“PART OF THE UNITED STATES,” OR NOT?
by Joseph DeMaio, ©2019
.svg){kind=link}
(Jun. 28, 2019) — Well, well, well…, who woulda thunk? Following the first round of Democrat Loser Debates, it seems that a consensus is developing that the junior representative from Hawaii, Ms. Tulsi Gabbard may just be rising in the polls. In an unofficial “poll” conducted online by The Drudge Report during and following the debate, some 40% of around 50,400 respondents picked Gabbard as the winner of the debate, with her closest 2nd place rival, Sen. Elizabeth Warren, coming in at less than 12.5%.
Say what? A relatively unknown representative from Hawaii gets more than three times the number of votes than her second-place, far more well-known competitor, Senator Warren? While the poll sample size is minute compared to the entire electorate, what is up with that? Perhaps it is because (a) Gabbard is a military veteran, having served in Iraq and now commissioned as a full major in the Hawaii Army National Guard; (b) she decimated Congressman Tim Ryan (Ohio) by correcting him that it was members of Al Qaeda, not the Taliban, who destroyed the World Trade Center towers on 9/11/01; and (c) she hails from a state that has already given us Barack Hussein Obama II.
Wait a second… while Obama claims to have been born in Hawaii, faithful P&E readers know two things: (1) that assertion is likely false or, at minimum, unsubstantiated, and (2) even if true, the documentation he has supplied seems clearly to establish in any event that he is not (and was not when he usurped the presidency) a “natural born Citizen” as required under the Constitution.
But what about Gabbard? Apart from most of her goofy ideas and positions trending toward the radical-progressive wing of the Democrat Party (she was a vice-chair of the “Democratic [sic] National Committee” for a brief period of time before resigning to endorse Bernie Sanders for president in 2016… not the smartest move…), there is another impediment she will likely face. She, along with another Democrat presidential-wannabe, Kamala Harris, must prove that she is eligible as a “natural born Citizen” under Art. 2, § 1, Cl. 5 of the Constitution.
This task arises, of course, because although from all appearances, both of her parents – Carol (née Porter) and Mike Gabbard – were both already U.S citizens on April 12, 1981, Tulsi Gabbard’s birth did not take place within the United States. Rather, it took place in Leloaloa, Maoputasi County, American Samoa. As faithful P&E readers also know, under the provisions of § 212 of Emmerich de Vattel’s The Law of Nations – and upon which tome the Founders “continually relied” while drafting the Constitution, including the “natural born Citizen” restriction of Art. 2, § 1, Cl. 5 – in order for one to satisfy the eligibility restriction, not only must the child’s parents be citizens of the nation where the birth occurs, the birth must take place on that nation’s soil.
This is where it gets sticky. While American Samoa is a “territory” of the United States, it is not an “incorporated territory.” This is the same issue that faced Sen. John McCain in 2008, when he faced off against Monsieur Obama as discussed here. Among several issues in McCain’s case was whether he was born at the Coco Solo Naval Air Station hospital, a U.S. military base in the Panama Canal Zone, or whether he was born in a hospital in Colón, Panama, which has never has been a part of the United States. Parenthetically, in a case challenging his eligibility – Hollander v. McCain, 566 F. Supp. 2d 63 (D.N.H. 2008) – the record indicated that a copy of McCain’s birth certificate was received in evidence, with the judge stating that the birth certificate “lists his place of birth as Colón.” Id. at 65.
At the time of his birth (1936), the Panama Canal Zone was an unincorporated territory under the control of the United States. However, the United States Supreme Court had ruled 35 years earlier that unincorporated territories, even if under the control of the United States, are not, prior to formal action by the Congress, a part of the United States. Downes v. Bidwell, 182 U.S. 244 (1901). Thereafter, the Court ruled that the full spectrum of the Constitution’s provisions apply only in incorporated territories of the United States, thereby excluding from that full spectrum its application in unincorporated territories. Rassmussen v. United States, 197 U.S. 516 (1905).
