Kansas officials are on the case.

Yesterday Kansas officials were set to rule on whether or not Barack Obama could be on the ballot in Kansas due to not being an American citizen.

But hold the phone.  The Objections Commission in Kansas is delaying judgment until Monday.

The State Objections Board comprised of Secretary of State Kris Kobach, Attorney General Derek Schmidt and Lt. Gov. Jeff Colyer postponed until Monday action on a complaint filed by a Manhattan resident pending review of a copy of Obama’s birth certificate from Hawaii.

Way to investigate guys – make sure you dig deep and get to the heart of the matter.  Way to make sure you have all the facts before you do something that makes the leadership of Kansas look like a bunch of oblivious white dudes who stumbled into the capitol building.  That these people are leading a state instead of getting bossed around by the chief fry cook is an indictment on our citizenry.

The oceanic disparity in talent and basic competence between the two parties right now would be so much less depressing if people weren’t somehow still voting for Republicans.

  • ottod

    Come on, JT!

    Do you think those people would really wash their hands before returning to work?

  • Loqi

    Delaying it isn’t going to stop this production of “The Three Stooges Do Sherlock Holmes.”

  • SLC

    Actually, to be very technical about it, Obama is not on the ballot in any state (neither is Romney). What is on the ballot is a slate of electors pledged to each of them.

  • Sunny Day

    A natural born citizen is simply one who gained their citizenship through birth (either jus soli or jus sanguinis) rather than through naturalization.
    ……………
    In 1862, the US Attorney General wrote:
    … our constitution, in speaking of natural born citizens, uses no affirmative language to make them such, but only recognizes and reaffirms the universal principle, common to all nations, and as old as political society, that the people born in a country do constitute the nation, and, as individuals, are natural members of the body politic.
    Since 1795 (with the removal of the Naturalization Act of 1790), the legal category of “natural born citizen” has not existed, and there has been no basis to assume that anyone who gains citizenship through birth is not a “natural born citizen”.
    ……………
    Minor vs Happersett, Supreme Court, 1874:
    The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case it is not necessary to solve these doubts. It is sufficient for everything we have now to consider that all children born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction are themselves citizens.

    United States vs Wong Kim Ark, Supreme Court, 1898:
    The constitution nowhere defines the meaning of these words [citizen and natural born citizen], either by way of inclusion or of exclusion, except in so far as this is done by the affirmative declaration that ‘all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States.
    ……
    It thus clearly appears that by the law of England for the last three centuries, beginning before the settlement of this country, and continuing to the present day, aliens, while residing in the dominions possessed by the crown of England, were within the allegiance, the obedience, the faith or loyalty, the protection, the power, and the jurisdiction of the English sovereign; and therefore every child born in England of alien parents was a natural-born subject, unless the child of an ambassador or other diplomatic agent of a foreign state, or of an alien enemy in hostile occupation of the place where the child was born. III. The same rule was in force in all the English colonies upon this continent down to the time of the Declaration of Independence, and in the United States afterwards, and continued to prevail under the constitution as originally established.
    …………..
    Perkins vs Elg, Supreme Court, 1939:
    The U.S. Supreme Court concluded that Marie Elizabeth Elg, who was born in the United States of Swedish parents naturalized in the United States, had not lost her birthright U.S. citizenship because of her removal during minority to Sweden and was entitled to all the rights and privileges of that U.S. citizenship. In this case, the U.S. Supreme Court affirmed the decree that birthright citizenship and natural born citizenship mean the same thing and declared Elg “to be a natural born citizen of the United States.”
    ……..
    At the time that Chester A. Arthur ascended to the presidency in 1881, his father was a citizen of Ireland, and not of the US. No-one thought that this disqualified him from being a “natural born citizen”.

    So, the question I have to ask is: Why is P A Madison to be believed rather than 200 years of case law and practice?

  • GMiller

    Read and learn about natural born citizenship:
    http://art2superpac.com/issues.html


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X