http://lib.store.yahoo.net/lib/realityzone/UFNobamaEligibilityAlabama.html
A man from Birmingham, Alabama is filing a lawsuit in the Jefferson County Circuit Court to keep Barack Hussein Obama off of the Alabama ballot, citing problems with Obama’s birth certificate.
According to the affidavit, Albert E. Hendershot, Jr is requesting that there be an “evidentiary hearing and production of the original long form birth certificate and microfiche copy of such original birth certificate of Barack Hussein Obama to be presented at the hearing.”
The lawsuit also requests that there be an injunction issued against Mark Kennedy, Chairman of Alabama Democratic Party, to keep Obama off the ballot. In addition, it requests that Alabama modify the “rules/ regulations for candidate eligibility verification/authentication, in order to stop elections fraud and forgery and assure the citizens of Alabama integrity of the elections process.”
As I understand it, the case alleges that Barrack Obama is not a natural born citizen of the United States, and therefore is ineligible to appear on the ballot to run for President. Sure, sure, we've heard it before. The difference with this claim is that it seems to rely on existing Supreme Court precedent to prove their case.
As I understand it, there are four SCOTUS cases in existence which deal with the definition of "natural born citizen." Those cases are:
The Venus, 12 U.S. 8 Cranch 253 253 (1814)In each of the above cases, the court was obliged to define what it meant to be a "natural born citizen" of the United States. The decision in each case used slightly different wording at times, but always seemed to agree on the basic definition of the term. And that definition?
Shanks v. Dupont, 28 U.S. 3 Pet. 242 242 (1830)
Minor v. Happersett , 88 U.S. 162 (1875)
United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898)
Natural born citizens are those born in the country of parents who are citizens thereof. You'll notice the article cites one of the SCOTUS cases I cited, Minor v Happersett, which defined the term as follows:
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.
The latest case, US v Wong Kim Ark did recognize the passage of the 14th amendment (read it here) and did expand the definition of citizen to include anybody born in the country regardless of the citizenship status of the parents, but it left alone the definition of a "natural born citizen." In other words, anybody born in the country is a citizen, but only those born to parents who are also citizens can claim natural-born status. At least, that's the way the 1898 court saw things. Today? Things could be entirely different.
Yes, I know that 1898 was a long time ago, but it does appear that it was the last time SCOTUS dealt directly with this definition, so it is inarguably the governing definition of what it takes to be a natural born citizen. In order to be a natural born citizen, it seems one has to be born in the country TO PARENTS WHO ARE ALSO CITIZENS.
And therein lies the rub. Why? Because Barack Obama's father was not a US citizen when our current President was born. That isn't opinion, it's fact. The SCOTUS precedents on the issue ALL specify PARENTS, plural. So while Obama's mother was a citizen, the fact that his father was not, the plaintiffs claim, makes him other than a natural born citizen. In fact, in Shanks V Dupont the court held that "for children born in a country, continuing while under age in the family of the father, partake of his national character as a citizen of that country." Under that opinion, young Barack wasn't even a citizen of the United States until he became an adult and chose, much less a natural born citizen.
Does this make the case a slam dunk? Not by any means. But it does seem to be an interesting development, don't you think?
I will try to follow the case to see what, if anything, comes from it. If the judge rules the plaintiff does not have standing, I would like her (Jefferson County Circuit Judge Helen Shores Lee) to also specify who WOULD have standing. That might be nice to know, eh? And if it turns out that the answer is nobody, then the rules of standing need to be reworked... otherwise how can anybody petition for redress of grievance, as guaranteed in the Constitution>?
Oh, and some Tea Party activists in the state may be paying too much attention to the sensationalist angle with articles like this:
http://www.libertynewsonline.com/article_301_31406.php
That article makes many claims that I do not believe to be true at present. To whit, it claims the judge has already granted standing to the plaintiff and ordered an evidentiary hearing. From what I can determine, this is not the case... an assertion I will withdraw ONLY if I find out differently. Not from hearsay, and not from sensationalist reports, but from court observers who can see what was done.
I caution the Tea Party activists to be VERY careful with this issue, and not to buy into the more extravagant claims we can so easily find around the web. Research the issues carefully.
And for those of us who like to see reputable sources on these kind of things, hear are some reports from the friday edition of the Birmingham News:
http://blog.al.com/spotnews/2012/01/delay_sought_in_mondays_jeffer.html
http://blog.al.com/spotnews/2012/01/jefferson_county_judge_denies_2.html
If you'll notice, both articles say that Kennedy is asking standing to be denied... which strongly implies that it hasn't been granted yet. Had the issue been settled, they'd be making different arguments.
UPDATE: The hearing is over, and the case has been dismissed... probably due to lack of standing, though I have yet to receive a detailed report of the proceedings.
UPDATE: Here is an article from the Birmingham News. Yes, the case was dismissed, but NOT because of lack of standing. Instead, the judge claimed courts had no authority to tell political parties who they can and cannot place on their ballots. Seems a bit strange to me, though... Doesn't the State have any responsibility at all, here? Regardless, it will likely be appealed. And I think it will likley lose on appeal, too.
http://blog.al.com/spotnews/2012/01/suit_to_keep_president_barack.html
After a hearing in her Birmingham courtroom, Circuit Judge Helen Shores Lee ruled that the courts have no authority to tell the state political parties who they can include on their primary ballots.
"[T]he judge claimed courts had no authority to tell political parties who they can and cannot place on their ballots. [...] Doesn't the State have any responsibility at all, here?"
ReplyDeleteNot so much in the primaries; political parties are not supposed to be directly micromanaged by the state, and are free to choose their candidate however they want. The general election is a whole other thing, of course.
Regarding the definition of "natural born citizen", the non-partisan Congressional Research Service holds that...
'Considering the history of the constitutional qualifications provision, the common use and meaning of the phrase "natural-born subject" in England and in the Colonies in the 1700s, the clause's apparent intent, the subsequent action of the first Congress in enacting the Naturalization Act of 1790 (expressly defining the term "natural born citizen" to include a person born abroad to parents who are United States citizens), as well as subsequent Supreme Court dicta, it appears that the most logical inferences would indicate that the phrase "natural born Citizen" would mean a person who is entitled to U.S. citizenship "at birth" or "by birth."'
A person can be entitled to U.S. citizenship at birth without being born in the U.S., e.g. John McCain who is considered a natural-born citizen and was eligible to run for President despite being born in Panama (his father was in the Navy). But the whole thing is moot anyway since Obama's Hawaii birth certificate, including the long form, was made public a long time ago.