Birth Certificates in Kenya: Father’s name cannot be listed without his permission unless he is married to the mother?

British East Africa Swahili woman with child 1921 postcard Kenya

It appears that there is a case (or at least there was in Dec. 2014) before the High Court of Kenya challenging Section 12 of the Birth and Deaths Registration Act.  Sections 12 of the said acts reads:

No person shall be entered in the register as the father of any child except either at the joint request of the father and mother or upon the production to the registrar of such evidence as he may require that the father and mother were married according to law or, in accordance with some recognized custom.

Cap 149 Kenya births and deaths registration entry of father in registerFor the complete text of the Births and Death Registration Act (Cap. 149) click on the image below:

Cap 149 Kenya births and deaths registration Obama

A reporter, Kamau Muthoni, writing for the Standard (digital version) newspaper wrote an article regarding the Kenyan woman who, with her attorney, initiated the litigation:

Mother wants child named after reluctant dad (Dec. 22, 2014)

The woman’s name was not released because the litigation involves a minor. Apparently the woman in this case is a mother of a four (4) years of age child (daughter).

Evidently the case was filed against the Attorney General of Kenya  Githu Muigai and the Registrar of Births and Deaths.

Attorney General Githu Muigai was born (1960) the year before Barack Obama (1961) and like Obama he also has a degree, LL.M. – Master of Laws (1986), from Columbia University in New York.

Sources regarding Muigai graduating from Columbia University:

(a) Business Daily (Africa): Parliament to vet three nominees for top public offices, by Muna Wahome. August 24, 2011.

(b) Mohammed Muigai Advocates (Commissioners of Oaths and Notaries Public):  The Chambers Global Guide 2011, by Mohammedmuigai.com. 2011.

Githu Muigai assumed office of Attorney General of Kenya on or about August 27, 2011.

It appears that the Kenyan woman (unnamed) who brought the litigation in the High Court of Kenya is not married to the father of the child nor was she married to him at the time of the child’s birth.

Evidently the father in this case doesn’t want to be listed on the birth certificate. As he was never married to the mother, he can, by law, choose to not allow his name to be entered on the birth certificate of his daughter.

As the law currently reads it appears that even if the mother had DNA evidence which indicated that this man is the father of her child she would still not be permitted to have his name entered on the birth certificate.

From what I can ascertain there are many children in Kenya, born out of wedlock, whose birth certificates list the letters XXXXX in lieu of a father’s name.

To be clear here, it doesn’t appear that the father is denying that he is the biological father of the child.  The issue here is that he doesn’t want his name to be listed on the birth certificate.  Moreover, the current law appears to be on his side.

It seems that the father doesn’t want the child to be officially recognized (e.g., surname and family rights) as his own.

In an affidavit the unnamed mother stated, “I remember at one time my daughter asking me who her dad was and imagined that since she had started school she could hear other children talk about their family and realised she is missing something. Indeed, the child’s family tree has a loosely hanging dead branch if they do not know their father.”

Some of us Americans might assume that the word ‘realised’ in the affidavit was misspelled by the unnamed mother, her attorney or by the reporter at the Standard.

I don’t know why but a lot of us Americans think that America, a country which declared their independence in 1776, or less than only 240 years ago, invented everything, including the English language.

I don’t know exactly why (I’ve read several different opinions/theories – feel free to cite yours in comments section and pretend that whatever you just picked up from your particular online source is truth) but at some point Americans started swapping the “z” for “s” in many words.  In British English “realise” (with an s) is still the preferred, and most common, spelling.

However, in the spirit of accuracy, I believe that “realize” (with a z) may have been in use, in other parts of the world (perhaps including inside of England?), at least to some small degree, many years before the United States was a country.  I’m not for certain, but if you really need to know please find out and (with at least some evidence) let us here at WOBIK know what you found.

It seems that there’s a big problem in America today with the English language.  White Americans have been altering the English language for a long time now, often simplifying it while at other times pretending, academically, to create rules for a true, grammatically correct and authorized version of English.

