Njon
08-03-2009, 08:22 PM
August 4th is Barack Obama's birthday, and I have an idea for giving an activism 'present' to Congress.
According to Glenn Thrush, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid denounced the birther issue Monday on the Senate floor, saying that it "ignores the undeniable and proven fact that President Obama was born in the United States."
REFERENCE: Glenn Thrush. "Reid Hits 'Artificial Controversy' of Birthers." Politico. Capitol News Company LLC. August 3, 2009. Accessed August 3, 2009. http://www.politico.com/blogs/glennthrush/0809/Reid_hits_artificial_controversy_of_birthers.html
However, there's something that Senator Reid is ignoring, and that's the historical/legal matter that even if Obama was born in Hawaii as he claims, he still may be ineligible to be president because he held Kenyan/British citizenship at birth thru his father under the British Nationality Act of 1948, and possessed foreign citizenship until he was 21 years old.
REFERENCE: FactCheck.org. Annenberg Public Policy Center of the University of Pennsylvania. August 29, 2008. http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/does_barack_obama_have_kenyan_citizenship.html Referenced at: Fight the Smears. Obama for America. 2008. Accessed June 27, 2009. http://fightthesmears.com/articles/5/birthcertificate
(Note that this website used to be listed under the ownership of Obama for America. When it was accessed on August 3, 2009 it was listed as belonging to Organizing for America, a project of the Democratic National Committee. Peculiar.)
Leo Donofrio Esq. asks the pertinent question: "Can you please tell the American people how a natural born citizen of the United States can be governed – at birth – by British law?"
REFERENCE: Leo Donofrio, Esq. "World Net Daily Drops The POTUS Ineligiblity (sic) Ball…" Natural Born Citizen. June 23, 2009. Accessed August 1, 2009. http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/2009/06/23/world-net-daily-drops-the-potus-ineligiblity-ball/
It's a simple question, and an objective one at that. It's not conspiracy; it's simply a matter of fact. Why won't Congress address this issue? As Mr. Donofrio also said, "It’s hardly a fringe concept to expect and demand that the Commander in Chief was never a citizen of another nation."
REFERENCE: Leo Donofrio, Esq. "The Relevant Obama Admission." Natural Born Citizen. July 29, 2009. Updated twice that same day. Accessed August 3, 2009. http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/2009/07/29/the-relevant-obama-admission-2/
In his treatise, Vattel stated that “The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens.” And he went on to state, "I say, that, in order to be of the country, it is necessary that a person be born of a father who is a citizen ; for, if be (sic) is born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country."
REFERENCE: Monsieur de Vattel. The Law of Nations. New edition by Joseph Chitty with notes and additions by Edward D. Ingraham. Philadelphia: T. & J. W. Johnson & Co., Law Booksellers, 1867. 101. Accessed June 26 and/or 27, 2009. http://books.google.com/books?id=0B0MAAAAYAAJ&pg=PP7
ALSO SEE REFERENCE (on the significance of Vattel): "Emmerich de Vattel." Encyclopędia Britannica. 2009. Encyclopędia Britannica Online. Accessed July 6, 2009. http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/624086/Emmerich-de-Vattel
The U.S. Supreme Court quoted Vattel as saying, "The natives or indigenes are those born in the country of parents who are citizens."
REFERENCE: The Venus, 12 U.S. 8 Cranch 289 (1814). Cited at the U.S. Supreme Court Center. Justia & Oyez & Forms WorkFlow. Accessed July 26, 2009. http://supreme.justia.com/us/12/253/case.html
The Supreme Court also stated, "The Constitution does not in words say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first."
REFERENCE: Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 21 Wall. 167-168 (1874). Cited at the U.S. Supreme Court Center. Justia & Oyez & Forms WorkFlow. Accessed July 26, 2009. http://supreme.justia.com/us/88/162/case.html
(Note that this case was decided after the ratification of the 14th amendment, meaning the court held that said amendment did not define a "natural born citizen;" it merely defined a citizen, and here the court points us to external historical sources (of which Vattel would be one such an authority) to discover the definition of a "natural born citizen." See the post on this matter by Leo Donofrio, Esq. at http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/2009/07/27/obama-is-guilty-on-at-least-two-counts-of-false-swearing/ initially dated July 27, 2009, updated July 28, 2009.)
In the Virginia ratifying convention of the Constitution, Madison said, "It is to be presumed that, in transactions with foreign countries, those who regulate them will feel the whole force of national attachment to their country. The contrast being between their own nation and a foreign nation, is it not presumable they will, as far as possible, advance the interest of their own country?"
