My impassioned “72-year-old” friend (who is now 75, but who’s counting?), who goes by the Twitter name @42bkdodgr, would like to share his feelings about Republican hypocrisy and birtherism. I am more than happy to oblige.
But first, a personal note from 42bkdodgr:
Many of you may wonder why I chose to use the “72 year old friend” as the introduction to my Special Comments. I selected the moniker so readers could see that from my age and life experiences I give a different perspective to the issues of today.
Now for his Special Comment:
Natural Born Citizen
Yesterday, Byron York of the Washington Examiner wrote an article titled, “Spokesman: ‘Senator Cruz is a U.S. citizen by birth’.” The gist of the article is whether Sen. Cruz, who was born in Calgary, Canada, would be eligible to run for President.
Sen. Cruz’s father was born in Cuba and not an American citizen at his time of birth, and his mother was born and raised in America. Since his mother was an American citizen, it made Sen. Cruz a U.S. citizen. The article addresses the Constitution saying that an American President has to be a “natural born citizen”, and that currently, it’s generally thought to mean a “citizen at birth.” The article mentions a U.S. law, 8 U.S. Code 1401, which defines who is a citizen at birth. I will only talk about section (g), which reads as follows:
(g) a person born outside the geographical limits of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is an alien, and the other a citizen of the United States who, prior to the birth of such person, was physically present in the United States or its outlying possessions for a period or periods totaling not less than five years, at least two of which were after attaining the age of fourteen years.
This provision makes Sen. Cruz a citizen at birth.
Mr. York, then quotes Theodore Olson after successfully defending Sen. McCain’s eligibility to be president, in a 2008 lawsuit, “My conclusion would be that if you are a citizen as a consequence of your birth, that’s a natural-born citizen.”
Mr. York then ends the article with this statement, ”That would likely be the conclusion of any challenge to Cruz’s eligibility, as well.”
Now we all know President Obama was born on August 4, 1961, in Honolulu Hawaii. To answer his skeptics about whether he was born in the United States, President Obama, provided a copy of his long form birth certificate which was certified by the state, proving he is a “natural-born citizen”of the United States.
Still to this day, there are Americans who don’t believe President Obama was born in the United States, but was born in Kenya. I can understand why the Obama campaign staff never wanted to address Section (g) of U.S. Code 1401, as he is a ” natural born citizen.”
So lets assume, for argument sake, the birthers’ far fetched idea that Barack Obama was born in Kenya and look at the facts, as they were used by Mr. York, in his article about Sen. Cruz.
- Obama’s father wasn’t a U.S. citizen
- Obama’s mother was an born in Wichita, Kansas in 1942. The family moved to Honolulu Hawaii, in 1960, which became a state in 1959. His mother met both the five year and two year requirements, under section (g)
Therefore, using Mr. Olsen’s theory, even if Barack Obama had been born in Kenya, he would be a U.S. citizen by consequence of birth and therefore, considered a natural born citizen, eligible to be President of the United States.
I’ve known about this provision in the code for over two years and often wondered why it was never discussed, by the media, in addressing the Birther issue.
Why is someone in the media talking about section (g) now? Could it be that it might possibly affect the presidential aspirations of a Republican candidate?
So I guess, should Sen. Cruz decide to run for president in 2016, the issue of what the definition “natural born citizen” really means in the Constitution will have to be addressed.
Many thanks again for another thorough, relevant piece, @42bkdodgr. You often say what many of us are thinking and feeling, and we thank you for your unique perspective.
Link.
TPC RSS Posts Feed
TPC Comments Feed
Sad Days: Special Comment by my 75-year-old friend
My impassioned “72-year-old” friend (who is now 75, but who’s counting?), who goes by the Twitter name @42bkdodgr, would like to share his feelings about how many of our most pathetic Congress members have handled this country’s tragic events. I am more than happy to oblige.
But first, a personal note from 42bkdodgr:
Now for his Special Comment:
Sad Days
In my life time I have experienced many sad days for our country, some of these are, but not all are:
All of the above events resulted to death and injury of many Americans and non-Americans, that have affected and changed the lives of many people and our country.
I know, the way our government operates has changed over the years, with the growth of lobbyists and the amount of money in our political system; but yesterday I saw the death of my country that I was brought up to know and love.
Yesterday was another sad day for me and America. When over 90% of Americans favored a bill that would expand gun background checks of gun sales, made at gun shows and over the Internet, was defeated by a group of Senators who had more loyalty to the NRA and gun manufacturers than to the American people.
That group of Senators showed that the revered words of their most famous Republican, President Abraham Lincoln– that we are a “government of, by and for the people”– no longer has any meaning to them. To them we are now a government of, by and for the 1% and the big corporations.
To Rand Paul I say, the only props used in the gun legislation debate where you and the other Senators who voted against the wishes of your constituents to support the gun manufacturers.
We need to get back to the type of government that was expressed by President Lincoln. That can only be done by voting out members of Congress who don’t represent their constituents and reverse the Citizens United decision. I have faith that this can be done and then enact sane and sensible gun laws, without taking away the 2nd amendment rights of Americans.
Many thanks again for another thorough, relevant piece, @42bkdodgr. You often say what many of us are thinking and feeling, and we thank you for your unique perspective.