« Any Politican That Votes For Obama's DEATHCare Should Never Get Voted For Again!! | Main | Obama's Capitol Hill Card: Who is in Your Wallet? »
July 28, 2009
He is a Citizen But Is He Natural or Memorex
Lou Dobbs Calls Rachel Maddow "Tea-Bagging Queen" Over "Obama Birther" Comment ...- 07/28/09
Obama Has Been Planning For His Natural Born Problem since 2006
Why Was Sarah Herlihy Worrying About Article II?
Sarah Herlihy's article below. Herlihy works for the law firm of Kirkland and Ellis out of their Chicago office. The kicker is that Herlihy's article was published in the Kent Law review in 2006 and, notes Count us Out Blogger Creative Ogre:
"While digging my way through the Internet last night, I came across the following paper, written by SARAH P. HERLIHY. It’s title: AMENDING THE NATURAL BORN CITIZEN REQUIREMENT: GLOBALIZATION AS THE IMPETUS AND THE OBSTACLE caught my eye, and had to read it…
"I had to ask myself, what would drive any American to want to change a clause in a document that is the very foundation of our government? So, I kept digging, and found that SARAH P. HERLIHY is employed by Kirkland & Ellis LLP
"Noting that this law firm is based in Chicago, the light bulb was shining a little brighter . Upon looking at the firm, and the partners, I found that Bruce I. Ettelson, P.C., is Member of finance committees of U.S. Senators Barack Obama and Richard Durbin.
"In addition, Jack S. Levin, P.C., another partner who, in December 2002 was presented the ” Illinois Venture Capital As sociation’s lifetime achievement award for service to the private equity/venture capital community” presented by Sen. Barack Obama
"So it sure looks like Obama’s people have looked into the matter of “Natural born” as far back as early 2006. What is even more disturbing is that it would appear that they are following the thought of "If the facts do not support the theory, Destroy the facts!”
Here is the introduction to the paper… It looks like a road map for Obama’s defense lawyers…And a precursor to a Socialist world."
For those who find the PDF file information hard to open or read here’s a link to the piece:
Amending the Natural Born Citizen law - an attorney’s view
Excerpt:
This article was written in 2005 by an attorney affiliated with the law firm of Kirkland & Ellis (that has ties to Mr. Obama) promoting the idea of doing away with the “natural born citizen” requirement for serving as president.
Chicago-Kent Law Review
2006
81 Chi.-Kent L. Rev. 275
STUDENT NOTE: AMENDING THE NATURAL BORN CITIZEN REQUIREMENT: GLOBALIZATION AS THE IMPETUS AND THE OBSTACLE
NAME: Sarah P. Herlihy*
BIO: * J.D. Chicago-Kent College of Law, 2005. The author would like to thank Professor Graeme Dinwoodie, and the 2004-2005 Globalization and Its Effect on Domestic Law Seminar Class for their valuable comments and insights on this Note.
SUMMARY:
… “The natural born citizen requirement in Article II of the United States Constitution has been called the “stupidest provision” in the Constitution, “undecidedly un-American,” “blatantly discriminatory,” and the “Constitution’s worst provision. …
Additionally, considering that the Founding Fathers presumably included the natural born citizen clause in the Constitution partly out of fear of foreign subversion, the current stability of the American government and the in-tense media scrutiny of presidential candidates virtually eliminates the possibility of a “foreigner” coming to America, becoming a naturalized citizen, generating enough public support to become president, and somehow using the presidency to directly benefit his homeland. …
Even though this concern is not a legitimate reason to vote against abolishing the natural born citizen clause because many natural born Americans are Muslims, many Americans may oppose a Constitutional amendment because of the possibility that a naturalized citizen would be more likely to be a Muslim, Hindu, or some other religion besides Christian. …
Accordingly, Americans may rely on their belief that globalization is effectively eating away at “America” by lessening the strength of symbols such as the presidency to justify their decision to leave the natural born citizen requirement in place.”
Interesting that the this piece seems to be centered on religion, at least initially, EXCLUDING the Constitutional premise for the inclusion of native citizenship. ~ Wild Thing
To be a ‘natural born citizen’ a child must be born in the country of which the parents are citizens.
The term ‘natural born citizen’ was first codified in writing in colonial reference books in 1758, specifically in the legal reference book “Law of Nations.”
That legal reference book was used by John Jay, who later became the first Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court. Jay requested the clause be inserted into the Constitution via a letter he wrote to George Washington, the leader of the Constitutional Convention.
Jay, considered the outstanding legal scholar of his time, was responsible for inserting that term into the U. S. Constitution, a term derived from the Law of Nations.
The Law of Nations was written by Emmerich de Vattel. He was a Swiss jurist who attained world preeminence in international law. This fame was primarily the result of his great foundational work — The Law of Nations — which he published in 1758. This monumental work applied a theory of natural law to international relations.
