Opinion Forum

Governments Rot When Their Citizens Let Them (Part II)

May 10th, 2011

Just a few reasons we get the worst governments we are ready to tolerate. (Read part one here.)

“Single issue” voters often lose sight of the bigger issues that embrace their often reasonable but always smaller ones. This makes it very difficult to get the country back to basics and deal adequately with their issues as well as the others. It also makes it very difficult to work effectively against President Obama’s 2012 reelection — even though what is suggested here might otherwise be his destiny:

In order to save the world from devastating global warming and climate change — and, indeed, all fatal consequences of capitalism — the restless progressives in the world are uniting. Obama is well prepared to position himself as their prophet — or messiah.

His conservative critics dramatically underestimate him. Obama knows precisely what kind of America he envisions. He wants to mold a certain type of America in order to mold a certain type of global governance. For that, he needs another term to reach his goal.

“Birthers.” Whether President Obama is constitutionally qualified under Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution as a “natural born Citizen” of the United States — implicating several interrelated questions apparently involving passports, college scholarships, etc. — is oft asked. To a great extent, these questions are based on a palpable lack of trust. The MSM response? “Are you serious? Chuckle Chuckle. Are you Serious?” This, of course, has simply encouraged those who doubt President Obama’s provenance to become even more serious. The MSM itself is no object of trust. Maybe some who pursue the issues aren’t serious, and maybe some who are should lighten up. There are other problems with President Obama and, while not constitutionally based, they are arguably no less important: incompetence and disdain for the United States — for its culture and history, for example — are not constitutionally disqualifying attributes.

The issue of President Obama’s constitutional qualifications has probably been answered for many, even if the larger questions remain for others. The release of a “long form” birth certificate on April 27 is not likely to silence them — or restore their trust. Some question the document because it shows the father’s “race” as “African,” not a traditional racial classification in 1961, or because of alleged Photoshopping of the document. Silly? Maybe. A statement from Hawaii Governor Abercrombie’s office is here.

Why did President Obama wait so long to release the birth certificate? Will it hurt or help Donald Trump? Who knows. The case was made to the Republican leadership here that

if you continue to shield Barack Hussein Obama, knowing that he is ineligible for the presidency and has possibly committed fraud and felony conspiracy, then, you are welcome to him for a second term. I will not stand with you.

In my opinion, many Republicans have violated their oaths of office to support and defend the Constitution. Because of their cowardice or complicity in hiding the truth from the American people, there was a major failure to uphold the law. For that reason, they have forfeited their privilege to represent me.

Is this issue so crucial to the future of the country that it should trump the matter of Obama’s consistency with the Constitution in all of its manifold aspects? Or the harm President Obama has done, and is likely to continue to do, regardless of his constitutional qualifications? If I had the misfortune to be President Obama, having finally released my “long form” birth certificate, I would continue to prance away from substance and pump the “natural born citizen” issue for all it’s worth. I might as well say, “if those right-wing nuts aren’t satisfied with the tardy release of my real birth certificate, they are really beneath contempt.” And many would accept this. It can be a great decoy to divert attention from all else — and push him over the top in 2012. As suggested here:

It’s tempting to speculate that Obama used today’s release to make the birth certificate a bigger story, to distract from the story that the press has spent 39% of its time covering: Namely, the economy.

And here is an article suggesting that continued “birtherism” is just just barely disguised racism. Nonsense? Sure. But that won’t make the suggestion any less effective in diverting attention from more important issues facing the country and getting President Obama reelected.

Continue reading this article at Pajamas Media »

Articles written by Dan Miller
Tags: 2012, abortion, birthers, Constitution, election, single issue, Trump, voters
Categories: Politics | Comments (12) | Home

12 Responses to “Governments Rot When Their Citizens Let Them (Part II)”

ellen | May 10th, 2011 at 12:22 pm

First, it should be obvious even to the dumbest birther that a child born outside of the USA requires either a US visa on a foreign passport or to be entered on the mother’s US passport to get to the USA. Those documents or the applications for them would still exist and would have been found easily IF Obama was born outside of the USA. But no such document has been found.

Second, there were notices of Obama’s birth in the newspapers in Hawaii in 1961. And these were not ads placed by relatives. They could not have been ads because the Hawaii newspapers did not accept birth notice ads in 1961. They only took the official notices sent to them by the government of Hawaii, which only sent out the notices for births IN Hawaii. And, the government could not have been fooled by a claim of a birth at home because in those cases it demanded witness statements.

