udah Benjamin is not a lawyer. Nor will he ever be. He’s also a terrible, ghastly writer. But he’s managed to start quite a stir at “TexasDarlin,” one of the PUMAs’ favorite Obama-bashing websites, by arguing that Barack Obama is a dual citizen, and as a dual citizen, not entitled to sit as President under Article II of the U.S. Constitution. Benjamin challenged anyone who’ll have him to take down his argument; I gleefully accept.
I’ll treat this debate as if it were at the summary judgment phase, meaning that, for the purpose of this rebuttal, I assume that the substance of his factual allegations are correct, and stipulate arguendo Barack Obama is a dual citizen. I’m just here to take issue with is legal argument. In the following piece, I pierce the cloud of poor grammar obfuscating Benjamin’s essay (I can only assume that his “comma” key is broken), struggle to find his thesis, and then rebut it.
Some preliminary points, for Benjamin’s future journalism career:
- Don’t capitalize “precedent.” But, if you must, do it consistently.
- Learn to use commas.
- Learn what authorities are binding upon which jurisdictions.
- Make sure you understand what words meant to those that wrote them, and use context clues where you’re unsure.
Now that that’s settled…
Restating Judah Benjamin’s Legal Argument
Fundamentally, Benjamin sets out to argue that dual citizenship counts as a “dual allegiance,” and renders one unfit for the presidency. In his own words,
Article II has nothing to do with where you are born, never has, never will, it is about Loyalty and Allegiance, not Geography. It isn’t really about being President, it is about being Commander in Chief.
He sets out the Constitutional requirements for the President – “no person except a natural born Citizen… shall be eligible to the Office of President” ((U.S. Const, Art. II.)) – and argues that this simple principle should be read to require that, in addition to being a “natural born citizen,” the President be a citizen of only one nation, holding only one allegiance. While the text of the Constitution says no such thing, Benjamin relies upon British common law, which utterly rejected dual citizenship, and U.S. v. Rhodes, a Kentucky case nearly 150 years old, which states: ((U.S. v. Rhodes, 27 F.Cas. 785, C.C. Ky. 1866 (Swayne).))
All persons born in the Allegiance of the King are Natural-Born subjects, and all persons born in the Allegiance of the United States are Natural-Born Citizens. Birth and Allegiance go together. Such is the Rule of the Common Law, and it is the Common Law of this country…since as before the Revolution.
Benjamin takes this quote to mean that “birthplace” is a proxy for “allegiance”; where birthplace is proper, but the natural-born candidate’s allegiance is divided, the spirit of Article II compels the ineligibility of the dual citizen for Presidential office. ((Benjamin does away with the argument that the Fourteenth Amendment – by supplying a simpler definition of citizenship based solely on ius solis - modifies Article II. See U.S. Const., 14th Amd. § 1 (“All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.”) Reliance on the Fourteenth Amendment is the position taken by the Obama campaign. Benjamin’s reluctance to read the Amendment next to Article II places him in a group of one – all other scholars read the two together to modify the basis for American citizenship based on geography of birth. See, e.g., Sarah Helene Duggin & Mary Beth Collins, “‘Natural Born’ in the USA: The Striking Unfairness & Dangerous Ambiguity of the Constitution’s Presidential Qualifications Clause and Why We Need to Fix It,” 85 B.U. L. Rev. 53, 79-83 (2005) (describing the ways in which the Fourteenth Amendment changes Article II). The Amendment, together with Article II, suggests to most scholars of quality, of which Benjamin is not one, that acquisition of citizenship at birth, or birth within the borders of America, are sufficient to satisfy the “natural born” requirement.))
Rebuttal: Benjamin Misreads Rhodes, and Misunderstands the State of the Law
Practically the entirety of Benjamin’s argument rests on his interpretation of Rhodes, and the resulting argument that the President must have one “allegiance” only. Unfortunately for him, he misunderstands the crucial line of Rhodes, that “all persons born in the Allegiance of the United States are Natural-Born Citizens… Birth and Allegiance go together.” While Benjamin reads the line to mean that “birth” and “allegiance” in the modern sense (i.e., undivided and loyalty) are required to be a “natural born” citizen, he misunderstands the meaning of “allegiance” in 1866.
