Items
posted to this page are in chronological order or in the order discovered.
Click the blue titles for more information . . .
Natural Born
A statutory citizen (bestowed by man's pen) can never
be a "natural born" citizen (bestowed by God/nature).
Is Barack Obama Eligible To Be
President Of The United States Of America?
The question that the
courts or Congress must decide is whether a British subject and citizen
of Kenya, a person governed by the laws of Great
Britain at the time of their birth should be considered a natural "born
citizen" of the United States as required by Article 2 Section 1 Clause
5 of the United States Constitution.
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; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall
not have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen
Years a Resident within the United States.
People are confused because they don't understand the meaning of the relevant
legal terms. This chart shows the elements for each of the constitutional
terms that are used in the Constitution or in case law by the Supreme Court.
For
each presidential candidate, they can put the factual history of their birth in
the equation and see if they fit the bill to be president of the U.S.
under
the Constitution of the United States of America,
Article II, Section 1, Clause 5, and the
14th
Amendment, Section 1, and the relevant federal law under
Minor v. Happersett, (1874),
U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898), and
Perkins v. Elg, 307 U.S. 325 (1939).
The relevant portions of these cases
and precedents are described below in their historical context..
As you can clearly see
in the matrix, Obama is a
citizen of the United States, but he's not a "natural born citizen" of
the United States, and, as such, is not eligible
for
POTUS, because his father, a Kenyan, was not a U. S. citizen.
* Note: U. S. mainland includes Alaska and Hawaii. It
does
not include territories, commonwealths and possessions.
Click here
for a comprehensive etymological deconstruction of the term "natural
born Citizen," by John Greschak.
Blood And Place Of Birth
The graphic above demonstrates the distinction between Ronald Reagan, a "natural
born" citizen and Barack Obama, a "native-born" citizen."
Ronald Reagan had no choice about his citizenship. By blood and by place of birth,
he
was a "natural born" American citizen. No law bestowed his citizenship upon
him. His father was an American. His mother was an American.
He was born in America. He was a "natural born" American.
As a "dual citizen," Barack Obama had choices about his citizenship. His father was a
Kenyan. His mother was an American. He was born in America. He
was a "native born," 14th Amendment American citizen. He was also a
citizen of Kenya and a British subject -- he had choices about
being a Brit, an American, a Kenyan or combination. According
to the U. S. State department, dual nationals
owe allegiance to both
the United States and the foreign country.
The child in the
left graphic is a "natural born" citizen because he or she was born
in the United States of America (jus
soli) and both parents are citizens (jus
sanguinis). The child meets both tests.
The
child in the right graphic is a "native-born" citizen because he or
she was born in the United States of America and both parents are
not citizens. The child meets only one test (jus
soli).
Persons, eligible for the presidency, have no first generation ties to a
foreign nation, whereas ineligible persons always do.
ALL statutory citizens are born with a tie to another
nation by birthplace and/or blood, but NEVER is that the case with any
natural born citizens who are only American.
A statutory citizen (bestowed by man's pen) can never
be a "natural born" citizen (bestowed by God/nature).
Click the title link to see four prominent examples that clearly
demonstrate the distinctions.
Obama Has Always Claimed "Native
Born" Status
Obama...
...is not a "natural born" citizen because his
father was a Kenyan national and a British subject, as was Obama, "at
birth." The Obama Campaign
describes Barack
Obama Sr. as, "a British subject whose citizenship status was governed
by The British Nationality Act of 1948. That same act governed the
status of Obama Sr.‘s children."
...is a "native-born,"
14th Amendment citizen
because his mother was an American and he was born in Hawaii -- assuming
he was born in Hawaii . The
Obama Campaign describes
Barack Obama as a "native-born citizen" on it's website.
...is
a "citizen" because his mother was an American and he was born in Hawaii
-- assuming he was born in Hawaii. If Obama was not born in
Hawaii, all bets are off.
See:
Right there on Obama's own website, where it says, "The Truth About Barack's Birth Certificate"
-- "The truth is, Barack Obama was born in the state of Hawaii in
1961, a "native citizen of the United
States of America."
If you cursor down the page, Obama's
dual citizenship status is described:
"When Barack Obama Jr. was born on Aug.
4,1961, in Honolulu, Kenya was a British colony, still part of the
United Kingdom’s dwindling empire. As a Kenyan native, Barack
Obama Sr. was a British subject whose citizenship status was
governed by The British Nationality Act of 1948. That same act
governed the status of Obama Sr.‘s children.
John Jay --
The First Chief Justice Of The U.S. Supreme Court
The term natural born citizen was first codified in writing
in colonial reference books in 1758 in the legal reference book "Law of Nations."
That legal reference book was used by John Jay, who later went on to become the
first Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court. Jay had the clause inserted
into the Constitution via a letter he wrote to George Washington, the leader of
the Constitutional Convention. Jay was considered the outstanding legal
scholar of his time and he was the one is responsible for inserting that term
into the U. S. Constitution, which was derived from the Law of Nations.
John Jay
wrote: "Permit me to hint, whether it would be wise and reasonable to
provide a strong check to the admission of Foreigners into the administration of
our national Government; and to declare expressly that the Commander in Chief of
the American army shall not be given to nor devolve on, any but a natural born
Citizen."
Law Of Nations
Emmerich de Vattel was a Swiss jurist who attained world preeminence in
international law. This was primarily the result of his great foundational
work, which he published in 1758. His monumental work -- The Law of
Nations -- applied a theory of natural law to international relations.
His scholarly, foundational, and systematic explanation of the Law of Nations
was especially influential in the United States.
The Law of Nations was so influential in the United States because his
principles of liberty and equality coincided with the ideals expressed in the U.
S. Declaration of Independence. In particular, his definitions in terms of
Law governing nations regarding citizenship, defense of neutrality, and his
rules for commerce between neutral and belligerent states were considered
authoritative in the United States.
Many have said that de Vattel's Law of Nations was THE primary reference and
defining book used by the framers of the U. S. Constitution. It is really
not possible to overstate the influence of de Vattel's Law of Nations as the
primary reference book in the drafting of the U. S. Constitution. Emmerich
de Vattel's Law of Nations is almost beyond comparison in its value as a
defining document regarding U. S. Constitution intent and interpretation.
The Law of Nations, or the Principles of Natural Law, published in 1758, is the
first, and ONLY, definitive work the Framers of the U. S. Constitution used for
the inclusion of the "Natural Born Citizen" phrase. It
nails what is meant by the "natural born citizen" phrase of
Section 1, Article 2, of the U. S. Constitution.
It is amazing how perfectly, precisely, and explicitly what Emmerich de Vattel,
wrote in paragraph 212, of book 1, chapter 19, of The Law of Nations entitled
CITIZENS AND NATIONS, applies to the Obama FRAUD. Quite clearly and
explicitly it defines why Obama, can
NOT possibly be qualified to be the President of the United States. Obama
MUST be disqualified from the office of President of the United States according
to the U. S. Constitution Section 1 Article 2.
"The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the
country, of parents who are citizens. As the society can not exist and
perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children
naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their
rights. The society is supposed to desire this, in consequence of what it
owes to its own preservation; and it is presumed, as a matter of course, that
each citizen, on entering into society, reserves to his children the right of
becoming members of it. THE COUNTRY OF THE FATHERS IS THEREFORE THAT OF
THE CHILDREN."
The U. S. Constitution And The Law Of
Nations
The defenders of Obama and his questionable eligibility routinely
reject the influence of Emmerich de Vattel's Law of Nations on United
States law. However, the Law of Nations is an integral part of and
referenced by the U. S. Constitution and court findings.
Article
I, Section 8 of the United States Constitution states, in part: "The
Congress shall have Power...To define and punish ... Offenses against
the Law of Nations;..."
Other references in the law:
"The
law of nations forms an integral part of the common law, and a review of
the history surrounding the adoption of the Constitution demonstrates
that it became a part of the common law of the United States upon the
adoption of the Constitution." -- Filartiga v. Pena-Irala, 630 F. 2d 876
-- Court of Appeals, 2nd Circuit 1980
"When the United States
declared their independence, they were bound to receive the law of
nations, in its modern state of purity and refinement." -- Ware v.
Hylton, 3 Dall. 199, 281 (1796) (Wilson, J.)
Dickenson, "The Law
of Nations as Part of the National Law of the United States..." -- 101
U.Pa.L.Rev. 26, 27 (1952)
"The plainest evidence that
international law has an existence in the federal courts independent of
acts of Congress is the long-standing rule of construction first
enunciated by Chief Justice Marshall: "an act of congress ought never to
be construed to violate the law of nations, if any other possible
construction remains ...." -- The Charming Betsy, 6 U.S. (2 Cranch), 34,
67, 2 L.Ed. 208 (1804), quoted in Lauritzen v. Larsen, 345 U.S. 571,
578, 73 S.Ct. 921, 926, 97 L.Ed. 1254 (1953)
“For two centuries
we have affirmed that the domestic law of the United States recognizes
the law of nations" -- Sosa v. Alvarez-Machain, 542 US 692 -- Supreme
Court 2004
Chief Justice Rehnquist delivered the opinion of the
Court, "The law of nations, as understood by Justice Story in 1824, has
not changed" -- United States v. Alvarez-Machain, 504 US 655 -- Supreme
Court 1992
But Obama's acolytes will argue none of this matters
all day long -- insisting that all one needs to be eligible is to be
born in the USA.
