As much as Obama supporters or the US citizen ignorant of the “NBC” definition want to bury their heads in the sand … that pesky little issue of “natural born citizenship” WILL NOT GO AWAY.
Nor will it until it finally creeps its way into the Supreme Court for settlement.
For anyone willing to take the time to look into the congressional records of THAT TIME it is clear that “natural born citizen” is clearly defined as a child born IN THE US of PARENTS who are citizens thereof.
That very simple “term definition” from John Bingham (author of the 14th ammendment) found in … 39th Congress Senate and House Debates (December 4, 1865 to July 28, 1866) PP Page 961 of 1920 Page 1291.
Image of that page can be seen HERE.
That says: “[I] find no fault with the introductory clause [S 61 Bill], which is simply declaratory of what is written in the Constitution, that every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of PARENTS not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen…. . . ”
Anyone looking at that definition WITHOUT BIAS understands it to mean BORN IN THE USA OF TWO (2) CITIZEN PARENTS.
Now it can be argued until the cows come home IF, IF, IF or WHY, MAYBE? … and has been already.
Frankly I do not care who influenced who, how they arrived at or who just plucked the term out of the air.
I only care that they did and it was recorded in simple ENGLISH TEXT for those who can still understand BASIC ENGLISH.
I have yet to find any argument cropping up in Congressional records (for that period) which argues or redefines that specific term “natural born citizen”.
The movement being launched to keep Barack Obama off the official state ballots in election 2012 has began.
Rightfully Judge Michael Malihi has taken up the case, refused the Obama quash requests and ordered him to appear.
The door has now been cracked.
This hearing is a BIG DEAL!
WHY?
It was the first time that a court has accepted arguments on the merits of the controversy over Obama’s status. Obama never met the constitutional requirements to occupy the Oval Office, and the states and Congress failed in their obligations to make sure only a qualified president is inaugurated. His supporters, meanwhile, argue he won the 2008 election and therefore was “vetted” by America.
WHAT A SURPRISE! Obama and his lawyer did not show up.
So now what?
Well the hearing went on without him.
Blow by blow results are below:
By Sharon Rondeau
The Post & Email (site is under maintenance at time of publishing; see The Post & Email for further details on this and other Obama eligibility cases, documentation, and history)
(Jan. 26, 2012) — The court convened at approximately 9:30 a.m. Judge Michael Malihi began by asking those present to stand and reading the last paragraph of Atty. Michael Jablonski’s letter to Brian Kemp, Georgia Secretary of State, “into the record,” commenting that Jablonski was not present at the hearing.
The judge called plaintiff David Welden to stand and asked where he resided and if he were a registered voter in the state of Georgia. Then his attorney, Van Irion, stood and stated that there were three types of citizenship in the United States. He then provided argument on the definition of “natural born Citizen,” referring to Minor v. Happersett.
“The court should recognize that the term ‘citizen” is not ‘natural born Citizen,’ Irion said. “The Minor court’s definition of ‘natural born Citizen’ says ‘parents.’
“In closing, this case is about the Constitution,” Irion said. We’ve shown that Barack Obama’s father was never a citizen…and that means he is not constitutionally qualified…Finally, the defendant was ordered to be here, and I wish to state on the record that that shows not just a contempt for this court…”
Then Irion was interrupted and stopped speaking.
9:54 a.m.: Atty. J. Mark Hatfield stood and stating that he represents Kevin Richard Powell and Carl Swensson. Hatfield mentioned the White House schedule as he saw that it related to Obama’s lack of attendance at the hearing.
Carl Swensson was sworn in at 9:56 a.m. and stated his residence and county. Then Kevin Powell was asked the same. Both were asked if they were able to vote for President of the United States.
Swensson and Powell explained their challenges filed with the Secretary of State’s office to the judge.
Hatfield held up the Certification of Nomination which Nancy Pelosi signed in 2008 to place Obama’s name on the ballot. The judge asked if it was a “certified copy,” and Hatfield answered that it was. He then read from it, stating that it did not affirm that the candidates met constitutional requirements to serve, while the wording from the Republican National Committee for its candidates did contain that wording.
The judge asked if the documents were from a “United States government source,” and Hatfield answered “Yes, sir, they were.”
Hatfield cited Jablonski’s January 25 letter “indicating that they did not want the proceedings to go forward and did not want to participate.” Hatfield also entered into evidence Obama’s book, Dreams From My Father.
Ken Allen, a resident of Arizona, stood to present the documentation he had received from the State Department after submitting a FOIA request early in 2009, which The Post & Email reported on here. He stated that “Barack Obama Sr.” was “never a citizen.”
At 10:09 a.m. someone said, “Let’s take a short break,” and people stood up and began moving around and talking with one another.
At 10:17 a.m., the court was called back in to order.
