"No person except a natural-born citizen … shall be eligible for the Office of the President."
This one sentence in the second article of the U.S. Constitution is easily overlooked. It's a constitutional provision that may seem unlikely to elicit much controversy. But since Barack Obama's presidential campaign and subsequent election, his citizenship has been under scrutiny and doubt by some who think he wasn't born in the United States. That doubt is now making its way into state legislatures.
Nebraska, along with several other states including Texas, Arizona and Georgia, is considering a bill requiring any presidential or vice presidential candidate to prove his or her citizenship to state officials. Nebraska's bill, introduced by state senator Mark Christensen, of District 44, goes one step beyond all other bills by requiring proof of citizenship of the candidate's parents as well.
By doing so, Christensen is making additions to the requirements of the Constitution. There is no mention in the nation's founding document of presidents' parents and their citizenship. Christensen was unavailable to provide comment at press time after repeated attempts yesterday and the day before.
Nebraska's "birther" bill is the product of a national group of people, called "birthers," who believe Obama's citizenship is suspect. Obama, for his part, has made public his Hawaiian birth certificate.
Still, the idea remains that Obama was born elsewhere, perhaps in Kenya, the home of his father, or even Indonesia, where he spent part of his youth.
Christensen told the McCook Daily Gazette that two or three e-mails from constituents still concerned about Obama's birthplace was enough cause to introduce his bill. Christensen said he fully believes Obama is a citizen, but that persistent doubts only hurt the integrity of the federal government.
"This (bill) would remove that doubt," he said. "I think that it hurts Americans when we think we can't trust our leaders."
Eric Berger, a law professor at the University of Nebraska-Lincoln, declined to be quoted but did bring attention to a 1995 U.S. Supreme Court case, U.S. Term Limits v. Thornton.
In that case, Arkansas passed legislation that established a term limit on the state's members of Congress, a limit not set forth by the U.S. Constitution. The Supreme Court decided the state's actions were unconstitutional, according to the Court's online archive, The Oyez Project, because the Constitution does not allow states to add to its requirements for federal officials.
In addition, the state's actions were unconstitutional if it has the likely effect of handicapping a class of candidates.
John Gruhl, a political science professor at UNL, spoke to the Nebraska News Service earlier this month about just that possibility.
"Parents don't have to be citizens for their children to be citizens," Gruhl said to the service. "So what's the point of this provision? To embarrass a candidate whose parents aren't citizens? To discourage a candidate from running in the first place, so his parents aren't exposed?"
Nebraska has good company in its consideration of a "birther" bill. Arizona is considering a similar bill for the second year in a row, according to Fox News. Connecticut, Oklahoma and Missouri have also joined the effort, according to The Associated Press.
The controversy of Obama's citizenship has made unlikely allies out of some staunch Obama opponents.
Sarah Palin, former Alaska governor and Tea Party favorite, has called such suspicions and their corresponding legislation "annoying" and "distractions," according to USA TODAY.
Karl Rove, a former political advisor to Pres. George W. Bush cautioned giving so-called "birthers" too much attention.
"Within our party, we've got to be very careful about allowing these people who are the birthers and the 9/11-deniers to get too high a profile and say too much without setting the record straight," Rove said on Fox News, according to USA TODAY.
A hearing for Nebraska's bill has been set for March 10.
compiled by dan holtmeyer, danholtmeyer@
dailynebraskan.com
is a member of the 
20 comments
__LOL! Do you know what a lie that is? And how many times it's been debunked?Here's just one example. Greg Lakin, Terry Lakin's brother, was on the Andrea Shea King show a couple of weeks ago.See, it turns out that Terry Lakin's daughter was born in Hawaii. And at one point, Lakin decided to ask Hawaii for a long form of his daughter's birth certificate. And he was told in no uncertain terms that it was not possible, Hawaii no longer issued them. Terry Lakin has known for a long time that the "just-pay-the-fee" argument is a crock of BS.Greg Lakin admitted this on a radio show. Audio files are available online if you're interested.
