Birthers Say They Can Arrest President Obama

[RivkahChaya]

I hope not, because my son was a c-section. Since that info isn't on the birth certificate (not even the "long form"), I think not. Back when the constitution was written, the only people born by c-section we live babies salvaged from a dead mother, so it was pretty rare.

On an interesting, albeit irrelevant, note, the bible says that "first-born sons of Israel" are supposed to serve in the Temple. In the Talmud this was explicated as a first-born son who "opens the womb." The language was probably simply chosen to differentiate a boy who is the first born of a couple's sons, but has an older sister, from a boy who is a first born child, but later rabbinical rulings declared that a first-born son born by c-section is not a "first-born son," for ritual purposes, which means that he doesn't have to fast the day before Passover, doesn't have to be redeemed after birth, and if messiah ever comes, doesn't have to serve in the Temple. Also, if a woman who had a first child by c-section has a later child vaginally (this is a 20th century ruling), and it's a son, he still is not a "first-born." You start to get the feeling after enough of these rulings that the rabbis are happy to exclude as many boys as they can.

[RivkahChaya]

Actually, now that I think about it, Supreme Court rulings are analogous to the Talmud, with the constitution being like the Torah.

Everyone has always assumed that "natural born citizen" means "a citizen from birth," however one's birth is accomplished. Since the text reads

No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution....

one can fairly infer from the second part regarding being a citizen at the time of the adoption of the constitution, that "natural born" does not refer to the circumstances of birth, because otherwise, anyone born by c-section before September 17, 1787, and a citizen at that time, was eligible to run for office, but anyone born by c-section after September 17, 1787, was excluded, and that does not make sense.

As far as I know, no one born by c-section has ever been on the ballot. Jimmy Carter was the first president born in a hospital. I don't actually know the circumstances of birth of any of the presidents, but only the last three have been born since the existence of really good antibiotics.

I do know that no one has ever tried to challenge a candidate on the grounds of not having been born "naturally." I'm going to guess that Obama wasn't born by c-section, or the birthers would have tried that. I think if someone did try that, it would die a pretty fast death, unless the Supreme Court decided to hear it, just to make a ruling in order never to have anyone try it again.

[The Good Michael]

I don't get the whole "born in the USA" thing as still being valid. It's not as ridiculous as British monarchy not being able to be or marry a Catholic...in fact, it's not as ridiculous as the British monarchy in any regard, but it's still lame.

Mike

[RivkahChaya]

It's not "born in the USA," it's "natural born citizen," which mean, "not a naturalized citizen," or, "never the citizen of any country other than the US."

The idea is that a person might have divided loyalties*, but more than that, in modern times, since some countries do not allow you to relinquish citizenship, and place travel restrictions on people they consider citizens, there could be difficulties with someone who was a former citizen of another country. Someone who had been a citizen of another country might not be able to travel to that country, or any place with certain kinds of extradition treaties with that country, without being arrested.

However, that's not really the heart of the matter.

Here it is: it's in the constitution. As long as it is there, it stands, unless it is challenged, and amended. Until it is, it is the law of the land. So far, no one has proposed an amendment.

It may be that some day there will be a naturalized citizen enough people would like to vote for, that someone will propose an amendment to change Section 1 of Article Two, after that, it must be ratified, which involves each state approving it, until there is a 3/4 majority.

Amending the constitution is a big deal. Even though the actual terms, allowing a naturalized citizen on the presidential ballot, may seem trivial, the very act of amending the constitution itself is huge. Most amendments add to or refine the constitution. There have been only two amendments which were essentially erasures. One was the 21st amendment, which repealed the 18th amendment of a few years before, "Prohibition," which was a disaster. The 17th amendment, in 1913, "erased" part of Section 3, by allowing direct election of senators.

So, allowing a foreign-born person on the ballot isn't going to happen, because everyone shrugs, and says "Whatever, doesn't really matter." It will have to happen because quite a lot of people say "It's time to change the constitution." That is a very big deal.


*Alexander Hamilton, who was not even born in the colonies, was a supporter of the "natural-born" clause for those born after the adoption of the constitution, and in The Federalist Papers, wrote

Nothing was more to be desired than that every practicable obstacle should be opposed to cabal, intrigue, and corruption. These most deadly adversaries of republican government might naturally have been expected to make their approaches from more than one querter [sic], but chiefly from the desire in foreign powers to gain an improper ascendant in our councils.

[The Good Michael]

It's not "born in the USA," it's "natural born citizen," which mean, "not a naturalized citizen," or, "never the citizen of any country other than the US."