Yet when black Americans spell a word differently or pronounce it with varied pronunciation some of us think that it is they (i.e., black Americans) who are altering and knocking down the English language or that they are mentally deficient or that they are just wholly uneducated and ignorant.

Another argument made within the litigation is that if there aren’t records (birth certificates) of who the fathers are that this could lead to children marrying their siblings (which is a crime punishable with a 5 year prison sentence in Kenya).

Marrying a sibling because you didn’t know that they were your sibling might sound odd to most of us Americans.  However, it’s not. I’ve seen trouble like this in the Dominican Republic.

Perhaps one of the long lasting impacts of the Protestant strand (?) of the fabric of America is that it’s made sex a bad, bad very bad thing in our world.

Up until at least the year 2005 there was a law in Virginia against unmarried people having sex: Any person, not being married, who voluntarily shall have sexual intercourse with any other person, shall be guilty of fornication, punishable as a Class 4 misdemeanor.

18.2-344 Fornication Virginia Code

Supposedly the Virginia Supreme Court decision,  Martin v. Ziherl,  607 S.E.2d 367 (Va. 2005), held that the Virginia criminal law against fornication was unconstitutional (citing SCOTUS in  Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558 (2003) which struck down sodomy laws in Texas).

However, the Virginia sex law still shows up in 2015 online in the Code of Virginia:

http://leg1.state.va.us/cgi-bin/legp504.exe?000+cod+18.2-344

It’s not like this everywhere in the world.  Sex isn’t an inherently bad thing nor is having it with many people, or having it many times in a single day.  There’s also nothing wrong with marrying and having sex with just that one person.  It’s a personal preference and a person can make their own decisions on how exactly to conduct their sexual life.

To put things in perspective many Americans (and most certainly Europeans) are automatically considered as gay (homosexual, or at least bisexual), by the locals, when vacationing in some places in Africa, South and Central America.  I suppose it’s a just a stereotype but its based on long standing cultural differences regarding sex.

Any any rate, let’s get back to the story regarding the unnamed mother’s (and her attorney’s) position that if there aren’t records (birth certificates) which contain the names of the fathers that this could lead to children growing up and marrying their siblings (which in Kenya is a crime punishable with what appears to be up to a 5 year prison sentence).

I understand unnamed mother’s (and her attorney’s) position. I’m not saying that I am for it or against it, but I do understand.

What I do know is that there are men in the Dominican Republic who have dozens of children, often within in the same city. When these children reach a certain age their fathers sometimes, for the first time, tell them about their other brothers and sisters so that they will not, innocently, sleep with them (not knowing that they are siblings).

The unnamed mother’s case has also attracted the attention of the Kenya National Human Rights Commission and also the Law Society of Kenya.

One attorney referred to as Chigiti (this Chigiti John Mugwimi?) stated that, “There is no way the child can know his or her condition like high blood pressure, diabetes or possibilities of suffering from chronic illness which stems from the father’s condition if he does not know who the father is.”

I’m not sure how I feel about Chigiti’s remark. He’s starting to sound somewhat like Alvin Onaka in Hawaii (from non-Birther stuff I’ve read about him).

In any event, I’ve linked Kamau Muthoni’s (reporter writing from the Standard newspaper in Kenya) article in the foregoing and here it is again for those who are interested:

Mother wants child named after reluctant dad (Dec. 22, 2014)

I take no sides in this case and only offer it here for review at WOBIK because it helps us all understand that the rules and laws regarding birth certificates in Kenya and within the United States are very different.  Skeptics, as well as readers who are impartial, should take that into consideration when reviewing Barack Hussein Obama II’s 1961 (2009 certified copy) Coast Province General Hospital, Mombasa, British Protectorate of Kenya, Certificate of Birth.

Lastly, the postcard presented at the head of today’s report features what is printed in text on the card as being a Swahili woman (with her baby being carried on her back) in British East Africa.  The postcard was stamped and postmarked (Nairobi) July 24, 1921.

We chose this particular image because today’s report is about an unnamed mother and her young child in Kenya.

