Georgia trial questions Obama’s presidential eligibility; Obama fails to show for court

Photo by Justin Sloan

by Sydney Tonsfeldt
Content Editor

Obama failed to attend his own trial on Jan. 26, despite a Georgia court’s subpoena requiring his presence. Five Georgian citizens, represented by attorneys Orly Taitz, Van Irion and Mark Hatfield, have filed charges against Obama which bring into question his eligibility to run for President in the Georgia primary. Irion is basing his case on the U.S. Supreme Court’s opinion in Minor vs. Happersett, which states:

“The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Some authorities … include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this… there have been doubts…” Minor v. Happersett, 21 Wall. 162 (1874)

If this opinion can be taken to mean that only someone with two American parents is a natural-born citizen, then Obama’s Kenyan father would disqualify him.

Taitz, however, has done more than question Obama’s eligibility by bringing forth allegations of elections fraud and social security fraud. One witness at the trial testified that Obama’s birth certificate showed evidence of tampering. Other witnesses stated that Obama’s Social Security number matched one which should have been issued in Connecticut in 1977, fifteen years after Obama’s birth. Taitz herself took the stand, calling into question Obama’s use of multiple names, including “Soebarkah” on his mother’s passport and “Soetero” on his Indonesian school registration.

On Jan. 19, Hatfield filed a Notice to Produce, requiring Obama’s “long-form” birth certificate and all passport, university, birth and Illinois State Bar records, among others. Executive order 13489, which Obama filed his second day in office, ordered that Presidential records should not be disclosed without the President’s permission, except by court order. According to the Daily Report, Taitz said after the hearing, “This man is just making a joke out of this country. He’s showing tremendous disrespect to the whole nation. Mr. Obama had an opportunity to appear here and show valid documents, certified docs, with embossed seals… He chose to present nothing, which shows that he has nothing. He does not have any valid documents.”

All allegations remained undefended, as Obama’s attorney, Michael K. Jablonski, failed to appear in court. The trial’s judge, Michael Malihi, does not have the authority to sanction Obama for not appearing, but could refer the matter to the Superior Court, which might find him in contempt.  According to the Daily Report, “Malihi wrote in his order that Jablonski had failed to explain any legal authority under which a president would be exempt from being subpoenaed.”

The Secretary of State Brian Kemp will ultimately decide whether Obama’s name will appear on the Georgia primary ballot after receiving Malihi’s recommendation. He is not bound to the Court’s decision. If Obama is deemed ineligible, no Democrats will be running in the Georgia primary, as the Democratic Party has only submitted one name for the ballot.

About these ads

Tags: , , , , ,

9 Comments on “Georgia trial questions Obama’s presidential eligibility; Obama fails to show for court”

  1. ehancock February 1, 2012 at 2:09 pm #

    There was no subpoena. It was an ADMINISTRATIVE LAW COURT, and in Georgia administrative law courts do not have the power to issue subpoenas.

  2. ehancock February 1, 2012 at 2:16 pm #

    The quotation from Minor vs Happersett is shortened, perhaps deliberately. You left out a key sentence.

    Here is the complete quotation:

    “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. For the purposes of this case it is not necessary to solve these doubts.”

    The key sentence is “For the purposes of this case it is not necessary to solve these doubts.” That is the court saying WE ARE NOT GOING TO DECIDE THIS MATTER.

    And, in fact, the court did not decide. Constitutional scholars hold that the quotation is what is known as “dicta”–meaning that it is not a precedent.

    BUT they hold that the Wong Kim Ark ruling, which followed Minor vs Happersett and hence would have overturned it if it had been a ruling (and it wasn’t), said quite clearly that EVERY child born in the USA is Natural Born, except for the children of foreign diplomats. What is a Natural Born Citizen? A US citizen who was Natural Born, of course, and every US citizen who was born in the USA is a Natural Born Citizen. Only naturalized citizens, citizens who were not born in the USA, are US citizens but not Natural Born Citizens.

