The New Clarion

The New Clarion header image 2

Nativity of the One

April 27th, 2011 by Myrhaf · 6 Comments · Uncategorized

Now that Obama has released his long form birth certificate — which shows he was born in a manger in Hawaii, surrounded by sheep and three wise men — can we move on to more important things?

Like why does a guy who has been around intellectuals and effete leftists all his life talk like a hick? Obama says ya instead of you and doin’ instead of doing. Is this something a Democrat must do to show he’s a man of the people?

(And boy, does this author look stupid.)

6 Comments so far ↓

  • RnBram

    It still does not make sense that he did not release it a long time ago. Even that does not bother me much, why must a President be a born American citizen. Myrhaf could probably make better decisions the Obama has. But could Myrhaf campaign like Obama? Few could -they wouldn’t have all that TARP support etc.

  • Myrhaf

    You are right, I could never campaign as well as Obama or any experienced politician. I would anger so many special interests that I wouldn’t last a day.

  • North Bridge

    The issue of whether Obama was born in Hawaii was always a red herring. There is no requirement in the constitution that the President must be born on U.S. soil; it is an obviously irrelevant issue. Some future President could be born in Kenya, say, because his parents are in the diplomatic corps. The geographical locality would have no bearing on whether he was born an American citizen.

    The constitutional requirement has nothing to do with geography. What it states is that the President must be a “natural-born citizen.”

    It is noteworthy that Democrats, who take the Constitution to say whatever they feel it should be saying, interpreted this clause by the method of feeling that the President ought to be born in the U.S. Do not forget that the “birther” issue was started by disgruntled Democrats.

    It is equally noteworthy that Conservatives, who see themselves as staunch defenders of the Constitution, are so incapable of rational analysis — or just an actual, focused reading of the document — that they uncritically swallowed this interpretation and made it their own.

    It is clear from the language alone that “natural-born” is not a geographic requirement. It is not particularly clear, however, what the requirement is. The expression may have been commonly understood in 1787, but today its meaning is more or less lost in the mists of history.

    The actual requirement is that the President must have been born an American citizen of parents who were both, at the time of his birth, American citizens. The President cannot be a naturalized citizen, and he cannot have been born with dual citizenship. Even the citizenship of his parents must have been firmly resolved by the time he was born. This may superficially seem like mere formalities, but in fact there is a very real and substantial issue behind it: The President cannot have any ties or implied loyalty to any other nation. In particular because the President is Supreme Commander, he cannot have even a hint of split loyalties between the U.S. and some other country.

    Some years back there was talk of pushing for a constitutional amendment so that Arnold Schwarzenegger could run for President. It may seem far-fetched in the world of 2011, but imagine if such a President had to decide whether to start firebombing the cities of Austria. His history and personal ties to another country would cause an intolerable conflict of loyalties.

    There is more to this issue than just the President’s personal values and conflicts; there is also a whole realm of legal complications. Many countries do not recognize a change of citizenship; even after their citizens have been naturalized in the U.S, they still consider them “theirs.” There are countries that former citizens cannot even visit, because they would be instantly detained and drafted into the Army.

    In short, there are very real and substantial issues regarding the President’s freedom from ties to other nations, which the framers sought to address by means of the “natural-born” clause.

    Now to return to the case of Obama, it is a plain fact that he is ineligible to be President by the actual meaning of the “natural-born” clause. His father was a Kenyan citizen, and under British law (which Kenya was under at the time of Obama’s birth), Obama shared the citizenship of his father. He was born a dual citizen of Kenya and the U.S. This is not a conspiracy theory, but a public fact that no one bothers to deny.

    But the fact is that for over a century the country has been run with increasing disregard for the Constitution. It is senseless to start a crusade for a minor and obscure point in the document, when its central principles are being violated in major ways every single day. The rape of the Commerce Clause is a far greater calamity than someone cutting corners around the Natural-Born clause.

  • sfp

    It’s not at all obvious how you get from this:

    The expression may have been commonly understood in 1787, but today its meaning is more or less lost in the mists of history.

    to this:

    The actual requirement is […]

    If we don’t know what “natural born citizen” means, then surely any discussion of “actual requirements” of the clause is 100% pure speculation, and going over the details of Obama’s family history is totally beside the point.

    We simply don’t know what effect dual citizenship as it exists in the 21st century has on whether someone is a Natural Born citizen or not. As a practical matter, we won’t know until such time as the courts rule on it, and the courts will almost certainly find a way to punt–if they overturned the results of an election on that basis, it would delegitimize the courts more than the winning candidate, and they know it.

  • Inspector

    I’m guessing his speech patterns are a Chicago thing. I say “guessing” because I won’t notice a Chicago accent particularly unless I’m listening specifically or it has something that contrasts it a bit. Being native to there and all.

    But if so, the term “hick” wouldn’t be fitting. Perhaps “gangster” or “thug?” Heh.

  • North Bridge

    If we don’t know what “natural born citizen” means, then surely any discussion of “actual requirements” of the clause is 100% pure speculation…

    No, but as with other parts of the Constitution you have to dig into history to understand the specific meaning and intent of the clause. My comment about its meaning being “lost” was in reference to the current-day political scene, where Democrats and Conservatives alike are waving a clause they do not even understand as some kind of secret weapon. Of course the meaning is not “lost” in the sense of being unrecoverable.

    You are right, however, that I should have offered evidence. There are 19th-Century Supreme Court decisions that spell the meaning of “natural-born” out quite clearly. E.g.:

    “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. ” Minor v. Happersett (1874) 21 Wall. 162, 166-168.