However, please make note of the date format used on the postmarks:  JU 24 1921

Most postmarks that you find on mail, postcards and letters from British East Africa and Colonial Kenya would have been listed as:  24 JU 1921

Does the unusual date format make this postcard (or at least the postmark on it) a forgery?

Please exercise your free speech in the comments section below. There are no stipulations of political correctness on this blog. Speak your mind, give us your thoughts, both objective and subjective. Share your ideas, hunches, inklings or your expertise. Please provide recommendation and corrections if you spot errors in fact within the blog report. Lastly, remember that posting a comment is much like casting a vote, so please do so.

Posted in birth announcements, Birth Certificates that aid in authenticating "president" Barack Obama's Kenya birth certificate, Eligibility, Obama birth certificate, Obama News, Obama Social Security Number (SSN), paper antiquities | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 14 Comments

World Socialist Web Site (wsws.org): The fraud of Obama’s “Student Aid Bill of Rights” (03.23.2015)

Please exercise your free speech in the comments section below. There are no stipulations of political correctness on this blog. Speak your mind, give us your thoughts, both objective and subjective. Share your ideas, hunches, inklings or your expertise. Please provide recommendation and corrections if you spot errors in fact within the blog report. Lastly, remember that posting a comment is much like casting a vote, so please do so.

Posted in Eligibility, Obama birth certificate, Obama News, Obama Social Security Number (SSN) | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 2 Comments

03.27.2015: Carl Gallups says that he will vote for Ted Cruz even though he’s not a natural born citizen

Dr. Grace VuotoIf it was good enough for Barack Obama it’s now going to be a standard that’s good enough for Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio—

Carl Gallups: Oh I know! Thats-I know-But I’m telling you Grace the reason the media they hate Ted Cruz-by the way I love almost everything Ted Cruz stands for. And if it comes between Ted Cruz and Hillary Clinton I’m pulling the button for Ted Cruz, legal or not legal.  I mean we’ve got to have some change in this nation.

That was brilliant, Gallups. You’ll vote for a candidate who is not eligible for office because you don’t like the other candidate.  And you’re looking for change.

You sound like an Obama voter in 2008.

Brilliant. Thanks for helping demonstrate that we Birthers are hypocrites and that it was never really about natural born citizen or being eligible for the office.

Please exercise your free speech in the comments section below. There are no stipulations of political correctness on this blog. Speak your mind, give us your thoughts, both objective and subjective. Share your ideas, hunches, inklings or your expertise. Please provide recommendation and corrections if you spot errors in fact within the blog report. Lastly, remember that posting a comment is much like casting a vote, so please do so.

Posted in Eligibility, Obama birth certificate, Obama News, Obama Social Security Number (SSN) | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 37 Comments

Last Week Tonight with John Oliver: Municipal Violations (HBO)

Please exercise your free speech in the comments section below. There are no stipulations of political correctness on this blog. Speak your mind, give us your thoughts, both objective and subjective. Share your ideas, hunches, inklings or your expertise. Please provide recommendation and corrections if you spot errors in fact within the blog report. Lastly, remember that posting a comment is much like casting a vote, so please do so.

Posted in Eligibility, Obama birth certificate, Obama News, Obama Social Security Number (SSN) | 1 Comment

Eleanor Darragh or Eleanor Elizabeth Wilson? (mother of Ted Cruz)

Eleanor DarraghWhat was/is the true and correct name of Ted Cruz’s mother? Prior to Cruz releasing his Canadian birth certificate back in August, 2013 (The Dallas Morning News) we read that his mother’s name is Eleanor Darragh:

Texplainer: Could Canadian-Born Ted Cruz Be President?  – August 13, 2012 [Texas Tribune]

Cruz’s life defies simplification – October 13, 2012 [Houston Chronicle]

Who is Ted Cruz? – August 1, 2012 [The Washington Post]

The Rise of Rafael Cruz – August 28, 2013 [NationalReview.com]

Ted Cruz’s Father Talks About Latinos, Conservatives and the American Dream – August 8, 2013 [Fox News Latino]

We here at WOBIK also used the “Eleanor Darragh” name in our December 3, 2012 report:  Canadian born Rafael Edward Cruz, son of a non-US citizen (Cuban father). US President 2016?