In Rhodes, “allegiance” is not used in the modern sense, but rather as a geopolitical expression of the extent of a nation’s power (“[A]ll persons born in the Allegiance of the United States…”). ((See BLACK’S LAW DICTIONARY, “Allegiance” (defining “allegiance” as “[a] citizen’s obligation of fidelity and obedience to the government or sovereign in return for the benefits of the protection of the state.”).)) Thus, the crucial line of Rhodes is simply a restatement of the principle of ius soli, that geographic location of birth confers citizenship. Since Barack Obama was born into citizenship (i.e., on American soil), under Rhodes‘ definition, he is clearly a “a Naturally-Born Citizen.” This is the only reading of the crucial line that makes sense of the context in which the line arises (explaining how citizenship follows from birthplace). Read the full case here for the context that Benjamin strategically omits.
Additionally, commentators who have researched the issue of Article II’s eligibility requirements in depth have for some time assumed that dual citizenship does not deprive an otherwise acceptable candidate of eligibility. While some nations do take that step (chief among them, Mexico), the United States’ law lacks the required operative language: “the Constitution does not bar dual nationals from becoming President, and, in recent years, United States nationality law has become increasingly tolerant of multiple citizenship, thereby increasing the possibility that a dual national will become President.” ((See Duggin & Collins, supra note 3, at 108 & 108 n.29 (citing additional commentators).)) While this categorically blows Benjamin’s argument out of the water, let’s continue, for good measure.
Rebuttal: the History of Article II Evinces No Intent to Exclude Dual Citizens from Serving as President
Next, Benjamin argues that the historic British & American distrust of dual citizenship means that we must retain our distrust of citizens with “divided loyalties.” He points us to Blackstone, the great English legal commentator, who states that:
[E]very man owes natural allegiance where he is born, and cannot owe two such allegiances, or serve two masters, at once.
Sounds pretty damning at first, but Blackstone’s statement summarizes English law… not American. It’s not authority for the interpretation of American law, except persuasively. It also states the law prior to the invention of dual citizenship in the latter half of the twentieth century, a development that cannot be ignored. If Benjamin would have us read originalism to so dominate constitutional law that intervening developments are to be disregarded, we would have to summarily ignore Hillary’s candidacy. At the founding date, after all, she couldn’t have been President, and couldn’t even have voted for herself if she made it onto the ballot. Appeals to Blackstone are improper by jurisdiction and date.
Further, Benjamin misunderstands the original impetus for the creation of the Article II restriction to only “natural born” American citizens. This exclusion of naturalized Americans wasn’t intended to prevent split allegiances – it was intended only to ensure an allegiance from birth to the American nation, and to keep foreign lords from naturalizing and turning America into a de facto colony during its formative years. ((See Akhil Reed Amar, America’s Constitution: a Biography 164-66 (2005).)) A man who’s lived in America for all but his early life, and whose dual citizenship exists in name only – and could be disavowed at any instant to cure the defect – does not present the same fear that prompted John Jay to insert the “natural born” clause into Article II. Put simply, the narrative history of Article II works against Benjamin’s interpretation.
Conclusion: Judah Benjamin Has Wasted His Life
I respect the immense amount of work that Benjamin clearly put into this feat – it’s no small thing to wrestle with legal texts without training – but, as indicated, his lack of training led him to the precisely wrong conclusions, both legally and historically. To say nothing of his facts (God knows what those look like), his legal argument fails, making his argument about Obama’s ineligibility collapse without regard to the facts.
For what it’s worth, even if Obama were ineligible, it’s not clear what would happen. Legal challenges by interested voters to McCain’s eligibility have wholly failed: as one federal court held, an individual voter lacks standing to complain of a candidates ineligibility, ((Hollander v. McCain, 2008 WL 2853250, at *7 (D. N.H. 2008).)) making it unclear what exactly the proper course of action would ever be. Especially because America has tolerated ineligible Presidents in the past (Hoover), ((J. Michael Medina, “The Presidential Qualification Clause in this Bicentennial Year: the Need to Elminate the Natural Born Citizen Requirement,” 12 Okla. City U. L. Rev 253, 256 n.12 (1987).)) this is all probably a tempest in a teapot. But it sure is fun to tear apart bad legal reasoning. ((Law reviews cited in this document may be found here: Duggin & Collins, Medina.))