Before anyone jumps to the erroneous conclusion that this means that the natural born Citizen restriction would not apply at all to a person born in American Samoa (or any other unincorporated territory of the United States), note that the Rassmussen case involved only the question of whether a person’s constitutional rights under the 6th Amendment applied at all in the Territory of Alaska and not whether the mandates of other constitutional provisions applied.
In addition, the Downes case affirmed the principle that, whether a territory was already “incorporated” into the United States by act of Congress or not, “[o]ur Constitution, in its operation, is co-extensive with our political jurisdiction…,” citing The City of Panama, 101 U.S. 453, 460 (1879). Thus, the Supreme Court has seemingly confirmed that the mandate of Art. 2, § 1, Cl. 5 of the Constitution – the “natural born Citizen” eligibility restriction clause – would be and is, as intended by the Founders, applicable to a child born to U.S. citizen parents anywhere, including, as to Senator McCain, the Panama Canal Zone or, as to Representative Gabbard, American Samoa.
This conclusion is also fortified by recognition that, after enacting 1 Stat. 103, the “1790 Naturalization Act,” declaring children born to U.S. citizen parents “beyond sea” (i.e., not in the United States) to be “considered” as natural born citizens, Congress repealed altogether that law by enacting 1 Stat. 414 in 1795, the “1795 Naturalization Act.” The title of the 1795 act was: “An Act to establish an [sic: so in original] uniform rule of Naturalization; and to repeal the act heretofore passed on that subject.” (Emphasis added)
There is no indication in the 1795 Act’s title of any intent to preserve the “considered as natural born citizens” modifier of the children affected. Instead, there is a clear objective of totally repealing that provision along with the rest of the prior statute. In so doing, Congress changed the language of the prior law by declaring that such children born “beyond sea” would thereafter be considered “citizens,” but not “natural born citizens.”
So what does all of this mean for Tulsi Gabbard? It seems to mean the same thing as for Kamala Harris. Until an insouciant Supreme Court finds the backbone to undertake an examination of the “natural born Citizen” issue under Art. 2. § 1, Cl. 5 in a live “case or controversy,” we will need to remain satisfied with watching the Democrat circus stumble forward laboring under the belief that both Harris and Gabbard (and perhaps others) are constitutionally eligible. Both are likely ineligible.
Time to go make some more popcorn.
what happens in tne case of a native born Citizen who gives birth to a child in the United States but does not know who the father is or used a sperm doner?
Can the child ever be eligible to be president as well as any offsprings?
Tulsi is not eligible, like Kamala. Here is my proof, A long read, but it will clarify by facts.
I have posted this on several sites already. It’s a long read, but I tried to be as concise as possible. First off, Kamala Harris is not eligible.
Like Obama and Ted Cruz, the mother is not relevant to the eligibility issue, and never has been. Read on and see what has been hidden will be revealed.
I know that those that taut Vattel, with the father and mother as separate entities are set in stone and this is wrong. The equation they use is Citizen Father (1) and Citizen Mother (2) and Born in Country(3), as a three legged stool. This is shortsighted as Vattel states in § 213. Inhabitants.
The inhabitants, as distinguished from citizens, are foreigners, who are permitted to settle and stay in the country. Bound to the society by their residence, they are subject to the laws of the state while they reside in it; and they are obliged to defend it, because it grants them protection, though they do not participate in all the rights of citizens. They enjoy only the advantages which the law or custom gives them. The perpetual inhabitants are those who have received the right of perpetual residence. These are a kind of citizens of an inferior order, and are united to the society without participating in all its advantages. Their children follow the condition of their fathers; and, as the state has given to these the right of perpetual residence, their right passes to their posterity.
Again; Their children follow the condition of their fathers
Then in § 215. Children of citizens born in a foreign country.
It is asked whether the children born of citizens in a foreign country are citizens? The laws have decided this question in several countries, and their regulations must be followed. By the law of nature alone, children follow the condition of their fathers, and enter into all their rights (§ 212); the place of birth produces no change in this particular, and cannot, of itself, furnish any reason for taking from a child what nature has given him; I say “of itself,” for, civil or political laws may, for particular reasons, ordain otherwise. But I suppose that the father has not entirely quitted his country in order to settle elsewhere. If he has fixed his abode in a foreign country, he is become a member of another society, at least as a perpetual inhabitant; and his children will be members of it also.
