Congressman Murphy Responds

An astute reader sent in an e-mail yesterday responding to my request for a copy of the letter Congressman Murphy sent out - the one that Rachel Maddow quoted.

This is what my astute reader sent in:

Thank you for taking the time to contact me to express your concern regarding President Barack Obama's qualification to serve as president under Article Two of the Constitution. It is good to hear from you and I appreciate the opportunity to respond to your concerns.

Article Two sets forth the principal qualifications for serving as president. A presidential candidate must be a natural-born citizen of the United States, be at least thirty-five years old, and have been a permanent resident in the United States for at least fourteen years.

Before being elected president, then Senator Barack Obama was plagued with questions about whether or not he is a "natural-born citizen" of the United States, as the Constitution requires. To refute these claims, the Obama campaign in June of 2008 released a "Certification of Live Birth" stating Barack Obama was born in the state of Hawaii in 1961, and is therefore a native citizen of the United States and eligible to serve as President.

Since that time, numerous lawsuits have been filed challenging the president's eligibility to serve as president under the Constitution's "natural born citizen" clause. Some lawsuits maintain President Obama is not a natural born U.S. citizen because he was born in Kenya, not Hawaii. Before giving birth, the suits claim, President Obama's mother traveled to Kenya with his father but was prevented from flying back to Hawaii because of the late stage of her pregnancy, and therefore gave birth to the President in Kenya. At the time of birth, the suits contend, President Obama's father was a Kenyan citizen subject to the jurisdiction of the United Kingdom, thus handing down British citizenship to the President, while his mother was a minor at the time of his birth, too young to confer American citizenship. Moreover, critics argue his grandmother claims to have been present at his birth in Kenya. Under United States naturalization laws, citizenship can be conferred when both parents were U.S. citizens at the time of the child's birth and at least one parent lived in the United States prior to the child's birth. The lawsuits contend these requirements were not met.

Other suits claim that even if the President was born in the United States, he lost his citizenship when he was adopted in Indonesia. These suits point out the President's move to Indonesia when he was a child and his attendance at a school where only Indonesian citizens were allowed. As a historical matter, U.S. citizenship can be forfeited upon the undertaking of various acts, including naturalization in a foreign state.

Critics argue that the President can easily end the debate by simply producing his original birth certificate, rather than the Registration of Live Birth document he has provided thus far. They argue if the president is a natural born citizen, then producing this document should not be a problem.

The Constitution is the supreme law of the land and I unconditionally agree that the Constitution must always be upheld to the full extent. Still, in our system of government, the Supreme Court is the final arbiter of constitutionality. To date, many of the lawsuits have been dismissed for lack of jurisdiction and standing, while others remain pending in the judicial system. The phrase "natural born citizen" is not defined anywhere in the Constitution and its interpretation has never been the subject of a U.S. Supreme Court ruling. While this issue is currently before the courts, I will keep your views in mind and continue to monitor the situation carefully.

Please do not hesitate to contact me with further questions or concerns. If you are interested in receiving my email newsletter describing important votes and key committee activity, I invite you to visit my website at http://murphy.house.gov and sign up.

Sincerely,

Tim Murphy
Member of Congress

All this in response to a question as to whether Murphy thinks President Obama was born in the United States.

You'll note that he doesn't actually answer the question. He could, of course, have given a one-word answer in either direction - but he didn't. Saying yes and going with the evidence (i.e. reality) risks offending a hard core segment of his party. Saying no and going with teh crazie (i.e. the birthers) and he risks getting tagged as crazie himself.

Given the overwhelming evidence to the "Yes" answer, Congressman Murphy's equivocation is confusing.

I mean he DID vote in favor of H.Res.593 a resolution that declares the President was born in Hawaii.

So why the equivocation?