De Vattel’s Law of Nations was THE primary reference and defining book used by the framers of the U. S. Constitution. It is really not possible to overstate the influence of de Vattel’s Law of Nations as the primary reference book in the drafting of the U. S. Constitution.
The Law of Nations is almost beyond comparison in its value as a defining document regarding U. S. Constitution intent and interpretation. The Law of Nations, or the Principles of Natural Law, published in 1758, is the first, and ONLY, definitive work the Framers of the U. S. Constitution used for the inclusion of the “Natural Born Citizen” phrase. It nails what is meant by the “natural born citizen” phrase of Section 1, Article 2, of the U. S. Constitution.
To be a “natural born citizen” one’s parents must both be citizens (native born or naturalized, it doesn’t matter which) AND one must be born within the nation of one’s parents.
“…natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. As the society can not 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. The society is supposed to desire this, in consequence of what it owes to its own preservation; and it is presumed, as a matter of course, that each citizen, on entering into society, reserves to his children the right of becoming members of it. THE COUNTRY OF THE FATHERS IS THEREFORE THAT OF THE CHILDREN.”
Rep. John Bingham of Ohio, considered the father of the Fourteenth Amendment, confirms that understanding and the construction the framers used in regards to birthright and jurisdiction while speaking on civil rights of citizens in the House on March 9, 1866:
” ... 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 (plural, meaning two) not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen...”
Bingham is also quoted saying in the Spring of 1868 some serious warnings: “May God forbid that the future historian shall record of this day’s proceedings, that by reason of the failure of the legislative power of the people to triumph over the usurpations of an apostate President, the fabric of American empire fell and perished from the earth!...I ask you to consider that we stand this day pleading for the violated majesty of the law, by the graves of half a million of martyred hero-patriots who made death beautiful by the sacrifice of themselves for their country, the Constitution and the laws, and who, by their sublime example, have taught us all to obey the law; that none are above the law...”
From all of this we can easily understand after reading this, Barack Obama is not eligible to be President under Section 1, Article 2, of the U. S. Constitution Obama’s father was a British subject).
‘natural born citizen’ is a person born in the country of which the parents are citizens.
Rationale of the logic is as follows: The U. S. Supreme Court in 1939 held that a certain Miss Elg was a NATURAL BORN CITIZEN because she was born in Brooklyn, New York on October 2, 1907, her father was naturalized as a U.S. citizen in 1906 under the Naturalization Act of 1906, and her mother derived her US citizenship in 1907 under the Expatriation Act of 1907. (The Expatriation Act of 1907 extended the logic linking a woman’s citizenship to her marital status and the status of her spouse. The 19th Amendment to the U.S.Constitution obliterated that link.)
You can be a “citizen” under the following circumstances:
1. You were born of one citizen parent (Obama), or
2. You were born in the US mainland (anchor babies) or
3. You were naturalized (Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger)
To be a “natural born citizen” you must be born in the US mainland of two US citizen parents.
Obama is a citizen — not a natural born citizen because he was (probably) born in the State of Hawaii of one US citizen parent or maybe he was not born in Hawaii.
Ms. Elg was found to be a “natural born citizen” because she was born in the mainland USA (New York) of TWO US citizen parents.
If your parents are U.S. citizens and you are born in a foreign nation, as was John McCain, you are a citizen.
Native Born citizen:
1 - This principle was clearly stated by Attorney General Edwards Pierrepont in his letter of advice to the Secretary of State Hamilton Fish, in Steinkauler’s Case, 1875, 15 Op.Atty.Gen. 15. The facts were these: One Steinkauler, a Prussian subject by birth, emigrated to the United States in 1848, was naturalized in 1854, and in the following year had a son who was born in St. Louis. Four years later Steinkauler returned to Germany taking this child and became domiciled at Weisbaden where they continuously resided. When the son reached the age of twenty years the German Government called upon him to report for military duty and his father then invoked the intervention of the American Legation on the ground that his son was a native citizen of the United States. To an inquiry by our Minister, the father declined to give an assurance that the son would return to this country within a reasonable time. On reviewing the pertinent points in the case, including the Naturalization Treaty of 1868 with North Germany, 15 Stat. 615, the Attorney General reached the following conclusion: ‘Young Steinkauler is a native-born American citizen.
2- U.S. vs Wong Kim Ark (1898) The holding in U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark states that Wong Kim Ark is a native born citizen. If you look at the fact of Wong Kim Ark being born in San Francisco, CA, of Chinese parents who were loyal subjects of the Emperor of China, that holding is correct.
The importance of this case is that it is the first case decided by the Supreme Court that attempts to explain the meaning of “natural born citizen” under Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 of the U.S. Constitution. Natural born citizen is similar to the meaning of what a natural born subject is under Common Law in England. That is one of the reasons why the framers specifically included a grandfather clause (natural born Citizen OR a Citizen of the United States, at the time of adoption of this Constitution). The founding fathers knew that in order to be president, they had to grandfather themselves in because they were British subjects. If they didn’t, they could not be President of the U.S.