Atty. Orly Taitz was called upon to speak. The Georgia registered voter whom she represents, David Farrar, stood and identified himself.
Taitz utilized a projector on the wall to the right of the judge as an aid in her presentation. She then stated that evidence existed that Obama possessed Indonesian citizenship, to which the judge was heard by this writer to say, “That’s not relevant.” Taitz then discussed the court’s decision in Minor v. Happersett and was interrupted by the judge, who said, “Counselor, can you save your argument for the closing?” She then stopped speaking.
Mr. Christopher Strunk of New York then went up to the front of the courtroom to testify, and Taitz began to ask him questions about the passport records of Stanley Ann Dunham, one of which contains the name “Soebarkah.” Strunk stated, “She wanted that expunged from her record, but we never got that.”
Susan Daniels, Private Investigator from Ohio, then took the stand, and spoke about her investigation which revealed that Obama had reportedly been using a social security number which she contended had not been assigned to him.
Taitz asked Daniels, “What was the social security number attached to your request?” and Daniels read off “042-68-4425.” Daniels said, “In all my years, I’ve never seen anything like this.” She stated that the person who had originally owned the number had been born in 1890.
“First I ran the social security number to check the address, and the same number came up for him in Massachusetts, Illinois, and Washington, DC. It showed a phone number, and it was always the same number…It would show intermittently ‘August 4, 1961′ and ’1890.’” Daniels stated that she obtained information “directly from the Social Security Administration.”
At 10:30 Mr. Chito Papa took the stand. He stated that he works in the field of Information Technology including Adobe® software.
Taitz asked Papa if the “birth certificate” which “Obama posted online” had flattened layers. ”Did you see one layer or multiple layers? Taitz asked. ”I saw multiple layers,” he answered.
Taitz asked Papa about Obama’s social security number which appeared on his tax return posted on the internet, and Papa stated that the layers had not been flattened. Taitz then thanked Papa for his testimony.
At 10:36 a.m. another witness, Linda Jordan, was called to the stand. Taitz adjusted her Powerpoint presentation by means of a laptop computer and began by asking a question about “E-Verify,” the U.S. government’s system for flagging potential illegal immigrants from working. Jordan stated that she ran Obama’s number through the E-Verify system and said, “When I read it, it was 2011, and it could not verify it. It came back.”
At 10:39 a.m., Douglas Vogt took the stand. Vogt stated that he owns a typesetting company and has been “in the business for 18 years now.”
Taitz asked Vogt if he examined the birth certificate which was posted online, and he said, “Yes, I did.” He stated that “sloping lines” would not be seen if the image had been made from a paper document.
Taitz asked, “Would you expect to see a clear embossed seal on the document?” and Vogt answered, “Yes, I would.” However, he stated that such was not present on Obama’s birth certificate. Regarding the number of Obama’s purported birth record, Vogt stated that “federal regs” require that “all birth certificate numbers have to be sequential, starting on January 1.”
At 10:49, witness John Sampson took the stand. He stated that he has a background in criminal justice, served as a police officer in New York City and worked as an immigration inspector. His background includes working for the INS in the area of “immigration fraud” and he was also a deportation officer. He stated that he has testified in front of “federal grand juries.” He stated that he started his own consulting firm in 2009 and has been self-employed since then.
Taitz asked Sampson about Obama’s social security number, and Sampson said that he “ran” the number 042-68-4425 and that it was assigned to Obama since 1977.
Taitz asked if Sampson had examined the birth certificate, and he said, “Yes.” He raised the issue of the Nordyke twins’ birth certificate, whose numbers were lower than Obama’s even though their birth occurred a day later. He stated that the registrar’s name was different than that on the Nordyke twins’ documents and that it was unlikely that the registrar would have been different in the “same hospital” regarding births one day apart.
Sampson recommended further investigation, including subpoenas and court orders, to obtain more information on the number “042-68-4425.”
Sampson mentioned that Obama has also been known as “Barry Soetoro.”
Taitz asked what Sampson thought needed to be done regarding the questions about Obama’s background, and he recommended asking for an official copy of the SS-5 for his social security number application and the Hawaii Department of Health to see “if he was born in Hawaii.” Sampson stated that an investigation would be “a criminal investigation” through a U.S. attorney’s office. He said that if a person has been found to be impersonating a U.S. citizen, he would be subject to “deportation.”
Shortly thereafter, Sampson’s testimony ended, and Taitz began discussing Obama’s alleged years in Indonesia from 1968-71, during which he was known as “Barry Soetoro.”
“We have another boy who from 1968-69 was in Hawaii,” she said. The judge then said, “Are you testifying? Do you know how?” which brought laughter from the assembly. The judge then said she could discuss the matter during closing arguments. Taitz responded, “I would like to testify,” after which she took the stand.
Taitz stated that “Mr. Obama has resigned from the bar.” The judge asked, “How is that relevant?” Taitz said that it was pertinent because Obama was “hiding his identity.”