This reminds me of a lot of the evolution/creationism debate.
When someone who has already decided their conclusion tries to force data to fit their agenda.
I would add,especially someone unversed in the complexity of the subject matter, but I want to reserve the right to argue about things I may not be well versed in later ;)
Posted by Oneiroi | August 19, 2008, 11:32 amWell said :). PUMAs act disturbingly similar to creationists… I argued as much at YtD, and it provoked a small war :)
Posted by Ames | August 19, 2008, 2:19 pmWouldn’t McCain have standing to challenge Obama’s eligibility? For that matter, couldn’t any participant in the Democratic primaries have brought a challenge then (or, conversely, any of the Republican candidates brought one against McCain) on the grounds that ineligibility to be President confers ineligibility to run for President and claim a party’s nomination, notwithstanding the courts’ general deference to parties on the matter of candidate-choosing?
And dammit, Ames, how do I make one of those “my blog talked about your blog” thingies show up in your blog’s comments?
Posted by Steve | August 19, 2008, 8:15 pmI wonder if perhaps our Judah Benjamin might just be one who claims the “J.D.” after their name, but has no credentials to prove it.
Posted by anti-Rocinante | August 20, 2008, 1:24 pmThank you so much for this. I am a paralegal by trade, and spend quite some time drafting briefs. I was so hoping someone with a real JD after their name would take this on. Your post is spot on (although my boss always tells me if you have too many footnotes your argument is f**ked up :)) I imagine that this well reasoned and intelligent rebuttal to the idiot will of course be soundly lamblasted by the PUMAs, there is nothing they hate more than the truth.
Posted by Litlebritdifrnt | August 20, 2008, 6:59 pmSince I was blocked on TexasDarlin’ after my first post in response to Judah’s Challenge (http://texasdarlin.wordpress.com/2008/08/17/a-challenge-for-my-detractors/#comment-8374), I’ll try again here to add to your argument.
Benjamin Misreads Rhodes, and Misunderstands the State of the Law[.] Practically the entirety of Benjamin’s argument rests on his interpretation of Rhodes, and the resulting argument that the President must have one “allegiance” only.
RESPONSE: I agree – and generally agree with your analysis of U.S. v. Rhodes. A few additional notes:
(a) Judah states that in Rhodes, Judge Swayne relies on Blackstone’s Commentaries. In fact, Swayne expressly said that Blackstone did not address the issue: “…Who are citizens, and what are their rights? … Blackstone And Tomlin contain nothing upon the subject.” See U.S. v. Rhodes, 27 F.Cas. 785, 788 (emphasis supplied).
(b) Nonetheless, there is the now-oft quoted phrase in Blackstone’s Commentaries (available at http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/a1_8_4_citizenships1.html ).
So — WHAT ABOUT BLACKSTONE? :
Judah also relies heavily on the following excerpt from Blackstone “And this maxim of the law proceeded upon a general principle, that every man owes natural allegiance where he is born, and cannot owe two such allegiances, or serve two masters, at once.”
RESPONSE: Consider the following interpretation:
Let’s start at the beginning. What is Blackstone discussing? Let’s break it down:
“The first and most obvious division of the people is into aliens and natural-born subjects. Natural-born subjects are such as are born within the dominions [i.e., jurisdiction] of the crown of England, that is, within the ligeance, or as it is generally called, the allegiance of the king; and aliens, such as are born out of it. Allegiance is the tie, or ligamen, which binds the subject to the king, in return for that protection which the king affords the subject. …”
So – Blackstone is distinguishing between “natural-born subjects” (citizens, in today’s language), and “aliens.” Let’s continue….
“Allegiance, both express and implied, is however distinguished by the law into two sorts or species, the one natural, the other local; the former being also perpetual, the latter temporary.”
