Is Barack Obama even a United States Citizen, based upon the Founding Fathers and Congress at the time the United States Constitution was ratified?
Although you might think this is a trick question, consider the following:
The United States Constitution requires that to be eligible for the Presidency, that person must be a ‘Natural Born Citizen’.
Tench Coxe, ofPennsylvania, a member of the Annapolis Convention and the Continental Congress, and author of a number of pamphlets on the finances and commerce of theUnited States. The four letters written over that signature were among the first to appear in favor of the Constitution, and were reprinted in many of the newspapers of the day. As he wrote An Examination of the Constitution for theUnited States of America, Submitted to the People by the General Convention, At Philadelphia, the 17th Day of September, 1787;
The President of the upper-house (or the chancellor) in in England, is appointed by their king, while our Vice-President, who is chosen by the people, through the electors and the Senate, is not at all dependant on the President, but may exercise equal powers on some occasions. In all royal governments, an helpless infant or an inexperienced youth may wear the crown. Our President must be matured by the experience of years, and being born among us, his character at thirty-five must be fully understood. Wisdom, virtue and active qualities of mind and body can alone make him the first servant of a free and enlightened people. LINK
Born among the Citizens by a Citizen Father.
To be a Citizen of the United States, Congress in 1790 passed the original United States Naturalization Law of March 26, 1790 (1 Stat. 103) which provided the first rules to be followed by the United States in the granting of national citizenship. This law limited naturalization to immigrants who were “free white persons” of “good moral character”. It thus left out indentured servants, slaves, free blacks, and later Asians. While women were included in the act, the right of citizenship did “not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in theUnited States….” Citizenship was inherited exclusively through the father.
Citizenship was a ‘birthright’ inheritance from the father to his offspring, as such that as Vattel stated that “As the society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights.”
This natural allegiance was perpetual and difficult to severe or alter (Once a English subject, always a English subject) and was found odious in this country (America went to war against this “natural allegiance” in 1812). The State ofVirginiaoutright rejected the common law doctrine in 1779 when it adopted the following doctrine written by Thomas Jefferson:
[A]ll infants, wheresoever born, whose father, if living, or otherwise, whose mother was a citizen at the time of their birth, or who migrate hither, their father, if living, or otherwise, their mother becoming a citizen, or who migrate hither without father or mother, shall be deemed citizens of this Commonwealth until they relinquish that character, in manner as hereinafter expressed; and all others not being citizens of any, of the United States of America, shall be deemed aliens.
Under Sec. 1992 of U.S. Revised Statutes the same Congress who had adopted the Fourteenth Amendment, confirmed this principle: “All persons born in theUnited Statesand not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed, are declared to be citizens of theUnited States.”
Who are the subjects of a foreign power? Thomas Jefferson said “Aliens are the subjects of a foreign power.” Thus, the statute can be read as “All persons born in theUnited Stateswho are not aliens, excluding Indians not taxed, are declared to be citizens of theUnited States.”
During the debates of the Fourteenth Amendment’s citizenship clause, both its primary framers, Sen. Jacob Howard and Sen. Lyman Trumbull listened to concerns of including such persons as Chinese, Mongolians, and Gypsies to citizenship. Additionally, Sen. Fessenden (co-chairman of the Reconstruction Committee) raised the question of persons born of parents from abroad temporarily in this country – an issue he would not have raised if Congress were merely reaffirming the common law doctrine – and of course, the question of Indians.
Sen. Trumbull attempted to assure Senators that Indians were not “subject to the jurisdiction” of theUnited States. Sen. Johnson argued that Sen. Trumbull was in error in regards to the Indian’s not being under the jurisdiction of theUnited States. This must have raised concerns with Howard because he strongly made it known that he had no intention whatsoever to confer citizenship upon the Indians under his amendment, no matter if born within or outside of their tribal lands.
Sen. Trumbull further added, “It cannot be said of any Indian who owes allegiance, partial allegiance if you please, to some other Government that he is ‘subject to the jurisdiction of theUnited States.’” Sen. Jacob Howard agreed:
[I] concur entirely with the honorable Senator from Illinois [Trumbull], in holding that the word “jurisdiction,” as here employed, ought to be construed so as to imply a full and complete jurisdiction on the part of the United States, coextensive in all respects with the constitutional power of the United States, whether exercised by Congress, by the executive, or by the judicial department; that is to say, the same jurisdiction in extent and quality as applies to every citizen of the United States now.
