By Paul R. Hollrah, Guest Writer
Sen. Tom Coburn, M.D. (R-Okla.)
Over the past two years I have engaged in an ongoing debate with Sen. Tom Coburn (R-Okla.) over the issue of Barack Obama’s eligibility to serve as president of the United States. Although Senator Coburn is an exceptionally fine senator, one of the top three in the senate, his views on the issue are not unlike those of other members of Congress. They are simply wrong.
In all of our exchanges, Senator Coburn has relied on the same “boilerplate” language, insisting that, “First and foremost, while I disagree with most of President Obama’s policy positions, I believe he is a natural-born citizen and eligible to be president of the United States. My belief is based upon the fact that he was born in Hawaii, as the release of his long-form birth certificate proves, and his mother (was) a U.S. citizen. My staff has not found any evidence that contradicts these facts beyond conspiracy theories. I also believe this issue was solved in the 2008 election, when each of the 50 states placed candidate Obama on its ballot and certified its election results. Individual states are responsible for determining the eligibility of their federal candidates, and all 50 states legitimized candidate Obama’s presidency in this way.”
There are at least three major errors and misconceptions in Senator Coburn’s response.
First, he accepts that Obama was born in Hawaii and that the long-form birth certificate released by the White House on April 27, 2011, provides proof of that claim. If the senator would examine the extensive forensic evidence developed by Sheriff Joe Arpaio, of Maricopa County, Ariz., he would know that the document provided by Obama is simply a poorly-constructed forgery.
Sheriff Arpaio has made it clear that anyone who feels that his Cold Case Posse… a team of highly respected and experienced lawyers, detectives, and forensic experts… was mistaken in their conclusions, they are free to submit the posse’s work to examination by a team of experts of their own choosing. To date, none of the doubters have been doubtful enough to accept Sheriff Arpaio’s challenge. Consequently, it is only the credibility of the doubters that is found wanting. Rather than allow themselves to be proven wrong, they simply deny the validity of the posse’s findings without ever attempting to support their opposing position.
Even if it could be shown, conclusively, that Obama was born in Hawaii, his forged birth certificate notwithstanding, he still cannot claim status as a “natural born” citizen because, by his own admission, his father was a citizen of Kenya. The place of one’s birth is not the determining factor in who is and who is not a “natural born” citizen. Just as hundreds of thousands of “native born” children born in the U.S. each year are not “natural born,” because their parents are not U.S. citizens, tens of thousands of “natural born” babies are born abroad to American parents each year. These children are “natural born” citizens because both parents are U.S. citizens. Senator Coburn makes a common mistake, assuming that to be “native born” is to be “natural born.” It is not. The two terms are not synonymous.
Second, the senator argues that, “My staff has not found any evidence that contradicts these facts beyond conspiracy theories.” The only thing to be said in response is that, when one fails to look for evidence, it is unlikely that one will find evidence. Senator Coburn would be well advised to order his staff to utilize their own investigative resources and to take at face value the opinions of their friends on the Washington cocktail circuit who are armed with nothing more than inside-the-beltway “conventional wisdom,” which is almost always wrong.
Finally, the senator writes, “I also believe this issue was solved in the 2008 election, when each of the 50 states placed candidate Obama on its ballot and certified its election results. Individual states are responsible for determining the eligibility of their federal candidates, and all 50 states legitimized candidate Obama’s presidency in this way.”
The senator must know that few states have laws requiring their state election board to certify the qualifications of candidates for president and vice president. To the contrary, it is an implicit constitutional duty of the party nominating conventions to nominate eligible candidates and to certify the eligibility of candidates to the state election boards so that ballots can be printed.
For example, in 2008, all of the certifications provided to the 50 state election boards by the Republican National Convention contained language certifying that John McCain and Sarah Palin met all of the constitutional requirements for the offices of president and vice president. The documents were signed by John A. Boehner and Jean A. Inman, chairman and secretary, respectively, of the 2008 Republican National Convention, and notarized by Sheila A. Motzko.
However, certifications provided to the state election boards by the Democratic National Committee were not uniform. The certification provided exclusively to the State of Hawaii, pursuant to Hawaii Revised Statutes §11-113, which requires certification of constitutional eligibility, contained the following affirmation:
“THIS IS TO CERTIFY that at the National Convention of the Democrat Party of the United States of America, held in Denver, Colorado on August 25 though (sic) 28, 2008, the following were duly nominated candidates of said Party for President and Vice President of the United States respectively and that the following candidates for President and Vice President of the United States are legally qualified to serve under the provisions of the United States Constitution.”