So – Blackstone distinguishes between two types of allegience: (a) natural; and (b) local. Natural allegiance, according to Blackstone, is “perpetual.” Local allegience, on the other hand, is temporary. Ok. So what exactly is natural vs. local allegience? …
“Natural Allegiance is such as is due from all men born within the king’s dominions immediately upon their birth. For, immediately upon their birth, they are under the king’s protection; at a time too, when (during their infancy) they are incapable of protecting themselves.”
So – According to Blackstone, “natural/perpetual allegiance” attaches immediately upon birth. Upon birth within the king’s dominion, the child is deemed to have natural/perpetual allegiance.” Blackstone continues ….
“Natural allegiance is therefore a debt of gratitude; which cannot be forfeited, cancelled, or altered, by any change of time, place, or circumstance, nor by any thing but the united concurrence of the legislature….“
So – wow. According to Blackstone, once “allegience” attaches, it cannot be forefeited, cancelled, or altered, except by the legislature. Continuing ….
“An Englishman who removes to France, or to China, owes the same allegiance to the king of England there as at home, and twenty years hence as well as now. For it is a principle of universal law, that the natural-born subject of one prince cannot by any act of his own, no, not by swearing allegiance to another, put off or discharge his natural allegiance to the former: for this natural allegiance was intrinsic, and primitive, and antecedent to the other; and cannot be devested without the concurrent act of that prince to whom it was first due.”
Again – Blacksone reiterates: Even if a person moves to another country and stays there for 20 years, that person does not lose his original allegiance (i.e., citizenship), without some act by the “prince” (i.e., original country.). Continuing ….
“Indeed the natural-born subject of one prince, to whom he owes allegiance, may be entangled by subjecting himself absolutely to another; but it is his own act that brings him into these straits and difficulties, of owing service to two masters; and it is unreasonable that, by such voluntary act of his own, he should be able at pleasure to unloose those bands, by which he is connected to his natural prince.”
So – the fact that a citizen of one country moves to another, and – as such, is subject to the laws of that other country does NOT affect his original citizenship/allegiance to the first country.
NOW, Blackstone begins discussing “local allegience”….
“Local allegiance is such as is due from an alien, or stranger born, for so long time as he continues within the king’s dominion and protection: and it ceases, the instant such stranger transfers himself from this kingdom to another.”
“Natural allegiance is therefore perpetual, and local temporary only: and that for this reason, evidently founded upon the nature of government; that allegiance is a debt due from the subject, upon an implied contract with the prince, that so long as the one affords protection, so long the other will demean himself faithfully. * * * “
So – “local allegience” is temporary and means merely that when in a foreign country, a person must abide by the laws of that country. Any “allegience” to such foreign country ceases “the instant” the person leaves that country.
Continuing …we’re almost to the “money quote (in context) … …
“When I say, that an alien is one who is born out of the king’s dominions, or allegiance, this also must be understood with some restrictions.”
So – here, Blackstone is limiting his prior statement that all “aliens” born outside the King’s dominion (jurisdiction) or allegiance (citizenship). Stated another way, he’s saying “Not all persons born outside the country are aliens” … Continuing ….
“***The common law indeed stood absolutely so; with only a very few exceptions: so that a particular act of parliament became necessary after the restoration, for the naturalization of children of his majesty’s English subjects, born in foreign countries during the late troubles.***
So – here, Blackstone is saying that the common law “stood absolutely so” – i.e., under the common law, all persons born outside the “dominion” (jursidiction) were considered aliens….. Continuing to the money quote ….
“AND THIS MAXIM OF THE LAW PROCEEDED UPON A GENERAL PRINCIPLE, THAT EVERY MAN OWES NATURAL ALLEGIANCE WHERE HE IS BORN, AND CANNOT OWE TWO SUCH ALLEGIANCES, OR SERVE TWO MASTERS, AT ONCE.”