Sen. Trumbull further restates the the goal of the language: “It is only those persons who come completely within our jurisdiction, who are subject to our laws, that we think of making citizens…” Note thatTrumbulldoes not say temporarily within our jurisdiction, but completely within our jurisdiction.
In the year 1873 the United States Attorney General ruled the word “jurisdiction” under the Fourteenth Amendment to mean:
The word “jurisdiction” must be understood to mean absolute and complete jurisdiction, such as theUnited Stateshad over its citizens before the adoption of this amendment… Aliens, among whom are persons born here and naturalized abroad, dwelling or being in this country, are subject to the jurisdiction of the United States only to a limited extent. Political and military rights and duties do not pertain to them. (14 Op. Atty-Gen. 300.)
House Report No. 784, dated June 22, 1874, stated, “The United States have not recognized a double allegiance. By our law a citizen is bound to be ‘true and faithful’ alone to our government.” There is no way in the world anyone can claim “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” affirms the feudal common law doctrine of birth citizenship to aliens because such doctrine by operation creates a “double allegiance” between separate nations.
As Bingham stated “all other persons born within the Republic, of parents owing allegiance to no other sovereignty, are natural-born citizens.”
In 1866, Sen. Jacob Howard succinctly spelled out this intent of the 14th Amendment by stating: “Every person born within the limits of theUnited States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of theUnited States. This will not, of course, include persons born in theUnited Stateswho are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of theUnited States, but will include every other class of persons. It settles the great question of citizenship and removes all doubt as to what persons are or are not citizens of theUnited States….”
This understanding was reaffirmed by Senator Edward Cowan, who stated:
[A foreigner in theUnited States] has a right to the protection of the laws; but he is not a citizen in the ordinary acceptance of the word…
Therefore again, children born to foreign parents was never the intent.
Even as John Bingham wrote; “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.”
-Chief Justice Waite in Minor v. Happersett (1875)
Title 8 and the 14th Amendment both state; All persons born or naturalized in theUnited States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of theUnited Statesand of the State wherein they reside.
But here again, is the term ‘Subject to the Jurisdiction thereof’. Under Jus Soli, the following is written “The Supreme Court’s first holding on the sublect suggested that the court would give a restrictive reading to the phrase, potentially disqualifing significant number of persons born within the physical boundries of the nation. In Elk v. Wilkins 112U.S.94, 5 S.CT. 41, 28 L.ED. 643 (1884), the court ruled that native Indians were notU.S.citizens, even if they later severed their ties with their tribes. The words “subject to the jurisdiction thereof,” the court held, mean “not merely subjct in some respect or degree to the jurisdiction of theUnited States, but completely subject to their political jurisdiction, and owing them direct and immediate allegiance.” Most Indians could not meet the test. “Indians born within the territorial limits of the United States, members of, and owing immediate allegiance to, one of the Indian Tribes, (an alien through dependent power,) although in a geographical sense born in the United States, are no more ‘born in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof,’*** then the children of subjects of any foreign government born within the domain of that government ***.Id.at 102.
It continues that Congress eventually passed legislation with the ‘Allotment Act of 1887, that conferred citizenship on many Indians.
The fact remains, the United States Supreme Court held, complete and sole Jurisdiction is ‘required’ and that just being born anywhere in the United States, does not qualify anyone for automatic citizenship, jurisdiction is required, sole and complete.
Barack Abdallah Husein Obama was not born of parents [plural] that were free form foreign allegiance and citizenship. Barack Obama Sr was a foreign national and a British subject, Governed by the British Nationality Act of 1948, and that same act governed the status of Obama Sr.‘s children, including foreign born Barack Abdallah Husein Obama.
“When Barack Obama Jr. was born on Aug. 4,1961, 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.
Barack Abdallah Husein Obama, born of a foreign father, a British subject, under the allegiance of the British Crown is in direct opposition to the Founding Fathers, the Congress of the United States, the United States Supreme Court, the United States Constitution including the 14th Amendment. that sole and complete ‘Jurisdiction’ is required for citizenship in theUnited States.
So is Barack Abdallah Husein Obama even a United States Citizen?