Again; By the law of nature alone, children follow the condition of their fathers, and enter into all their rights (§ 212); the place of birth produces no change in this particular, and cannot, of itself, furnish any reason for taking from a child what nature has given him; I say “of itself,” for, civil or political laws may, for particular reasons, ordain otherwise.
So back when Barack Obama came on the scene and stated the following.
So what does Barack Obama claim? “When Barack Obama Jr. was born on Aug. 4,1961, in Honolulu, Kenya was a British colony, still part of the United Kingdom’s dwindling empire. As a Kenyan native, Barack Obama Sr. was a British subject whose citizenship status was governed by The British Nationality Act of 1948. That same act governed the status of Obama Sr.‘s children.
Since Sen. Obama has neither renounced his U.S. citizenship nor sworn an oath of allegiance to Kenya, his Kenyan citizenship automatically expired on Aug. 4,1982.” Let me explain. First off, the above statement claims no US Citizenship, it states that Barack was born to a British citizen and that act carried onto his children.
That act states that under that act, the underage supposed mother became a British subject (following the condition of her husband) and even with any US citizenship, Barack Obama can never be a ‘natural born citizen’. The location of his birth did not qualify Obama under the jurisdiction of US law.
This is why the mother (under the language of the Constitution does not matter, and there has been no amendment to alter that language. Remember what John Bingham wrote about the language in our Constitution.) historically a man and a woman come together as one (in marriage) they produce offspring, children. The wife becomes one with the husband and takes his condition. This is why under history and outlined in Vattel, the mother is not a separate entity, but conjoined in the union. The term as defined by the framers/founders understood this as they used Vattel in the founding of a new nation, (Ben Franklin to Charles Dumas). Thought out the Congressional record, debates, etc, the term parents were used together, however it was understood to mean as one. Christian theology (forgive the spelling here) Under the 14th Amendment, those that were born and UNDER the Jurisdiction were declared citizens, but this did not alter/change/amend the Natural-Born requirement.
Several cases beyond the 14th Amendment also clarify that just being born in the US does not make one a citizen, Elk vs Walkins 1884, that the US Supreme Court held that even though Elk was born in the United States, he was not a citizen because he owed allegiance to his tribe when he was born rather than to the U.S. and therefore was not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States when he was born. for example, that being said, it wasn’t till later that native Indians were granted citizenship. Even the touted Wong Kim Ark case declared she was a just a citizen.
One notable case is President Grant’s daughter, in 1874, she, Nellie Grant married Algernon Charles Frederick Sartoris, an Englishman. The couple left the United States and lived in Great Britain. British law stated that an alien woman became an English subject when she married a citizen of Great Britain. (Again, the British Acts declared that the wife follow the condition of her husband, that same act followed Barack Obama’s statement as earlier noted and why there is no mention of Barack Obama’s mother) Did this give Nellie Grant dual citizenship? The Act of 1868 determined that, by establishing residency outside the country, she had relinquished her American citizenship. When Nellie Grant Sartoris returned to the United States at the end of her marriage, State Department practice at the time held that, by returning, she automatically regained her citizenship. Despite this, in 1896, she petitioned Congress to reinstate her American nationality. In a Special Act of 1898, she regained an unconditional resumption of her citizenship. Thereby establishing she lost her citizenship my marrying a foreign national. Mind you this was no ordinary citizen, but the daughter of the US President.
Moving forward to the FIRST TIME a woman could retain her US citizenship if she married a foreigner was in 1922 with the Cable Act, when a woman married a foreign national she lost her US citizenship if she married a foreign man, since she assumed the citizenship of her husband, a law that did not apply to US citizen men who married foreign women, since again the wife takes the condition of her husband as do the children.
Again, moving forward, to The Citizenship Act of 1934, a U.S. citizen mother were not permitted to transmit U.S. citizenship to their children born abroad. The Act of May 24, 1934 (the “1934 Statute”) gave U.S. citizen mothers equality of status regarding their ability to transmit U.S. citizenship. However the provision was not applied retroactively. Therefore, children born before May 24, 1934 to a U.S. citizen mother and an alien father did not acquire U.S. citizenship.