No, that's not what it means. No one knows exactly how to interpret that. In my book it should mean: anyone who was born of a human mother and not a test tube baby. It has been interpreted by some to mean: born in the USA. By others it means someone who has US citizenship at birth. Mi

Mike

[Ally]

I don't get the whole "born in the USA" thing as still being valid. It's not as ridiculous as British monarchy not being able to be or marry a Catholic...in fact, it's not as ridiculous as the British monarchy in any regard, but it's still lame.

Mike

I totally get it. As Rivka says below, it is entirely a matter of divided loyalties and anyone who has ever lived in Miami would get it entirely. You never see the American flag flying down there, but you will see the Cuban flag, the Haitian flag, the Dominican Republic flag and every other damn flag in the world except the flag of the country that they are currently in. They leave their countries to come here, and fly the flags of the country they left. It's really annoying.

I was never so pissed in my life (at the time) as living in Miami during the Elian Gonzalez mess and watching the news and seeing the Cubans in Cuba holding a rally to have him sent back to Cuba and the Cubans in Miami holding a rally to keep him here in the U.S, and on the news you couldn't tell the difference between the two groups because BOTH SIDES WERE WAVING THE CUBAN FLAG!!

Made me absolutely insane. I totally get the natural-born citizen thing - One hundred percent and don't consider it outdated at all. Which is not to say that naturalized citizens can't be "full Americans" but in general they don't ever seem to say they are full Americans. They say Cuban-American or Haitian-American or ...Never just American.

And if you aren't 100 percent American, from cradle to grave, you shouldn't be the leader of America.

[Steve S]

That buggered Washington then..............

[Errata]

I totally get it. As Rivka says below, it is entirely a matter of divided loyalties and anyone who has ever lived in Miami would get it entirely. You never see the American flag flying down there, but you will see the Cuban flag, the Haitian flag, the Dominican Republic flag and every other damn flag in the world except the flag of the country that they are currently in. They leave their countries to come here, and fly the flags of the country they left. It's really annoying.

I was never so pissed in my life (at the time) as living in Miami during the Elian Gonzalez mess and watching the news and seeing the Cubans in Cuba holding a rally to have him sent back to Cuba and the Cubans in Miami holding a rally to keep him here in the U.S, and on the news you couldn't tell the difference between the two groups because BOTH SIDES WERE WAVING THE CUBAN FLAG!!

Made me absolutely insane. I totally get the natural-born citizen thing - One hundred percent and don't consider it outdated at all. Which is not to say that naturalized citizens can't be "full Americans" but in general they don't ever seem to say they are full Americans. They say Cuban-American or Haitian-American or ...Never just American.

And if you aren't 100 percent American, from cradle to grave, you shouldn't be the leader of America.

I have Cuban friends in the area. They are not precisely legal though as dryfeet have a better shot at it, they want to be Americans, are in the process of becoming Americans, and fly a Cuban flag and take part in Cuban pride events because while they are proud of being Cuban, more than anything they don't want to be seen as Mexicans. And they say they are treated differently as Cubans than if people think they are Mexicans. They get anti Castro sympathy as opposed to migrant worker contempt. Though interestingly they both have a set of grandparents that fled Eastern Europe and the Nazis, came in through Ellis Island, but then went to Cuba to work in casinos and didn't get out before Castro took power.

[RivkahChaya]

No, that's not what it means. No one knows exactly how to interpret that. In my book it should mean: anyone who was born of a human mother and not a test tube baby. It has been interpreted by some to mean: born in the USA. By others it means someone who has US citizenship at birth.

It could not possibly mean that, as that was totally outside the experience and imaginings of the people who wrote the constitution. Since it is immediately followed by "Or a citizen at the time of the adoption of the constitution," I think it is entirely clear what the framers meant. Moreover, if you read other things written by the framers besides the constitution itself, like The Federalist Papers, for example, they are much more explicit about their feelings. Look back at the Hamilton quote, and tell me whether he feared foreign influences from people with divided loyalties, or people gestated in artificial wombs.

[Robert]

I hope you all realise that "born on US soil" rules out anyone born in a bed.

[RivkahChaya]

I totally get it. As Rivka says below, it is entirely a matter of divided loyalties and anyone who has ever lived in Miami would get it entirely. You never see the American flag flying down there, but you will see the Cuban flag, the Haitian flag, the Dominican Republic flag and every other damn flag in the world except the flag of the country that they are currently in. They leave their countries to come here, and fly the flags of the country they left. It's really annoying.