    “At the time of independence, and at the time of the framing of the Constitution, the term “natural born” with respect to citizenship was in use for many years in the American colonies, and then in the states, from British common law and legal usage. Under the common law principle of jus soli (law of the soil), persons born on English soil, even of two alien parents, were “natural born” subjects and, as noted by the Supreme Court, this “same rule” was applicable in the American colonies and “in the United States afterwards, and continued to prevail under the Constitution …” with respect to citizens. In textual constitutional analysis, it is understood that terms used but not defined in the document must, as explained by the Supreme Court, “be read in light of British common law” since the Constitution is “framed in the language of the English common law.”— Qualifications for President and the “Natural Born” Citizenship Eligibility Requirement, Jack Maskell, Congressional Research Service, November 2011.

    “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….”—- 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.]

  3. Michael Kingman February 1, 2012 at 6:09 pm #

    DO NOT CENSOR THIS POSTING!!! THANKS!! THERE IS NOTHING IN THIS POST THAT WOULD JUSTIFY CENSORING IT!!

    The issue is quite simple. To be President of the USA or to run for the Presidency of the USA, Obama must be a “natural born citizen” according to the Constitution of the USA. The term “natural born citizen” has been defined previously and it requires two conditions:
    1) Obama must be born in the USA.
    Obama’s long form birth certificate that Obama has provided through the White House web site HAS BEEN DECLARED BY MANY EXPERTS TO BE SIMPLY A FORGERY!!!

    —Just a few links on the forged birth certificate that Obama released through the White House web site for those interested:
    –“Obama Birth Certificate Faked In Adobe Illustrator – Official Proof 1 ( Layers )” at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7s9StxsFllY
    –“Obama Birth Certificate Scam? 2011-04-27 Obama.mp4″ at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2eOfYwYyS_c
    –“Adobe book editor positive: Obama certificate is phony” at http://www.wnd.com/2011/06/316749/
    –“Experts: Registrar stamps confirm Obama forgery” at http://www.wnd.com/2011/07/324153/
    –See evidence that Obama forged the birth certificate that was posted on the White House servers on 27 April 2011 (!!) at http://www.scribd.com/collections/3166684
    –See evidence that Obama is using a Social Security Number (SSN) 042-68-4425 that was not legally issued to him but to someone else born in 1890 (!!) at http://www.scribd.com/collections/3260742
    —Just type the keywords Obama birth certificate forged in http://www.google.com and you will find many articles that thoroughly explain why the Obama long form birth certificate that he provided on the White House web site is simply a forgery!!!
    —Do a search in http://www.youtube.com by typing the keywords Obama birth certificate fake and you will see videos demonstrating why the Obama birth certificate that he provided on the White House web site is a forgery!!!

    —Therefore, the only way to check this long form birth certificate is to go to Hawaii to check it directly. In particular, it is indispensable to assess if even this original long form birth certificate in Hawaii is truly genuine that is if it is not also already (!!!) a forgery to cover up for the possible fact that Obama might never have been born in Hawaii!!!

    2) Obama’s parents MUST BOTH be American citizens.
    We know that Obama’s father was a Kenyan and that he NEVER was an American citizen!!!!!
    Therefore, THIS SECOND CONDITION ALONE DISQUALIFIES OBAMA TO RUN FOR THE PRESIDENCY OF THE USA AND IT ALSO DISQUALIFIES OBAMA TO BE PRESIDENT OF THE USA, NO MATTER THE FACT THAT HE WON THE PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION!!!!!!

    More, Obama is a former lawyer. Therefore, he knew perfectly well that he was not entitled to run for the Presidency of the USA but he nevertheless did it DISHONESTLY, FRAUDULENTLY, deceiving purposefully the entire American people.