REFERENCE: Madison. “Thursday, June 19, 1788″ (misprinted by Jonathan Elliot as “Wednesday, June 18, 1788″). Jonathan Elliot. “The Debates in the Convention of the Commonwealth of Virginia, on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution.” The Debates in the Several State Conventions on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution. 1836. Book compiled by Jon Roland of The Constitution Society, September 5, 1995 at http://www.constitution.org/elliot.htm Updated October 21, 2001. Specific section which was cited accessed July 29, 2009. http://www.constitution.org/rc/rat_va_16.htm
Madison’s point reflects the mindset that a government official involved in foreign affairs will obviously seek the interests of his own country more than that of another country, and that in fact, they will seek their own country’s interests to the fullest possible extent. This gives us good reason to believe that the founders intended to exclude dual citizens (like Obama, assuming he was born in Hawaii) from the ‘natural born’ category, seeing as a dual citizen may well have conflicting national interests, rendering such a person incapable of fully and properly representing the foreign interests of the United States. In Obama’s own case, he had foreign citizenship until he was an adult, by which time he would certainty have had the chance to intellectually-develop at least something of a national attachment.
So let's make sure Congress hears from us this August 4th so that we can get an answer to that pertinent aforementioned question posed by Mr. Donofrio: "Can you please tell the American people how a natural born citizen of the United States can be governed – at birth – by British law?"
I propose that on the evening of August 4th, wait until the offices of your two U.S. senators and representative are closed. Then call their closest district office and leave them a brief voice mail. It can go something like this (this is just a sample. Please use your own words; it will be more effective):
"Today is August 4th: Barack Obama's birthday. Recently there has been a lot of additional controversy surrounding Obama's birth certificate. However, Congress and the media are essentially ignoring an even more important matter: the fact that Obama was born a foreign citizen governed under the British Nationality Act of 1948, and held foreign citizenship until he was 21 years old. Obama even admitted as much on his official Fight the Smears website. The founders intended to keep foreign influence out of the office of president, so is it so much to expect that the chief executive was never the citizen of a foreign nation? And can you explain to the American people how a natural born United States citizen could be governed at birth by foreign citizenship law? Do you have an answer for your constituents as to this vital question? What do you plan to do in order to resolve it?"
You can also call their D.C. office, of course, or any of their district offices, but if you do nothing else I suggest simply calling the closest district office because it's more convenient and that way, in many cases, you won't have to make a long-distance call. Ideally, when their staff comes in to work on Wednesday morning their voice mail boxes will be filled with messages from many constituents asking that essential question, and demanding that they do something about it. And if you're so inclined, you may also consider calling and leaving a similar message for your state's governor.
According to Glenn Thrush, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid denounced the birther issue Monday on the Senate floor, saying that it "ignores the undeniable and proven fact that President Obama was born in the United States."
REFERENCE: Glenn Thrush. "Reid Hits 'Artificial Controversy' of Birthers." Politico. Capitol News Company LLC. August 3, 2009. Accessed August 3, 2009. http://www.politico.com/blogs/glennthrush/0809/Reid_hits_artificial_controversy_of_birthers.html
However, there's something that Senator Reid is ignoring, and that's the historical/legal matter that even if Obama was born in Hawaii as he claims, he still may be ineligible to be president because he held Kenyan/British citizenship at birth thru his father under the British Nationality Act of 1948, and possessed foreign citizenship until he was 21 years old.
REFERENCE: FactCheck.org. Annenberg Public Policy Center of the University of Pennsylvania. August 29, 2008. http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/does_barack_obama_have_kenyan_citizenship.html Referenced at: Fight the Smears. Obama for America. 2008. Accessed June 27, 2009. http://fightthesmears.com/articles/5/birthcertificate
(Note that this website used to be listed under the ownership of Obama for America. When it was accessed on August 3, 2009 it was listed as belonging to Organizing for America, a project of the Democratic National Committee. Peculiar.)
Leo Donofrio Esq. asks the pertinent question: "Can you please tell the American people how a natural born citizen of the United States can be governed – at birth – by British law?"
REFERENCE: Leo Donofrio, Esq. "World Net Daily Drops The POTUS Ineligiblity (sic) Ball…" Natural Born Citizen. June 23, 2009. Accessed August 1, 2009. http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/2009/06/23/world-net-daily-drops-the-potus-ineligiblity-ball/
It's a simple question, and an objective one at that. It's not conspiracy; it's simply a matter of fact. Why won't Congress address this issue? As Mr. Donofrio also said, "It’s hardly a fringe concept to expect and demand that the Commander in Chief was never a citizen of another nation."
REFERENCE: Leo Donofrio, Esq. "The Relevant Obama Admission." Natural Born Citizen. July 29, 2009. Updated twice that same day. Accessed August 3, 2009. http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/2009/07/29/the-relevant-obama-admission-2/
In his treatise, Vattel stated that “The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens.” And he went on to state, "I say, that, in order to be of the country, it is necessary that a person be born of a father who is a citizen ; for, if be (sic) is born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country."