So – Here’s the money quote. What’s he saying. It’s really quite simple: Blackstone is saying that: (a) the prior common law – absolutely required anyone born outside the kingdom to be considered an alien; and was based on the maxim that every man owes a natural – and permanent allegiance to the country in which he is born. (b) that common law was modified by the Act of Parliament to provide that children born to English subjects in foreign countries would be considered citizens of England. (Blackstone continues discussing several other Acts which modified that absolute common law rule.)
CONCLUSION: SO. So – what? Well, as I read it in its context, the “money quote” is merely Blackstone’s commentary on the source of the common law absolute rule that a person is a citizen of the country in which he is born. Notably, Blackstone has just clarified that — that “absolute” was superseded, in multiple parts, by virtue of Acts of Parliament.)
Posted by Tes | August 20, 2008, 8:07 pmTes – totally OWNED! That’s a perspective I hadn’t considered, but you’re 100% right. Good show, Benjamin is just a quote miner it seems: pick what you need, ignore the context. Fail.
And Litle, I’m sad to say I’m not a lawyer yet :). But I’m two years further towards being one than Benjamin is!
Posted by Ames | August 20, 2008, 8:37 pmAmes,
Congrats!!!
I’m now 15 years (!yikes!) out.
Posted by Tes | August 20, 2008, 8:58 pmA couple follow-up notes:
ARGUMENT AGAINST PRESIDENT WITH DUAL CITIZENSHIP
While I disagree with Judah Benjamin’s analysis (both from a factual and legal perspective), I *do* believe that there is a “valid/logical” historical legal argument that a person with dual citizenship should be required to renounce any citizenship (other than U.S., of course) before taking the oath of office to be President.
Two points in this regard:
1. The rationale behind this argument starts – not with Blackstone – but with Story’s Commentaries on the Constitution (http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/a2_1_5s2.html). Story noted the founders’ concern that foreign “agents” could become naturalized citizens for the purpose of causing mischief in the U.S. The rationale behind that concern could be extracted and analogized to make the case that a person with dual citizenship should not be qualified as president. (However, even that argument would not get very far, because the true concerns – i.e., of a foreign government sending in a “Manchurian-like candidate” for the purpose of creating mischief – doesn’t apply to a person born as a U.S. citizen who thereafter obtains another citizenship, “involuntarily” (i.e., as a minor without capacity to contract) solely by virtue of the actions of his/her parents.
2. As you noted, in the printed legal scholarship over the past 100 years or so on the issue of the presidential qualifications, not a single commentator, scholar, writer, etc. (that I have found, to date), interprets the law as Judah advocates. Indeed, several of them argue that the Constitution should be amended to require any president-elect to renounce any other citizenship before taking office – thus recognizing that, under *current* law, a person with dual citizenship could, in fact, be qualified to be President.
I believe that it is highly unlikely that this Supreme Court would take the case and find that under the Constitution, as written, dual citizenship would disqualify a person – who is otherwise qualified (i.e., a citizen by virtue of birth in the U.S. or to parents fitting within one of the exceptions such as those born to foreign diplomats) – from the presidency. This is now an avowed “strict constructionist” Court and, as such, would look to the original intent behind the clause. The Court could *not* find such a disqualification within the four corners of the Constitution – it’s simply not there. And the Court would have to stretch logic to find such an intended disqualification in the contemporaneous writings, debates, etc., of the day. (See note above, re: Story’s Commentaries.) Even though I believe that certain Justices (Scalia, chief among them) *have* stretched logic, and conveniently ignored original intent when it suited them, I don’t believe that even Scalia/Thomas would stretch that far. And – as much as I disagree with Roberts/Alito’s views, I’ve seen no such extreme “stretches” of logic/so-called original intent in any of their opinions to date.
Posted by Tes | August 20, 2008, 9:59 pmTHE OTHER ARGUMENTS
I understand that you’ve approached this as a “summary judgment” motion, taking all the alleged facts as true. However, I note that several other aspects of the argument are not solely factually based. They are, at best, mixed fact/law arguments.
The argument (as far as I can tell) is that:
1. Obama was adopted by Lolo Soretoro when Stanley Ann married Lolo.
2. By virtue of that adoption, Obama became an Indonesian citizen under Indonesian law.
3. Therefore, Obama became an Indonesian citizen.
4. Therefore, he has dual citizenship.
Well ….