    Furthermore, Obama was confronted with the definition of what a “natural born citizen” is when he directly participated in the investigation of John McCain’s eligibility to run for the Presidency of the USA. Obama then signed Senate Resolution 511 from April 30, 2008 that reveals the indispensable requirement of having two US citizen parents in order to be a “natural born citizen” according to the Constitution of the USA and therefore to be eligible to run for the Presidency of the USA or to be President of the USA!!!!!
    Therefore, once again, Obama knew very well that he FRAUDULENTLY decided to run for the Presidency of the USA despite the fact that he knew perfectly well that he was NOT a natural born citizen and therefore that he was not entitled, according to the Constitution of the USA, to be President of the USA.

    CONCLUSION:
    —Obama is NOT a natural born citizen and therefore he is not entitled to run for the Presidency of the USA nor is he entitled to be President of the USA, no matter the fact that he won the Presidential election!!!!
    —OBAMA REFUSED TO SHOW UP AT A GEORGIA COURT WHEN HE WAS SPECIFICALLY ASKED TO DO SO BY THE JUDGE SIMPLY BECAUSE HE WAS ASKED TO BRING SEVERAL DOCUMENTS THAT WOULD HAVE PROVED THAT OBAMA IS NOT ENTITLED TO BE PRESIDENT OF THE USA AND THAT HE COMMITTED SEVERAL FRAUDULENT ACTS THAT PROBABLY COULD BE SANCTIONNED BY A JAIL SENTENCE!!!
    —Finally, Obama is a former lawyer and therefore OBAMA CONSCIOUSLY, INTENTIONALLY COMPLETELY DECEIVED THE ENTIRE AMERICAN PEOPLE BY RUNNING FOR THE PRESIDENCY OF THE USA WHEN HE KNEW PERFECTLY WELL THAT HE WAS NOT ENTITLED TO DO SO SIMPLY BECAUSE HE KNEW VERY WELL THAT HE WAS NOT A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN, AS THE CONSTITUTION OF THE USA REQUIRES ONLY ON THE PRESIDENT OF THE USA!!!!
    —THIS HUGE DECEPTION BY OBAMA IS MORE THAN A FRAUDULENT ACT, IT IS WORSE THAN ANYTHING IMAGINABLE BECAUSE:
    1) IT RELATES TO THE HIGHEST POSITION IN THE LAND, THE PRESIDENCY OF THE USA, THAT OBAMA HAS FRAUDULENTLY OBTAINED;
    2) IT RELATES TO THE CONSTITUTION OF THE USA BEING TRAMPLED UPON FRAUDULENTLY AND ILLEGALLY BY OBAMA;
    3) IT RELATES TO THE FACT THAT OBAMA INTENTIONALLY DECEIVED AND MISLED THE ENTIRE AMERICAN PEOPLE!!!
    ANY PERSON GUILTY OF SUCH SERIOUS FRAUD SHOULD AT LEAST GET A JAIL SENTENCE, NO MATTER THAT OBAMA HAS FRAUDULENTLY HELD THE POSITION OF PRESIDENT OF THE USA FOR A PERIOD OF TIME!!!

    DEFINITION OF A “NATURAL BORN CITIZEN”:
    If you really want to have an expert legal explanation on what a “natural born citizen” truly is according to the Constitution of the USA and why legally speaking it is this way, then I suggest that you read at least a few articles on Attorney Mario Apuzzo’s web site “Natural Born Citizen – A Place to Ask Questions and Get the Right Answers” at http://puzo1.blogspot.com/
    IN PARTICULAR, MAKE SURE YOU READ:
    —“The Natural Born Citizen Clause of Our U.S. Constitution Requires that Both of the Child’s Parents Be U.S. Citizens At the Time of Birth” at http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2009/09/natural-born-citizen-clause-requires.html