It's About Loyalty
The Founders wanted the President to be a Natural Born Citizen to
ensure that the ONE person sitting at the top of the Executive branch
had UNQUESTIONABLE, UNWAVERING loyalty to the United States, first and
foremost.
At one point, the delegates writing the Constitution
in 1787 considered THREE "presidents" in the Executive for "checks and
balances." They considered a "natural born citizen" clause for
Senators as well. Debating those issues, they felt that a "natural
born citizen" clause for Senators would limit the pool of possible
candidates and could cause bad feelings with immigrants needed to "jump
start" the newly-formed republic.
In the end, the Framers
compromised that Senators be required to be US residents for 9 years,
while striking the "natural born citizen" clause for the office.
The Framers also compromised on ONE Executive vs. THREE. But to
ensure "checks and balances," the Framers inserted in Art II, Sect. 1,
Clause 5: "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..."
The natural born
citizen clause was NOT an accident, nor was it an inane rule to be
restrictive to immigrants, and it certainly isn't just a "political"
issue. Loyalty to the US is the reason the natural born citizen
clause was inserted into the Constitution.
Natural Born Citizen Was Defined In 1789
Attorney, Mario Apuzzo, contends that in
defining an Article II "natural born Citizen," it is important to
find any authority from the Founding period who may inform us how the
Founders and Framers themselves defined the clause. Who else but a
highly respected historian from the Founding period itself would be
highly persuasive in telling us how the Founders and Framers defined a
"natural born Citizen." Such an important person is David Ramsay,
who in 1789 wrote, "A Dissertation on the Manners of Acquiring the
Character and Privileges of a Citizen (1789)," a very important and
influential essay on defining a "natural born Citizen."
David
Ramsay (April 2, 1749 to May 8, 1815) was an American physician,
patriot, and historian from South Carolina and a delegate from that
state to the Continental Congress in 1782-1783 and 1785-1786. He
was the Acting President of the United States in Congress Assembled.
He was one of the American Revolution’s first major historians. A
contemporary of Washington, Ramsay writes with the knowledge and
insights one acquires only by being personally involved in the events of
the Founding period. In 1785 he
published History of the Revolution of South Carolina (two volumes),
in 1789 History of the American Revolution (two volumes), in 1807 a Life
of Washington, and in 1809 a History of South Carolina (two volumes).
In 1965 Professor Page Smith of the University of California at Los
Angeles published an extensive study of Ramsay's History of the American
Revolution in which he stressed the advantage that Ramsay had because of
being involved in the events of which he wrote and the wisdom he
exercised in taking advantage of this opportunity. "The generosity
of mind and spirit which marks his pages, his critical sense, his
balanced judgment and compassion,'' Professor Smith concluded, "are
gifts that were uniquely his own and that clearly entitle him to an
honorable position in the front rank of American historians."
In
his 1789 article, Ramsay first explained who the "original citizens"
were and then defined the "natural born citizens" as the children born
in the country to citizen parents. He said concerning the children
born after the declaration of independence, "[c]itizenship is the
inheritance of the children of those who have taken part in the late
revolution; but this is confined exclusively to the children of those
who were themselves citizens…." He added that "citizenship by
inheritance belongs to none but the children of those Americans, who,
having survived the declaration of independence, acquired that
adventitious character in their own right, and transmitted it to their
offspring…." He continued that citizenship "as a natural right,
belongs to none but those who have been born of citizens since the 4th
of July, 1776…."
In the official copies of the THIRD U.S. Congress (1795) margin
notes state "Former act repealed. 1790. ch. 3." referencing the FIRST
U.S. Congress (1790).
Document ONE: the actual text of the THIRD
CONGRESS in 1795 states, "...children of citizens [plural, i.e. two
parents] of the United States...shall be considered citizens of the
United States; Provided That the right of citizenship shall not descend
to persons, whose fathers have never been resident in the United
States..." (THIRD CONGRESS Sess. II. Ch.21. 1795, Approved January
29, 1795, pp. 414-415. Document margin note: "How children shall obtain
citizenship through their parents" Document margin note: "Former Act
repealed 1790 ch.3.") See Attachment A.
Document TWO: the
actual text of the FIRST CONGRESS in 1790 states, "...children of
citizens (NB: plural, i.e. two parents) of the United States...shall be
considered as natural born citizens of the United States; Provided That
the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons, whose fathers
have never been resident in the United States..." (FIRST CONGRESS Sess.
II Ch.4 1790, Approved March 26, 1790, pp. 103-104. Document margin
note: "Their children residing here, deemed citizens." Document margin
note: "Also, children of citizens born beyond sea, & c. Exceptions.")
See Attachment B.
Document THREE: the actual text of the
Constitution from the Continental Congress and the Constitutional
Convention, 1774-1789, and subsequent official printings, of the
Constitution of the United States of American: Article II Section 1
Clause 5 states:
"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…"
(See Attachment C)
The first was decided in A.D. 1814, at the beginning of the
republic, by men who were intimately associated with the American
Revolution. In that year the
following men sat on the Supreme Court:
Bushrod Washington,
(b. June 5, 1762 — d. Nov. 26, 1829), served Feb. 4, 1799 till Nov. 26,
1829.
John Marshall (b. Sept. 24, 1755 — d. July 6, 1835), served
Feb. 4, 1891 till July 6, 1835.
William Johnson (b. Dec. 27, 1771
— d. Aug. 4, 1834), served May 7, 1804, till Aug. 4, 1834.
Henry
Brockholst Livingston (b. Nov. 25, 1757 — d. Mar. 18, 1823), served Jan.
20, 1807 till March 18, 1823
Thomas Todd (b. Jan. 23, 1765 — d.
Feb. 7, 1826), served May 4, 1807 till Feb. 7, 1826.
Gabriel
Duvall (b. Dec. 6, 1752 — d. Mar. 6, 1844), served Nov. 23, 1811 till
Jan. 14, 1835.
Joseph Story (b. Sept. 18, 1779 — d. Sept. 10,
1845), served Feb. 3, 1812 till Sep. 10, 1845
Nearly all these
men either participated in the American Revolution, or their fathers
did. Joseph Story’s father took part in the original Boston Tea
Party. Thomas Todd served 6 months in the army against the
British; and participated in 5 Constitutional Conventions from
1784-1792. During the Revolutionary War, Henry Brockholst
Livingston was a Lieutenant Colonel in the New York Line and an
aide-de-camp to General Benedict Arnold, before the latter’s defection
to the British. William Johnson’s father, mother, and elder brother were
revolutionaries, who served as statesman, rebel, or nurse/assistant to
the line troops, respectively. John Marshall was First Lieutenant
of the Culpeper Minutemen of Virginia, and then Lieutenant in the
Eleventh Virginian Continental Regiment, and a personal friend of
General George Washington; and debated for ratification of the U.S.
Constitution by the Virginian General Assembly. Bushrod Washington
was George Washington’s nephew and heir.
Being witnesses and
heirs of the Revolution, they understood what the Framers of the
Constitution had intended.
The Venus case regarded the question
whether the cargo of a merchantman, named the Venus, belonging to an
American citizen, and being shipped from British territory to America
during the War of 1812, could be seized and taken as a prize by an
American privateer. But what the case said about citizenship, is
what matters here.
What the Venus Case says on citizenship:
In the Venus Case, Justice Livingston, who wrote the unanimous
decision, quoted the entire §212nd paragraph from the French edition,
using his own English, on
page 12 of
the ruling:
Vattel, who, though not very full to this
point, is more explicit and more satisfactory on it than any other
whose work has fallen into my hands, says:
"The citizens are
the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain
duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in
its advantages. The natives or indigenes are those born in the country of parents who are citizens.
Society not being able to subsist and to perpetuate itself but by
the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the
condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights."
"The inhabitants, as distinguished from citizens, are strangers
who are permitted to settle and stay in the country. Bound by
their residence to the society, they are subject to the laws of the
state while they reside there, and they are obliged to defend it…"
Inglis v. Sailors’ Snug Harbor, 28 U.S. 99,
3 Pet. 99, 7 L.Ed. 617 (1830)
The majority
cited Vattel on the right of election to change one’s allegiance and
thus citizenship in the context of the new nation being formed after
revolution. The Court found on principles consistent with Vattel’s
jus sanguinis and not on the English common law rule of jus soli, that
simply being born in New York, after July 4, 1776 and before September
15, 1776, when the British took possession of New York, was not
sufficient to establish one’s status as an American citizen, for a child
of minor years is incapacitated from making any citizenship election but
rather followed the citizenship held or chosen by the father. On
the contrary, relying upon principles of the English common law, Justice
Johnson and Justice Story, who wrote separate minority concurring
opinions, would have found the child born in New York during the same
time period a citizen of the State of New York, regardless of the
citizenship of his parents. Id. 136 and 164.
This case
shows what the majority rule was on citizenship and that it followed the
Vattelian doctrine that a child when born took on the national character
of his or her father (meaning father and mother under the doctrine of
merger of the wife’s citizenship into the husband) and did not acquire
his or her citizenship from the territory in which he or she was born.
Shanks v. Dupont, 28 U.S. 3 Pet. 242 242
(1830)
16 years later the Supreme Court heard
the case regarding the
dispute over the inheritance received by two daughters of an American
colonist, from South Carolina; one of whom went to England and remained
a British subject, the other of whom remained in South Carolina and
became an American citizen. At the beginning of the case, Justice
Story, who gave the ruling, does not cite Vattel per se, but cites the
principle of citizenship enshrined in his definition of a "natural born
citizen":
Ann Scott was born in South Carolina before
the American revolution, and her father adhered to the American
cause and remained and was at his death a citizen of South Carolina.