The remaining 49 states, which do not require a statement of constitutional eligibility, received the following certification:
“THIS IS TO CERTIFY that at the National Convention of the Democrat Party of the United States of America, held in Denver, Colorado on August 25 though (sic) 28, 2008, the following were duly nominated as candidates of said Party for President and Vice President of the United States respectively:”
Affixed were the names and home addresses of Barack Obama and Joe Biden. The documents were signed by Nancy Pelosi and Alice Travis Germond, chairman and secretary, respectively, of the 2008 Democratic National Convention, and notarized by Shalifa A. Williamson.
The phrase, “… and that the following candidates for President and Vice President of the United States are legally qualified to serve under the provisions of the United States Constitution” was purposely omitted. Other than that, all of the documents were absolutely identical… even to the misspelling of the word “through” in the second line of the certifications. Clearly, Democrats knew when they nominated him that Barack Obama was not eligible to serve as president of the United States. The question is, what did Nancy Pelosi know, and when did she know it? She should be put under oath in a court of law and made to answer that question.
Contrary to Senator Coburn’s assertion, the obligation to properly vet candidates for president and vice president lies only with: a) the party nominating conventions, b) the members of the Electoral College, and c) the members of Congress, in joint session. The party responsibility is implicit; the responsibilities of the Electoral College and the Congress are explicit.
In a Dec. 8, 2008, discussion of the congressional certification process, Edwin Viera Jr., Ph.D., J.D., a leading authority on the Constitution, argues that, “… the question of Obama’s eligibility vel non is not within the discretion of Congress to skirt or decide as its Members may deem politically or personally expedient.” Dr. Viera argues that, if no objection is made on the basis that Obama is not a natural born citizen… “the matter cannot be said to have been settled to a ‘constitutional sufficiency’ (emphasis added),” because Congress has no power to simply waive the eligibility requirement.
In other words, the matter of Obama’s eligibility is still a matter before Congress because the Congress has not questioned and evaluated his eligibility, and in spite of the fact that the state election boards printed his name on the 2008 General Election ballot, the responsibility for vetting him is still on their collective plates.
In 2008, the delegates to the Democratic National Convention failed us, the 365 Democratic members of the Electoral College failed us, and the 535 members of the U.S. Congress failed us. In order to clarify the issue and to avoid a future constitutional crisis over presidential eligibility, the Congress should take immediate steps to establish, by law, the definition of the term “natural born Citizen.” To clarify the intentions of the Founding Fathers, the term should be defined as: “an individual born to parents, both of whom were United States citizens at the time of the birth, and neither of whom owed allegiance to any foreign sovereignty at the time of the birth.”
The American people will come to know that, between Jan. 20 2009, and Jan. 20, 2013, the man who occupied the Oval Office was not eligible to sit in that chair. And while it would be all but impossible to reverse four years of presidential acts and appointments, by codifying the definition of “natural born Citizen” the people can be satisfied that we will never again suffer the likes of Barack Obama. But the wrong that has been done to the American people will not soon be forgotten. The delegates to the 2008 Democrat National Convention, the Democrat members of the 2008 Electoral College, and the members of the 111th Congress, of both parties, will carry the shame of their treachery to their graves.
Paul R. Hollrah
Paul R. Hollrah is a contributing editor for the National Writers Syndicate and the New Media Journal. His blog is found at OrderOfEphors.com. He resides in the lakes region of northeast Oklahoma. Click here to read more of Paul’s columns.
Be sure to pick up a copy of my first nonfiction book, “Three Days In August: A U.S. Army Special Forces Soldier’s Fight For Military Justice.” and get ready for my second book, “The CLAPPER MEMO,” due out this fall.
Dear Mr. Hoorah,
Senator Coburn is correct regarding his conclusion that President Obama is a legitimate naturalized citizen, therefore eligible to be president. The “three major errors” that you claim are in fact erroneous.
First, you claim that, based on Sheriff Arpaio’s “forensic evidence”, President Obama’s birth certificate is a forgery. How does Sheriff Arpaio explain that both of Hawaii’s two major newspapers, the Honolulu Advertiser and the Star Bulletin, included birth announcements of the August 4th, 1961 birth of Barack Obama? Even, in the very unlikely event that these two announcements were fake, it would still not prevent Barack Obama from being a citizen. The Naturalization Act of 1795 states that even if one parent is an alien, as long as the other is a U.S. citizen that has lived for at least 5 years in the U.S.A., then regardless of where that person is born, they are considered a U.S. citizen until alternate citizenship status is obtained. This is why John McCain, who was born in Panama, is considered a citizen.