“I’m going to ask you to submit your testimony in writing,” the judge said. ”OK,” Taitz said. She then left the stand and spoke from the assembly once again. She stated that “We have clear evidence of fraud and forgery…Mr. Obama has used other last names…” She then stated that of all the lawsuits filed against Obama regarding his eligibility, none were heard on “the merits.” Taitz asked Judge Malihi to order the release of Obama’s records in Hawaii and to hold Obama in “contempt of court” for failing to appear at the hearing.
The judge said, “Thank you” and adjourned the court at 11:12 a.m.
Tags: Barack Obama, ineligibility hearing, Judge Michael Malihi, Obama a usurper
January 27th, 2012 at 10:59 am
What applies is the meaning of Natural Born at the time that the Constitution was written in America (not Switzerland), and no quotation from a writer of the Constitution or other American leader at the time can be found using Natural Born to refer to parents. They only used it the same way that it was used in the common law, to refer to the PLACE of birth.
Here is an actual example of how it was used in 1803, shortly after the US Constitution was written:
“Prior to the adoption of the constitution, the people inhabiting the different states might be divided into two classes: natural born citizens, or those born within the state, and aliens, or such as were born out of it. The first, by their birth-right, became entitled to all the privileges of citizens; the second, were entitled to none, but such as were held out and given by the laws of the respective states prior to their emigration. …St. George Tucker, BLACKSTONE’S COMMENTARIES: WITH NOTES OF REFERENCE TO THE CONSTITUTION AND LAWS OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES AND THE COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA. (1803)
As you can see, that refers only to the place of birth. Natural Born Citizens were “those born within the state.”
And here is how it was used in 1829:
“Therefore every person born within the United States, its territories or districts, whether the parents are citizens or aliens, is a natural born citizen in the sense of the Constitution, and entitled to all the rights and privileges appertaining to that capacity.”—William Rawle, A VIEW OF THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. 2d ed. (1829)
That’s just a few of the opinions, which stem from the key US Supreme Court ruling, Wong Kim Ark, which ruled that EVERY child born in the USA, except for the children of foreign diplomats, is Natural Born.
And there have been LOTS of lower-court rulings, all stemming from the Wong Kim Ark ruling, which have stated that the US-born children of foreigners are Natural Born Citizens, due to their natural birth, meaning their birth in America. For example:
Mustata v. US Dept. of Justice, 179 F.3d 1017 (6th Cir. 1999) (children born in US to two Romanian citizens described as “natural born citizens” of the US):
“Petitioners Marian and Lenuta Mustata are citizens of Romania. At the time of their petition, they resided in Michigan with their two minor children, who are natural born citizens of the United States.”
Diaz-Salazar v. INS, 700 F.2d 1156 (7th Cir. 1983) (child born in US to Mexican citizen is “natural born citizen” of US):
“Petitioner, Sebastian Diaz-Salazar, entered the United States illegally [from Mexico] in 1974 and has been living and working in Chicago since that time. *** The relevant facts which have been placed before the INS, BIA, and this court can be summarized as follows: The petitioner has a wife and two children under the age of three in Chicago; the children are natural-born citizens of the United States.”
AND there was Ankeny v. Gov State of Indiana, which ruled:
“Based upon the language of Article II, Section 1, Clause 4 and the guidance provided by Wong Kim Ark, we conclude that persons born within the borders of the United States are ‘natural born citizens’ for Article II, Section 1 purposes, regardless of the citizenship of their parents.”
That was appealed once, to the Supreme Court of Indiana, which turned down the appeal, leaving the ruling of the appeals court standing.
January 27th, 2012 at 11:01 am
Re: “That’s just a few of the opinions, which stem from the key US Supreme Court ruling, Wong Kim Ark, which ruled that EVERY child born in the USA, except for the children of foreign diplomats, is Natural Born.”
That should read “most of which stem from” (The Rawle opinion was long before that ruling of course.)
However, this was after the ruling:
“Under the longstanding English common-law principle of jus soli, persons born within the territory of the sovereign (other than children of enemy aliens or foreign diplomats) are citizens from birth. Thus, those persons born within the United States are “natural born citizens” and eligible to be President. Much less certain, however, is whether children born abroad of United States citizens are “natural born citizens” eligible to serve as President …”—- Edwin Meese, et al, THE HERITAGE GUIDE TO THE CONSTITUTION (2005) [Edwin Meese was Ronald Reagan’s attorney general, and the Heritage Foundation is a well-known Conservative organization.]
January 27th, 2012 at 5:27 pm
@ellenhancock Yes! Yes! ellen we have had this conversation ad nausium in the past.
Nothing has changed NOTHING!
I GET IT! … HOWEVER as stated in this piece YOUR OPINION, my opinion of what was said does not matter.