When Cruz released a copy of a  1971-issued (abstract of birth) Certificate of Birth (which many Birthers like to refer to as a “short form”) we learned that his mother’s name was listed as Eleanor Elizabeth Wilson.

Is it Eleanor Darragh or Eleanor Elizabeth Wilson?  Are they both correct?

Does the name Darragh fit in somewhere as a second-middle name or a second last name? If so, do we have solid evidence of this?

Or did Eleanor remarry at some point and take her new husband’s name?

I’m sure that all of this is innocent and can easily be explained but I’d like to have the answer documented (with evidence) here at WOBIK for research related purposes.

Please exercise your free speech in the comments section below. There are no stipulations of political correctness on this blog. Speak your mind, give us your thoughts, both objective and subjective. Share your ideas, hunches, inklings or your expertise. Please provide recommendation and corrections if you spot errors in fact within the blog report. Lastly, remember that posting a comment is much like casting a vote, so please do so.

Posted in Eligibility, Obama birth certificate, Obama News, Obama Social Security Number (SSN), Ted Cruz | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 17 Comments

Ted Cruz, Made in Canada: Fast track to becoming a natural born citizen

Ted Cruz born in CanadaFor the past few days the blog has received an increased amount of traffic. The following WOBIK reports appear to be popular at the moment:

1.

Canadian born Rafael Edward Cruz, son of a non-US citizen (Cuban father). US President 2016? – Published 12.03.2012

This report contains names, locations and dates related to the birth of Ted Cruz and his parents.  The report also contains 2012 opinions, from professors and attorneys, weighing in on Cruz’s eligibility issue (natural born citizen).

2.

Ted Cruz is in for 2016? His wife, Heidi Suzanne Nelson Cruz, works for Goldman Sachs and as a child she lived in Kenya. – Published 09.30.2014

That report contains detailed information regarding Ted Cruz’s wife and also a scan of Ted Cruz’s Canadian birth certificate (which was released in August, 2013 to the Dallas Morning News).

I agree with Bruce Steadman that the recent talk regarding Cruz, including (and most notably) the Neal Katyal & Paul Clement paper at the Harvard Law Review Forum, is all about making Barack Obama into a natural born citizen.  This includes Cruz declaring (March 23, 2015) that he is officially running for President 2016.

Neal Katyal & Paul Clement deliberately (and wittingly) omitted Obama’s name from their paper because Cruz’s birth scenario is interchangeable with Obama’s:

1.

Cruz:   Born outside of the United States (in Canada)

Obama:  Born outside of the United States (in Kenya)

2.

Cruz:  Born to a non-US citizen father (Cuban)

Obama:  Born to a non-US citizen father (Kenyan / British?)

3.

Cruz:  Born to US citizen mother (from Delaware)

Obama:  Born to US citizen mother (from Kansas)

In other words, if Cruz is a natural born citizen then Obama must also be a natural born citizen.

The only significant difference in their respective birth scenarios is that Cruz spent approximately four (4) years in Canada before arriving in the United States.   (He wasn’t just “born at a hospital in Canada.”)

Obama probably spent only a number of days in Kenya before arriving in the United States.

If Cruz is natural born citizen (per the US Constitution) then may I suggest the following ‘fast track’ to becoming a natural born citizen for persons who have never been to the United States:

a.   Your birth certificate must reflect that one of your parents was a US citizen

b.    Decide when it is that you’d like to become President of the United States.  You  must be a resident of the US for at least 14 years (per the US Constitution) before you can be President. For example, if you’d like to be elected President in the year 2032 then you will need to arrive in the US no later than the year 2018.

c.    To be President you need to be at least 35 years of age.   For example, if you are at least 21 years of age when you arrive in United States in the year 2018 you can be elected President in the 2032 election.

I trust that the foregoing fast track was helpful.  Yours truly, Ted Cruz.

