barack Obama nor any of the other candidates were required to provide any documentation of proof of birth, proof of parentage, or birth location on any candidate form. It simply doesn't exist in any state in the Union. Its not part of the Federal election commission rules or regulations. Its not even explicitly required in the constitution.
If any real benefit can come from this is that both federal and state authorities need to enact legislation.The party's also need to adopt rules that require proof of birth, finger printing,and credit reports. They also need to adopt rules that compel the testing of a candidates biometrics and a background check. The current form and practices are a travesty and as such now has Barack under the gun.
Most private firms require a relinquishment of privacy but election officials don't.
It appears from U. S. Code that there can be only two categories of U. S. citizenship:
--citizens of the United States who are citizens at birth (natural-born or native-born citizens)
--citizens of the United States who were not citizens at birth (nationalized citizens)
The following Section 1401 of Title 8 defines who are U. S. citizens at birth:
U. S. CODE > TITLE 8 > CHAPTER 12 > SUBCHAPTER III > Part I > § 1401. Nationals and citizens of United States at birth
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/8/1401.html
The following Section 1101 of Title 8 defines the words "national" and "alien":
U. S. CODE > TITLE 8 > CHAPTER 12 > SUBCHAPTER I > § 1101. Definitions
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/8/1101.html
More people than you think really don't have a clue.
That's the part that makes every "challenge" so ridiculous: That even if every "claim" these idiots are making were proven 100% true, he'd STILL be eligible as a natural born citizen.
Which means it is, as I satirically posted on another site, like trying to make an argument that Boba Fett wasn't proven to be a clone of Jango Fett and therefore isn't a character from Star Wars. Even if the fallacy were proven true, the conclusion is still wrong.
No, it is NOT enough to equivocate about Obama's citizenship...."Even if..." etc.
He WAS born in Hawaii (after statehood). He IS an American citizen.
And he is not a MUSLIM, either (not that there's anything wrong with that--he just ISN'T).
Obama would still be an American citizen even if he were born in Hawaii BEFORE it became a state. It was a US territory for years before official statehood.
My mother was born in Alaska well before it became a state and she is a fully natural born American citizen:
From Wikipedia:
"All persons born in Alaska on or after June 2, 1924 are natural-born citizens of the United States. Alaska was declared U.S. State on January 3, 1959."
"All persons born in Hawaii on or after April 30, 1900, are natural-born citizens of the United States. Hawaii was declared U.S. State on August 21, 1959."
Original sources:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/8/1404.html
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/8/1405.html
There are similar provisions for Puerto Rico, Guam, the US Virgin Islands and the Panama Canal Zone (McCain's place of birth) and a few other smaller US possessions.
CORRECTION NECESSARY: Even before Hawaii became a state, it was a territory of the United States, beginning around 1898. Anyone born in Hawaii after that is a native born citizen. Citizenship for Hawiians did NOT begin only with statehood.
Obama's citizenship is not debatable.
8
What's so difficult about that?
I am just happy on Jan. 20th he will be our President!