To my surprise, and delight, I picked up a few comments regarding the column a couple weeks back on the definition of a ‘Natural Citizen.’
Surprised because I really didn’t see too much to quarrel about regarding the subject. Delighted because that meant at least a handful of folks read the article.
I always welcome comments. Unfortunately, it seems that only those very knowledgeable actually read, which is why they are so well-informed. Those who really need to know never bother to read beyond the comics, which naturally is why they never learn.
But I’m grateful to all who do. I like hearing what other folks think, especially if they disagree with me.
But back to the subject at hand.
Two of the comments were critiques of a sort; another was a follow up on the column; one referred me to the Congressional Research Service report on Presidential Eligibility; and the last was a compliment. (at least, that’s how I’m looking at it)
The one who suggested I check my facts about President Obama’s alleged social security number asked specifically what state issued it.
The remarks to which this gentleman referred were as follows: “A state licensed PI hired to look into Obama’s background discovered the SS number he used in 1979 was fraudulent. The number showed the card owner was born in 1890. That same number came up with addresses in Illinois, Washington D.C. and Massachusetts. The latter was a surprise for according to testimony, the year it was used in Massachusetts, Obama was living in Hawaii.”
Snopes disputed this. Statement.”
Okay, the details of the sotry are that Jean Paul Ludwig was born in Germany and immigrated to the U.S, and was issued a social security number in Connecticut in 1977. His number was 042-68-4425. The 042 is supposedly reserved for that state, which I did not verify, and since Obama never lived in Connecticut, there was no opportunity for him to have such a number.
This is the argument Snopes used to dispute the allegation. I had no problem with their findings although I didn’t state such specifically.
Then a very perceptive reader took me to task on the expression ‘sitting president’.
He replied, and I quote: “Actually, this issue doesn't affect the sitting president. He remains in office and can continue sitting there until his term ends.
The ballot and election is to decide who the NEXT president is. That is to say, everything starts from scratch at each election. It may be someone else or the same person. Just because someone holds an office does not mean they have any special right to keep it beyond their elected term.”
All candidates are on an equal basis at each election. No one should have a special right to be on the ballot if they cannot qualify. Already occupying an office is not a qualification.”
Granted, incumbents have a psychological advantage. But it should never be forgotten that an office holder has no special rights to stay there.”
The gent’s right. Mea maxima culpa. (although I don’t really know why I’m mea maxima culpaing, it just seems like the thing to do)
My third message was from a friend who keeps me honest. I respect the heck out of the guy. I just wish he’d see the light.
Anyway, he referred me to a recent article by Bill Rankin in the ‘Atlanta Journal-Constitution regarding the outcome of the trial of which I had written.
“President Barack Obama’s name will remain on the Georgia primary ballot after a state law judge flatly rejected legal challenges that contend he cannot be a candidate.”
In a ten-page order, Judge Michael Malihi dismissed challenges to the Hawaiian birth certificate; the fraudulent social security number; and the invalid U.S. identification papers.
He turned back the claim Obama is ineligible because his father was not a citizen.
In a nutshell, as I read it, all the ‘birther’ challenges brought before the court were tossed out.
The next comment came from a very sincere individual who stated that, “in addition to Obama’s father not being a U.S. citizen, his mother wasn’t old enough under the Constitution to confer citizenship to him.”
I can find nothing to substantiate the under-age claim.
As I pointed out previously, I’ve yet to see a definitive decision of a ‘Natural Citizen’, one parent or two. And I’ve never seen any requirement stating the age of a parent is part of that decision.
Anther reader directed me to The Congressional Research Service and its statement of presidential eligibility. It states that ‘any child born in the U.S., other than to foreign diplomats serving their country; the children of US citizens born abroad; and those born abroad of one citizen parent who has met US residency requirements are natural born citizens.
The CRS is Congress’s ‘ThinkTank’, a highly respected group of 900 pretty smart folks. As I earlier stated, I have all the respect in the world for the CRS, but this definition is nothing more than their interpretation of ‘Natural Citizen’, not the law.
Many of our current ‘laws’ are the result of decisions made over the years, whether justified or not. That’s why I will always argue that babies born in the U.S. of aliens here illegally are not citizens.
All you have to do is read and understand the first sentence of Section I of Article 14 of the Constitution. “Jurisdiction thereof” are the key words.