Please exercise your free speech in the comments section below. There are no stipulations of political correctness on this blog. Speak your mind, give us your thoughts, both objective and subjective. Share your ideas, hunches, inklings or your expertise. Please provide recommendation and corrections if you spot errors in fact within the blog report. Lastly, remember that posting a comment is much like casting a vote, so please do so.

Posted in Eligibility, Obama birth certificate, Obama News, Obama Social Security Number (SSN), Ted Cruz | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 40 Comments

Kelly Ayotte, Rand Paul and running for Senate and President at the same time

Ted Cruz natural born citizen?

Some time late last year (2014) I was talking with a gentleman who received a letter from US Senator Rand Paul (R-KY).

The letter was a few pages in length and somewhere within, and in large bold print, was Rand Paul 2016.  The letter also contain subtle indications, some less than others, that Paul was considering a possible run for President in 2016.

At the end of the letter a donation was requested and payments were to be sent to something-something (I can’t remember the wording) Rand Paul for US Senate.

The gentleman I was talking with was (before his talk) always talking about ‘integrity’ and ‘consequences’ and I really didn’t want to talk with him but we had some business ($) related things between us and I really didn’t have much choice in the matter.

I think that the reason he always talks about ‘integrity’ is because he doesn’t have much of it other than consistently trying to convince himself that he does.

At any rate, the gentleman knew (for our previous conversations) that I somewhat liked Senator Rand Paul.  Now that he’d received a letter from Paul he couldn’t wait to tell me all about it and precisely how he felt about Paul sending a letter about running for President 2016 yet asking for donations to be sent to Rand Paul for US Senate 2016.

“Where’s Paul’s integrity!” he said.  The gentleman then began a short verbal rant about Senator Paul not being able to run for both offices (Senate and President) at the same time and that if he’s running for president than why does he want people to send money to a Senate reelection campaign. “What kind of integrity is that!” he said.

This gentleman was about 25 years older than me and I didn’t really feel like arguing with him anyway (especially when he owes me money) so I just briefly stated that Paul’s letter is probably not at all atypical and that “regular” people like “us” probably don’t really have a good understating of the intricate rules of how running for both said offices, at the same time, would work.  I then asked him how did he know that Paul can’t ran for both offices at the same time?  Furthermore, how do we know for certain how donations must be used or collected?

He didn’t like that very much and he continued on with his rant (he didn’t offer evidence or sources) for a little while longer.

He told me that a person can’t run for two different offices at the same time nor can they use funds donated to one campaign (Senate) for another campaign (President).

I didn’t have anything specific that I could cite at that moment so I just remained silent and waited for the gentleman to get tired of talking.  It’s not like he really cared about the letter or Senator Paul anyway, this was just an ‘old bear’ (him) vs the ‘cub’ (me) thing.

I made a mental note to look into the issue of running, simultaneously, for more than one office.  It seemed like something that might be good to know more about. How would it work?  Had it (I was sure it had been) been done before?

Senator Kelly AyotteFast forward to March, 2015.  I was looking into potential candidates for President and Vice President 2016.  One name that caught my attention (because I’d never heard of her) was US Senator Kelly Ayotte (R-NH).

Ayotte won the 2010 election and assumed office of US Senator (New Hampshire) on January 3, 2011.

I asked a question about her (and also about US Senator Bernie Sanders, I-VT) here at the blog.  Bruce Steadman replied with his thoughts and also the following link:

http://ballotpedia.org/Kelly_Ayotte_possible_presidential_campaign,_2016

Ballotpedia states (with a source) that, “New Hampshire law allows candidates to run for re-election and on the national ticket in the same year.”

It appears that Senator Ayotte may, if she desires to do so, run for both reelection to the US Senate and also for US President/Vice President.

Looks like thoroughly solid evidence that a person can run for both US Senate and President at the same time.

What about Senator Rand Paul (R-KY) though? How would things work in Kentucky?