    YES YOU CAN!!! YOU, THE AMERICAN PEOPLE, YOU CAN FIGHT FOR THE TRUTH!!!
    CONCRETELY, WHAT CAN YOU DO IN YOUR STATE TO GET JUSTICE AND TO PROTECT THE CONSTITUTION OF THE USA?
    1) Contact your governor, your senator, your elected representatives, the attorney general and any appropriate officials and ask them to put in place a legal process to ensure that Obama is on the ballot of your state ONLY IF OBAMA HAS PROVIDED ALL THE DOCUMENTS THAT WERE ASKED BY THE PLAINTIFFS IN THE GEORGIA CASE AND THAT OBAMA HAS REFUSED TO PROVIDE.
    More, PLAN TO ASK FULL DISCOVERY ON OBAMA’S LONG FORM BIRTH CERTIFICATE IN HAWAII AND ON OBAMA’S FRAUDULENT SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBER THAT HE USES!!!
    2) In case your state would not have appropriate laws to do what is indicated in point 1) just above, ask the appropriate officials in your state to create a law that will grant your state the same rights than the state of Georgia has to fully check a candidate BEFORE he is put on the ballot for any elections, in particular for the coming election for the position of President of the USA.
    To conclude:
    —IF THE STATE OF GEORGIA HAS A LAW TO FULLY CHECK CANDIDATES’ ELIGIBILITY FOR THE POSITION BEFORE THEY ARE PUT ON THE BALLOT FOR VARIOUS ELECTIONS, SO CAN YOUR STATE TOO!!!
    —YOUR ACTIONS LOCALLY IN YOUR STATE WILL ENSURE THAT THE CONSTITUTION OF THE USA IS FULLY RESPECTED AND THAT NO ONE IS ABOVE THE LAW!!!
    —OBAMA SHOWED US THAT HE THINKS THAT HE IS ABOVE THE LAW, AS HE DEMONSTRATED BY NOT SHOWING UP IN COURT IN GEORGIA DESPITE BEING EXPRESSLY ASKED BY THE JUDGE TO BE PRESENT AND TO BRING DOCUMENTS THAT SURELY WOULD HAVE PROVED HIS LACK OF ELIGIBILITY TO BE ON THE BALLOT TO BE PRESIDENT OF THE USA, NOT TO MENTION THE HUGE DECEPTION AND LIES THAT OBAMA PERPETRATED AGAINST THE AMERICAN PEOPLE.
    THEREFORE, YOU THE AMERICAN PEOPLE HAS A LEGAL AND MORAL DUTY TO MAKE SURE THAT THE CONSTITUTION OF THE USA IS RESPECTED FULLY AND APPLIED FULLY TO ALL AMERICAN CITIZENS, ESPECIALLY TO OBAMA WHO BELIEVES THAT HE IS ABOVE THE LAW AS HE HAS RECENTLY DEMONSTRATED IN GEORGIA!!!

  4. freddy February 1, 2012 at 9:17 pm #

    Smoke and mirrors, ehancock- I can use that same logic, and prove that a horse chestnut is the same as a chestnut horse.

  5. ehancock February 2, 2012 at 2:58 pm #

    Nobody, not even the birther lawyers, believes that Obama was born outside of the USA anymore.

    Orly did not introduce the slightest bit of evidence that Obama was born elsewhere. She made claims about the birth certificate being forged–but she did not even SAY that he was born outside of Hawaii.

    To have convinced a judge that Obama was born outside of Hawaii she and other birther lawyers would at least have had to discussed a theory as to how Obama could have been born in another country and yet had the birth certificate of Hawaii, and explained the fact that THREE Republican (and several Democrat) officials in Hawaii have confirmed the facts on Obama’s birth certificate. She would have had to have explained how this could have occurred despite the birth notices in the Hawaii newspapers (which were not ads. Hawaii newspapers did not take birth notice ads in 1961; they only took the notices sent to them by the government, which did not send them out for births outside of Hawaii.)

    And, no, it is not true that Obama ever said that he was born in Kenya (That is a forged video). Nor did Michelle say any such thing. Nor did Obama’s Kenyan grandmother, who actually said repeatedly that Obama was born in Hawaii and, in another interview, said that the first that her family in Kenya had heard of Obama’s birth was in A LETTER FROM HAWAII.

