Obama Citizenship

Eligibility Update: Donofrio on DoS Citizenship, Keyes v. Obama Hearing Set, Open Letter by Former P&G VP

By Phil

Attorney Leo Donofrio recently wrote about how the Obama Administration’s State Department continues to maintain that natural born citizenship as a means of determining presidential eligibility “has never been definitively determined by a court:”

Ed. 7 FAM 1131.6-2 Eligibility for Presidency
(TL:CON-68; 04-01-1998)
a. It has never been determined definitively by a court whether a person who acquired U.S. citizenship by birth abroad to U.S. citizens is a natural born citizen within the meaning of Article II of the Constitution and, therefore, eligible for the Presidency.

http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/86757.pdf

The State Department is part of the Executive Branch.  The Foreign Affairs Manual is hosted at ?State.gov? (see URL).  Please note that the analysis of eligibility by the State Department ? now controlled by Obama ? requires two US Citizen parents.

Many have argued that Senate Resolution 511 ? which served to falsely sanitize John McCain?s POTUS eligibility ? states that a natural born citizen is a person born abroad to ?American citizens? ? plural.

[UPDATED: 9:07AM] ? The actual language of the resolution reads as follows:

Whereas John Sidney McCain, III, was born to American citizens on an American military base in the Panama Canal Zone in 1936: Now, therefore, be it

Resolved, That John Sidney McCain, III, is a ??natural born Citizen?? under Article II, Section 1, of the Constitution of the United States.

Furthermore, the official statement of Senator Leahy which is part of the congressional record to the proposed resolution states:

Because he was born to American citizens, there is no doubt in my mind that Senator McCain is a natural born citizen.

And finally, the testimony of Secretary Cherthoff who was a Federal Judge was also made part of the official record.  He stated:

My assumption and my understanding is that if you are born of American parents, you are naturally a natural-born American citizen.

The argument has merit to the Obama eligibility issue in that Senate Resolution 511 ? co-sponsored by Obama ? does not state that a person is a natural born citizen if born abroad to only one citizen parent.

The magic question is:

Why was it important to all who co-sponsored Senate Resolution 511 that both parents be citizens?…

What was their logic?  The question is certainly not the same as to Obama because McCain was born abroad and not on US soil.  Assuming Obama was born in Hawaii, his supporters argue birth on US soil alone makes him a natural born citizen.  I recognize there is a difference in circumstance.

However, the important point to be made with regard to Senate Resolution 511 concerns the policy that appears to prohibit a person from natural born citizen status if born abroad to only one citizen parent.

Why does it require two citizen parents?  What is the policy behind the language requiring two US citizen parents?  This is where the issue can be further supported by your questioning of Senators.  Policy as used with regards to the drafting of laws is a legal term of art.  It?s analogous to concern.  What legal concern is acknowledged by requiring two citizen parents?  Get the Senate and Obama to answer that question.

Obama eligibility supporters have argued that back when the framers drafted the Constitution women couldn?t vote and therefore a preference for acknowledging the father?s citizenship prevailed as to the son.  These Obama supporters argue that if the Constitution ever required two citizen parents for natural born citizenship such requirement is not relevant any longer since women can now vote by Constitutional amendment.

To that argument I will now ask why Senate Resolution 511 doesn?t state that a person born abroad to one citizen parent is a natural born citizen?

WHY DOES THE SENATE REQUIRE TWO CITIZEN PARENTS FOR NATURAL BORN CITIZEN STATUS OF THOSE BORN ABROAD?

What is so important and relevant to natural born citizen status that both parents must be citizens if the child is born abroad? How would Obama, who co-sponsored Senate Resolution 511, answer this question?  This is the question you need to now ask your Senators who agreed unanimously to Senate Resolution 511.  Get a quote on the record answering this question.

I?m trying to imagine their answers in light of the Obama dual nationality issue and the arguments which claim he is not eligible according to the framer?s intent and Vattel?s definition of natural born citizen.  They would have no other reason to argue both parents be citizens other than the safety of the nation and the framers intent.

Ask them specifically how they have determined their level of concern requiring two US citizen parents.  It will not be easy for them to craft a response which doesn?t also acknowledge the very same concerns for person?s born on US soil to a parent who was never a US citizen.