That being the case, think of both Barack Obama and Ted Cruz. Prior to 2007, numerous references concerning Barack Obama state Kenyan-Born. Stanley Ann married a British subject, under the British Nationality Act. Barack Obama, foreign born to a foreign father, and then again at Ted Cruz, foreign born in Canada, to a foreign father (Cuban) and a mother who married a British subject, resided in England, prior to Ted Cruz’s birth in Alberta, Canada. Both sounds familiar.
To that point in 2000, in the United states Supreme Court Case of In the Supreme Court Case—Tuan Anh Nguyen v. INS—Justice Ginsberg made the following statement
Mr. Kneedler, If Congress went back to the way it was when everything was determined by the father’s citizenship, go back to before 1934, suppose congress accepts your argument or we accept your argument and say plenary power, they can do whatever they damn please, so they say children born abroad of fathers who are U.S. citizens can become U.S. citizens, but not children who are born abroad of U.S. mothers where the father in an alien. That’s the way it used to be in the bad old days.”
Again, documenting that prior to 1934 the mother’s citizenship was not a determining factor.
If you were born between May 25, 1934, and January 12, 1941, you acquired U.S. citizenship at birth if both your parents were U.S. citizens and at least one had resided in the U.S. prior to your birth. The law at this time placed no additional conditions on retaining U.S. citizenship acquired in this way.
This is the reason prior to 1934, citizenship was based solely on the father. From the founding of the nation till 1934, the father was the determining criteria and the mother was irrelevant, as documented. The framers and founders understood that children follow the condition of their father.
Then in 1957, Convention on the Nationality of Married Women, an UN convention that entered force in 1958 and was ratified by 74 countries, protects the citizenships of women who married citizens of other countries (previously such a marriage often resulted in the loss of the woman’s original citizenship).
I find no fault with the introductory clause [S 61 Bill], which is simply declaratory of what is written in the Constitution, that every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen -Rep. John Bingham, framer of the 14th Amendment, before The US House of Representatives ((Cong. Globe, 39th, 1st Sess., 1291, March 9, 1866 )
Neither Acts of Congress has altered the Constitutional requirement of a Natural-Born Citizen nor as John Bingham wrote language of our Constitution, the courts have polluted the understanding and historical meaning to hide their treason.
Here is John Bingham, Framer of the 14th Amendment
I find no fault with the introductory clause [S 61 Bill], which is simply declaratory of what is written in the Constitution, that every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen -Rep. John Bingham, framer of the 14th Amendment, before The US House of Representatives ((Cong. Globe, 39th, 1st Sess., 1291, March 9, 1866 )
The Constitutional requirement has not been altered by an amendment, as required by the United States Constitution.
Kamala’s parents were foreigners, owing allegiance to Jamaica and India. Is she even a US citizen?
Email sent to Tulsi on 8-1/2-2019 via TulsiOffice@mail.house.gov and tulsi@tulsigabbard.com :
https://www.thepostemail.com/2019/06/28/is-tulsi-gabbard-a-natural-born-citizen/#comment-354555
TULSI,
WHO FORMALLY VETTED YOU AS A U.S. CONSTITUTION “natural born Citizen” (nbC)? Anyone? Elections officials?
Show me and 329,000,000 other United State citizens “your papers” that you are a 100% irrefutable “natural born Citizen”, or else, you remain a fugitive nbC-criminal!
JD Mooers
Vincent, Minor v Happersett was decided in the October 1874 term. It is therefore properly cited as (1874).
Minor v. Happersett:
March 29, 1875 – not 1874.
McStain would have been an NBC according to Vattel §217, but he wasn’t according to Minor v. Happersett.
If he had been honest, he would have sought the opinion of the Supreme Court but of course, he wasn’t and we got SR511 instead.
Colón isn’t part
of the Panama canal zone.