Secondly, you claim that because Barack Obama’s father was a citizen of Kenya, Barack Obama cannot qualify as “natural born”. Historical and textual analysis ,in addition to more than a century of federal and state legal precedent, have clearly indicated that those born in the United States, even to alien parents, are citizens ‘at birth’ or ‘by birth,’ and are ‘natural born,’ as opposed to ‘naturalized,’ U.S. citizens. There is no provision in the Constitution and no controlling American case law to support a contention that the citizenship of one’s parents governs the eligibility of a native born U.S. citizen to be President. In fact, six previous US Presidents had foreign born parents. Andrew Jackson (1829-1837) is the only president born of two immigrants, both Irish. Presidents with one immigrant parent are Thomas Jefferson (1801-1809), whose mother was born in England, James Buchanan (1857-1861) and Chester Arthur (1881-1885), both of whom had Irish fathers, and Woodrow Wilson (1913-1921) and Herbert Hoover (1929-1933), whose mothers were born in England and Canada, respectively. Thus, President Obama is our seventh president to have one or more parents who were not US citizens.
Thirdly, you claim that the Democratic National Committee did not provide a certificate, claiming that Barack Obama was “legally qualified” to be President, to any state other than Hawaii. Furthermore, you claim that all those, other than Hawaii, were identical. While this was written in a blog, it doesn’t make it true. In fact, each state has different laws on how eligibility of candidates is verified. For instance, in many states such as Maryland and California, the Secretary of State certifies the Presidential candidate. In other states, such as Delaware, if a candidate for President of the United States receives his or her party’s nomination at the National Convention, the candidate must certify their name, residence and post office address. In South Carolina, the political parties must verify the qualifications of candidates prior to certifying to the State Election Commission the names of candidates to be placed on primary ballots. In Oklahoma, we use a form that only has places to fill in blanks and sign. Given the variety of rules and forms required in different states, it is not possible that any uniform certificate of any kind sent to every state, much less one that failed to use the correct “legally qualified” language.
I think it is very sad that people like you must cling to these fallacies supported by lies and innuendo. You can argue that Mr. Obama isn’t supporting policies or legislation that you agree with, but you cannot argue with the fact of his legitimacy to the office. An honest discourse would elevate the whole conversation and maybe then I could take your views seriously.
Vicke – The problem here is that Paul is legally and historically correct, and you are wrong. Deal with it!
Vicke and Senator Coburn are correct. Paul is legally and historically wrong.
“Under the longstanding English common-law principle of jus soli, persons born within the territory of the sovereign (other than children of enemy aliens or foreign diplomats) are citizens from birth. Thus, those persons born within the United States are “natural born citizens” and eligible to be President. Much less certain, however, is whether children born abroad of United States citizens are “natural born citizens” eligible to serve as President …”—- Edwin Meese, et al, THE HERITAGE GUIDE TO THE CONSTITUTION (2005) [Edwin Meese was Ronald Reagan’s attorney general, and the Heritage Foundation is a well-known Conservative organization.]
Paul was, at one time, a member of the Electoral College, and I would wager he has a bit tighter grasp on election rules than Senator Coburn or AG Meese.
Paul is welcome to his dreams. But he is not right. Coburn and Meese are right.
Here is an example of how the term Natural Born Citizen was used in 1803, very soon after the US Constitution went into effect.
“Prior to the adoption of the constitution, the people inhabiting the different states might be divided into two classes: natural born citizens, or those born within the state, and aliens, or such as were born out of it. The first, by their birth-right, became entitled to all the privileges of citizens; the second, were entitled to none, but such as were held out and given by the laws of the respective states prior to their emigration. …St. George Tucker, BLACKSTONE’S COMMENTARIES: WITH NOTES OF REFERENCE TO THE CONSTITUTION AND LAWS OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES AND THE COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA. (1803)
As you can see , the example uses the term Natural Born Citizen exactly the way that Natural Born was used in the common law, to refer to the place of birth and not to refer to the parents. Natural Born Citizens were simply “those born within the state.”
And here is how it was used 25 years later, in 1829:
“Therefore every person born within the United States, its territories or districts, whether the parents are citizens or aliens, is a natural born citizen in the sense of the Constitution, and entitled to all the rights and privileges appertaining to that capacity.”—William Rawle, A VIEW OF THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. 2d ed. (1829)
And there are NO examples of any American (Swiss writers do not count) at the time using the term Natural Born in any way other than it was used in the common law and referring to the place of birth. Vattel was not even mentioned once in the Federalist Papers, while the common law was mentioned about twenty times.