But more important is that the very same question now needs to be asked of Obama?s own State Department which to this day also acknowledges the necessity of citizen parents on the same issue in their continued publication of the Foreign Affairs Manual at 7 FAM 1131.6-2.

Again, that section states:

?It has never been determined definitively by a court whether a person who acquired U.S. citizenship by birth abroad to U.S. citizens is a natural born citizen within the meaning of Article II of the Constitution and, therefore, eligible for the Presidency.?

Why does the Obama State Department?s continued publication of the Foreign Affairs manual acknowledge that the issue requires two US citizen parents?

What is the policy requiring both parents be US citizens as opposed to just one?

Please also note that Senate Resolution 511 does not discuss ordinary ?citizenship?.  This is a fine distinction which needs to be noted clearly.  In Senate Resolution 511 they acknowledged that natural born citizenship is not the same as citizenship.  Since one can become a citizen by naturalization, neither parent would need to be a US citizen.

In Senate Resolution 511, the Senate has acknowledged that ?citizens? are not the same for Constitutional purposes as ?natural born citizens?.  This is confirmation, even signed on by Obama, that it takes something more to be a ?natural born citizen? of the US rather than just a ?citizen? of the US.  Those who argue they are the same for purposes of POTUS eligibility must be confronted by Obama?s own admission in both co-sponsoring Senate Resolution 511 and publishing the Foreign Affairs manual that they are not one in the same thing.

I do not agree at all with the Senate?s definition of ?natural born citizen? in Senate Resolution 511,  but I do agree with the Senate and Obama that all citizens are not natural born citizens for purposes of satisfying the rigid requirements to be President in Article 2 Section 1 of the US Constitution.

WorldNetDaily reports that Dr. Orly Taitz, attorney for Plaintiffs in Keyes v. Obama, has had a hearing set for July 13 by US District Judge David Carter:

The announcement came from U.S. District Judge David O. Carter, who said: “Before the court is a motion by plaintiffs for reconsideration of order to show cause or in the alternative to certify question for appeal. Court sets this matter for hearing on July 13, 2009 at 8:30a.m. in Courtroom 9D. Plaintiffs are directed to make every effort possible to ensure that all remaining defendants are aware of the hearing and provide documentation that the individual receiving service is authorized to accept on defendants’ behalf.”

Taitz told WND she previously had served notice of the action but would pursue a further notification and confirmation.

“I have a very clear case,” Taitz said. “I think they dropped the ball. They didn’t figure out this case filed on Jan. 20th, on the day of inauguration.

The case was filed on behalf of former U.S. Ambassador Alan Keyes, also a contestant in the 2008 presidential race in California, and others. Taitz said the case might have been confused with another Keyes vs. Obama case filed in that state’s court system, which was thrown out and now is on appeal.

“I will be asking for the release of his vital records,” she said.

“The latest argument by the judge says that I was supposed to serve Obama by a certain Rule-4I. My argument is that it wasn’t applicable, as I served him as an individual, on inauguration day, for his action before he became the president. He does not qualify to get governmental representation, meaning he has to pick (up) the tab,” she explained.

“He defaulted, and in default I can demand production of the documents to show his fitness for the position,” she wrote.

“The documents that I am requesting are the original (birth certificate), school records, passport records and immigration records.”

The case, which also includes Wiley S. Drake and Markham Robinson as plaintiffs, names as defendant “Barack H Obama also known as Barack Hussein Obama II also known as Barack H Obama II also known as Barry Obama also known as Barry Soetoro.”

The service was verified, Taitz wrote in her latest motion to the court, by an affidavit that already is on file with the court.

“Plaintiffs have satisfied both the requirements of Rule 4(e)(2)(d) (and) 4(i)(3),” she wrote.

Taitz explained the dispute as being over the way she served notice of the lawsuit. There are different requirements for someone acting as a government official or someone who acted as a government official, but has left office.

Neither of those apply, she said. She sued Obama individually for his acts before he took office, specifically his refusal to provide the documentation that would show his eligibility.

She said her process server went to the White House to serve the president, and the Secret Service refused her admittance and refused to take the documents. She retreated to her car and called the White House office of legal counsel on her cell phone, and was instructed the proper service would be to deliver the documents to the Justice Department, which she did.