So Obama’s parents would have had to have (1) traveled to Kenya or some other country late in pregnancy at high risk and high expense (particularly to Kenya); (2) got the child back to the USA without either a visa or his being entered on his mother’s US passport or somehow had the files of the document and the applications for the document all sealed; (3) lied about the place of birth (which is also unlikely because when you have done something interesting like give birth in a foreign country you generally boast about it. And it is also unnecessary to lie since for all purposes but the presidency a naturalized child is as good as a natural born one); (4) gotten away with the lie despite evidence that Hawaii demanded witness statements whenever there was a claim of a birth outside of a hospital; (5) got three Republican officials in Hawaii to lie about the fact that the original birth certificate in Obama’s files verified that he was born in Hawaii.

ALL of that would have had to have happened for Obama to have been born outside of the USA. No wonder the mainstream media dismissed the idea out of hand.

Brian | May 11th, 2011 at 7:32 am

You make some valid points, Ellen, but there are still a couple problems.

Firstly, the President’s father was an English subject in 1961, and his father’s citizenship was conferred to him. He was a born citizen by virtue of his mother’s citizenship, but because of his father’s status, he isn’t “natural born.”

Secondly, I was a forgery detective for the Houston Police Department. Subsequent to that, I was a programmer. The long form birth certificate doesn’t pass the smell test.

However, the republicans lack the temerity to do anything about it, and the democrats lack the integrity. So, we’re stuck with this feckless, train-wreck of an administration for at least another 20 months.

FWIW, Chester Arthur wasn’t natural-born, either.

Brian | May 11th, 2011 at 8:06 am

There is another issue still, and it is worth considering. If Obama were legally removed, we’d have Forest Gump’s twin brother manning the helm. Biden doesn’t have the acuity to run a snow cone stand. Biden’s gaffes make Bush’s and Quayle’s seem mild.

Tom Carter | May 11th, 2011 at 8:18 am

Brian, excellent point about the alternative to Obama being Biden, at least between now and Jan 2013 — or perhaps Jan 2017. That should make anyone stop and think, regardless of his/her politics.

I think everyone needs to get off this birth certificant and citizenship issue. There are far too many much more important things we need to worry about and try to fix in the next election.

Dan Miller | May 11th, 2011 at 9:17 am

To the extent that it deals with President Obama’s constitutional qualifications to be the President, my point was that although there may be many interesting questions along those lines, they are for practical purposes merely distractions. No matter how much clear and convincing evidence, no matter how many compelling arguments, might be found suggesting that he lacks constitutional qualifications, he is not going to be removed from office because of them. The House won’t vote a bill of impeachment and, even if it were to do so, the Senate wouldn’t convict. As I seem to recall, President Ford commented that an impeachable offense is whatever the Congress says it is. Like it or not, I think he was right.

The Constitution nowhere requires that a President be trustworthy or enamored of the United States. Being ashamed of her, wishing to change her in ways most citizens would find highly undesirable, yielding to her enemies and harming her allies, rendering her economy dysfunctional, seeking and getting legislation and regulatory actions that turn the Constitution on its head and a whole bunch of other stuff are nowhere shown in the Constitution as disqualifying. These and many other issues, however, are what elections are all about. If we want to have a less disastrous president come 2013, these are what we should focus on, rather than merely screaming ineffectually about an issue that won’t work and is more than likely to mask the discussion of issues that can be effective.

There are other hot button issues no more likely to be effective. Abortion is one and in the article I suggest that it may be useful to focus on some abortion related issues but not others. Still, I would not like to see any of those overwhelm all else. The country is in a mess, and another four years of President Obama would be horrible; between November 2012 and the end of his second term, he would not even have to worry about another presidential election. His CongressCritters would, but with the growth of regulatory agencies and their increasing encroachment on the legislative process, he and they could and would still do much harm.

Brian | May 11th, 2011 at 9:33 am

Tom, the specter that Biden presents is even worse. If he were to assume office between now and the end of this term, he’d actually be eligible to run in 2016 as well.

ellen | May 11th, 2011 at 10:29 am

Your points on the Constitutional matter are entirely wrong. Every child born in the USA other than the children of foreign diplomats is considered Natural Born. That was the original meaning of Natural Born at the time that the Constitution was written. John Adams, John Jay, Alexander Hamilton and others NEVER used the phrase Natural Born to refer to parents. They only used it to refer to citizenship due to the place of birth.

That is why the US Congress voted to confirm Obama’s election UNANIMOUSLY. Not one member in the 535 congressmen and senators believed that either Obama was born outside of Hawaii or that Obama’s father’s citizenship affects Obama’s Natural Born Citizen status.

“Natural born citizen. Persons who are born within the jurisdiction of a national government, i.e. in its territorial limits, or those born of citizens temporarily residing abroad.” — Black’s Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition

“Under the longstanding English common-law principle of jus soli, persons born within the territory of the sovereign (other than children of enemy aliens or foreign diplomats) are citizens from birth. Thus, those persons born within the United States are “natural born citizens” and eligible to be President. Much less certain, however, is whether children born abroad of United States citizens are “natural born citizens” eligible to serve as President …”—- Edwin Meese, et al, THE HERITAGE GUIDE TO THE CONSTITUTION (2005) [Edwin Meese was Ronald Reagan’s attorney general, and the Heritage Foundation is a well-known Conservative organization.]

