The Purported Facts About Obama’s Natural Born Citizenship Issue

I have read a plethora of blog posts (including their associated comment sections), a few newspaper articles and even, as recently as today, main stream media coverage on the Obama citizenship issue, and it never ceases to amaze me how much inaccurate information is out there regarding this topic; therefore, I decided to provide a simple bullet point list of the facts surrounding this controversy.  Please note that when I use the term facts, I am claiming that these are the facts of those making the claims, not the veracity of the conclusions these claims make.  It is left for those far more educated than I in the laws of this land to come to the legal conclusions of the claims.

First we must detail that the one thing the lawsuits and claims have in common, i.e., they allege that Barack Obama is not eligible to be President because he does not meet the Natural Born Citizen requirement to hold the office of President of the United States.  Article 2, Section 1, Clause 5 of the U.S. Constitution states:

No person, except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that office, who shall not have attained to the age of thirty-five years, and been fourteen years a resident within the United States. 

 

The Purported Facts

With respect to this requirement, here are the purported facts as argued by the lawyers filing the cases, lawyers analyzing the cases, and the general Internet public at large:

• Some argue, to be a natural born citizen, you must have two parents that were U.S. citizens at the time of your birth and be born on U.S. soil.  Since Barack Obama admits that his father was a British Subject/Citizen of Kenya at the time of Barack Obama’s birth, Barack Obama is not a “natural born citizen.”  One of the comments on this post by “RightWinger” provides a thoughtful link to this argument that can be found at The Heritage Foundation.  This is the crux of Leo Donofrio’s case and he argues in part that even Obama’s own website substantiates his claim.
• On Barack Obama’s website Fight the Smears, they quote FactCheck.org as verifying his citizenship: 
  

  “When Barack Obama Jr. was born on Aug. 4,1961, in Honolulu, Kenya was a British colony, still part of the United Kingdom’s dwindling empire. As a Kenyan native, Barack Obama Sr. was a British subject whose citizenship status was governed by The British Nationality Act of 1948. That same act governed the status of Obama Sr.‘s children.

  Since Sen. Obamahas neither renounced his U.S. citizenship nor sworn an oath of allegiance to Kenya, his Kenyan citizenship automatically expired on Aug. 4,1982.”

• Obama has not produced a long form Birth Certificate.   Obama has produced a Certification of Live Birth.  These two documents are not synonymous.  A Certification of Live Birth is often used in place of a long form Birth Certificate; however, it lacks pertinent additional information found on a long form Birth Certificate.
• Some argue that the Certification of Live Birth found on Barack Obama’s Fight the Smears website and other sites is a forgery.  This topic is obviously debatable; however, for more information on the veracity of the claim, you can view this video.
• Many have cited that Hawaiian officials have stated that they have seen Barack Obama’s original Birth Certificate, so therefore, he was in fact born in Hawaii.  What’s curious about these reports is that even though the reporters claim the officials state that he was born in Hawaii, they make no such statement, rather they state that they have seen his original Birth Certificate.  Some argue that at the time Barack Obama was born, Hawaii allowed foregin born individuals to receive Hawaiian Birth Certificates.
• Some have argued that many of the early Presidents weren’t Natural Born Citizens and they became President.  Those who argue this point have missed the part of the clause that states “or a citizen of the U.S. at the time of the adoption of this Constitution.”  The founding fathers knew that they would not qualify under the Natural Born Citizen clause so they included this additional verbiage to ensure their own eligibility.
• Many reporters have lumped in Leo Donofrio’s case with others that question where Barack Obama was born.  Leo Donofrio’s case does not rely on Obama’s birthplace nor his BirthCertificate, long form, or Certification of Live Birth in his case regarding Barack Obama’s Natural Born Citizenship status.
• Another requirement often cited as to whether or not a person is a Natural Born Citizen is that they must have been born on U.S. soil, and some argue that Barack Obama was not born in Hawaii.  They argue that he was born in Kenya.  This requirement is often argued to be not quite this simple, and further states that at least one of the two parents must be a U.S. Citizen for 5 years following his or her 14th birthday when the child is born if that child was not born on U.S. soil.  In this instance they argue, Obama’s mother was only 18 years of age and therefore unless Barack Obama was born on U.S. soil he is not a Natural Born Citizen.  This is one of the two primary arguments in Phil Berg’s lawsuit.
• Phil J. Berg’s case is very much concerned about where Obama was born; however, it is not his sole requirement for Obama’s lack of  Natural Born Citizenship status.  Berg’s lawsuit makes two claims against Barack Obama’s Natural Born Citizenship status: 1)he claims that Barack Obama was not born in Hawaii and therefore lacks eligibility based on the arguments made in the previous bullet point, 2)he claims that even if he was born in Hawaii during his time when he lived in Indonesia, he would have been a citizen of Indonesia which did not allow dual citizenship and therefore he lost his Natural Born Citizenship status.  He could have regained U.S. Citizenship when he returned to the U.S., but this would make him a Naturalized U.S. Citizen which is not the equivalent of a Natural Born Citizen.
• Some argue that the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution provides for Barack Obama’s eligibility, while others argue that the 14th Amendment doesn’t have baring on Article 2, Section 1, Clause 5 of the U.S. Constitution.
• There are those who argue that the only requirement for Natural Born Citizenship is to be born on U.S. soil, and Barack Obama was born in Hawaii, so he is, therefore, a Natural Born Citizen.  This argument may very well be valid, but I’m not qualified to judge its veracity.
• Some argue the above bullet point is not valid primarily based on Barack Obama’s Father’s citizenship status.  They make a similar argument to Leo Donofrio (and to some degree Berg’s second point above) by expanding the argument.  For example Dr. Kate in her article “Stand By Me” on TexasDarling’s Word Press blog states:  “One universal point most all early publicists agreed on was natural-born citizen must mean one who is a citizen by no act of law. If a person owes their citizenship to some act of law (naturalization for example) they cannot be considered a natural-born citizen.”  I encourage you to read Dr. Kate’s rather long but thoughtful article on the entire subject of Barack Obama’s citizenship status.
• One of the reasons that many argue Obama’s Father’s citizenship is important is because it makes him a dual citizen at birth.  They argue the framers of the U.S. Constitution were adamant that the President not have dual loyalties and Obama’s dual citizenship at birth provides him with at least the potential of dual loyalty and disqualifies him from Natural Born Citizenship status and the Presidency.