There is no dispute that his daughter Ann, at the time of the
Revolution and afterwards, remained in South Carolina until
December, 1782. Whether she was of age during this time does
not appear. If she was, then her birth and residence might be
deemed to constitute her by election a citizen of South Carolina.
If she was not of age, then she might well be deemed under the
circumstances of this case to hold the citizenship of her father,
for children born in a country, continuing while under age
in the family of the father, partake of his national character as a
citizen of that country. Her citizenship, then, being
prima facie established, and indeed this is admitted in the
pleadings, has it ever been lost, or was it lost before the death of
her father, so that the estate in question was, upon the descent
cast, incapable of vesting in her? Upon the facts stated, it
appears to us that it was not lost and that she was capable of
taking it at the time of the descent cast.
Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. 393 (1857)
Justice Daniels concurring
cites Vattel and The Law of
Nations and provides his definition of natural born citizens and takes
out of Vattel’s definition the reference to "fathers" and "father" and
replaced it with "parents" and "person," respectively, stated: "The
citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by
certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate
in its advantages. The natives, or natural-born citizens, are
those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. As society
cannot perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens,
those children naturally follow the condition of their parents, and
succeed to all their rights." Again: I say, to be of the country,
it is necessary to be born of a person who is a citizen; for if he be
born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and
not his country. . . ."
John Bingham
Rep. John
Bingham of Ohio, considered the father of the Fourteenth Amendment,
confirms that
understanding and the construction the framers used in regards to birthright and
jurisdiction while speaking on civil rights of citizens in the House on March 9,
1866:
" ... I find no fault with the introductory clause [S 61 Bill], which is simply
declaratory of what is written in the Constitution, that every human being
born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language
of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen..."
Bingham is also quoted saying in the Spring of 1868 some serious
warnings:
"May God forbid that the future historian shall record
of this day's proceedings, that by reason of the failure of the
legislative power of the people to triumph over the usurpations of an
apostate President, the fabric of American empire fell and perished from
the earth!...I ask you to consider that we stand this day pleading for
the violated majesty of the law, by the graves of half a million of
martyred hero-patriots who made death beautiful by the sacrifice of
themselves for their country, the Constitution and the laws, and who, by
their sublime example, have taught us all to obey the law; that none are
above the law..."
14th Amendment
The Fourteenth Amendment (Amendment XIV) to the United States
Constitution is one of the post-Civil War Reconstruction Amendments,
first intended to secure the rights of former slaves. It was proposed on
June 13, 1866, and ratified on July 9, 1868.
The amendment
provides a broad definition of citizenship, overruling Dred Scott v.
Sandford (1857) which had excluded slaves and their descendants from
possessing Constitutional rights.
Section 1. All persons
born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the
jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of
the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any
law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the
United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty,
or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within
its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
The 14th
Amendment does not address the "natural born citizen"
issue, only citizenship. Citizenship and eligibility are two
distinct and separate issues.
From The Library Of Congress
This video lays it all out.
It's lengthy. If you don't have time to view it now, bookmark this
page and come back.
You'll
be glad you did.
Minor v. Happersett
Natural Born status is mentioned in case law:
Minor v. Happersett
(1874) 21 Wall. 162, 166-168
"'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 [plural] who were its citizens
[plural], 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.' Minor v. Happersett (1874) 21 Wall. 162,
166-168."
Under Happersett, a natural born citizen is clarified to
mean born citizen without a doubt. Doubt entered the picture due
to Obama being born a British citizen under The British Nationality Act
of 1948, in effect at the time of his birth. He cannot be, as a
state of nature, considered a born citizen of the United States, when he
was born British.
Attorney Leo Donofrio contends the citizenship
issue decided in
Minor v. Happersett has been documented as precedent by multiple
sources of legal scholarship. (See also my previous two reports
analyzing Minor v. Happersett,
here and
here.) Below, I have assembled multiple quotations from
various published literature which cogently establish that the Supreme
Court issued two holdings in Minor; one on citizenship and
the other on voting rights. That the citizenship issue is
precedent, and not dictum, has never been questioned in our national
history until now, just as the very words of the Constitution are being
scrubbed. My research indicates unequivocally that for over a
century before the appearance of Obama, Minor was recognized and cited
as precedent on the definition of federal citizenship.
Spaulding
says the 1790 Naturalization act asserted exceeded the authority of the
Congress, and was eliminated from US Code in the 1795 act. But it was a
"Naturalization Act." There are two classes of citizen, natural, and
naturalized. Like the 14th Amendment, the most it could have done was to
create a naturalized "born citizen", which was called a "native born
citizen of the US, as Obama declared himself to be. The 1790 act,
deceptively used by Obama’s constitutional law professor, Larry Tribe,
when he asserted that McCain was a natural born citizen because he was
born to two citizen parents in the submission by Tribe and Ted Olson to
the Senate Judiciary Committee hearings over Senate Res 511, which was
signed in agreement by all senators including Obama, but excluding
McCain (as it could have cause legal trouble had he prevailed over
Obama).
Leo Donofrio has erased any legal doubts about whether Justice
Waite's statement was dictum. The Minor case was built upon the “..., it
was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who
were its citizens.” statement, previously common law understood by our
framers, as were almost all terms used in the Constitution. It was the
only constitutional definition of a class of citizen before the 14th
Amendment. Virginia Minor was one of the majority of citizens who were
natural born citizens, thus asserting beyond doubt that she was a
citizen. About the class of naturalized citizens there were many doubts,
so Waite told us his decision was independent of the 14th Amendment by
design, and thus uncorrupted by the doubts about who were citizens.
No law, no amendment, no supreme court decision has altered the
definition made precedent by Minor v. Happersett. It is a remarkable
time when states, beholden to political forces, unions, statists, will
resort to altering the constitutional definition of who is eligible to
be president in their official documents. It is more understandable that
Obama’s fellow travelers, people who honestly, as Barack told us, want
to dispense with the Constitution because it prevents them from doing
what they feel the nation needs. The owners of justia.com, federal
judges who are all political appointees, will lie to protect what they
perceive as their political comrades. Now both New York and Indiana have
shown that holding temporary power -- because that is all that it will be
-- trumps the constitution.
Before I start, I must advise you of two things: first, you will
rarely find an Obama enabler who will ever admit that he or she is a
lawyer (most of those who admit it have been outed by citizen
researchers). The reason for that is that operating under the blanket of
anonymity, they get free reign to say whatever they want without any
legal or ethical accountability. And they have said some pretty bad
things in the past until many of them were outed and so now they are
"perfect gentlemen." Hence, the first thing the owner of this blog tells
us is that he or she is not a lawyer. Now it may be true that the owner
of that blog is not a lawyer. But what about all the other enablers who
feed at that blog under the cover of anonymity? So, we do need to ask
ourselves whether these so-called "owners" are just straw owners who
take on such tasks to provide cover for Obama’s enabler lawyers who
operate in the background under the cloaking device of anonymity.
Second, before I started explaining that there is a difference
between an Article II "natural born" Citizen and a Fourteenth Amendment
or Statutory "born" Citizen, we hardly saw the clause "natural born"
Citizen in the Obama enablers’ arguments. At that time, they were simply
content with telling us that Obama was a "Citizen" of the United States
or a "native-born citizen," whether under U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S.
649 (1898), the Fourteenth Amendment, or any Congressional Act. Now, no
matter what case or statute they are speaking about, for these enablers
its all "natural born" Citizen. The only citizens they have spared from
this label are citizens who are naturalized after birth. I guess they
figured that the clause would lose whatever little meaning they have
given to it if they pushed it that far.
Let us now examine what Obama’s enablers are peddling on this blog.
They must and do attack the Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162 (1875)
decision on two fronts. First, they argue that the definition of a
"natural-born citizen" given by the Court is dicta and therefore not
binding precedent. But they are wrong. In Minor, the U.S. Supreme Court
had to decide whether Virginia Minor, a woman, was a "citizen" in order
to determine whether as a "citizen" she enjoyed a constitutional right
to vote under the privileges and immunities clause of Article IV. So the
Court reasoned that once she was shown to be a "citizen," it did not
matter that she was a woman, unless Missouri could still disqualify a
woman from voting because being a "citizen" did not guarantee any person
the right to vote. It does not matter whether the Court chose to say
that Minor was a "natural born Citizen" or just a "citizen." Either way,
Virginia Minor would advance to the next step in the analysis which was
whether as a "citizen" she had the right to vote which Missouri could
not abrogate. The Court chose the "natural-born citizen" path. It
thoroughly analyzed and considered what a "natural-born citizen" was and
after saying that it is a child born in the country to citizen parents,
found that Virginia Minor was a "natural-born citizen" and therefore
also a "citizen." After the Court told us what a "natural-born citizen"
was, it then made the comment about there being doubts as to whether a
child born in the country to alien parents was even a "citizen." The
Court said that it was not necessary for it to decide that question and
it did not because Virginia Minor was a "natural-born citizen" which
necessarily also made her a "citizen."
Appuzo provides a detailed legal analysis
of this question here
. . .