Sheriff Joe’s team from Maricopa County are well respected and any results they have should be investigated further. What is the big deal about investigating it further since they said they were 100% sure the long form birth certificate was a forged and manufactured document.
McCain was born on a military base in Panama which is considered US territory, totally different.
Obama was taken to Indoneshia around 2 years old when his mother remarried an Indonesian. He changed his name to Barry Soetoro and attended a Muslim school there until age 11. During this time he was an Indonesian citizen. When he came back to Hawaii at age 11 he never changed citizenship back to American. So even if he was born in the USA he was an Indonesian citizen for almost 10 years.
To be President of the US you have to show your birth certificate. If there is any doubt it should be investigated even if he has pulled the wool over our eyes for the past 4 years. Let Congress investigate it.
Re: “Sheriff Joe’s team from Maricopa County are well respected…”
Sure they are.
http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/292780/conspiracy-again-editors
Only birther “experts”—who have not shown that they are really experts, and who certainly have not shown that they are fair and impartial—have claimed that Obama’s birth certificate is forged. Those are two reasons why Ann Coulter, Glenn Beck, the National Review, and the CONSERVATIVE secretary of state of Arizona, who recently had Hawaii confirm that Obama was born there, and who accepted that as evidence—ALL do not believe the birther “experts.” And they do not believe Sheriff Joe or his posse either.
Here is one reason:
http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2012/07/indicting-the-sheriff-joe-and-the-cold-case-posse/
Another is that he used WND’s birther “experts,” one of whom claimed to have found the original altar of Abraham, another of whom has claimed that Obama did not attend Columbia College (even though Columbia University has said that Obama did attend, and graduated).
And then there is this:
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/292464/sheriff-joes-birther-posse-kevin-d-williamson
In fact, there is no proof of any kind that Obama’s mother traveled outside the USA in 1961 or, for that matter, arrived in Kenya or gave birth in Kenya. There is, however, a birth certificate for Obama in Hawaii, and the fact that it exists is confirmed not merely by three Republican and two Democrat officials in Hawaii in repeated confirmations, but by the birth notices in the Hawaii newspapers in 1961—which at the time were sent to the papers only by the DOH of Hawaii, and only for births in Hawaii–and by the public “Index Data” volumes which have been available for years and which show a birth certificate file created for Obama in 1961.
Yet despite this evidence, birthers continue to dream that all the officials of Hawaii are lying, and the DOH really did not send birth notices to the newspapers for Obama in 1961—-and that Obama’s mother traveled thousands of miles while late in pregnancy to give birth in a foreign country.
Oh, and by the way, Obama never legally changed his name, so it is still Obama, and he was never a citizen of Indonesia, as a call to the Indonesian Embassy in Washington will confirm.
Troll alert!!!
A naturalized citizen is not the same as a natural born citizen. Both parents mush be citizens of the nation where you are born to be a natural born citizen. Just being born in Hawaii could not make Barack Obama a natural born citizen with a Kenyan father who was a British subject.
Obama advertised for 16 years that he was born in Kenya and raised in Indonesia and Hawaii. He claimed to be born in Hawaii when he entered the race in 2007.
His Indonesian step-father Lolo Soetoro) adopted him and gave him the name Barry Soetoro.
The only way “Barack Obama” could have been born as a natural born citizen would be if his father was Frank Marshall Davis, a well known communist who mentored him on communist in his early life. If he had been born as a natural born citizen, he lost that status when he was adopted into Indonesian citizenship.
I’m amazed anyone would vote for someone they have no idea who they are. Obama is the only “president” this nation has ever had that refused to identify himself and it was the first time the Electoral College and the Senate put him in office without affirmation of being Constitutionally legal.
Unless congress get’s in the game and brings him to trial for treason, it’s
Goodbye, USA. Hello USSA.
ellenhancock,
Why did the Indonesian school papers show his name as Barry Soetoro and why did they show his religion as Islam? Why did he thank John McCain for not mentioning his Muslim religion? What did his wife mean she she said they got their medical shots so they could go through Africa to his homeland of Kenya? Why are the Kenyan newspapers writing about him as a Kenyan? Why is he so affiliated with Kenya?
Was he born in Hawaii as he claimed, or was he born in Kenya as he claim?
And by the way, Indonesia would not accept children in their schools unless they were Indonesian citizens so how did he get in their school if he wasn’t adopted by Lolo Soetoro..