On July 17 CNN’s Kitty Pilgrim pretended to interview Orly Taitz and Alan Keyes on the birth eligibility issue. Pilgrim did most of the talking and flat-out lied when she stated that the Obama campaign had posted the original birth certificate and that factcheck.org had examined the original birth certificate; whether it was forged or not, the Certification of Live Birth is not the original birth certificate. Dr Keyes spoke very well in the minute or so allotted him.
On the other hand, from her interview it seems that Orly Taitz is building her case on 2 premises, one false and the other irrelevant. It is unfortunate that Taitz is using these points as the basis of her case because it is increasingly clear that Obama was not born in Hawaii, and the issue should not be clouded by mistaken arguments.
Orly Taitz asserts that “to be president there have to be two parents who are citizens.” This is false. Here is Blackstone’s classic exposition in 1765 of the legal meaning of the term from the Commentaries on the Laws of England.
William Blackstone, Commentaries 1: 354 361–62
Natural-born subjects are such as are born within the dominions of the crown of England, that is, within the ligeance, or as it is generally called, the allegiance of the king; and aliens, such as are born out of it…all children, born out of the king’s ligeance [i.e on foreign soil], whose fatherswere natural-born subjects, are now natural-born subjects themselves, to all intents and purposes, without any exception; unless their said fathers were attainted, or banished beyond sea, for high treason; or were then in the service of a prince at enmity with Great Britain.” [The italics are Blackstone's]
Blackstone explicitly grounds natural-born status on location (jus soli), not parentage, except when the child is born abroad. The notion that both parents have to be citizens is false. All children born on American soil are natural-born subjects or citizens. If Obama was born on American soil there would be no controversy. If he was born on foreign soil, the fact that his father was not an American citizen would disqualify him from natural-born citizenship.
In discussing the Certification of Live Birth that the Obama campaign claims was posted on the web, Orly Taitz also asserts that “Hawaii has statute 338 that allows foreign-born children of Hawaiian residents to get Hawaiian birth certificates.” What she is referring to here is the 1982 amendment of the vital records law. Under Act 182 H.B. NO. 3016-82, state policies and procedures could accommodate even “children born out of State” (this is the actual language of Act 182) with an original birth certificate on record. But though Act 182 does provide children born out of state with a birth certificate it does not provide them with birth certificates that say that these children were born in Hawaii or at a specific location in Hawaii. Consequently these birth certificates cannot engender Certifications of Live Birth which state that the subject was born in Honolulu, as the purported Obama Certification of Live Birth does. So if the Obama Certification of Live Birth was not forged, it could not have been engendered by an Act 182-authorized birth certificate for “children born out of state”. And if it was forged, the false information on it was not based on anything that could be on an Act-182 authorized birth certificate. So Orly Taitz’ assertion that “Hawaii has statute 338 that allows foreign-born children of Hawaiian residents to get Hawaiian birth certificates” is irrelevant.
Please share this post with your friends and comment below. If you haven’t already, take a moment to sign up for our free newsletter above and friend us on Twitter and Facebook to get real time updates.
Follow @WestJournalism
Loading ...
In fact, Blackstone is an eminent legal authority if one is dealing in British law.
US law is quite a different matter and there are many cititations of prededent in US law that clearly show that two US pents and born on US soil is correct. Your statement about Orly Taitz "unfortunately" citing the 2 parent, US soil requirement is, itself, unfortunate since it is absolutely wrong.
You should offer a public retraction of such a statement.
In fact, Blackstone is an eminent legal authority if one is dealing in British law.
US law is quite a different matter and there are many cititations of prededent in US law that clearly show that two US parents and born on US soil is correct. Your statement about Orly Taitz "unfortunately" citing the 2 parent, US soil requirement is, itself, unfortunate since it is absolutely wrong.
You should offer a public retraction of such a statement.
Can you give the US legal precedent "citation" that you make reference to?
Sorry, but you are wrong… The case law is very strong…
Anchor babies (children of 2 foreign subjects born on American soil) are citizens by jus soli according to the courts as long as they do not renounce American citizenship. The 14th Amendment (July, 1868) stated definitively the Blackstone tradition of jus soli so that no one could question it: "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside."