“What is a natural born citizen? Clearly, someone born within the United States or one of its territories is a natural born citizen.” (Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on OCTOBER 5, 2004)–Senator Orrin G. Hatch (R-UT).

“Prior to the adoption of the constitution, the people inhabiting the different states might be divided into two classes: natural born citizens, or those born within the state, and aliens, or such as were born out of it. The first, by their birth-right, became entitled to all the privileges of citizens; the second, were entitled to none, but such as were held out and given by the laws of the respective states prior to their emigration. …St. George Tucker, BLACKSTONE’S COMMENTARIES: WITH NOTES OF REFERENCE TO THE CONSTITUTION AND LAWS OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES AND THE COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA. (1803)

“Therefore every person born within the United States, its territories or districts, whether the parents are citizens or aliens, is a natural born citizen in the sense of the Constitution, and entitled to all the rights and privileges appertaining to that capacity.”—William Rawle, A VIEW OF THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. 2d ed. (1829)

Now as to the allegation that the long-form birth certificate was forged. The director of health of Hawaii stated in a letter accompanying the long form that she had seen it copied and checked that it was exactly the same as the document that it was copied from. Two Republican officials in the former governor’s administration had seen the long form in the files earlier and issued written statements to that effect. Since they also saw the original and the image they could see clearly if there was any change–and they have not said that there was any change.

It turns out that Adobe recognizes complex documents in layers, and that this is particularly true when the document consists of handwriting and type.

So the document is not forged. But say that it was. Would that explain the following two factors?

A child born outside of the USA requires either a US visa on a foreign passport or to be entered on the mother’s US passport to get to the USA. Those documents or the applications for them would still exist and would have been found easily IF Obama was born outside of the USA. But no such document has been found.

And, there were notices of Obama’s birth in the newspapers in Hawaii in 1961. And these were not ads placed by relatives. They could not have been ads because the Hawaii newspapers did not accept birth notice ads in 1961. They only took the official notices sent to them by the government of Hawaii, which only sent out the notices for births IN Hawaii. And, the government could not have been fooled by a claim of a birth at home because in those cases it demanded witness statements.

NO, it would not explain either of them. For both of those two things to have happened would have had as high a probability as, say, winning two major lotteries in a single day. People can claim that the document is forged, and that is the opinion of a so-called “expert,” but unless there can be an explanation of those two factors it is foolish to believe that Obama could have been born outside of the USA.

Brian | May 11th, 2011 at 1:55 pm

Your points on the Constitutional matter are entirely wrong. Every child born in the USA other than the children of foreign diplomats is considered Natural Born

Begging your pardon, but this simply isn’t accurate. The same issue arose over the eligibility of Chester Arthur as his father was not a US citizen at the time of the former president’s birth. Back then, as now, most people just said “Ah, what the heck” and didn’t bother with it.

Two competing sovereigns may not have equal claim to 1 person. One claim will naturally be the superior, the other the inferior. The UK’s claim to Obama was higher than the US claim. Obama, in short was subject to citizenship laws that governed over the United Kingdom. Therefore, the clause of 8 USC 1401 “and subject to the jurisdiction thereof” did not apply to Obama.

I do not deny his “born citizen” status, for he was. He was not “natural born,” for his citizenship is statutory, not natural.

The difference is subtle, but there is a difference. Does a child born in the United States to two US citizens need a law to grant him/her citizenship, as citizenship has been understood since the days of antiquity? The only person that needs citizenship granted by law is one whose natural status is not that of citizen at birth.

I’ll put it another way. I was born in Louisiana in 1968 to two US citizens. Would I have US citizenship without 8 USC 1401? Yes, unequivocally. Now, would Obama have US citizenship without 8 USC 1401? Perhaps, and perhaps not; and that is the fundamental question, is it not? Since a law was needed to resolve his citizenship, he isn’t natural born.

All natural born citizens are born citizens, but not all born citizens are natural born citizens. If the meaning of those two terms were interchangeable, then there would exist only one term or the other, but not both.

ellen | May 11th, 2011 at 5:34 pm

Re: “The same issue arose over the eligibility of Chester Arthur as his father was not a US citizen at the time of the former president’s birth.”

IF Chester Arthur was born in the USA, he was a Natural Born US citizen. No issue.

Re: “Two competing sovereigns may not have equal claim to 1 person. ”

Blackstone said that a person could not have two loyalties, he could only have one, which is very like what you said. But then Blackstone said that a person could have only one loyalty, to the country where he was born.