According to the Slate.com in a February 18, 2015 article (by Josh Voorhees) titled, How Rand Paul Can Run For Both the Senate and the White House in 2016:

1Kentucky law dictates that “no candidate’s name shall appear on any voting machine or absentee ballot more than once.” In other words, by law, Paul wouldn’t be able to compete in both his home state’s GOP presidential primary and Republican Senate primary, which will be held together on the same day in May 2016.

2. “There are avenues available to him, should he decide to run for both offices at the same time,” Doug Stafford, Paul’s top political strategist, told reporters on a conference call in early December. “I don’t think we have abandoned any option, nor have we settled on any option.”

3.  Paul’s best-case scenario appears to be convincing the Kentucky Republican Party to abandon its current presidential nominating system, which assigns delegates to the national convention via its existing May 2016 primary. If Paul and his allies have their way, the state party would instead award delegates through a new presidential caucus that would be held in March 2016. That would allow Paul to compete in his state’s presidential nominating contest and then again two months later in the Senate primary without his name showing up twice on the same ballot.

4.  There are also a number of other possible routes around or through Kentucky’s law, as the National Journal documented at length late last year. Alternative workarounds include challenging the law in federal court, or attempting to knock off Kentucky Secretary of State Alison Lundergan Grimes this coming November so the Democrat isn’t around to enforce a strict reading of the election law when the GOP primaries roll around next year.

5.  Still, even if all else fails, Paul could simply press on by sitting out his home state’s presidential primary. The Kentucky law prevents a candidate from being listed on the same state ballot twice, but it doesn’t bar a candidate from competing in presidential nominating contests in the rest of the country.

Looks like thoroughly solid evidence that Senator Rand Paul can run for both (at the same time) reelection to the US Senate and for President. It appears that worst case scenario would be that Paul would be listed on the ballot for President in 49 states rather than 50.

For readers who are interested there is also another informative article on Senator Rand Paul and running for both Senate and President at the same time:

Inside Rand Paul’s Plan to Run for Senate and President at the Same Time, by Shane Goldmacher at the National Journal (December 1, 2014).

It should also be noted that running simultaneously for both US Senate and Vice President has been done in the very recently past and by some names that all of are familiar with.  One of the candidates even won both of the elections:

Joe Biden:  In 2008 he ran for both reelection to the US Senate (D-DE) and for Vice President. He won both of the elections.

Biden took the Senate’s oath of office in early January 2009 before stepping down a few days later to assume the vice presidency.

Paul Ryan: In 2012 he ran for both reelection to the US Congress (R-WI) and for Vice President.  He won the reelection in US Congress.

Please exercise your free speech in the comments section below. There are no stipulations of political correctness on this blog. Speak your mind, give us your thoughts, both objective and subjective. Share your ideas, hunches, inklings or your expertise. Please provide recommendation and corrections if you spot errors in fact within the blog report. Lastly, remember that posting a comment is much like casting a vote, so please do so.

Posted in Eligibility, Obama birth certificate, Obama News, Obama Social Security Number (SSN) | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Obama: Mandatory voting in the United States [March 18, 2015 – Cleveland, Ohio]

Compulsory voting might be a good idea. I’m open to the idea and will consider it.

Please exercise your free speech in the comments section below. There are no stipulations of political correctness on this blog. Speak your mind, give us your thoughts, both objective and subjective. Share your ideas, hunches, inklings or your expertise. Please provide recommendation and corrections if you spot errors in fact within the blog report. Lastly, remember that posting a comment is much like casting a vote, so please do so.

Posted in Eligibility, Obama birth certificate, Obama News, Obama Social Security Number (SSN) | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 2 Comments

Is Neal Katyal a natural born citizen? (were his Indian parents US citizens?) #2. Neal Katyal on citizens and aliens #3. Neal Katyal on case law (“judicial sunset”) #4. Neal Katyal and Paul Clement in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, 548 U.S. 557 (2006)

The following lecture took place on April 10, 2008 while George W. Bush was still President and Barack Obama had not yet been elected.