During the primaries, the pro-Clinton blogger Texas Darlin' started this tale that a natural-born citizen had to have 2 American parents. Eventually someone cherry-picked an eighteen-century Swiss philosopher named Emerich de Vattel who wrote a book called Le Droit Des Gens that was in the library of most eighteenth century intellectuals. But Vattel was just one of many eighteenth century philosophers of abstract natural law. Blackstone was a compiler and commentator onpositive law. His Commentaries was the most important reference for the tradition of English common and statute law (which was regarded as the basis of its American descendants) and the source of the definition of the terms of English and American law. That is how great American lawyers from Marshall to Lincoln to Clarence Thomas have regarded Blackstone, and why he was so heavily referenced throughout the eighteenth and nineteenth century in judicial opinions.
What the partisans of Vattel have overlooked is that even Vattel acknowledges that in England (and the American colonies that followed English statute and common law) "the mere fact of birth in the country" makes citizens of "the children of an alien" [Vattel, The Law of Nations, Chapter 19, paragraph 214]
Yes, I can … but doing so on a blog like this accomplishes nothing. The proper forum is in a legal proceeding … and that's precisely where such citations will be presented. Watch and wait …
The information about Vattel has been around and available much longer that the incidence you cite. He was one of the most widely read writers on such treatises at the time of founding of the US.
In fact the writing "The Law of Nations" is mentioned in the Constitution itself.
The issue, however, is not "citizenship" but whether the man meets the eligibility requirements of the Constitution (there are three) with the one at issue being "natural born citizen". Nowhere has Mr. Obama shown himself as conclusively being eligible. The birth certificate is not the issue (but merely a necessary but not sufficient bit of information); actual "eligibility" IS the issue.
Almost all pro-Obama fanciers try to help the man misdirect the issue into whether he has a BC – that's not the issue. He could have been born in Las Vegas, NV and STILL not be eligible. It will take a court proceeding done under proper rules to determine that by rigorous finding of facts and then making appropriate legal rulings.
Your claims do not hold water.
Hope your right jtx- But the big but will be how the Supreme Court rules and with big butt appointment imminent, we're one strike down.
Interesting. Where should BB appointment place in this decision? If eligibility is vacated, that appointment will go with it. On the presumption the appointment is void, and it is a 5-4 decision we will be at a draw and a new POTUS will start with a replacement. Also; should this properly award the election to McCain as having run unopposed?
This would be unchartered Constitutional territory. Would SCOTUS appoint Biden, order a new election, fire all appointments and void the new Supreme Justices, etc. ?
very good poiints GY. Leads to interesting paradox. Should the decision be a draw and issue then remains unsettled, who, in fact, gets to nominate (normally reserved for President) the Nominee(s). Sort of a "fox in the chicken coop" syndrome, which leads into another concern of mine," Rome continues to burn".
There is no ambiguity in the law. A Natural Born citizen was defined in the law First congress Session II Chapter 4 1790. Two parents, and father had to be a resident of the US. It was further agreed upon when McCain's eligibility hearings were held, that he was eligible because his PARENTS (plural) were both American Citizens. Obama could not have passed the same test had he been given an eligibility hearing as McCain was. It's not that hard to research and the arguments of Blackstone and Vattel need not be brought into the mix.
> There is no ambiguity in the law.
What about this finding from Minor v. Happersett, from after the ratification of the 14th amendment? (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?…
Key excerpt:
> 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 [88 U.S. 162, 168] parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first.
Orly Taitz's argument is not the one that is flawed. Yours is flawed in various ways. The first being the Blackstone is not the authority but rather the Law of Nations, supported by the Magna Carta and then the Constitution which starts with the basic premise that the bloodline of the father is the controlling factor. The Constitution goes one step further proclaiming that both parents must be US citizens. Based on your analysis all these anchor babies are natural born citizens and that is plain ludicrous.
Floyd seems to be confusing a natural born citizen with a citizen of the United States. The other 2 types of citizenship are naturalized citizen and a citizen who was alive at the time of the adoption of the constitution. To be a citizen of the US merely requires being born on US soil. To be a natural born citizen requires birth on US soil plus both parents being citizens at the time of birth. THis was to prevent allegiance to another country which we clearly have a case of now. Or should i say nonallegiance to the US. If this was not true, then Osama bin Laden could marry an American woman and have a child with her and that child could grow up to be POTUS. How much loyalty to this country does anyone thing Osama bin Laden's child would have?
Rhcrest… you are completely correct.
At least she is trying to seek the truth. It is sad that the US media, although given rights to discover, objectively, the truth in this instance, is so blind, brainwashed, sick, etc. into believing that no matter what, black americans were to have their president, muslim or not. This is a complete failure of purpose for American journalism and its professionals. A sad day.