Allegation 1: Barack was adopted by Lolo Soretoro when Stanley Ann married Lolo.
The *factual evidence* is that (a) Stanley Ann married Lolo Soretoro; (b) an Indonesian school register lists Obama as “Barry Soretoro”; and (c) I vaguely recall some “evidence” that classmates remembered him as “Barry Soretoro.”
So – there it is: The “facts” supporting the argument that Barack was adopted.
In order to take the “adoption” as a fact for summary judgment, we need some legal document providing judicial notice of that, don’t we? Stated another way, no court would take “as fact” that Barack was adopted based on those three pieces of evidence.
This is a mixed fact/legal argument. No factual evidence and no legal argument has been presented to date to establish that (among other things); (a) Lolo, as Indonesian citizen, had standing to adopt Barack in Hawaii; (b) Barack Sr. provided the consent required under Hawaii Law – e.g., by voluntarily relinquishing his parental rights; (c) all the other requirements under Hawaii Rev. Stat. s578 et seq were met.
Allegation 2-4: By virtue of that adoption, Obama became an Indonesian citizen under Indonesian law. Therefore, Obama became an Indonesian citizen. Therefore, he has dual citizenship.
This is – quite simply – not a factual argument. It’s a legal argument. Now, Judah tries to make a case based on his reading of Indonesian law, that this is true. Two points on this:
(a) I have not researched the Indonesian law. That being said, given my analysis of his interpretation of U.S. law, I find any analysis of Indonesian law suspect.
(b) MORE importantly, Judah misses a key issue. (I do not believe he’s purposely ignoring it – I believe he just missed it.) The issue is choice of law/conflict of laws. This challenge would arise in U.S. Courts. The U.S. Courts will address what law applies. In all likelihood, the Court would apply U.S. law to determine whether he “obtained” citizenship based on his (putative adoptive) parent. I have not researched this issue, but I know that it’s a fundamental “first” issue that must be resolved. To try to put this in layperson terms, when a case involves two different jurisdictions (here – Hawaii/US, and Indonesia), the Court must first determine what law applies to the case. So, for example, if an Arizona citizen is in an accident in California, and a lawsuit results, the parties often make conflicting arguments as to whether Arizona law – or California law – applies to the issues in the case. Here, again, I have not researched this issue in the context of these specific facts. That being said, given that ….
(1) the key facts giving rise to the case occurred in the U.S. (i.e., (a) adoption in Hawaii/US, of a US child; (b) fact of person running for president); and
(2) the primary legal issue is of the qualifications for president in the U.S. and under the U.S. Constitution) …
… it seems more likely than not that the court would apply U.S. law to determine whether Barack became an Indonesian citizen by virtue of the alleged Soretoro adoption.
More precisely, the U.S. Court likely would apply U.S. law to determine whether the U.S. would recognize the Indonesian law purporting to “apply” citizenship to a U.S. minor child.
And that was likely more than you ever wanted to know, but … just my thoughts/opinions.
Tes~
Posted by Tes | August 20, 2008, 9:59 pmanti-Rocinante,
Actually, Judah has been straight up that he is NOT a lawyer. I believe that he is earnest in his beliefs. Before I was blocked (presumably by TD), we had a very civil (however short) exhange on the issues.
Of course, while I believe he is earnest in his beleifs, it should be clear from the above that I believe he is earnestly wrong in his analysis and conclusions.
Posted by Tes | August 20, 2008, 10:15 pmJudah Benjamin seems to have already abandoned early on his argument that relies mainly on the concept of “allegiance” as employed in U.S. v. Rhodes (which he probably plucked from the citation in Wong Kim Ark at p. 662 of the decision)
This is his reply to my TexasDarlin comment on “Divided Loyalties”:
“Judah Benjamin // July 28, 2008 at 12:45 pm
“To domingo arong
“I have remarked elsewhere that at some point the Lawyers ceased to cite US v. Rhodes. Personally, I think that it is connected to exactly the issue you raise. I have said that I agree with you that these provisions of US Law are bad law.