“The Principled War on Terror” Neal Katyal, Paul and Patricia Saunders Professor of National Security Law, Georgetown University Law Center [upload May 29, 2008]:

The video is approximately one hour and twenty minutes in length.  Neal Katyal comes on at about the 18:35 minutes mark and speaks throughout the remainder of the video (minus a few minutes of music from a quintet at the very end).

In the video Katyal states that upon meeting his client, Salim Ahmed Hamdan (a citizen of Yemen), for the first time (at Guantanamo Bay detention camp), that Hamdan asked him why that he was representing him (Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, et al.)

50:55 minute mark: “And then I gave him this answer, and it’s the part that motivated me the most in this case and this set of issues. I said you know the reason that I’m here is that my parents came to America with $8 dollars in their pocket, which was all that they were permitted to bring out of India, they didn’t come to America because of the quality of it’s soil, or because of the sports teams, they came to America for a simple reason, they could land on it’s shores and they’d be treated fairly and their children would be treated fairly.

“And when the president [Bush] issued this military order, which said if you’re one of them, if you’re a green card holder, as my parents were, or if you’re a foreigner, one of the 5 billion people, you get the beat up Chevy version of justice, you get sent to Guantanamo. But if you’re and American citizen, accused of the most heinous crime imaginable, the detonation of a weapon of mass destruction, you get the gold standard, you get the American civilian trial.

“I told him that’s why I was so offended, because we haven’t ever had us versus them justice.”

Katyal then tells the audience:

“And while all of the was almost verbatim I didn’t say this but I’ll say it to you in this academic setting, as a person who teaches constitutional law, I think back to those majestic words of the 14th Amendment, Equal Protection of the Laws. Who is it guaranteed to?  Well its guaranteed to persons, all persons, that’s the text. And why does it say that?  There are other these other parts of the 14th Amendment that talk about citizens, special rights for citizens, like social rights and the Privileges and Immunities Clause.  But representative [John Armor] Bingham [R-OH], who wrote the 14th Amendment, said I need to overrule the worst line in the worst Supreme Court case in American history, the line in Dread Scott vs Sanford, which said only citizen have constitutional rights.

“Representative Bingham said we fought a war about that idea and that’s why it reads persons. And indeed the Congress passed right away two laws that made it a federal felony to give aliens different punishments than citizens.  And those laws are still on the books today.”

Katyal then continues to further explain what he calls a “deep logic to insisting on equality” which he states goes all the way back to Chief Justice [John] Marshall in the Supreme Court case McCulloch v. Maryland, 17 U.S. 316 (1819).

Katyal talks about not having to set a “subsidence standard” as long as you insist on “fair treatment” and “equal treatment.”

He also mentions Justice [Antonin Gregory] Scalia in Cruzan v. Director, Missouri Department of Health, 497 U.S. 261 (1990).

He also mentions Justice [Robert Houghwout] Jackson [in Railway Express Agency, Inc. v. New York, 336 U.S. 106 (1949)], “The framers of our constitution knew nothing opens the door to arbitrary action so effectively as to allow officials to pick an choose a few to whom they’ll apply legislative and escape the political retribution that might be visited upon them if larger numbers were affected.”

Katyal states that the idea is to insist on equality to “make the rules symmetric between aliens and citizens.”

Katyal states that “By subjecting those from foreign lands to the same justice that Americans face, America projects not only benevolence but strength.”

Katyal states that, “Carving out special rules for them, and different rules for us, is no way for us to win respect internationally.”

At approximately the 1:03:55 minutes mark Katyal starts to talk about what he calls the “sunset process…applying to judicial decisions.”  He advocates “judicial sunset,” and provides thought-provoking reasoning in support of, for the next several minutes up until about the 1:08:35 minutes mark.

Birthers, Obots and the eligibility skeptics love to cite case law. I’ve never been a big fan of case law myself and I’ve talked in the past about my position on case law with people such as, though not limited to, Charles Edward Lincoln III.

I’ve seen Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162 (1875) and United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898) cited many times in eligibility issue discussions.

Katyal implies that we shouldn’t make decisions today based on what a judge(s) said a long time ago in a different world.