And concludes:
Finally, and this is Obama’s enablers’ favorite ploy, they say for
the Birthers to be right, all smart and consequential people in America
would have to be part of some grand conspiracy. They paint the
"Birthers" with the same brush and paint that they paint those who
question the moon landing, the Kennedy assassination, the 9-11 attacks,
and whether there is some plot to create a "One World Order." But there
is nothing conspiratorial about correctly defining an Article II
"natural born" Citizen and applying that definition to Obama’s admitted
birth circumstances. He has admitted and it is corroborated by
documentation that he
was born to a non-U.S. citizen father. Hence, he cannot be a
"natural born" Citizen. There is no conspiracy in that, my friend.
And so it goes on, for this is how Obama’s enablers must make a
living.
Chester Arthur
Chester A. Arthur perpetrated a fraud as to his eligibility to be
Vice President by spreading various lies about his parents’ heritage.
Arthur’s father, William Arthur, became a United States citizen in
August 1843, but Arthur was born in 1829 -- 14 years before.
Therefore, Arthur was a British Citizen by descent, and a dual citizen
at birth, if not his whole life.
He wasn’t a "natural born
citizen" and he knew it.
We’ve also uncovered many lies told
by Arthur to the press which kept this fact from public view when he ran
for Vice President in 1880. Garfield won the election, became President
in 1881, and was assassinated by a fanatical Chester Arthur supporter
that same year.
Historical facts
here, and there's more juicy stuff on Chester Arthur in the video
above.
The Boston Globe On Natural Born
Donofrio's
blog has a news item from the Boston Globe saying for presidential
eligibility, "native born" does not equal "natural born."
You may
add The Boston Globe to the growing list of influential media sources
who have expressed the opinion that simply being born in the United
States does not qualify one to be president. Recently, this blog
pointed to a similar opinion in the
New York Tribune. These pre-dated Breckenridge Long’s similar
opinion as stated in the
Chicago Legal News.
Recently, one of my readers uncovered
this crucially relevant article published in the Boston Globe on
November 9, 1896 by Percy A. Bridgham, aka "The People’s Lawyer."
(Mr. Bridgham’s book, One Thousand Legal Questions Answered by the
"People’s Lawyer" of the Boston Daily Globe, can be found in the Harvard
Law School library.)
The People’s Lawyer, upon answering a
reader’s question regarding the Constitution’s natural born citizen
clause, stated:
"The fact that the Constitution says
"natural" instead of native shows to my mind that the distinction
was thought of and probably discussed. A natural born citizen
would be one who by nature, that is by inheritance, so to speak, was
a citizen, as distinguished from one who was by nativity or locality
of birth a citizen. A child born to Irish parents in Ireland
cannot become a citizen except by naturalization, while his brother
born in the United States is a native born citizen; the former is
neither naturally nor by nativity a citizen, the latter is not
naturally, but natively a citizen."
It’s important to note that, while this article was
written two years before the controversial decision in Wong Kim Ark,
Bridgham adopts a similar conclusion as Justice Gray did in that case by
stating that children born of aliens on US soil are citizens. But
Bridgham also states that while these children are "native born"
citizens, they are not "natural born" citizens and therefore cannot be
president.
Bridgham further states:
"A comparison of the meanings of native and
natural as given by Webster bears me out in my opinion of the intent
of the constitution. The very definition of natural is "fixed or
determined by nature,"…I do not find that our courts have ever
passed upon the meaning of the word natural in connection with
citizenship, so we must take its ordinary meaning."
U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark
U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark's
(1898)
importance is that it is the first case decided by the Supreme Court that
attempts to explain
the meaning of "natural born citizen" under Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 of
the U.S. Constitution. Natural born citizen is similar to the meaning of what
a natural born subject is under Common Law in England. That is one of the
reasons why the framers specifically included a grandfather clause (natural
born Citizen OR a Citizen of the United States, at the time of adoption of this
Constitution). The founding fathers knew that in order to be
president, they had to grandfather themselves in because they were British
subjects. If they didn't, they could not be President of the U.S. The holding
in U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark states that Wong Kim Ark is a
native-born citizen. If
you look at the fact of Wong Kim Ark being born in San Francisco, CA, of Chinese
parents, that
holding is correct.
In U. S. v Wong Kim Ark, the court
thoroughly discussed "natural born citizen," and in doing so, Justice Gray
quoted directly from the holding in a prior Supreme Court case, Minor v. Happersett
(above).
Perkins v. Elg
Perkins v. Elg's
(1939)
importance is that it actually gives examples of what a "natural born citizen" of the U.S. is;
what a "citizen" of the U.S. is; and
what a "native-born citizen" of the U. S. is.
In this case, the U.
S. Supreme Court
found that a "natural born citizen" is a person who is born of
two U.S. citizen
parents AND born in the mainland of U.S.
Citizen:
On cross appeals, the Court of Appeals affirmed the decree,
69 App.D.C. 175, 99 F.2d 408. Certiorari was granted, December 5, 1938, 305 U.S.
591, 59 S.Ct. 245, 83 L.Ed. --. First.-- On her birth in New York, the plaintiff
became a citizen of the United States. Civil Rights Act of
1866:
Ms. Elg was found to be a "citizen" because she was
born in
the mainland USA (New York)
native-born citizen:
This principle was clearly stated by Attorney General
Edwards Pierrepont in his letter of advice to the Secretary of State Hamilton
Fish, in Steinkauler's Case, 1875, 15 Op.Atty.Gen. 15. The facts were these: One
Steinkauler, a Prussian subject by birth, emigrated to the United States in
1848, was naturalized in 1854, and in the following year had a son who was born
in St. Louis. Four years later Steinkauler returned to Germany taking this child
and became domiciled at Weisbaden where they continuously resided. When the son
reached the age of twenty years the German Government called upon him to report
for military duty and his father then invoked the intervention of the American
Legation on the ground that his son was a native citizen of the United States.
To an inquiry by our Minister, the father declined to give an assurance that the
son would return to this country within a reasonable time. On reviewing the
pertinent points in the case, including the Naturalization Treaty of 1868 with
North Germany, 15 Stat. 615, the Attorney General reached the following
conclusion: 'Young Steinkauler is a native-born American citizen.
Mr. Steinkauler was found to be a "native-born citizen" because he was born in
the mainland USA (St. Louis)
Natural Born Citizen:
U. S. Supreme Court's Relevant Facts: Miss Elg was born in Brooklyn, New York, on October
2, 1907. Her parents, who were natives of Sweden, emigrated to
the United States sometime prior to 1906 and her father was naturalized here in
that year. In 1911, her mother took her to Sweden where she continued to reside
until September 7, 1929. Her father went to Sweden in 1922 and has not since
returned to the United States. In November, 1934, he made a statement before an
American consul in Sweden that he had voluntarily expatriated himself for the
reason that he did not desire to retain the status of an American citizen and
wished to preserve his allegiance to Sweden. [Perkins v. Elg, 307 U.S. 325, 327
(1939).]
U. S. Supreme Court's Holding: The court below, properly recognizing the existence of an
actual controversy with the defendants (Aetna Life Ins. Co. v. Haworth, 300 U.S.
227, 57 S.Ct. 461, 81 L.Ed. 617, 108 A.L.R. 1000) declared Miss Elg 'to
be a natural born citizen of the United States' (99 F.2d 414) and we
think that the decree should include the Secretary of State as well as the other
defendants. [Perkins v. Elg, 307 U.S. 325, 350 (1939).]
Rationale of the logic is as follows: The U. S. Supreme
Court in 1939 held that Elg was a NATURAL BORN CITIZEN because she was born in
Brooklyn, New York on October 2, 1907, her father was naturalized as a
U.S. citizen in 1906 under the
Naturalization Act of 1906, and her mother derived her US citizenship in 1907 under the
Expatriation Act of 1907. The
Expatriation Act of 1907 extended the logic
linking a woman's citizenship to her marital status and the status of her
spouse.
Ms. Elg was found to be a "natural born citizen" because she was
born in
the mainland USA (New York) of TWO US citizen parents.
The Acts of 1906 and 1907
After the Naturalization Act of 1906 created the Naturalization
Standards for U.S. Citizenship, Congress passed the Expatriation Act of
1907 to allow SPOUSES of naturalized U.S. citizens to be considered
naturalized U.S. citizens as well.
Perkins v. Elg doesn't explain
that but that was THE LAW ENACTED at the time when Elg was born in New
York. The Court's job is to apply the relevant facts to the law. The
law as discussed in U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark in 1898 was that in order to be
a "natural born citizen," you had to be
born in the U.S. Mainland AND
born to U.S. Citizens PARENTS (PLURAL NOT SINGULAR). The key
here is BOTH PARENTS WERE U.S. CITIZENS at the time of Elg's birth.
The U.S. Supreme Court, in 1939, ruled that Elg was a "natural born
citizen" using DEDUCTIVE REASONING to clarify why. The law is
corroborated.
All you have to do is read the Expatriation Act of
1907 (federal
statute) as proof. Remember, Elg was born prior to enactment
of the U. S. Constitution's Nineteenth Amendment, ratified on August 18,
1920, and a woman's status was tied to that of her husband.
Derivative Law
Elg's Mother derived US citizenship when her father was naturalized. This was automatic -- it's called derivative citizenship. These are the forms of derivative citizenship that were effective due to
federal statute at the time Elg was born:
1. An alien woman
obtained automatic US citizenship when she married a US citizen male.
2. An alien woman obtained automatic us citizenship when her alien
husband became naturalized.