Someone who owes permanent Allegiance to the United States should have Full Citizenship clearly in terms of Common Law.”
And this is the gist of what I posted (or “the issue you raise”):
“domingo arong // July 27, 2008 at 9:16 pm
“But the U.S. Code, in defining the term ‘national of the United States,’ belittles and degrades into insignificance the ‘mutual’ relationship between ‘allegiance’ and citizenship acquisition laid down in U.S. v. Rhodes you cited, specifically Title 8 (Aliens and Nationality), Chapter 12 (Immigration and Nationality), Subchapter I (General Provisions), Section 1101 (Definitions), (a):
“(21) The term ‘national’ means a person owing permanent allegiance to a state.
“(22) The term ‘national of the United States means (A) a citizen of the United States, or (B) a person who, though not a citizen of the United States, owes permanent allegiance to the United States.”
—
“But even granting that the correct view is that a person born in ‘unincorporated territory’ who ‘owes permanent allegiance to the United States’ is to be merely regarded as a ‘national, but ‘not a citizen of the United States,’ why are aliens (born in a foreign country and owing allegiance at birth to a foreign power at that) who pledge the same allegiance to the United States after birth admitted as citizens of the United States?
“Is the intensity of the ‘allegiance’ owed at birth by a ‘national’ but ‘not a citizen of the United States’ less than that sworn to by an ‘alien’ after birth or even that owed by a citizen of the United States?
“Besides, why does the law require a ‘non-citizen national’–who already owes allegiance to the United States at birth–to once again pledge the same allegiance after birth in order to be ‘naturalized’ and admitted as a citizen of the United States?”
A portion of my final reply (that for some reason was not posted) said:
“The nationality laws of any foreign country (Indonesia or Kenya, in particular)–even including the United States, for that matter–cannot amend the qualifications a person must possess to assume the office of president laid down in Art. II, Constitution of the United States.”
Posted by domingo arong | August 20, 2008, 10:37 pmFour more Lawyers starting Suit
against Obama, and State Election Controller’s
http://www.americasright.com
Check Kenya Law:
http://kenya.rcbowen.com/constitution/chap6.html
Obama’s Sr. automatically became a
Kenya Citizen 12/11/1963 , any child
born in,or outside Kenya inherit’s Father’s citizenship.
Also, adoption by Lolo Soetoro, Indonesian Citizen
Berg filed for “Leave”, to amend Oct 06
Posted by Dan | October 8, 2008, 3:37 amHi, I just found out about that matter yesterday and I’ve submitted that question on Big Picture and so, there’s be one participant who looked it up and he came up with those two links :
http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/does_barack_obama_have_kenyan_citizenship.html
http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/born_in_the_usa.html
Those two confirm, as you did, the eligibility of Obama.
(here’s the link to Big Picture comment :
http://clesnes.blog.lemonde.fr/2008/10/10/palinethique/#comment-75284 )
Posted by sandgirl | October 13, 2008, 12:00 amHmmm, the challenge is gone? The link leads to a 404 error (the challenge, first link in the OP). Owned so bad, white-wash was the only means I guess?
Posted by Barley | October 23, 2008, 8:54 pmThere is also the minorly inconvenient point that, as a U.S. Senator, Mr. Obama swore this oath:
I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter: So help me God.
Seems pretty clear to me where his loyalty is after that.
Posted by Philip H. | December 5, 2008, 4:28 pmGreat article, but I must take exception to one item:
“…prompted John Jay to insert the “natural born” clause into Article II. ”
John Jay wrote a brief note to Washington that mentioned “natural born citizen” which may have arrived in time to influence the Constitutional Convention, but Jay himself was not a delegate to the Convention and there is no record in the debate that Jay’s letter was ever mentioned in the convention. The phrase was was “inserted” by the (3rd) Committee of Eleven (that didn’t include Washington either).
Posted by Dr. Conspiracy | March 21, 2009, 8:06 pmHi! I was surfing and found your blog post… nice! I love your blog. :) Cheers! Sandra. R.
Posted by sandrar | September 10, 2009, 2:57 pm