How Bingham arrived at the definition DOES NOT MATTER.
Who influenced him either in writing, inspiration or whatever DOES NOT MATTER!
So find me congressional records of old that clearly show the term “natural born citizen” means something different and I will pay attention to your wishful meandering rhetoric.
I get it that you HOPE “native, native citizen” and a whole bunch of other statements will fly one day.
They will not until SCOTUS decides to change anything.
To date THEY CHOOSE NOT!
January 30th, 2012 at 12:39 pm
Re Bingham:
He also said this:
“Who does not know that every person born within the limits of the Republic is, in the language of the Constitution, a natural-born citizen.” Rep. Bingham, The congressional globe, Volume 61, Part 2. pg. 2212 (1869)
January 30th, 2012 at 3:17 pm
@Ellen Yes he did say that.
In the context of this particular Congressional session argument do you think that sentence somehow negates Binghams clear definition of “natural born citizen” of record in 1866?
If so what is your rationale?
February 2nd, 2012 at 5:00 pm
Re: “do you think that sentence somehow negates Binghams clear definition of “natural born citizen” of record in 1866?”
I think that what he said earlier is corrected by what he said later.
Or, if you disagree, I think that Bingham said two different things and hence we do not know what he really meant.
February 3rd, 2012 at 1:04 am
@ellen
Okay AGAIN we are covering VERY OLD TERRITORY you and I.
I have made myself fairly clear then and again now.
It does not matter what you think or I think … it does not matter what Lindsay Graham, Orin Hatch or Count Dracula thinks.
Bingham was clear in his definition.
I get that you don’t agree or like it.
WE ARE STUCK WITH IT until SCOTUS decides to take it up again.
I know and as educated as you sound … you also know full well that not a single case has been judged by SCOTUS or any other court because they all know they cannot rule that Obama is a Natural Born Citizen.
So unless you come up with something NEW TO ADD to this very old argument I will be dumping your comments.
February 3rd, 2012 at 8:44 am
SCOTUS is as likely to take it up as it is to decide the constitutionality of the Law of Gravity.
If it did, you would LOSE big time. Like about nine votes to nothing or at most eight to one.
There are many reasons, the most obvious of which is that Natural Born referred to the place of birth at the time that the Constitution was written, as the examples show.
A less obvious one is that the assumption behind the two US parent requirement is that the US-born children of foreigners are somehow less likely to be loyal than the US-born children of US citizens.
Well, two things to say about that. There is no evidence that the US-born children of foreigners are any less loyal than the US born children of US citizens. And judges with names like Alito and Scalia, and a chief justice whose mother’s maiden name was Podarasy would know that. And, second, there is no evidence that the writers of the US Constitution thought it either.
Virtually no American thinks that now, and it is making a tremendous assumption, one with absolutely no evidence to back it up, that the writers of the Constitution thought it then. Yes, they indicated that people who were not born in the country were not eligible. But, no, they did not go further than that and indicate that the US-born children of foreigners were not eligible.
No one wrote anything like that. No one said anything like: “We should watch out for these US-born children of foreigners; they might not be loyal.” If they had, that would be something else. But they didn’t.
And that is why the two-parent case would lose, and that is why every knowledgeable lawyer and constitutional scholar and all the members of Congress and the Republican candidates for president and the Conservative commentators are all laughing at the two-parent theory now.
February 3rd, 2012 at 10:08 am
@ellen If your aunt had balls she would be your UNCLE.
I don’t EVER PLAY the … if, shoulda, coulda game.
I deal with what is RIGHT NOW TODAY.
Guess what YOU LOSE!
“If” I did play that game … BARACK OBAMA “SHOULDA” BEEN BOUNCED ON HIS FRAUDULENT ASS BY NOW.
Tried for High Treason along with everyone who had a part in this fraud.
He and company made a huge error … it was his birth-certificate.
Until they put that on the table they were home free by simply arguing they did not fully understand the law of the land and leaving the decision up to SCOTUS.
Apparently that was not good enough … with the birth-certificate in the mix THEY ALL can (likely will) end up at the end of a gallows noose.
SCOTUS can no longer save his sorry ass because of the birth-certificate problem.
IT IS WHAT IT IS!
HE HAS (along with his puppet masters) hog tied and ham strung them all.
Understand I do not give him credit for much of anything because honestly I do not believe he can think his way out of an open shoe sack.
You know what I find interesting about those of you WHO THINK you are well educated and uber-smart?
VERY FEW (if any) of you have an ounce of STREET SMARTS.
Are you actually among those who fall into the category of “to stupid to recognize stupid?
NEXT?
If I WANTED TO PLAY the “IF” and “future game” I would be betting right now every dollar I have (which is considerable to most) that WE WILL see that happen in our lifetime.
Unless of course either of us drop dead tomorrow.
That however is not part of my plan … is it yours?