So, in 1907 when Elg was born on US
soil, both of her parents were US citizens, therefore she was a "natural
born citizen."
Funny thing is, when the US Supreme Court decided
the case, the derivative citizen laws had changed, however, they
retroactively applied them... because they had to. They had to use
the law at the time of Elg's birth... because that's when she was born,
hence she was a natural born citizen at the time of her birth and
nothing could change that.
In essence, the 19th Amendment gave a
woman equal footing under the law overriding the common law (e.g. judge
made law) which referred to women as "property" of a man. That is
the essence of derivative citizenship.
19th Amendment
The Nineteenth Amendment (Amendment XIX) to the United States
Constitution prohibits each of the states and the federal government
from denying any citizen the right to vote because of that citizen's
sex. It was ratified on August 18, 1920.
Prior to this
date, a woman's citizenship was derived from her husband. If the
husband was an American citizen, then the wife was an American citizen
(derivative law).
This fact plays a role in determining natural
born citizen status -- two American citizen parents.
With the
passage of the 19th Amendment, a woman's citizenship status is
determined on her parents, place of birth or naturalization.
Why does it require two
citizen parents? What is the policy behind the language requiring two US
citizen parents? Policy as used with regards to the drafting of laws is
a legal term of art. It’s analogous to concern. What legal concern is
acknowledged by requiring two citizen parents?
Leo Donofrio
addresses why Senate Resolution 511 doesn’t state that a person born
abroad to one citizen parent is a natural born citizen.
(link no longer functional)
"It is generally agreed that
these constitutional provisions mean anyone born on American
soil to parents who are U.S. citizens is a
"natural born citizen" eligible to someday become president or
vice-president..."
Two American parents and on American soil --
simple as that.
State Department On Dual Nationality
The U. S. State Department
defines the concept of dual nationality as meaning that a person is
a citizen of two countries at the same time. Each country has its
own citizenship laws based on its own policy. Persons may have
dual nationality by automatic operation of different laws rather than by
choice. For example, a child born in a foreign country to U.S.
citizen parents may be both a U.S. citizen and a citizen of the country
of birth.
A U.S. citizen may acquire foreign citizenship by
marriage, or a person naturalized as a U.S. citizen may not lose the
citizenship of the country of birth. U.S. law does not mention
dual nationality or require a person to choose one citizenship or
another. Also, a person who is automatically granted another
citizenship does not risk losing U.S. citizenship. However, a
person who acquires a foreign citizenship by applying for it may lose
U.S. citizenship. In order to lose U.S. citizenship, the law
requires that the person must apply for the foreign citizenship
voluntarily, by free choice, and with the intention to give up U.S.
citizenship.
Intent can be shown by the person's statements or
conduct. The U.S. Government recognizes that dual nationality
exists but does not encourage it as a matter of policy because of the
problems it may cause. Claims of other countries on dual national
U.S. citizens may conflict with U.S. law, and dual nationality may limit
U.S. Government efforts to assist citizens abroad. The country
where a dual national is located generally has a stronger claim to that
person's allegiance.
However, dual nationals owe
allegiance to both the United States and the foreign country.
They are required to obey the laws of both countries. Either
country has the right to enforce its laws, particularly if the person
later travels there. Most U.S. citizens, including dual nationals,
must use a U.S. passport to enter and leave the United States.
Dual nationals may also be required by the foreign country to use its
passport to enter and leave that country. Use of the foreign
passport does not endanger U.S. citizenship. Most countries permit
a person to renounce or otherwise lose citizenship.
It should be
noted, that to define a term is to indicate the category or class of
things which it signifies. In this sense, the Supreme Court of the
United States has never applied the term "natural born citizen" to any
other category than "those born in the country of parents who are
citizens thereof".
Hence every U.S. Citizen must accept this
definition or categorical designation, and fulfill his constitutional
duties accordingly. No member of Congress, no judge of the Federal
Judiciary, no elected or appointed official in Federal or State
government has the right to use any other definition; and if he does, he
is acting unlawfully.
A Question Of Allegiance
The supreme law of the United States of America is the Constitution
and Amendments thereto. Everything else is subordinated to the
Articles of the Constitution, which is why the Supreme Court of the
United States (SCOTUS) is virtually powerless to remove any usurper in
unlawful occupation of the Office of the President as the court of
original jurisdiction. The Founding Fathers wrote the Constitution
giving Congress the sole authority to inaugurate and remove a President
and Vice President to the Congress. Congress in turn subsequently
authorized by Public Law and statute for the Supreme Court to establish
an inferior court, the Federal District Court for the District of
Columbia, to be the only Federal with jurisdiction for the removal of
Federal Public Officers, which includes the President of the United
States (POTUS).
With respect to questions about a "citizen"
versus a "natural born citizen," The Articles of the Constitution are
superior to and take precedence over anything Congress enacts as a
Public Law and statute in the U.S. Code and anything the Supreme Court
and inferior courts hold as their decisions. This is what is meant
by the impropriety of legislating from the bench. The only lawful
means of changing and altering the Constitution is for Congress to
lawfully enact an Amendment to the Constitution.
Since the
"natural born citizen" phrase is a provision of the Constitution, no
Public Law or statute can lawfully change the meaning of the phrase as
it was stated in the Constitution without an Amendment doing so.
At the time the Constitution was adopted, it did not include any
provisions to determine the requirements for being a citizen of the
United States, because each State was already responsible for enacting
their own State Constitutions and state laws and statutes governing
natural born and naturalized citizenship in the State. Whosoever
was a citizen of a State was thereby also a citizen of the United States
of America.
This circumstance arose as a consequence of the
sequence of events occutring during the American Revolutionary War.
Upon adoption of the Declaration of Independence by Congress on 4 July
1776, the preceding English or British common-law governing citizenship
was abolished. Since the States in the Continental Congress had
not yet formed a national government, each State was responsible for the
task of replacing the former British legal codes and common-law by
enacting its own state Public Laws. The adoption of the Articles
of Confederation and later adoption of the Constitution resulted in many
important changes, but Congress continued to respect the power of each
State to enact its own citizenship laws in the State constitution and/or
public laws and statures of the state. As a result, the
qualifications for natural born and naturalized citizenship were
sometimes different from one State to the next. The statutory laws
of some States continued the previous common-law in part before changing
it altogether at a later date, while other Sates adopted little or none
of the previous common-law in their new statutory law. Uniform
national laws and statutes regarding citizenship and naturalization were
not established by the federal Government of the United States until the
mid-19th Century.
Consequently, the qualifications and methods
for determining who was a natural born citizen with allegiance only to
the United States was determined by state constitutions and or state
laws or statutes governing who was a natural born citizen of the State
during the Early Republic. In every circumstance, however, a
person could be natural born with one and only one allegiance and
attendant citizenship to a sovereign government. Dual citizenship
was not recognized.
What created a conflict, however, was the
establishment of the Federal uniform citizenship and naturalization
statutory laws which began to confer U.S. citizenship upon persons who
were previously ineligible due to the dual citizenship. The
Founding Fathers included the "natural born citizen" phrase in the
Constitution for the stated purpose of excluding any person natural born
with an allegiance to a foreign sovereign and government from being
eligible to the Office of the President and Commander-in-Chief of the
American Army, responsible for protecting the Constitution and Citizens
of the Republic from all enemies, foreign and domestic. Dual
citizenship was not recognized in the Law of Nations at the time the
Constitution was adopted, so a person could be born with allegiance and
therefore citizenship to only one sovereign and nation. When the
Law of Nations and the Federal statutory laws were changed to begin
recognition of dual and multiple citizenship status, a potential
conflict was created with the original "natural born citizen" phrase in
the Constitution.
Absent an Amendment to the Constitution which
specifically changes the "natural born citizen" phrase and its purpose
as stated by the Founding Fathers, previous Supreme Court decisions
demand that the phrase and its intended purpose take precedence as
superior law over any Federal statutory law, state constitution, state
law, or Supreme Court case law.
Consequently, who was and was not
a natural born citizen was and still may be determined by state
constitutional law, state statutory law, Federal statutory law, and
Federal case law as determined by Congress; but it may only do so to the
extent it gives effect to the Founding Fathers’ intent and
Constitutional phrase to make a person eligible to the Office of the
President who is a natural born citizen as it existed at the adoption of
the Constitution, which did not admit any possible allegiance to a
foreign sovereign and government at birth.
Obama Continues To Be A British Subject
Attorney Mario Apuzzo sys that assuming that Obama was born in the
United States, he was not only born a dual national of the United States
and Great Britain, but at present he continues to be such. Some
maintain that American law on citizenship cannot be subjected to any
foreign law. But such an argument does not resolve the question of
Obama’s dual nationality, for each nation has the sovereign right to
make its own citizenship laws and one nation cannot deny another nation
that right. This point can be better understood when we consider
that McCain was born in Panama to U.S. citizen parents and U.S.
citizenship law declared him a U.S. citizen even though he was born in
Panama and Panamanian law may have declared him a citizen of Panama.
Neither Panama nor any other nation questioned the United States' right
to pass a law that gave McCain U.S. citizenship by descent from his
parents even though he was born in Panama. Great Britain, being a
sovereign nation, has the same right as does the United States to pass
such citizenship laws. Now let us examine the British law that
applies to Obama and his father and which makes Obama a British citizen
not only at the time of his birth in 1961 but still today.
