05 January 2012

I Could Be Wrong

Depending on how this goes, I may end up whiffing—thankfully so—on prediction 6, for Obama may be ineligible for reelection:

Breaking CCA News!  This morning the Georgia Court of Administrative Hearings denied Obama’s motion to dismiss our ballot challenge. More importantly, the court’s opinion ruled in our favor on all procedural and state law issues, leaving only one thing left to decide: Whether Obama is a natural-born-citizen under the Constitution. [Emphasis is original.]

The argument being made is that Obamao is not a natural born citizen since one of his parents was a foreigner.  The qualifications of the office of the presidency are:

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.

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. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

The “or” in article two is important, as it indicates that there is an alternative qualification besides being “natural born.”  That alternative, of course, is being “a Citizen of the United States.”  As the fourteenth amendment shows, anyone born in the United States is a citizen.  Thus, Obama is a citizen and is eligible for office, unless the court rules that birth does not automatically confer citizenship or unless the court determines that Obamao’s proof of birth is a forgery.  The latter seems more probable than the former, though both seem unlikely.

At any rate, this will prove to be a rather interesting political development as time goes on.  It appears that the citizenship question will still be present in the 2012 election cycle.  If nothing else, this promises to be entertaining.


  1. I don't see how the courts can rule Obama ineligible to serve as President. The Constitutional language doesn't even require either of the parents to be a citizen. So, the only alternative is proof of fraud in the birth certificate. And no one has provided any evidence of fraud, various birther sites not withstanding.

    I am deeply anti-Obama, but the birth issue is a loser.

  2. That alternative, of course, is being “a Citizen of the United States

    Not quite.
    "or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution"

    I believe this part was added because, when it was adopted, nobody was a "natural born citizen" of a federation that had not existed when they were born.

  3. Relevant: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Birthright_citizenship_in_the_United_States#Statute.2C_by_parentage

    So, if the court rules Obama's proof of birth was forged (which already pretty much isn't going to happen), we go to the third listed condition. It looks like Ann Dunham was in America through high school and college, so unless Wikipedia is completely inaccurate either there or with regard to citizenship laws, the case will, as far as I can tell, be about the constitutionality of the statute that sets conditions for citizenship. I am not sure how that particular statute could be ruled unconstitutional.

  4. @sykes.1- Karl Denninger's analysis of Obama's birth certificate was thorough and accurate. His conclusion was that the certificate presented was a forgery. Of course, this does not preclude a real certificate from existing, but it does mean that Obama's proof of evidence is false, and his claim to the presidency remains null until such a time as he proves his citizenship.

    @Robert- The placement of the comma after "states" concludes that clause, which means that "at the time... is a separate clause. Not to split hairs to much, but the question that must be asked is: what clause does the third clause modify? It could modify the first, second, or both. The language isn't precisely clear, and so it will be a matter of interpretation.

    Also, I'm not sold on the citizenship of the federation angle. The founding fathers were quite supportive of state sovereignty, so it seems reasonable to believe the citizenship of a state was a sufficient condition for holding the office of president, for one cannot be a citizen of the federation without first being a citizen of a state.

    @nydwracu- And don't forget that the 14th amendment certifies citizenship by birth, regardless of parental citizenship (which is why illegals come here to give birth). As such, it seems that Obama's birth on American soil to an American mother who had lived on American soil for over five years prior to her son's birth should be sufficient to ensure his citizenship. The only questions that remain are: a) does Obama have proof of his birth (a birth certificate) and b) can that proof be trusted (i.e. has it been forged or faked)?