  6. ehancock February 2, 2012 at 3:02 pm #

    But say that you do believe that Obama was born outside of Hawaii. You seem to.

    For those of you who still believe that Obama could have been born somewhere else than in Hawaii, a question for you:

    I’ll bet that you know (but, actually, you may have forgotten) that the US government requires, and has long required, that a child being carried into the USA must have some kind of official travel document to be admitted. This is usually a US passport for the child. Or, it could be the fact that the child is entered on the mother’s US passport. Or, it could be a US visa for the child on a foreign passport. Without one of those, we would not let the child into the country.

    So, IF Obama really had been born in Kenya (or in any country other than the USA), he would have had to have one of those documents–wouldn’t he? His family would have had to show the passport. To show the passport, they would have had to have applied for the passport or the visa for Obama. And, if Obama really were born in Kenya (or another country), they would have had to have applied for it in the US consulate or embassy there.

    Such applications are FILED by the US government. The documents exist in multiple files, the actual application itself, communication about it with Washington, entries in the passport file, entries in the application file, entries in the places where the child is carried into the USA. The Bush Administration was in charge of the State Department and the INS for eight years before Obama was elected. Don’t you think that they would have checked the claim that he was born outside the USA?

    All they had to do was find one of those files and McCain would win the election.

    Well, they never did. There is no such file.

    So the question is, do you think that the Bush Administration was part of the plot?

    Do you think that the files, the documents, the application for the documents, the communications about the documents were all lost or hidden? Remember, they are in multiple files, the file of the passport holder, the files of applications for passports, the files in the US embassy in foreign countries, the files in the State Department and in the INS (which would have checked in Obama at an entry point if he had actually traveled in 1961)–and yet no document has been found. Why not?

    The absence of the travel document, plus the Hawaii birth certificate, plus the confirmation of the facts on it by three Republican (and several Democrat) officials, plus the birth notices in the Hawaii newspapers in 1961, plus the witness who remembers being told of the birth and writing home about it (to her father, named Stanley, about the unusual event of a birth to a woman named Stanley). All this is evidence that Obama was born in Hawaii.

  7. ehancock February 2, 2012 at 4:31 pm #

    Re: “Obama’s parents MUST BOTH be American citizens.”

    Who told you that? It is wrong.

    Apuzzo is a birther. There are a few other birther lawyers, including Leo Donofrio.

    Nobody in Congress believes them. None of the Republican candidates for president believe them. The chief justice of the United States, who swore in Obama, did not believe them (if he had, he would not have sworn in Obama, or at least said something about the definition of NBC). None of the major conservative commentators such as Ann Coulter and Bill O’Reilly believe them. The Wall Street Journal, whose editorial page is conservative, says that the two parent idea is nutty.

    There are a number of reasons. The three main ones are that the Minor vs Happersett case says right in it that it is NOT a decision on either citizenship or Natural Born Citizenship. It says right in it that it does not have to decide. When a court says that it does not have to decide a matter, that is not a decision.

    The second reason is that Apuzzo and Donofrio ignore the Wong Kim Ark ruling (which was AFTER the Minor vs Happersett ruling and hence would have overturned it, if Minor was actually a ruling, which it wasn’t). And the Wong Kim Ark case defines the term Natural Born, saying that it comes from the common law (not from Vattel). It says that the meaning of Natural Born comes from the PLACE of birth, just as in the common law. And it says that EVERY child born in the USA except for the children of foreign diplomats is Natural Born.

    What then is a Natural Born Citizen? Obviously it is a US citizen who was Natural Born, and that in fact is what the federal courts have stated in many cases, and what the VAST majority of legal and constitutional scholars hold, and there have been court cases:

    Here are some cases:

    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.”

    What makes them Natural Born Citizens? Not the parents; they were citizens of Romania. What makes the children Natural Born Citizens? They were born in the USA.