The
British Nationality Act of 1948 provides in pertinent part as follows:
"4. Subject to the provisions of this section, every person born
within the United Kingdom and Colonies after the commencement of this
Act shall be a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies by birth:
Provided that a person shall not be such a citizen by virtue of this
section if at the time of his birth— (a) his father possesses such
immunity from suit and legal process as is accorded to an envoy of a
foreign sovereign power accredited to His Majesty, and is not a citizen
of the United Kingdom and Colonies; or (b) his father is an enemy
alien and the birth occurs in a place then under occupation by the
enemy.
5.—(1) Subject to the provisions of this section, a person
born after the commencement of this Act shall be a citizen of the United
Kingdom and Colonies by descent if his father is a citizen of the United
Kingdom and Colonies at the time of the birth ...."
Under the
British Nationality Act of 1948, Obama's father became a British citizen
under Section 4 by being born on the soil of an English Colony, Kenya.
Under Section 5, when Obama was born in 1961 in Hawaii or some other
place, he automatically became a British citizen by descent from his
father who was a British citizen under Section 4.
Obama has
deflected attention to his British citizenship by focusing the public’s
attention on his former Kenyan citizenship. Notwithstanding what
Obama may lead the public to believe, this British citizenship is not a
type of citizenship that he has since lost. Moreover, this
citizenship did not expire with Obama's 21st birthday nor is it one that
had to be registered in any specified period of time.
Attorney Mario Apuzzo
believes that being born subject to a foreign power, Obama cannot be
President and Military Commander.
Having just won a revolution,
the Founders were faced with constituting a new nation. Under the
constitutional plan devised by the Founders, they had to identify who
were the members of the new nation. They called these members
"citizens" of the United States. Thus, they created our first generation
of United States "citizens." These persons were either born abroad
or in the British colonies before July 4, 1776 or abroad or in the new
States thereafter, but in all cases inhabited one of the colonies or
States and were loyal to the American revolution. The Founders
under Article II grandfathered these original "citizens" to be eligible
to be President. Under this plan, once the new nation had its
first generation "citizens," it was placed in position to have in the
future its Article II "natural born Citizens," who would be born in the
United States after the adoption of the Constitution and descend from
mothers and fathers who were both original "citizens." Given that
America was already a land of immigrants and that the Founders expected
that many more immigrants would come to its shores in search of a new
life and to share in its vast resources, they gave Congress in Article
I, Sec. 8, cl. 4 the power to naturalize aliens and thereby create more
future first generation United States "citizens." Having become a
naturalized "citizen," one would then be in a position to procreate with
another "citizen" (born or similarly naturalized) a "natural born
Citizen" who would be eligible to be president.
Throughout
American history, there have been no doubts or disputes as to who is a
"natural born Citizen." As we have seen, it was not English common
law but the
law of nations that became United States common law that defined a
"natural born Citizen." It defined such a citizen as being born in
the country to parents who are themselves citizens. It is this
definition which our United States Supreme Court incorporated into our
federal common law. It is this definition that creates subsequent
generation "citizens" who are "natural born Citizens." They are
subsequent generation because born in the country to a mother and father
who are citizens.
On the other hand, throughout our history,
there have been doubts and disputes as to who may be a born "citizen"
(as distinguished from a "natural born Citizen" or a naturalized
citizen). These disputes have concerned the question of whether to
be a "citizen," must a child be simply born on U.S. soil and be subject
to its jurisdiction, without any reference to the citizenship of the
parents (jus soli which follows the old English common law), or must
that child also be born to U.S. citizen parents (jus soli and jus
sanguinis united which follows the law of nations’ definition and which
any way only applies to "natural born citizens"). This dispute has
concerned the question of whether we should declare a child a first
generation "citizen" (in effect having the same status as one of the
original first generation "citizens" which Article II grandfathered to
be eligible to be President). The dispute has not been with
whether we should declare that child a subsequent generation "natural
born Citizen." The Fourteenth Amendment settled who could be a
"citizen" by bestowing such status upon those born in the United States
or naturalized here and subject to the jurisdiction thereof.
"Citizens" who meet this Fourteenth Amendment definition can be either
first or subsequent generation United States "citizens." If first
generation, they are simply "citizens." If subsequent generation,
they are not only "citizens" but also "natural born Citizens."
Congress has also declared who may be a born "citizen" through
legislation and has thereby not only confirmed what is already stated in
the Fourteenth Amendment but has also granted citizenship to children
born out of the United States to U.S. citizen parents (one or two).
Senator McCain, being born in Panama, falls into the two United
States-parent category. The question of whether foreign-born
children, born to two United States parents and thus falling in this
category (by definition they would be subsequent generation "citizens"
but not born in the United States) are "natural born Citizens" has not
been resolved by any Court. If such a child were born to just one
United States citizen parent, he or she would not only acquire the
allegiance and loyalty of the nation on whose soil he or she may be born
but also that of his or her foreign parent’s nation and thereby further
compromise his or her claim for "natural born Citizen" status.
A
study of citizenship and nationality case law, statutes, treatises, and
other sources shows that one acquires allegiance and loyalty through
citizenship. Obama has admitted that under the British Nationality
Act 1948 when he was born, his father was a British subject/citizen and
not a U.S. citizen and that he himself was a British subject/citizen by
descent from his father. Therefore, what is clear and established
by his own factual admissions is that Obama cannot satisfy the
definition of an Article II "natural born Citizen," for he was born with
allegiance and loyalty not only to the United States (assuming he was
born here) but to the same degree also to Great Britain. The best
that Obama can be is a Fourteenth Amendment "citizen," assuming that he
was born in the United States and assuming that one born subject to a
foreign power can also be born subject to the full and complete legal
and political jurisdiction of the United States. In such a case,
he would be a subsequent generation "citizen" through his American
mother but only a first generation "citizen" because of his foreign
father. If Obama was not born in the United States or if being
born in the United States he was not born subject to its jurisdiction,
then he is not even a "citizen" under the Fourteenth Amendment or any
applicable Congressional Act. Hence, we can see that Obama is
missing the mandatory Article II constitutional status of being at a
minimum a second generation "citizen" through both a citizen mother and
citizen father. What creates further allegiance and loyalty
problems for Obama is that his birthright British citizenship, which
continues in effect until today, also allowed him to gain Kenyan
citizenship from the age of 2 to the age of 21 or 23. Being 47
years old when he was elected, just his Kenyan allegiance and loyalty
occupied him for almost one-half of his then life span.
It is
Obama’s being only a first generation U.S. citizen because of his father
not being a United States citizen at Obama’s birth that caused his
divided allegiance and loyalty at birth (United States v. British and
Kenyan) and disqualifies him to be President and Commander in Chief.
It is through his father that Obama was born with allegiance and loyalty
to Great Britain (which continues until today), which then converted to
allegiance and loyalty to Kenya. It does not matter that his
mother was a United States citizen because at birth Obama inherited
allegiance and loyalty to a foreign power (Great Britain) from his
father just as he would have inherited allegiance and loyalty to a
foreign power if born to parents who were both non-United States
citizens. By Obama’s mother being a United States citizen at his
birth, Obama was just spared acquiring even another foreign allegiance
and loyalty. Just like a naturalized citizen who -- despite taking
an oath renouncing all foreign allegiances and loyalties and which
incidentally Obama has never done -- cannot be President because he or
she is born with allegiance and loyalty to a foreign country, Obama,
born with allegiance and loyalty to a foreign country, also cannot be
President. All this leads to the inescapable conclusion that Obama
is not an Article II "natural born Citizen" and is therefore ineligible
to be President and Commander in Chief of the Military.
The Biggest Cover-Up In American History
In our previous article,
“Exonerating President Obama”,
we noted that the only Supreme Court precedent for the meaning of
the term “natural born Citizen” in Article II, Section 1 of the U.S.
Constitution appears to be the Judge Harlan dissent in the United
States v. Wong Kim Ark case. In collaboration with a constitutional
attorney, we have examined the subject matter further.
We believe that to understand the
complexity of this issue it will be essential to have an
understanding of the place that the concepts of “Natural Law” and
the book titled Law of Nations had obtained in the run up to the War
of Independence with Great Britain. These concepts of natural law
were commonly used throughout the colonies to explain, defend and
justify the colonists’ contentions in our dispute with Great
Britain. Our investigation leaves no doubt that the Founding Fathers
of our nation clearly understood the meaning of the term “natural
born Citizen” and its relation to Natural Law and Law of Nations.
When you have finished studying our research you will also
understand that these terms were used in the Declaration of
Independence as well as in our Constitution and in the constitutions
of a large number of states written at the same time as the
Constitutional Convention was in session.
This background understanding will
clarify why the delegates to the 1787 Constitutional Convention
elected to include “natural born Citizen” in the eligibility
requirements for the Office of the President of our nation and what
it truly means.
In this article we will prove beyond all
doubt that Barack Hussein Obama is not a natural born Citizen and is
thus ineligible to be President of the United States.
All three of the 2008
presidential candidates, Obama (aka Soetoro), McCain, and Calero were not eligible under
Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 of the U.S. Constitution to serve as
Commander-in-Chief.
Just like a
residential purchase of a home is void if fraud in the inducement
(where one party conceals a material fact that if people knew about it ahead of
time, they would not enter into a residential purchase of a home), the same
thing has occurred with the primaries and presidential election on November 4,
2008.
Because these three candidates (Obama (aka Soetoro), McCain, and Calero)
were ineligible under Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 of the U.S. Constitution,
the 2008 presidential election and its results should be voided.