__No, you are not telling the truth. The ruling *was* appealed to the Indiana Supreme Court, which refused to hear it. After that the next step would have been to appeal it to SCOTUS. But that wasn't done; the plaintiffs simply allowed the deadline to expire. It's too late now. How do you explain to us why no one -- literally no one -- stepped up to the plate and took it to SCOTUS, so that what you are claiming is a slam-dunk issue could easily have been settled in your favor? Did you just let it slip through your fingers? Finally, the blow of victory could have been struck and -- what happened? Did you forget? Were you too busy putting up "Where's the Birth Certificate" billboards? Of course, it's easy on a blog to proclaim the ruling to be "an embarrassment to the judicial system." But that's just talk. The decision was unanimous, the Indiana Supreme Court refused to reconsider it, and SCOTUS wasn't even asked. And not a single reputable constitutional lawyer has spoken out against it.The fact that you and some other birthers consider it "an embarrassment to the judicial system" doesn't hold any weight at all. The enormous body of U.S. legal opinion firmly holds that Ankeny expresses perfectly well what the current law of the land is concerning Presidential eligibility.
I don't understand how this could be the slightest of problems for obama, or why people would hope it gets "stricken down." I mean, if you support obama, really support him, you can clearly see how this will actually help him.
1). In order to be President one must be a NATURAL BORN Citizen which is a different class of Citizenship than simply being a Citizen. To be a NATURAL BORN Citizen one does INDEED need two Citizen parents = That eliminates Obama at the first step.
2). One must be born in the USA or its territories.
This requirement to be a NATURAL BORN Citizen is different from the requirement of simply being a Citizen as is the case for a Representative or a Senator.
It is astounding to me that any in public office do not know this (and that the writer did not research this article enough to know it either. The information is readily available from reputable on-line sources (including Supreme Court decisions rendered.
ELmo
citizenship for POTUS and Senators. POTUS = Nat. Born Citizen , Senator= Citizen .. Please explain the
difference between the two diff. requirments. Founding Fathers knew exactly what they were doing !!
Their exemption for not being NBC is right there to read also. Why did they not meet NBC ??
Decided November 3, 1884
Page 112 U. S. 98MR. JUSTICE GRAY delivered the opinion of the Court...The distinction between citizenship by birth and citizenship by naturalization is clearly marked in the provisions of the Constitution, by which���No person, except a natural born citizen or a citizen of the United States at the time of the adoption of this Constitution shall be eligible to the office of President,���and ���The Congress shall have power to establish an uniform rule of naturalization.��� Constitution, Article II, Section 1; Article I, Section 8. By the Thirteenth Amendment of the Constitution, slavery was prohibited. The main object of the opening sentence of the Fourteenth Amendment was to settle the question, upon which there had been a difference of opinion throughout the country and in this Court, as to the citizenship of free negroes ( 60 U. S. 73; Strauder v. West Virginia,@ 100 U. S. 303, 100 U. S. 306.This section contemplates two sources of citizenship, and two sources only: birth and naturalization. The persons declared to be citizens are ���all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof.��� The evident meaning of these last words is not merely subject in some respect or degree to the jurisdiction of the United States, but completely subject to their political jurisdiction and owing them direct and immediate allegiance. And the words relate to the time of birth in the one case, as they do to the time of naturalization in the other. Persons not thus subject to the jurisdiction of the United States at the time of birth cannot become so afterwards except by being naturalized [end quote]IOW...born on US soil & NOT owing allegiance to any foreign nation or sovereign at the time of birth. Read the congressional archives. The debates spell in out in black & white, not "Gray's" WKA decision that went back to English law instead of American law while also disregarding treaties that were in palce at the time. Here is English law pertaining to the term "citizen" from "Judicial and statutory definitions of words and phrases(1904)" - received in the Harvard Law Library Jan 13, 1925:[I]n England, birth in the country was alone sufficient to make any one a subject Even a villein or a slave born within the King's allegiance is according to the principles of the common law a subject, but it never can be admitted that he is a citizen. One may, no doubt, be a citizen by birth as well as a subject, but subject and citizen are evidently words of different import, and it indisputably requires something more to make a citizen than it does to make a subject. It is, in fact, not the place of a man's birth, but the rights and privileges he may be entitled to enjoy, which make him a citizen.[end quote]