At the time, I thought this Internet smarminess demonstrated that neither the right nor the left has a monopoly on inanity. Nevertheless, at least three four Americans have filed lawsuits contesting Obama's citizenship -- and thus the Constitutional requirement (Article II, Section 1) that the President of the United States be a "natural born" citizen. (The Constitution does not define "natural born.")
Today's contender, filed by Leo Donofrio of East Brunswick, N.J., asserted that both Obama and McCain are ineligible to be president. The U.S. Supreme Court has declined to act on Donofrio's "emergency appeal." A Connecticut case with similar arguments -- Wrotnowksi v. Bysiewicz -- remains on the docket.
Another case is pending, according to news reports. Philip J. Berg of Lafayette Hill, PA, argues that Obama was not born in Hawaii. A third fourth case was filed by Orly Taitz of California.
My hat's off to Republican Patrick Rufinni for this comment: "Willingness to move this sort of the story will be a major dividing line between the last right and the next right."
You can learn more about this campaign -- and believe me, it is a campaign -- at WeThePeopleFoundation.org. This campaign, run by Robert Schulz, asserts that "legal affidavits" and a "recording" of Obama's Grandmother assert that Obama was born in Kenya. This Foundation ran a full page advertisement (pdf) in the Chicago Tribune last week. They held a press conference today.
Comments
** BARAK ** BARRY ** BARACK ** HUSSEIN ** MUHAMED ** ABDULLAH ** BIN SAETORO ** UBAMA
ILLEGAL ALIEN, kenya
Justice Scalia, by referring Wrotnowski v. Bysiewicz to committee on Dec. 12 may allow the Supreme Court to decide upon Barack Obama’s status as a presidential candidate before the currently scheduled Electoral College election day, December 15.
It ain’t over yet…
Scalia is nuts but he certainly has some survival instinct. He knows all too well that if he allows anything which would lead to this election cancellation, he would most probably suffer the fate of the de Witt brothers…
Obama inaugurated 1/20/09? No way. No how. Read this: http://www.newswithviews.com/Vieira/edwin186.htm
While the author might find it “hard to stomach” the notion that McCain was ineligible to be on the ballot, consider that Constitutional scholars weighed in on that question in a September 2008 University of Michigan Law Review which was a “special topic” issue devoted to the Natural Born Citizen clause.
http://www.michiganlawreview.org/firstimpressions/vol107/chin.htm
The NJ case brought by Donofrio challenged three names on the NJ ballot: McCain, Obama and Calero. Calero is still a Nicaraguan citizen, whose residency in the U.S. is per a Green Card. That single fact makes it obvious that no one in NJ, or no one in a political party advancing a particular candidate as its nominee, appears to “vet” eligibility. The candidates appear to be able to self-declare their eligibility on forms submitted to each Seretary of State. The legal theory being advanced by the Donofrio case, as to proper definition, seems to parallel this one:
http://federalistblog.us/2008/11/natural-born_citizen_defined.html
A 1758 “Law of Nations” was in existence at the time the Constitution was written and it was referred to in another area of the Constitution (relating to matters occurring “on the high seas” and international disputes). That work defined “natural born citizen” in a way that was not consistent with English common law (Blackstone) and his writings about “natural born subjects.” Since the U.S. threw off a monarchy in order to rebel against being “British subjects” it is likely that the 1758 Law of Nations definition was the intent.
“The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. As the society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights.”
The 1700’s were a patrimonial era and greater emphasis was placed on the role of a father. It is probably time for the U.S. to explore amending the Constitution. There have been 26 proposals to amend this clause over the past 200 years; none have gotten very far.
The only exception granted to mere “citizens” to be eligible for POTUS is the grandfather clause itself, which allowed the former British subjects of “colonial” America who would have become American citizens after its Revolution to throw off colonial subjugation to the Crown. These citizens were described not as “natural born” but as citizens who were “alive at the adoption of the Constitution” (1789) and who had been residents for “at least 14 years” (i.e., on American soil back in 1775 when conditions leading to the War of Independence in 1776).
Donofrio’s lawsuit does not challenge Mr. Obama’s accounting of his own life but rather, looks to what is admitted on the candidate’s own website about a fact of “dual citizenship” at birth. Moreover, Donofrio declined to attend a press conference apparently staged in D.C. by plaintiffs advancing other theories in other lawsuits which seek a vault Birth Certificate.
@ Ted, speaking about hubris, I guess Mister Vieira would be inspired to stop bothering. I suspect most Americans don’t care about the case. I hope for their sanity that they don’t, at least. Numerous American citizens are born abroad. Does that make them un-Americans? Even if what Mister Vieira alleges was true (i.e. that the Hawaii birth certificate of Mister Obama is a fake, which is, to say the least, a serious surge of imagination) what does that change? The majority of the American people voted for Obama. The rest of them voted for McCain (who suffers from the same issue). In all logic, the legitimacy of both of them to rule should not be contested by a stupid lawyer. Constitutional law tells us that there is nothing above the legitimacy of the will of the People. The people has spoken, please, make the lawyers shut up.
I agree with Alphast — I don’t think most Americans care about these challenges.
Based on dinner conversation last evening — with reasonably politically-informed people — I think most people believe being born on US soil and with one parent as a citizen is sufficient to be a “natural born” citizen. These same folks thought that if the S.C.O.T.U.S. were to rule that Obama is not eligible to be President … that we would see rioting in the streets. I agree.