Regardless of
what game of charades people in the mainstream media and people
within our federal government are trying to pull. That is a
legal fact that can not be
disputed.
Obama has
only one US citizen parent. His father was British subject and a
Citizen of Kenya -- as was Obama.
McCain was not born in the
mainland US. John Sidney McCain III was born at the Colon Hospital,
located at Avenida Melendez and 2nd Street, Manzanillo Island, City of
Colon, Republic of Panama. The time of birth on the birth
certificate issued by Panama Railroad Company (which owned the Colon
Hospital) was 5:25 PM and the day and date of birth was Saturday, August
29, 1936.
Calero was not born in the mainland US.
He was born in Nicaragua.
On February 28, 2008, Sen. Claire McCaskill (D-MO)
introduced a bill to the Senate for consideration. That bill was known
as S. 2678: Children of Military Families Natural Born Citizen Act. The
bill was co-sponsored by Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL), Sen. Hillary Clinton
(D-NY), Sen. Robert Menendez (D-NJ), and Sen. Thomas Coburn (R-OK).
Bill S. 2678 attempted to change article II, section 1,
clause 5 of the Constitution of the United States with reference to the
requirements of being a "natural born citizen" and hence; the entitlement to
run for President of the United States. This bill met the same fate that
similar attempts to change the Constitution have in the past. Attempts such
as The Natural Born Citizen Act were
known to have failed and the text scrubbed from the internet, with only a
shadow-cached copy left, that only
the most curious public can find.
Sen. McCaskill, her co-sponsors, fellow colleagues and
legal counsel, contend that the Constitution is ambiguous in article II,
section 1 and requires clarification. But does it?
On April
10, 2008, Sens. Patrick Leahy (D-VT) and Claire McCaskill (D-MO)
introduced Senate Resolution 511 expressing the sense of the U.S. Senate that
presidential candidate Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) was a 'natural born
Citizen,' as specified in the Constitution and eligible to run for
president. Sen. McCaskill knew Obama was not a U.S. Citizen,
that’s why she introduced this bill -- dressing it up to look like it
was in Sen. John McCain's cause.
It was during the bill's hearing
that Sen. Patrick Leahy, Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee,
made the following statement:
"Because he was born to American citizens, there is no
doubt in my mind that Senator McCain is a natural born citizen,"
said
Leahy. "I expect that this will be a unanimous resolution of the
Senate."
At a Judiciary Committee hearing on April 3, Leahy asked
Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff, himself a former Federal
judge, if he had doubts that McCain was eligible to serve as President.
"My assumption and my understanding is that if you are
born of
American parents, you are naturally a natural-born American citizen,"
Chertoff replied.
"That is mine, too,"
said Leahy.
What's
interesting here is that Sen. Leahy, the Chairman of the Senate
Judiciary, confirms that a "natural born" citizen is the child of
American citizen parents.
Parents -- that's two. That's BOTH
parents.
Every time the words, "citizen" and "parent," are used
by Sen. Leahy and Sec. Chertoff, the plural case, "citizens" and
"parents," is used. The plural case is the operative case.
It is Sen. Leahy's opinion -- his own recorded words, in a formal Senate
Resolution and on his U. S.
Senate website -- that Barack Obama is not a "natural born"
citizen, and therefore not eligible to serve as Commander-in-Chief,
regardless of his birthplace.
Obama had one American parent
--singular -- his mother. His father was a citizen of Kenya, and a
subject of Great Britain.
Obama, himself, "at birth," was a
citizen of Kenya, and a subject of Great Britain -- he
says so on his own campaign website.
This fact introduces the concept of "divided loyalties," -- the reason
the founders created the eligibility requirement in the first place -- a
fact that further underlines
Obama's ineligibility.
The source of this information is Sen. Leahy's own website.
The webpage contains a statement about the resolution; the resolution, itself;
the Statement Of Senator Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.); and an excerpt of Sec.
Chertoff's testimony.
The plural word "parents" is used four
times. When used to identify the parents, the word "citizens" is used
five times. That's nine times that Sen. Leahy, on his own website describes the
eligibility requirement. There is NO PLACE in any of these four
documents where the singular case of "parent" or "citizen" is used.
Note: Leahy has
scrubbed the above referenced document from his official Senate website, but
guess what? I've been on top of these criminals for years --
here's my archived copy.
Now why would a sitting senator scrub a bill he sponsored from his
own website?
If you go to this scumbag's
Senate website and enter "S. R. 511" into the "Search" textbox you
get and error message:
"We're sorry. The page you
requested cannot be found." Sen. Patrick Leahy is one of the principal
conspirators and should be impeached, tried and jailed.
The real purpose of this bill
was to change article II, section 1, clause 5 of the Constitution of the
United States with reference to the requirements of being a "natural
born citizen" by the Democratic Party leadership -- paving the way for
an Obama run.
Both Leahy and Chertoff avoid
addressing the "in the US mainland" (jus solis) element of the
eligibility requirement and focus solely on parentage (Jus sanguinis) in making their arguments
and by doing so bring focus to the fundamental reason Obama is not
qualified. He had one American parent and one foreign parent.
Barack Obama is not a natural born citizen -- no matter where he was
born.
Obama is
a co-signer of this resolution. So, I guess he too agrees that one
needs two American parents to be eligible for POTUS -- except he doesn't
care -- after all, he's the Obamamessiah. Rules don't apply to
him.
35 Or 36
Since the 1870s, assorted Congress critters have
attempted to
define or redefine "natural born" citizen status nearly 30 times!
There
were five attempts to re-define "natural born" citizen status since 2001
-- that's six attempts, if you include Sen. Leahy's Resolution for
McCain in March 2008.
Rule Of Law
All U. S. military
personal and every other American under oath to protect and defend the U. S.
Constitution will be duty bound to remove the fraudulent usurper. This
situation is REGARDLESS of votes, electors, media blackouts, high profile
embarrassments, state court decisions, supreme court actions or inaction, birth
certificates real or forged, or any other documents -- Obama can NOT LEGALLY BE
The US President.
No documentation is required. Everyone should understand and KNOW the
answer to the question of what country is the country of which Obama was a
natural born citizen. It is IMPOSSIBLE for Barry Obama, Barry Soetoro, or
Barack Hussein Obama II, to be a natural born United States citizen.
Obama can NOT POSSIBLY be a "natural born citizen" of the U. S. because his
father, Barack Hussein Obama Senior, was a subject of Great Britain and a
citizen of Kenya.
He was a British subject whose
citizenship status was governed under Section 32(1) of the
The British Nationality Act of 1948.
Even the Obots at FactCheck.org, confirm the British Act
governed Obama's status until he was 21 years of age.
Kenya’s Constitution specifies that at age 21,
Kenyan citizens who possesses citizenship in more than one country
automatically lose their Kenyan citizenship unless they formally
renounce any non-Kenyan citizenship and swear an oath of allegiance to
Kenya.
Obama’s American citizen parent, Ann Dunham, had
to have been a resident of the United States for 10 years, at least five
of which were over the age of 14. Dunham did not meet that
requirement (of the Nationality Act of 1940, revised June 1952) until
her 19th birthday in late November of 1961, almost four months after
Obama was born.
Whether Obama was born in
Hawaii, Kenya, or the moon, is irrelevant. Birth documents, real or
forged, are irrelevant. Yes, even VOTES ARE IRRELEVANT. Even Supreme
Court action, or inaction, is irrelevant. It is simply FRAUD and illegal
for Obama to be put in the office of U. S. President by
any means or reason.
Obama is at the epicenter of the greatest national
disaster in the history of the United States. NOTHING that Obama would
ever do in the office of U. S. President could ever be anything other than FRAUD
and ILLEGAL.
The Electoral College Meets
From the National Archives for the U.S. Electoral
College:
The Congress is
scheduled to meet in joint
session in the House of Representatives on January 6, 2009 to conduct
the official tally of electoral votes.
The Vice President, as President of the Senate, is the
presiding officer. Two tellers are appointed to open, present and record
the votes of the States in alphabetical order.
The President of the Senate announces the results of
the vote and declares which persons, if any, have been elected President
and Vice President of the United States. The results are entered into
the official journals of the House and Senate.
The President of the Senate then calls for objections
to be made.
(...also
referenced by Cornell University Law School,
and likely all authorities and credible educational institutions who
reference historical fact.)
If any objections are registered, they must be
submitted in writing and be signed by at least one member of the House
and Senate. The House and Senate would withdraw to their respective
chambers to consider the merits of any objections according the
procedure set out under 3 U.S.C. section 15."
Most unfortunately, the above did not happen, the call
was not made, as documented in
this video of the actual event.
Charges that Barack Obama is not a natural born citizen of the U.S. and,
therefore, constitutionally ineligible to serve as president top the
list of the 10 most "spiked" or underreported stories of the last year,
according to an annual survey.
At the end of each year, news
organizations typically present their retrospective replays of what they
consider to have been the top news stories in the previous 12 months.
The authors have long considered it far more newsworthy to
publicize the most important unreported or underreported news events of
the year -- to highlight perhaps for one last time major news stories
that were undeservedly "spiked" by the establishment press.
Joseph Farah has sponsored "Operation Spike" every year since 1988.
Here are the picks for the 10 most underreported stories of 2008
-- and four of them are about Obama.
Allegiance Issues
The definition of "natural born citizen" at the framing
came from the jus solis of the English common law
"When Barack Obama Jr. was born on Aug.