It is important because we cannot pick and choose which parts of the Constitution we want to follow, then ignore the rest. If the American people want to change the Constitution it must be done via ratification of a majority of the states. Not by resolution of the Senate or by popular vote.
.
Wild Thing's comment......
Interesting to note, McCain's lawyer is with the same law firm.
McCain’s lawyer: McCain Justice Advisory Committee was Christopher Landau - Partner, Kirkland & Ellis LLP
Like a spiders web they weave all these politicans and those backing them like Soros.
Thanks to Satin Doll for a lot of this information.
Posted by Wild Thing at July 28, 2009 07:55 PM
Comments
According to Hawaii they just re-issued a statement from the Department of Health that obama's records are intact and they just looked at them to confirm 'again' that he is a natural born citizen... So why not release the real Birth Certificate. I mean this has to rise to a level beyond where the State could refuse on grounds of privacy. Afterall, it is the Prez. we are talking about.
Aside from officials in Hawaii who else has seen the original document. The Governor has sealed obama's documents, so nobody can look at them to verify them. The answer, nobody.
Last night O'reilly said he investigated the obama birth certificate and porved he was a citizen. Yet his investigation is not published anywhere for the publics purusal. So what kind of an investigation hids the facts of an investigation.
This is more circular logic by the state of Hawaii and a lot of the quasi conservatives. This almost seems like a ploy we won't look too deep into the Obama Birth if you leave us alone and not shut us down, via a new fairness doctrine. It screams fraud.
But tonight Orielly claims the Oil speculators on wall street have a scam going to drive up the oil prices, Karl Rove disagreed, yet finds it unlikely that obama may not be a citizen. Sounds like oreilly is supporting his buddy Geraldo.
I am beginning to believe there is not an honest man in the media.
Posted by: Mark at July 28, 2009 09:04 PM
Well there you go. If Bill O'Reilly says it's the real thing then it must be. Following that logic back to August 2 and August 4, 1964, if you want something bad enough you must create it, it is as simple as that. All it takes is a validation. Then you mollify the original creation through media anchors feeding their agiprop back to the public to hide the fact that it was in error, a rush to judgement and now it must fail to cover up the original lie.
Mark: I am beginning to believe there is not an honest man in the media.
Damned right, there isn't!!!
Posted by: Jack at July 28, 2009 09:28 PM
Excellent stuff WT. I don't put much faith in Oreilly. He spends way too much time on the sensational stories and just plays sound bytes of the matters that really matter. He's a political survivor like the rest of them.
Posted by: Jim at July 28, 2009 09:49 PM
you nailed it Jim, Survivor, that's oreilly.
Posted by: Mark at July 28, 2009 10:10 PM
Why doesn't the Supreme Court order the release of his birth certificate and put this thing to rest? To me, that sounds simple. Unless there is something really there and they fear riots in the streets.
The courts had no problems ordering the release of Bush's military records. But, for some reason they wouldn't release Kerry's.
Posted by: BobF at July 28, 2009 10:43 PM
Thank you so much all of you for your input
on this. I agree too about O'Reilly and no
honest person in the media.
We had company at the house this evening so
I am not going to reply seperately to the
comments from today, but I am going to read
all of them and I appreciate all of your
being here so very much.
Posted by: Wild Thing at July 29, 2009 12:02 AM
BobF - It sounds like your Supreme Court is packed with individuals who have left wing leanings. No suprise there - so are most of your media hounds. This was glaringly obvious during your 2008 Presidential elections. The reporting was so one sided it was excruiating to watch....:(
Posted by: Lynette in Australia at July 29, 2009 06:27 AM
I still prefer the guillotine vs. the rope. Maybe its the sentiment or my age but just the idea of Blowbamas head in a faux wicker basket makes me smile.
Posted by: cuchieddie(former Army Infantry) at July 29, 2009 08:15 AM
I realize this is probably pointless, but I'd like to point out that the article was written by a law student. She wasn't "affiliated" (employed) by Kirkland until after she graduated. Further, the 2 guys you reference, Ettelson and Levin are two of the most senior partners at the firm and both in the corporate department. Sarah Herlihy is a very junior associate in the litigation department. Those two guys have never met her or heard of her. So "Obama's people" (if those 2 are such a thing) didn't look into this, its a law review article written by a law student.
You know Kenneth Starr works for that firm, right?
Posted by: Jason at July 29, 2009 10:27 AM
Jason, thanks.
Regarding Ken Starr, I am no fan of his.
When he was investigating and looking into
the things about Bill Clinton I knew he
would not have the balls to do what had
to be done and unfortunately I was right.
Ken Starr got paid well to do nothing.
He is no man of honor and he had his
chance to show the world that he was and
he failed miserably.
So I am not surprised he woule be
connected with this law firm.
Posted by: Wild Thing at August 1, 2009 03:31 PM