With the outrageous ruling essentially barring the citizenship question on the census, deciding vote from compromised CJ Roberts (remember obamacare,) I would not trust SCOTUS taking on the issue of eligibity. We are losing the argument until we have a HUGE champion. We are no closer to having an effective voice in the mainstream. Big voices like levin and rush limbaugh know the truth about obama but are cowards and those that try like Sheriff Arpaio and Mongomery are litigated into silence.
Sharon Mercer, to reference the crs maskell memo makes any argument you might have about tulsi gabbard being a NBC not only laughable but ignorant. Aso, look at the link I posted and explain this: :Washington, D.C. – Thursday, Congresswoman Aumua Amata was pleased to confirm that the House Natural Resources Committee has reaffirmed their commitment to hold a hearing to examine the need for a streamlined citizenship choice for those individual U.S. Nationals in American Samoa that want citizenship. While many American Samoans are happy with their status as US Nationals many American Samoans, especially those on the mainland choose naturalization often for purposes of military promotions, security clearances, along with other employment or personal reasons.” Whenever you’re ready.
Sharon Mercer, Like McCain, who also had two U.S. Citizen Parents, Gabbard was NOT born on U.S. soil (either in a fully incorporated territory or a State) regardless of her parents being U.S. Citizens. While persons born in American Samoa are “Citizens” of the U.S. they are NOT “Natural born Citizens” of the U.S. McCain was born in Colon, Panama to two U.S. Citizens. HE had dual Panamanian/ U.S. Citizenship and was NOT an NBC.
Sharon Mercer: Read this analysis of the 2011 CRS Memo (aka the 2nd CRS memo) and how key parts of legal citations and information, that disputes their ultimate conclusion therein, was omitted from the document, which makes said CRS Memo a piece of political antii-constituional disinformation put out by the CRS to members of Congress in both parties to provide cover for their inaction regarding the ineligibility of people for the Presidency in both parties, and to hide behind — Bombshell: Second CRS Memo Covering for Obama’s Ineligibility Not Released to the Public…Until Now: http://www.thepostemail.com/2011/05/29/bombshell-second-crs-memo-covering-for-obamas-ineligibility-not-released-to-the-public-until-now/
Tulsi is a natural born citizen. Both Tulsi’s parents were US citizens at the time of Tulsi’s birth, and both had lived more than five years in the US prior to Tulsi’s birth, which makes Tulsi a natural born citizen from birth. https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R42097.pdf
Bear in mind that the “CRS memos” have been shown to have omitted crucial wording from the legal opinions they have cited: https://www.thepostemail.com/?s=Jack+Maskell+Joseph+DeMaio+2011+CRS+memo
Birth in American Samoa does NOT qualify as being born “In the United States” for Article II purposes, even if her parents were U.S. Citizens. American Samoa is NOT a fully incorporated territory of the United States. The sole fully incorporated territory of the U.S. at this time is Palmyra Atoll which is under full sovereign control of the U.S. If a person is born on Palymyra Atoll to two U.S. Citizen Parents he/she would be a Natural Born U.S. Citizen. Those born in American Samoa, Puerto Rico, Guam, U.S. Virgin Islands and the former Panama Canal Zone are NOT “Natural Born Citizens”. John McCain was said to be born in the PCZ but he was NOT. In any event, the PCZ was never incorporated territory of the U.S. McCain was born in Colon, Panama, which like Panama City, Panama was specifically excluded from the parameters of the PCZ, by treaty. In 2008 BOTH major party candidates were ineligible to be President or VP. Gabbard is NOT an NBC and is therefore constitutionally barred from being President or VPOTUS. I am sure Mario would agree.