Again, the above bullet points are the crux of the arguments surrounding Barack Obama’s Natural Born Citizenship status.  I make no claims as to reporting the validity of the conclusions of those making the assertions.  I simply wished to provide you with a bullet list of the facts regarding the claims being made and not the veracity of the conclusions drawn by these claims.

Why is any of this important?  It may or may not be important to you, but as is the case of most posts made on this website, I like to look at the issues through the lens of the U.S. Constitution.  The U.S. Constitution is often viewed in two ways: 1)as an Original Intent Document or  2)as a Living Document.  These two schools of thought can be summarized as:

Original Intent— Remove as much as possible interpretation application of the law from political controversy.  Set up basic principles that are going to apply and the legislatures and courts have to abide by those principles.  Typically historical legal standards as opposed to present day political policies and desires.  To Constitutionally deal with political questions, you would use the amendment process.  In other words, view the constitution as a contract and to change any of the original terms of that contract you must utilize the amendment process.

Living Document — The opposite of original intent.  It believes that the Constitution changes its meaning in some automatic fashion according to the political or economic or social problems of the time.  There are basically three rationalizations for this view:  1)we can’t really know original intent, 2)the language is a living entity and changes over time, and/or 3)the document doesn’t speak to present day society, so we’re going to interpret under modern day terms.

To view a thorough discussion on this topic, you can view this YouTube Video.

Acknowledging my bias, I prefer original intent over living document.  In my opinion, the Natural Born Citizenship status of Barack Obama is paramount to preserving our Constitutional Law.  If it is determined that Barack Obama is not a Natural Born Citizen, he is not eligible to be President, and, therefore, cannot be sworn in as President.  If it is determined that Barack is a Natural Born Citizen, then his eligibility is certain, he was elected by the people, and will become the legitimate 44th President of the United States.  It is not for me to determine his eligibility, but the determination of his eligibility is paramount in protecting and preserving the United States Constitution.

All of the Cases Dealing with Obama’s Birth Certificate Issue

The purpose of this blog is to expose Barack Obama’s rhetoric; however, since holding his press conference last Friday, Mr. Obama hasn’t said anything, so I can’t take up my cause until he speaks again.  In the meantime, I know that many of you are following Mr. Obama’s birth certificate (or certification of live birth) issue surrounding the Constitutionality of his election to President of the United States.  I thought it might be useful to list all of the websites here, so you have an easy reference point to get information.

Let’s first just summarize the pending cases regarding this issue.  Philip J. Berg was the first to file such action in federal court in Philadelphia, PA.  Immediately, thereafter, Jeff Schreiber began documenting Berg’s case attempting to give a well rounded view of the issue.  Jeff has been a sound speaker on this issue and has done a great job of trying to keep everyone abreast of Berg’s case and the overall issues surrounding the case.  I will list Jeff’s site here as well as a place to get a wealth of information on the topic.

Next, a suit was filed in Washington state against the Secretary of State’s office asking for the birth certificate to be produced.  Then, Andy Martin, went to Hawaii, the only place he felt a suit could truly be filed and won regarding the birth certificate issue.  Since then others have filed including the intent by Patriot Brigade Talk Radio’s to file a suit as well.

Notably, Leo Donofrio and Cort Wrotnowski have filed suits that don’t rely on Obama being born outside of the United States.  They contend that because Barack Obama’s father was not a U.S. Citizen and was a British Subject, Barack Obama was British Subject at the time of is birth and is not a natural born citizen.  On Leo Donofrio’s Weblog, http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com he miticulously discusses his arguments as to Barack Obama’s lack of Natural Born Citizenship status.