In other words, in our law, the place of birth reigns supreme. No other law applies, only our law, and the meaning of that refers ONLY to the place of birth. There are absolutely no places where Adams or Hamilton or Jay or Madison used the term Natural Born to refer to the parents of the citizen or to involve the concept of dual nationality.

Re: “Since a law was needed to resolve his citizenship, he isn’t natural born.”

Answer: No law was needed to resolve his citizenship. All persons born in the US (other than the children of foreign diplomats) are US citizens at birth. And that means all of them, regardless of the age of the mother.

Brian | May 11th, 2011 at 9:19 pm

From 8 USC 1401:

The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth: (a) a person born in the United States, AND subject to the jurisdiction thereof;

(emphasis added)

The “and” is a qualifier. If it weren’t, the law would read “a person born in the United states.” Obviously, some people are born here that are not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. When born, because of English law at that time, Obama was subject to the jurisdiction of the UK because his father was.

In the case of Chester Arthur, he himself acknowledged that he wasn’t natural born. Nobody cared then, as apparently you do not now.

Ho hum. Move along. Nothing to see here.

ellen | May 12th, 2011 at 12:32 pm

Re: “The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth: (a) a person born in the United States, AND subject to the jurisdiction thereof;”

The meaning of “subject to the jurisdiction” is simply that the US laws apply to that person. For example: A child is born in the USA and that year he or she earns, say, $100,000 (it ain’t likely but perhaps some rich kid has investments). Is that kid subject to the laws requiring him to pay income tax? Of course.

Who isn’t subject to the tax laws or for that matter the laws on drunken driving or murder? Foreign diplomats and their children. (For a time Indians living on reservations were not considered subject to the jurisdiction.) But everyone else is subject to the jurisdiction–having to pay the taxes and obey the laws.

Children with dual nationality may be subject to two jurisdictions. But that does NOT remove US jurisdiction. If a child was born who had to pay taxes both to the UK and to the USA, he would still have to pay taxes to the USA–and that is what counts.

Re: “he himself [Arthur] acknowledged that he wasn’t natural born.”

Answer: Sure he did. Sure. Show the reference or admit you got it wrong.

In any case, even if CA Arthur thought that he was not a Natural Born Citizen, it would not necessarily make him not a Natural Born Citizen. Arthur’s opinion as to the Constitutional meaning is just the opinion of one man. But, I doubt that he thought so. I doubt it very much.

The meaning of Natural Born until recently was very widely understood. It has faded, I think because of the use of casesarean sections and natural childbirth. But at the time of the writing of the Constitution and certainly until WWI it was widely understood.

The latter is a good example. In WWI men were asked to register for the draft. They were asked whether or not they were US citizens. Then they were asked whether they were naturalized or natural born. That’s all, just those two categories. Not three. But if Natural Born required two citizen parents or if it required birth in the USA to two citizen parents, there would have to be several categories, at least three: naturalized, native born and natural born. But there were only two categories, naturalized–meaning born outside of the country–and natural born, meaning a US citizen at birth (mainly caused by birth in the country).

Access to the electronic files of the New York Times takes money these days, but when it was free, I found a wonderful example from 1849 or so, in which William Marcy, Secretary of State to President Franklin Pierce, was asked in a letter to the editor to the NYT whether two children, one born in Connecticut, the other born in New York State, of foreign parents, were US citizens able to get US passports.

Of course this was before the 14th Amendment, so the definition of whether they were citizens was up to the laws of the states, Connecticut and New York.

All that Marcy had to do was reply YES, yes they are citizens because CN and NY had laws that made all persons born in the state citizens of the state and, hence, citizens of the USA and hence able to get US passports.

But Marcy went further. He said that not only were the two children citizens eligible to receive passports, but that they were Natural Born Citizens, eligible to run for president.

You may disagree with Marcy on his interpretation of whether the children were eligible to run for president. He is simply one more authority on the subject, like Meese and Black’s law review, and Yale Law Review, and Senators Hatch and Graham, and others–all of whom say that a Natural Born Citizen is simply a citizen at birth.

But you have to grasp immediately that the definition of Natural Born he was using, and was common at the time and earlier, referred to the place of birth. They were Natural Born because they were born in the USA.

ellen | May 25th, 2011 at 12:41 pm

Some more who agree with Meese:

There’s nothing that I’m aware of that says you have to have two American parents,” said Gary Kreep, executive director of the United States Justice Foundation. “My understanding of it is if you’re born in the United States, you’re a natural-born citizen, period.”

Floyd Brown, head of the Western Center for Journalism who has actively sought the impeachment of Obama, told WND that he, too, considers someone born “on the soil” a natural-born citizen.

http://www.slate.com/blogs/blogs/weigel/archive/2…