REFERENCE: Monsieur de Vattel. The Law of Nations. New edition by Joseph Chitty with notes and additions by Edward D. Ingraham. Philadelphia: T. & J. W. Johnson & Co., Law Booksellers, 1867. 101. Accessed June 26 and/or 27, 2009. http://books.google.com/books?id=0B0MAAAAYAAJ&pg=PP7
ALSO SEE REFERENCE (on the significance of Vattel): "Emmerich de Vattel." Encyclopędia Britannica. 2009. Encyclopędia Britannica Online. Accessed July 6, 2009. http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/624086/Emmerich-de-Vattel
The U.S. Supreme Court quoted Vattel as saying, "The natives or indigenes are those born in the country of parents who are citizens."
REFERENCE: The Venus, 12 U.S. 8 Cranch 289 (1814). Cited at the U.S. Supreme Court Center. Justia & Oyez & Forms WorkFlow. Accessed July 26, 2009. http://supreme.justia.com/us/12/253/case.html
The Supreme Court also stated, "The Constitution does not in words say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first."
REFERENCE: Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 21 Wall. 167-168 (1874). Cited at the U.S. Supreme Court Center. Justia & Oyez & Forms WorkFlow. Accessed July 26, 2009. http://supreme.justia.com/us/88/162/case.html
(Note that this case was decided after the ratification of the 14th amendment, meaning the court held that said amendment did not define a "natural born citizen;" it merely defined a citizen, and here the court points us to external historical sources (of which Vattel would be one such an authority) to discover the definition of a "natural born citizen." See the post on this matter by Leo Donofrio, Esq. at http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/2009/07/27/obama-is-guilty-on-at-least-two-counts-of-false-swearing/ initially dated July 27, 2009, updated July 28, 2009.)
In the Virginia ratifying convention of the Constitution, Madison said, "It is to be presumed that, in transactions with foreign countries, those who regulate them will feel the whole force of national attachment to their country. The contrast being between their own nation and a foreign nation, is it not presumable they will, as far as possible, advance the interest of their own country?"
REFERENCE: Madison. “Thursday, June 19, 1788″ (misprinted by Jonathan Elliot as “Wednesday, June 18, 1788″). Jonathan Elliot. “The Debates in the Convention of the Commonwealth of Virginia, on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution.” The Debates in the Several State Conventions on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution. 1836. Book compiled by Jon Roland of The Constitution Society, September 5, 1995 at http://www.constitution.org/elliot.htm Updated October 21, 2001. Specific section which was cited accessed July 29, 2009. http://www.constitution.org/rc/rat_va_16.htm
Madison’s point reflects the mindset that a government official involved in foreign affairs will obviously seek the interests of his own country more than that of another country, and that in fact, they will seek their own country’s interests to the fullest possible extent. This gives us good reason to believe that the founders intended to exclude dual citizens (like Obama, assuming he was born in Hawaii) from the ‘natural born’ category, seeing as a dual citizen may well have conflicting national interests, rendering such a person incapable of fully and properly representing the foreign interests of the United States. In Obama’s own case, he had foreign citizenship until he was an adult, by which time he would certainty have had the chance to intellectually-develop at least something of a national attachment.
So let's make sure Congress hears from us this August 4th so that we can get an answer to that pertinent aforementioned question posed by Mr. Donofrio: "Can you please tell the American people how a natural born citizen of the United States can be governed – at birth – by British law?"
I propose that on the evening of August 4th, wait until the offices of your two U.S. senators and representative are closed. Then call their closest district office and leave them a brief voice mail. It can go something like this (this is just a sample. Please use your own words; it will be more effective):
"Today is August 4th: Barack Obama's birthday. Recently there has been a lot of additional controversy surrounding Obama's birth certificate. However, Congress and the media are essentially ignoring an even more important matter: the fact that Obama was born a foreign citizen governed under the British Nationality Act of 1948, and held foreign citizenship until he was 21 years old. Obama even admitted as much on his official Fight the Smears website. The founders intended to keep foreign influence out of the office of president, so is it so much to expect that the chief executive was never the citizen of a foreign nation? And can you explain to the American people how a natural born United States citizen could be governed at birth by foreign citizenship law? Do you have an answer for your constituents as to this vital question? What do you plan to do in order to resolve it?"
You can also call their D.C. office, of course, or any of their district offices, but if you do nothing else I suggest simply calling the closest district office because it's more convenient and that way, in many cases, you won't have to make a long-distance call. Ideally, when their staff comes in to work on Wednesday morning their voice mail boxes will be filled with messages from many constituents asking that essential question, and demanding that they do something about it. And if you're so inclined, you may also consider calling and leaving a similar message for your state's governor.