I'm not quite so xenophobic, but there are two kinds of immigrants: people who really want to be Americans, and are often more patriotic than people who were born here, and people who just want to get away despotic regimes, and go somewhere where they are not in danger all the time. Most Cubans in Florida love their culture, just not their government; if there is drastic change when Castro dies, I have no doubt many of them will go back.

My aunt, who pretty much raised me, was born in Germany, although she was Jewish in Hitler's Germany, and not a citizen by the laws of the time, so she has never been a citizen of any country but the US; however, she wasn't a US citizen at birth, and can't run for president. I doubt she cares. She's one of the finest people I know, but I don't know that she's chief executive material. I have no doubt about her loyalty to the country, nor that of my mother's parents, who were born in what is now the Republic of Slovakia, but as Americans, they understand as well as anyone that you don't take the constitution lightly. I have never asked whether any of them would support an amendment to change the "natural-born" article, but I think they all know why it would take an amendment, and the ratification process it entails.

[Ally]

I am not xenophobic. I very much appreciate the traditions of every country I've visited. And think that's where they need to stay. My grandfather came over from Cuba. He didn't come over here to outwait Castro. If you don't like your government, stay in the country and fight to change it. But don't come over here and refuse to be an American hoping things will improve in your "real" country and you can go back after you've exhausted all the possibilites here. And hah! None of them are going back, ever. I am an American. And if, as an American I decided to move to France to take advantage of their healthcare benefits which I don't have here, all the while clinging to my American flag, and refusing to speak French, I'd be considered rude and an "Ugly American". But people feel free to come here while clinging to their past and traditions and disdaining those of America. If you are flying the flag of a country other than the one you are currently living in, then you need to move back to that country. It's just flat out rude.

[c.d.]

No, that's not what it means. No one knows exactly how to interpret that. In my book it should mean: anyone who was born of a human mother and not a test tube baby. It has been interpreted by some to mean: born in the USA. By others it means someone who has US citizenship at birth. Mi

Mike

You are free to interpret it any way you want but the only one that counts is how the Supreme Court interprets it.

c.d.

[Errata]

I am not xenophobic. I very much appreciate the traditions of every country I've visited. And think that's where they need to stay. My grandfather came over from Cuba. He didn't come over here to outwait Castro. If you don't like your government, stay in the country and fight to change it. But don't come over here and refuse to be an American hoping things will improve in your "real" country and you can go back after you've exhausted all the possibilites here. And hah! None of them are going back, ever. I am an American. And if, as an American I decided to move to France to take advantage of their healthcare benefits which I don't have here, all the while clinging to my American flag, and refusing to speak French, I'd be considered rude and an "Ugly American". But people feel free to come here while clinging to their past and traditions and disdaining those of America. If you are flying the flag of a country other than the one you are currently living in, then you need to move back to that country. It's just flat out rude.

I'm all for pride parades. I've been in New York for a few of them, and that's a fun time. But I would be with Ally on this one, since I despise Ugly Americans overseas except that, I'm not 100 percent solid on what American Culture is exactly.

And neither are anthropologist sure about what American Culture is. We're kind of too damn big to have just one. We sort of have seven. But everything is so referential back to our countries of origin, even the most white bread (or white bred) of us. Take country music for example. Very American south, until you hear Irish and Scottish reels and then it seems like a really lame copy. And it is a lame copy. Guess who primarily settled the American South? Even the stereotypical southern accent is a slowed down brogue. So.... I don't know who we are as a country, and what typifies our culture, unless its the celebration of a whole bunch of other cultures.

Someone asked me what the quintessential American Jewish experience was, and I said it was going out for Chinese takeout on Christmas eve and watching the Indiana Jones trilogy on basic cable. It's celebrating a holiday that isn't ours, with the food of the only other culture reliably not celebrating Christmas, watching the adventures of an archeologist observing the local cultures of Egypt, India, and Jordan while he fights Nazis. Nazis and Harrison Ford being the only actual Jewish part of the evening. And that defines Judaism in America. Frankly, I think people fly their old flags because it's far less confusing, but thats just a guess.

[RivkahChaya]

The Ugly American doesn't refers to jackass tourists (which we often are, but that's more an indictment of the public education system, than a national character flaw). It's a double entendre title of a book, in which the main character is physically unattractive, and an American, but goes to live in a Southeast Asian country, and helps people out, because he learns about them, and what their real needs are, instead of using propaganda to create needs. America itself, represented by interchangeable government, are the ones with the ugly souls, and obnoxious behavior, whose contrived ruses to win over the Asian country are transparent, and fail.