However, it is disconcerting to see someone with Viera’s credentials (I’m assuming someone vets the How to Dethrone the Imperial JudiciaryAmazon bio copy) making these charges.
Alphast,
Scalia is nuts? Why? For demanding that law conforms to our constitution?
Yeah, I know you Frenchies don’t believe in all that Constitution stuff and your history demonstrates this, but do not call one of the finest judges to every sit on the bench nuts? It only exposes your ignorance of the law.
“Even if what Mister Vieira alleges was true”
Then Obama must abide by a court ruling to step aside. It’s the law!
C
It’s probably a good thing I was off-line when this was posted!
Rule 11 forbids attorneys from filing frivolous lawsuits in federal court. It is well-settled, black-letter (cast in concrete) law that a person who is born in the US is a citizen. Hawaii was a state when Obama was born. He’s a citizen.
A child born of a US citizen on foreign soil is also a citizen. In essence, this means these lawsuits are completely without merit.
The fact that these suits weren’t kicked out of federal court with Rule 11 sanctions tells me that somebody with very deep pockets found themselves a media-savvy attorney who is brilliant at forum shopping.
It is incredulous to me that this has all been brought to us by the same folks who wail about frivolous lawsuits and legislating from the bench. My hunch is that they are cleverly trying to make a mountain out of the molehill of “natural born” to find a way to allow CA’s governor to run for the White House.
My only surprise is that Scalia didn’t allow himself once again to be their bag man on the Supreme Court.
Hi, Carolyn —
There is no definition of “natural born” citizen. There are, apparently, sound legal arguments that one parent + foreign birth does not = NBC.
The argument being put forth — that still is before the Court — is that Obama was not born in Hawaii.
Kathy
Because Obama’s mother was a US citizen, he could have been born on Mars and still qualified under the “natural born” constitutional standard.
The Framers’ intent was crystal clear. It is the bedrock of the difference in INS standards between people who are born US citizens and those who have become naturalized citizens.
I’m deeply troubled that the attorneys who filed these patently bogus cases weren’t slapped with Rule 11 sanctions.
Hawaii Revised Statute §338-18 Disclosure of records. (a) To protect the integrity of vital statistics records, to ensure their proper use, and to ensure the efficient and proper administration of the vital statistics system, it shall be unlawful for any person to permit inspection of, or to disclose information contained in vital statistics records, or to copy or issue a copy of all or part of any such record, except as authorized by this part or by rules adopted by the department of health.
(b) The department shall not permit inspection of public health statistics records, or issue a certified copy of any such record or part thereof, unless it is satisfied that the applicant has a direct and tangible interest in the record. The following persons shall be considered to have a direct and tangible interest in a public health statistics record:
(1) The registrant;
(2) The spouse of the registrant;
(3) A parent of the registrant;
(4) A descendant of the registrant;
(5) A person having a common ancestor with the registrant;
(6) A legal guardian of the registrant;
(7) A person or agency acting on behalf of the registrant;
(8) A personal representative of the registrant’s estate;
(9) A person whose right to inspect or obtain a certified copy of the record is established by an order of a court of competent jurisdiction;
(10) Adoptive parents who have filed a petition for adoption and who need to determine the death of one or more of the prospective adopted child’s natural or legal parents;
(11) A person who needs to determine the marital status of a former spouse in order to determine the payment of alimony;
(12) A person who needs to determine the death of a nonrelated co-owner of property purchased under a joint tenancy agreement; and
(13) A person who needs a death certificate for the determination of payments under a credit insurance policy.
(c) The department may permit the use [of] the data contained in public health statistical records for research purposes only, but no identifying use thereof shall be made.
(d) Index data consisting of name and sex of the registrant, type of vital event, and such other data as the director may authorize shall be made available to the public.
(e) The department may permit persons working on genealogy projects access to microfilm or other copies of vital records of events that occurred more than seventy-five years prior to the current year.
(f) Subject to this section, the department may direct its local agents to make a return upon filing of birth, death, and fetal death certificates with them, of certain data shown to federal, state, territorial, county, or municipal agencies. Payment by these agencies for these services may be made as the department shall direct.
(g) The department shall not issue a verification in lieu of a certified copy of any such record, or any part thereof, unless it is satisfied that the applicant requesting a verification is:
(1) A person who has a direct and tangible interest in the record but requests a verification in lieu of a certified copy;
(2) A governmental agency or organization who for a legitimate government purpose maintains and needs to update official lists of persons in the ordinary course of the agency’s or organization’s activities;
(3) A governmental, private, social, or educational agency or organization who seeks confirmation of a certified copy of any such record submitted in support of or information provided about a vital event relating to any such record and contained in an official application made in the ordinary course of the agency’s or organization’s activities by an individual seeking employment with, entrance to, or the services or products of the agency or organization;
(4) A private or government attorney who seeks to confirm information about a vital event relating to any such record which was acquired during the course of or for purposes of legal proceedings; or
(5) An individual employed, endorsed, or sponsored by a governmental, private, social, or educational agency or organization who seeks to confirm information about a vital event relating to any such record in preparation of reports or publications by the agency or organization for research or educational purposes.
http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/hrscurrent/Vol06_Ch0321-0344/HRS0338/HRS_0338-0018.htm