I don’t want to interject myself into the Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162 (1875) and Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898) debates, I don’t think that I ever have, and I’m not going to start now.  Generally speaking though, I’m not a big fan of case law and I’m open to Katyal’s idea regarding the sunset judicial opinions.

It appears that the closest resemblance (maybe?) to a judicial decision sunset found so far (?) in a US judicial decision/opinion was that in Grutter v. Bollinger, 539 U.S. 306 (2003) regarding affirmative action: “The Court expects that 25 years from now, the use of racial preferences will no longer be necessary to further the interest approved today.”

Last week [Mar. 11, 2015] Neal Katyal and Paul Clement published On the Meaning of “Natural Born Citizen” at the Harvard Law Review Forum.  What many readers probably don’t know is that both Neal Katyal and Paul Clement were attorneys in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, 548 U.S. 557 (2006) (discussed in foregoing and in the video).

The case was argued before the Supreme Court on March 28, 2006. Attorney Katyal argued on behalf of Hamdan. Attorney Paul Clement, the Solicitor General of the United States, argued on behalf of the US Government.

Hamdan (and Katyal) won the case.

I think we can thank George W. Bush for Katyal’s position on natural born citizen.

I agree with much (almost all of it) of what Katyal says in his lecture (in the video). However, I don’t think that his positions (aside from perhaps disregarding case law) are applicable to the natural born citizen clause.

I recommend watching the entire hour and twenty-two minute lecture.

In closing I want add that I couldn’t find much regarding Katyal’s parents other than the following at KuwaitiFreedom.org:

How an Overachieving Law Professor Toppled the President’s Terror Tribunals

Katyal: I Never Wanted to Sue the President

T.R. Goldman
Legal Times
July 31, 2006

Katyal’s parents emigrated separately from India’s Punjab region in the early 1960s, and while Katyal rarely wears his Indian roots on his sleeve, he does not consciously cover them up, either. His parents did not know each other before they returned to India in 1968 for an arranged marriage. Katyal, following Hindu tradition, arrived at his own wedding in New York state on a horse.

Neal Katyal was born on March 12, 1970 in Chicago, Illinois.  Were his parents, by that time, US citizens?

If they weren’t, is Neal Katyal a natural born citizen?

Please exercise your free speech in the comments section below. There are no stipulations of political correctness on this blog. Speak your mind, give us your thoughts, both objective and subjective. Share your ideas, hunches, inklings or your expertise. Please provide recommendation and corrections if you spot errors in fact within the blog report. Lastly, remember that posting a comment is much like casting a vote, so please do so.

Posted in Eligibility, judicial sunset, Obama birth certificate, Obama News, Obama Social Security Number (SSN) | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

[Mar. 11, 2015] Harvard Law Review Forum: On the Meaning of “Natural Born Citizen” by Neal Katyal & Paul Clement

While the field of candidates for the next presidential election is still taking shape, at least one potential candidate, Senator Ted Cruz, was born in a Canadian hospital to a U.S. citizen mother.15× Despite the happenstance of a birth across the border, there is no question that Senator Cruz has been a citizen from birth and is thus a “natural born Citizen” within the meaning of the Constitution. Indeed, because his father had also been resident in the United States, Senator Cruz would have been a “natural born Citizen” even under the Naturalization Act of 1790.

Obama is not mentioned.

Please exercise your free speech in the comments section below. There are no stipulations of political correctness on this blog. Speak your mind, give us your thoughts, both objective and subjective. Share your ideas, hunches, inklings or your expertise. Please provide recommendation and corrections if you spot errors in fact within the blog report. Lastly, remember that posting a comment is much like casting a vote, so please do so.

Posted in Birth Certificates that aid in authenticating "president" Barack Obama's Kenya birth certificate, Bobby Jindal, Eligibility, Jill A. Pryor, Kenya Protectorate, Lucas Daniel Smith, Obama birth certificate, Obama News, Obama Social Security Number (SSN), Ted Cruz | Tagged , , , , , , , , | 25 Comments