As promised, here are the links to the various suits:

Philip J. Berg’s Suit:  http://www.obamacrimes.com

Commentary on Berg’s suit:  http://www.americasright.com

Press Release on WA suit:  http://peoplespassions.org/peoplesvoice/Lawsuit_Sam_Reed/Press_Release_08_10_10.htm

Andy Martin’s suit filed in Hawaii:  http://contrariancommentary.blogspot.com

Information on Leo Donofrio’s New Jersey suit:  http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com

Information on Cort Wrotnowski’s Connecticut suit:  http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com

Patriot Brigade’s intent to file suit:  http://www.blogtext.org/naturalborncitizen/

Not a suit but Dr. Vieria Jr.’s knowledgable opinion on the subject:  http://www.newswithviews.com/Vieira/edwin84.htm

A summary of CA Obama eligibility lawsuit filed on behalf of Alan Keyes: http://www.americasright.com/2008/11/keyes-action-unlikely-to-overcome.html

This should give you plenty of reading on the subject.  I’ll add to the list if more suits are filed.

The following are the dispositions thus far in the Supreme Court Cases:

Leo Denofrio’s Case:

No. 08A407
Title:	Leo C. Donofrio, Applicant v. Nina Mitchell Wells, New Jersey Secretary of State
Docketed:
Lower Ct:	Supreme Court of New Jersey

Case Nos.:

(AM-0153-08T2 at the New Jersey Appellate Division without a docket number)

~~~Date~~~	~~~~~~~Proceedings  and  Orders~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Nov 3 2008	Application (08A407) for stay pending the filing and disposition of a petition for a writ of certiorari, submitted to Justice Souter.
Nov 6 2008	Application (08A407) denied by Justice Souter.
Nov 14 2008	Application (08A407) refiled and submitted to Justice Thomas.
Nov 19 2008	DISTRIBUTED for Conference of December 5, 2008.
Nov 19 2008	Application (08A407) referred to the Court by Justice Thomas.
Nov 26 2008	Supplemental brief of applicant Leo C. Donofrio filed. (Distributed)
Dec 1 2008	Letter from applicant dated November 22, 2008, received.
Dec 8 2008	Application (08A407) denied by the Court.

Cort Wrotnowski’s Case

No. 08A469
Title:	Cort Wrotnowski, Applicant v. Susan Bysiewicz, Connecticut Secretary of State
Docketed:
Lower Ct:	Supreme Court of Connecticut

Case Nos.:

(SC 18264)

~~~Date~~~	~~~~~~~Proceedings  and  Orders~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Nov 25 2008	Application (08A469) for stay and/or injunction, submitted to Justice Ginsburg.
Nov 26 2008	Application (08A469) denied by Justice Ginsburg.
Nov 29 2008	Application (08A469) refiled and submitted to Justice Scalia.
Dec 8 2008	DISTRIBUTED for Conference of December 12, 2008.
Dec 8 2008	Application (08A469) referred to the Court by Justice Scalia.
Dec 9 2008	Supplemental brief of applicant Cort Wrotnowski filed. (Distributed)
Dec 15 2008	Application (08A469) denied by the Court.

Phil Berg’s Case:

No. 08-570
Title:	Philip J. Berg, Petitioner v. Barack Obama, et al.
Docketed:	October 31, 2008
Lower Ct:	United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit

Case Nos.:	(08-4340)
	Rule 11

~~~Date~~~	~~~~~~~Proceedings  and  Orders~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Oct 30 2008	Petition for a writ of certiorari before judgment filed. (Response due December 1, 2008)
Oct 31 2008	Application (08A391) for an injunction pending the disposition of the petition for a writ of certiorari, submitted to Justice Souter.
Nov 3 2008	Supplemental brief of applicant Philip J. Berg filed.
Nov 3 2008	Application (08A391) denied by Justice Souter.
Nov 18 2008	Waiver of right of respondents Federal Election Commission, et al. to respond filed.
Dec 1 2008	Motion for leave to file amicus brief filed by Bill Anderson.
Dec 8 2008	Application (08A505) for an injunction pending the disposition of the petition for a writ of certiorari, submitted to Justice Souter.
Dec 9 2008	Application (08A505) denied by Justice Souter.
Dec 15 2008	Application (08A505) refiled and submitted to Justice Kennedy.
Dec 17 2008	DISTRIBUTED for Conference of January 9, 2009.
Dec 17 2008	Application (08A505) denied by Justice Kennedy.

Orly Taitz’s Case:

No. 08A524
Title:	Gail Lightfoot, et al., Applicants v. Debra Bowen, California Secretary of State
Docketed:
Lower Ct:	Supreme Court of California

Case Nos.:

(S168690)

~~~Date~~~	~~~~~~~Proceedings  and  Orders~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Dec 12 2008	Application (08A524) for a stay pending the filing and disposition of a petition for a writ of certiorari, submitted to Justice Kennedy.
Dec 17 2008	Application (08A524) denied by Justice Kennedy.

Link to Supreme Court Docket Search Engine

So that is where the Supreme Court cases stand to date.  You can check back here for further details as Taitz’s case continues through the Supreme Court.