“Plaintiffs respectfully submit that this Court’s order finding or at least strongly suggesting that 4(e) service is insufficient, and requiring 4(i) service, regarding the subject matter of this lawsuit as against the sole served Defendant Barack H. Obama, is manifestly erroneous and plaintiffs accordingly request that the court reconsider its motion,” she argued.

“In the alternative, plaintiffs move and request that this court exercise its sound discretion to certify a question for interlocutory appeal.”

She suggested the case already is in default on the part of the president, and it should so be concluded.

“Why have a rule of default, at all, why make a distinction between private and U.S. governmental parties as between 4(e) and 4(i) at all within the federal rules, if the face of a complaint, and the status of the parties at the time of filing, cannot be used to judge compliance with such a rule which might apply in this case to guarantee victory to the plaintiff?

“It seems to the plaintiffs unfair and unjust that a judge could merely set aside a party?s default on a whim, for no good legal or equitable reason, based on a change in a party’s status, but not the cause of action against him, between filing and service of a suit?” she continued.

“Plaintiffs Keyes et al. request this court to amend its order to show cause, especially but not limited to the Friday, June 12, 2009, order extending show cause, and denying as moot plaintiffs’ motions for clarification, to permit plaintiffs to pursue an appeal pursuant to section 1292(b).”

Attorney Mario Apuzzo received the following letter from Lou Pritchett, former Vice President of Proctor & Gamble:

AN OPEN LETTER TO PRESIDENT OBAMA
By Lou Pritchett

Dear President Obama:

You are the thirteenth President under whom I have lived and unlike any of the others, you truly scare me.

You scare me because after months of exposure, I know nothing about you.

You scare me because I do not know how you paid for your expensive Ivy League education and your upscale lifestyle and housing with no visible signs of support.

You scare me because you did not spend the formative years of youth growing up in America and culturally you are not an American.

You scare me because you have never run a company or met a payroll.

You scare me because you have never had military experience, thus don’t understand it at its core.

You scare me because you lack humility and ‘class’, always blaming others.

You scare me because for over half your life you have aligned yourself with radical extremists who hate America and you refuse to publicly denounce these radicals who wish to see America fail.

You scare me because you are a cheerleader for the ‘blame America’ crowd and deliver this message abroad.

You scare me because you want to change America to a European style country where the government sector dominates instead of the private sector.

You scare me because you want to replace our health care system with a government controlled one.

You scare me because you prefer ‘wind mills’ to responsibly capitalizing on our own vast oil, coal and shale reserves.

You scare me because you want to kill the American capitalist goose that lays the golden egg which provides the highest standard of living in the world.

You scare me because you have begun to use ‘extortion’ tactics against certain banks and corporations.

You scare me because your own political party shrinks from challenging you on your wild and irresponsible spending proposals.

You scare me because you will not openly listen to or even consider opposing points of view from intelligent people.

You scare me because you falsely believe that you are both omnipotent and omniscient.

You scare me because the media gives you a free pass on everything you do.

You scare me because you demonize and want to silence the Limbaughs, Hannitys, O’Relllys and Becks who offer opposing, conservative points of view.

You scare me because you prefer controlling over governing.

Finally, you scare me because if you serve a second term I will probably not feel safe in writing a similar letter in 8 years.

Lou Pritchett

Note: Lou Pritchett is a former vice president of Procter & Gamble whose career at that company spanned 36 years before his retirement in 1989, and he is the author of the 1995 business book, Stop Paddling & Start Rocking The Boat.

Mr. Pritchett confirmed that he was indeed the author of the much-circulated “open letter.” ?I did write the ‘you scare me’ letter. I sent it to the NY Times but they never acknowledged or published it. However, it hit the Internet and according to the ?experts? has had over 500,000 hits.

See the following links regarding the eligibility saga:

• Obama?s Presidential Eligibility: What You Need to Know
• Obama’s Sealed Background Documentation
• Obama Citizenship Facts
• Citizen Grand Jury Updates and Eligibility Lawsuit Listing

-Phil

Full post as published by The Right Side of Life on June 29, 2009 (boomark / email).