Cross-posted by Maggie at Maggie’s Notebook
I have been on the phone with Senators Inhofe (R-OK) and Coburn’s (R-OK) office for much of the morning, also with their local offices, and the RNC local office.
I eventually spoke with a Legal Correspondent in Senator Inhofe’s office. I’ve spoken to the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee and the U.S. Senate Ethics Committee. Here’s what I got from those combined conversations:
There is no process to validate a candidate’s natural-born citizenship status before filing for the office of The President.
Once a non-natural-born candidate is elected President, anyone can spend their hard-earned money to bring a lawsuit. Once such a person is elected, then the “people” have been injured.
It is not an “injury” to the people for a candidate, knowing that he/she is not natural-born, to file illegally, campaign illegally and win illegally.
No one can confirm which, or if, either of our esteemed bodies of Congress is/are required to challenge non-natural-born status.
It seems we can be injured by having a Big Mac for lunch, but not by our governing bodies loosely and irresponsibly thwarting the U.S. Constitution.
The House and the Senate will not get into this. It’s up to the “people.
Background:
hey, guys. this greatly concerns me too; but i read any child born to an american citizen (obama’s mother) is an american. is that true?
Odd and interesting information; just what I’d expect from the folks in DC.
Carl, I don’t think it’s that simple, although I do not understand it all either. I think this lawsuit boils down to was he really born in the U.S. and if not, what happened in Indonesia (perhaps a dual citizenship issue, not an issue here, but still today an issue in Indonesia).
The 14th Amendment was intended to protect our Black population. It said that the Government cannot rob a citizen of their citizenship, unless they want to give it up. Then, there’s this from http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment14/01.html#1:
“In a subsequent decision, however, the Court held that persons who were statutorily naturalized by being born abroad of at least one American parent could not claim the protection of the first sentence of Sec. 1 and that Congress could therefore impose a reasonable and non-arbitrary condition subsequent upon their continued retention of United States citizenship.”
The first sentence of Sec. 1 mentioned above basically says that if you are born or naturalized, you cannot be denied your citizenship.
There’s also an issue of how long the mother had lived in the US after a certain age, and before giving birth abroad, and perhaps the stated age of 14 shown today, may have been different in 1964. I have yet found that.
Berg’s lawsuit is very specific. I cannot follow it all and have idea if this is anything.
Wish I could give you a better answer.