    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.”

    What makes them Natural Born Citizens? They were born in the USA.

    Nwankpa v. Kissinger, 376 F. Supp. 122 (M.D. Ala. 1974) (child born in US to two Biafra citizens described as “natural born citizen” of the US):

    “The Plaintiff was a native of Biafra, now a part of the Republic of Nigeria. His wife and two older children are also natives of that country, but his third child, a daughter, is a natural-born citizen of the United States.”

    What makes the third child different from her siblings? She was born in the USA.

    “Based on 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. Just as a person “born within the British dominions [was] a natural born-born subject” at the time of the framing of the U.S. Constitution, so too were those “born in the allegiance of the United States [ ] natural-born citizens.”— Ankeny v. Governor of the State of Indiana, 916 NE2d 678, 688 (2009), (Ind.Supreme Court, Apr. 5, 2010)

    Another eason is that the meaning of Natural Born Citizen at the time that the Constitution was written was well understood to refer to the place of birth. We can see this because THAT IS THE WAY THAT THEY USED THE TERM AT THE TIME. Also, if we do a search of the writings of John Adams, John Jay, James Madison, Alexander Hamilton, etc. we cannot find examples in their writings that indicate that Natural Born Citizen refers to the parents. We can find many examples in which they used the term Natural Born just the way that it was used in the common law, and there are two examples from Ben Franklin, John Jay and John Adams in which they indicated that a US Natural Born Citizen is equivalent to a British Natural Born Subject (in draft treaties in which US citizens in Britain were to get the rights of Natural Born Subjects and vice versa).

    And, in fact there are two good examples of how the term Natural Born was used in America at about the time that the 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 quotation from 1803 (shortly after the Constitution was written) 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)

    And this is what Ronald Reagan’s Attorney General had about it in his book:

    “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….”—- 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.]

  8. Tom QUinn February 5, 2012 at 11:16 am #

    ehancock. Thanks for the brilliant analysis. Not that anyone here will listen. BTW, weren’t Andrew Jackson’s parents both immigrants? And didn’t several other presidents have one foreign-born parent? And why did I not hear the birthers scream that Donald Trump, whose mother was born in Scotland, is ineligible?

  9. ehancock February 6, 2012 at 11:38 am #

    Good point regarding Andrew Jackson.

    Birthers claim that he does not count because he fell under the provisions of the grandfather clause. But in rational terms he does count. After all, under birther logic a president with two foreign parents would tend to be less loyal than a president with no foreign parents, and here is Jackson–with two foreign parents–who is the most fiercely loyal president you can imagine.

    Which leads to the following conclusion. We today do not believe that the US-born children of foreign parents tend to be less loyal than the US-born children of US parents. That being the case, why should we assume–without evidence–that the writers of the US Constitution believed that the US-born children of foreigners would tend to be less loyal than the US-born children of US-parents.

    IF there were evidence that they thought that, sure. But there isn’t any evidence. So, why assume it?

    There have been seven US presidents who had foreign parents including Obama.

    Thomas Jefferson
    Andrew Jackson
    James Buchanan
    Chester A. Arthur
    Woodrow Wilson
    Herbert Hoover
    Obama.

    Of these two fell under the grandfather clause, Jefferson and Jackson.

    As to the others, the ones who were not under the grandfather clause:

    Birthers claim that James Buchanan’s father was naturalized before his birth. Unfortunately, THERE IS NO EVIDENCE OF IT. No evidence at all.

    Birthers claim that Chester A. Arthur hid the fact that his father was not a US citizen. Unfortunately, THERE IS NO EVIDENCE OF IT.

    And Wilson’s and Hoover’s mothers were foreign citizens. Birthers say that they had been naturalized before the births. Actually, they were only made US citizens due to laws that made women who married US men automatically US citizens. That is hardly the same thing as being naturalized, in which you have to give up your citizenship in the foreign country and swear an oath.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: