Does anyone recall detailed discussions in civics class on Article II, Section 1, clause 5? Probably not.

 

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.

 

As stated previously the Supreme Court has ruled on the definition of 'natural born citizen' in Minor v. Happersett:

 

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.”

 

Immigration Act of 1790 excerpt - the only codified reference to 'natural born Citizen' in US law other than Article II, Section 1, Clause 5:

 

And the children of citizens of the United States that may be born beyond Sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born Citizens

 

Note that this specific phrase was removed in the Immigration act of 1795 so the phrase is no longer law and has not been for over 200 years. But it is the only law ever passed by Congress specifically referencing the specific phrase 'natural born Citizen'.

 

SR 511:

 

Full Text of S.Res. 511 (110th): A resolution recognizing that John Sidney McCain, III, is a natural born citizen. - GovTrack.us

 

Recognizing that John Sidney McCain, III, is a natural born citizen.

 

Whereas the Constitution of the United States requires that, to be eligible for the Office of the President, a person must be a `natural born Citizen' of the United States;

Whereas the term `natural born Citizen', as that term appears in Article II, Section 1, is not defined in the Constitution of the United States;

Whereas there is no evidence of the intention of the Framers or any Congress to limit the constitutional rights of children born to Americans serving in the military nor to prevent those children from serving as their country's President;

 

Whereas such limitations would be inconsistent with the purpose and intent of the `natural born Citizen' clause of the Constitution of the United States, as evidenced by the First Congress's own statute defining the term `natural born Citizen';

 

Whereas the well-being of all citizens of the United States is preserved and enhanced by the men and women who are assigned to serve our country outside of our national borders;

Whereas previous presidential candidates were born outside of the United States of America and were understood to be eligible to be President; and

Whereas John Sidney McCain, III, was born to American citizens on an American military base in the Panama Canal Zone in 1936: Now, therefore, be it

 

• Resolved, That John Sidney McCain, III, is a `natural born Citizen' under Article II, Section 1, of the Constitution of the United States.
  

 

The source of the clause was a recommendation in a letter from John Jay to George Washington as a strong check to foreign influence during a time when countries in Europe were trying to gain influence in each other affairs via royal cross marrying.

 

This is basically the entire history of the legal definitions of 'natural born Citizen'. You now have what any lawmaker has and what any court has actually ruled at the highest levels on the subject.

 

 

M v. H provides a specific definition of 'term':

 

"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..."

 

This captures the usual two conditions that are the most strict requirements for natural born citizen - jus sanguinis (of the blood, i.e '...parents who were citizens...') and jus soli (of the soil, i.e. '...born in country...').

 

This is a supreme court ruling. So the supreme court has defined specifically what qualifies as a 'natural born Citizen'. It is not dictum as claimed by many, it is a core portion of the ruling itself. This ruling is referenced in later cases of the court. It was a unanimous decision.

 

The conflict with the circumstances of Obama is that both of his parents are not citizens. Only one parent is. Nit-picking - possible - but still a material conflict with a specific SCOTUS ruling that did define the term 'natural born Citizen'.

 

There is a also a potential conflict with McCain's status related to this definition. The official story is that McCain was born on submarine base in the Panama Canal Zone. There is unconfirmed evidence he may have been born in a Panama Colin hospital. And this was a specific concern and issue in various circles in 2008. In fact the NYT and WP were pretty aggressive on the issue:

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/28/us/politics/28mccain.html

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/01/opinion/l01mccain.html

McCain's Birth Abroad Stirs Legal Debate

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/11/us/politics/11mccain.html

 

 

This was such an issue that SR 511 was drafted - by Democrats interestingly. There is phrase in the SR that references the immigration act of 1790: '...as evidenced by the First Congress's own statute defining the term `natural born Citizen''. This statement is technically incorrect. The statute (immigration act of 1790) did not 'define' the term. Instead it indicated who shall be 'considered as' thus equivocating the two but not indicating they are one in the same.

 

A closer look at the immigration act of 1790 does provide insight into what the founders considered the key element of being a natural born citizen - jus sanguinis, not jus soli. Parentage was the primary concern as indicated in the act. The passage was dropped in the next version of the act in 1795. Thus, the passage is not current law.

 

This is the basic background that goes beyond 'place of birth' issues. In fact this is the core of background on 'natural born Citizen' when it comes to law and precedence.

 

Is Obama's circumstances in conflict or possible conflict - yes. But so were McCain's.

 

Is it a giant conspiracy to avoid the subject? Probably not. There is not much precedence and it would be a can of worms for sure. And a 'fix' in an absolute worst case scenario would be all but impossible. So there is no reason for any legal function to attack this or even look into it if they can avoid it.

 

But here are the basic, objective facts about 'natural born Citizen'.

No I'm not, that's what I'm saying, how does anyone know, but there has been more reason for asking with Obama than any other.

 

Reason? No. Reason left this argument a long time ago.

I've answered your question, but I guess that you just didn't like my answer. The agent may have mixed up information from Obama's early life, possibly even with his father of the same name.

 

Actually I didn't see it until just now. It seems improbable to me that they weren't told that and just went on their own. I admittedly have no idea how Literary Agents work though.

Who cares where the info came from. Why would anyone put more faith in the info from an agent than they would from the official documents of the state of Hawaii? I taught a short course a couple of months ago. For some reason the brochure for the course listed me as president of a company I don't even work for. If I show up on Monday with that brochure, do you think I can take over the company? I would have have as much proof as MR.

 

I care where the info came from. You make a good point though. Did you inform anyone the info on the brochure was wrong?

I care where the info came from. You make a good point though. Did you inform anyone the info on the brochure was wrong?

 

I didn't see it until I got there. I did rib the real president of the company a little.

Maybe Obama did write his own Bio.

 

A 'Fact Checking Error'? Dystel & Goderich Ask Writers to Submit Their Own Bios