Miki: As far as what I know as of now, Tulsi’s parents were alleged to be U.S. Citizens when she was born in American Samoa. If true then Tulsi would have been a U.S. Citizen born Abroad to U.S. Citizen parents. So she is not likely the lesser status of being a U.S. National but not a basic U.S. Citizen. More information is needed. I don’t know if the parents would have had to file a consular report of the birth of their child outside the USA such as what should have been done for Ted Cruz’s birth in Canada. But being a Citizen at Birth does not of course automatically make her a “natural born Citizen” at Birth to constitutional standards. See: https://cdrkerchner.wordpress.com/2011/07/07/trees-are-plants-but-not-all-plants-are-trees-natural-born-citizens-nbc-are-citizens-at-birth-cab-but-not-all-cab-are-nbc-2/ American Samoa is a very unique case and I look forward to a legal expert on citizenship matters such as Atty Mario Apuzzo (http://puzo1.blogspot.com) to expound more about Tulsi Gabbard’s exact status and what paperwork was required to be filed for her by being born in American Samoa to a U.S. Citizen or Citizens while they were there. Tulsi needs to come forth with more information about her birth registration status and paperwork filed when she was born in American Samoa. But like Kamala Harris it appears that Tulsi’s handlers are content to keep the waters muddy and unclear about he exact birth status and citizenships and allegiances. For example is Tulsi considered a Citizen of American Samoa by birth. Questions that need answers. I don’t have enough information at this point.
http://hawaiifreepress.com/ArticlesMain/tabid/56/ID/23766/First-Congressional-Hearing-on-Citizenship-Choice-for-Individual-American-Samoans.aspx?utm_source=Copy+of+June+23%2C+2019+News+from+HawaiiFreePress++&utm_campaign=June+23%2C+2019+Email+9am&utm_medium=email #HareKrishnaTulsiGabbard is at best a US National. As a citizen of Samoa she is in no way close to being a Natural Born Citizen as required by the Constitution to run for president. Neither is #heelsupharris whos parents were not citizens when she was born.
Unless one is born IN the U.S. to parents who are both U.S. Citizens themselves they are NOT “Natural Born [U.S.] Citizens. Gabbard and Harris are not just “likely ineligible”. They are incontrovertibly NOT eligible. At this time in our History there is only ONE fully incorporated territory of the U.S. and that is Palmyra Atol. Those born on PA to parents who are both U.S. Citizens themselves are NBCs. Those born in an unincorporated territory even to U.S. Citizen parents (“Parents Citoyens” See: Vattel) are NOT NBCs. McCain was born in Colon, Panama. I have a copy of his BC. Colon, Panama and Panama City, Panama were never part of the PCZ, by treaty. In any event, the PCZ was never incorporated. Those born in American Samoa, Puerto Rico, U.S. Virgin Islands and Guam are NOT born on U.S. soil. The U.S. Supreme Court HAS already determined what an NBC is. In a 9-0 unanimous decision made in Minor v Happersett, (1874) the court said that there was no doubt that persons born in the U.S. to parents who are both U.S. Citizens themselves are Natural Born Citizens. As to other types of Citizens born in the U.S. without regard to their parents citizenship there IS doubt. This ruling is precedential and has been referred to and/or reaffirmed in other USSCt. cases such as The Venus, Shanks v Dupont and Wong Kim Ark. The court did not revisit these precedents when they had opportunity to do so in Laity v NY and Obama and Laity v NY, Cruz, Rubio and Jindal. The precedent in Minor v Happersett and the other cases referenced remains to this day “Good Law”.
An information piece published by National Geographic regarding American Samoa and nationality and citizenship status of same: https://news.nationalgeographic.com/2018/03/american-samoa-citizenship-lawsuit-history/
Another debate participant Kamala Harris certainly is NOT a “natural born Citizen” of the United States as Ted Cruz (and some others) certainly is NOT. See: https://www.scribd.com/lists/22182725/Some-Politicians-Seeking-High-Office-Who-Are-Not-A-Natural-Born-Citizen-of-U-S
Joseph DeMaio: Well done. An excellent and timely piece. SCOTUS needs to stop “avoiding the issue” as Justice Thomas once stated during a congressional committee hearing and take a case or controversy that is direct on presidential eligibility and the natural born Citizen term and stop the courts ducking the issue using technicalities such as standing and political question, etc. Otherwise we are going to get more and more Obama, Harris, Cruz, Rubio, et al candidates with questionable “natural born Citizen” status and thus the attendant “sole allegiance” at birth, the other side and purpose and understanding by the founders and framers of that natural born Citizen term coin.