4,1961, in Honolulu, Kenya was a British colony, still part of the
United Kingdom’s dwindling empire. As a Kenyan native, Barack
Obama Sr. was a British subject whose citizenship status was governed by
The British Nationality Act of 1948. That same act governed the status
of Obama Sr.‘s children.
Jus sanguinis
(Latin for "right of blood"), by which nationality or citizenship is
not determined by place of birth, but by having an ancestor who is a
national or citizen of the state.
Jus soli (Latin for "right
of soil"), or birthright citizenship, by which nationality or
citizenship can be recognized to any individual born in the
territory of the related state.
This is the case we have in
the US now: If you're an illegal alien, and you "break your water"
and give birth ON US SOIL, that child is a US Citizen. The history
of American citizenship has long been centered around MEN. While
the 1790 Naturalized Act included all (white) "persons" and so
included women, it also declared that "the right of citizenship
shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident
in the United States...."
This prevented the automatic grant
of citizenship to children born abroad whose mother, but not father,
had resided in the United States. As a course of Congressional law,
this was the case until 1868, although citizenship court cases in
New York and other states as early as 1802 extended the right to
women as well in judicial manner. Legally, until the ratification
of the 14th Amendment, Citizenship (NOT to be confused with Natural
Born Citizenship which is NOT addressed in the 14th Amendment) was
inherited exclusively through the father. In terms of
Naturalization, the US Congress did not remove this until 1934, when
the mother could extend her US citizenship to her children born
overseas (with age requirements as well).
Remember also that
the 14th Amendment did NOT resolve all citizenship issues. Children
of immigrants were barred from citizenship until Wong Kim Ark in
1898, but many rights were STILL not completely granted to this
group until 1952. Also, in Elk v Wilkins, the SCOTUS felt the
Indians owed alliance to their tribes and thus were NOT part of the
United States. Congress however extended Native Indians birth
citizenship in 1924. Subsequently, that same right has been
extended to Puerto Rico, Guam and other US Territories. Illegal
aliens born ON US SOIL are extended US citizenship as a matter of
Executive policy exercised through the State Department. But no
Congressional law or SCOTUS decision officially and specifically
recognizes the group of "illegal alien" and Citizenship rights. So
let's look at British Law (PAST AND PRESENT):
The British
Nationality Act of 1981 came into force on January 1, 1983. Prior
to 1983, British nationality was only be transmitted from the father
through one generation only, and parents were required to be
married. This is jus sanguinis or possibly even a type of lex soli
in Obama Sr's case, but not jus soli (unless you want to give the
Kenyan birth theory credence...).
Because England has LONG
been in the business of worldwide Colonization, this policy has been
in place since AT LEAST the year 1350. Going back BEFORE America
was "discovered" is statute 25 Edw. III st. 2 (Status of Children
Born Abroad Act of 1350) that naturalized children of English
parents born overseas. THIS IS JUS SANGUINIS AND IS STILL IN
PLACE TODAY. This was in place throughout the British empire
-- regardless of birthplace, because of Colonization in FAR-OFF
LANDS such as "New England", Hong Kong, India and British East
Africa (later subdivided and in part known as "Kenya"). If you
want to consider the specific case of BHO Sr. and his heirs,
entitlement to the status of British subject/citizen was first
codified by the British Nationality and Status of Aliens Act 1914.
Fast forwarding to CURRENT LAW, just like the US today, the UK today
is currently BOTH jus solis and jus sanguinis. Taking the
position that BHO was born ON US soil, he was born a US Citizen
while also UK Citizen, later a Kenyan Citizen (and maybe even an
Indonesian Citizen). The UK/Kenyan bond of allegiance did NOT
dissolve until he turned 21 years of age, per the Kenyan
Constitution. BUT keep in mind that ALL of those countries
WOULD restore his Citizenship RIGHT NOW if he desired it -- ALL of
their Constitutions and nationality laws permit this. THAT IS
THE TWO-WAY BOND OF ALLEGIANCE. So yes, there ARE allegiance
issues with him holding DUAL or MULTIPLE NATIONALITY for nearly half
his life!
Adoption Implications
U. .S law makes it impossible for a parent to PERMANENTLY renounce a
minor’s US citizenship. The US is a signatory to the Hague
Convention’s standards for international adoption, and those rules
do allow the legal parents and guardians to renounce
any former citizenship of a custodial minor. Upon reaching the age
of 18, the minor can go before the appropriate US State Dept Official
and apply for re-instatement of citizenship, and swear allegiance to the
US.
There is no evidence that Obama has done so, and even if he
did, he would then be a NATURALIZED citizen and will forever have lost
any natural born citizen status to be president.
Perception
Several times a week I get an email like this
one:
----- Original Message ----- From: Senator Robert
P. Casey, Jr. To: xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx@msn.com Sent: Tuesday, March
10, 2009 7:45 PM Subject: Response from Senator Casey
Dear
Mr. XXXXXX:
Thank you for taking the time to contact me about
President Obama and his eligibility to be President under Article II of
the Constitution. I appreciate hearing from all Pennsylvanians about the
issues that matter most to them.
Article II of the Constitution
states that "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." This clause is
generally interpreted to mean that one must be born as a U.S. citizen on
American soil in order to become president. During the 2008
presidential election, concerns were raised about the ability of both
Senator McCain and then-Senator Obama to meet this constitutional
requirement. Questions about Senator McCain's eligibility centered
around his birth on a naval base in the Panama Canal Zone, but a Senate
Resolution, S. Res. 511, passed by unanimous consent on April 30, 2008,
officially recognized Senator McCain as a natural born citizen.
While not every American voted for Mr. Obama, and it is unlikely that
that you or I will agree with every decision he makes while in office,
I am confident that Mr. Obama meets all the
constitutional requirements to be our 44th president. Mr. Obama
has posted a copy of his birth certificate on his campaign website and
submitted an additional copy to the independent website FactCheck.org.
The birth certificate demonstrates that he was born in Honolulu, Hawaii
in 1961, thereby making him a natural-born citizen eligible to be
president.
I share your strong belief in upholding the
Constitution and want to thank you for sharing your concern with me.
Please do not hesitate to contact me in the future about this or any
other matter of importance to you.
If you have access to the
Internet, I encourage you to visit my web site,
http://casey.senate.gov. I
invite you to use this online office as a comprehensive resource to stay
up-to-date on my work in Washington, request assistance from my office
or share with me your thoughts on the issues that matter most to you and
to Pennsylvania.
Sincerely, Bob Casey United States Senator
Sen. Casey parrots the the "official story" -- his
birth certificate -- independent website FactCheck.org -- Honolulu.
If you believe that, you're "mainstream." You're OK!
Where to begin?
1.
Obama has never, ever released his birth certificate to anybody at any
time. As a matter of fact he's spent over a million dollars and
has legal teams in a dozen states fighting its release. So, Sen.
Casey is factually incorrect when he says, "Mr.
Obama has posted a copy of his birth certificate on his campaign
website." He hasn't.
2. FactCheck.org is hardly independent and is in
the same financial stream as the unrepentant domestic terrorist, Bill
Ayers' Woods Fund. FactCheck.org also incorrectly identifies the
website document as Obama's "birth certificate." It isn't.
FactCheck.org is factually incorrect in its analysis of Obama's "birth
certificate." Here
is an analysis of FactCheck.org's "birth certificate" page.
3. Obama's birth certificate (the real one) only
affects Obama's eligibility if it shows he was born outside the US
mainland. Obama is not eligible to be POTUS because his father was
a British subject and a Kenyan citizen -- as was Barack Obama -- AT
BIRTH! Obama admits this on his own website, using a FactCheck.org reference
-- Barack Obama is not a "natural born citizen."
Notice how FactCheck.org keeps popping up as the
organization that stamps their imprimatur on Obama's
eligibility.
Sen. Casey's understanding of the facts are incorrect
-- as is his conclusion. There is no "birth certificate" and Obama
is not a "natural born citizen." Nothing anybody does is going to
change that.
Sen. Casey is mainstream. Sen. Casey is OK!
But, Sen. Casey's facts are just plain wrong!
I know Obama is fighting the release of his birth
certificate tooth-and-nail -- and Internet geniuses, like Ben Smith,
assign me to "the fringe" with the UFO-ers, while also getting his facts
wrong in the process.
I know that as a British subject and a Kenyan citizen
for 21 years, Obama has the "divided loyalties" that caused the founders
to place the "natural born" language in the US Constitution, in the
first place. The founders specifically wanted to bar Brits!
Obama's behavior towards the Brits in his first four
months underlines the dangers of "divided loyalties."
Now, start adding in Obama's other loose ends:
Was Grandma Sarah in the delivery room at Mombasa,
Kenya, like she says she was? What was Anna doing in Seattle days
after giving birth? Did Lolo adopt Barry -- was/is Barry a citizen of
Indonesia? Was Barry's
attendance at Occidental financed by a foreign-student scholarship? Did
Barry travel to Pakistan on an Indonesian passport? Did Barry ever
sell drugs? And, no
documentation
-- none, nada, zilch!
I'm sure there's more, but you get the idea.
There's plenty to question about this guy.
I believe many Americans, including Sen. Casey are
just simply afraid to turn this rock over -- they're terrified at what
they might find -- and where it might lead.
U.S. Rep. Bill Posey
A new member of Congress
arrived in Washington to a flood of questions from his constituency
about Barack Obama's eligibility to be president. Was he really born in
the United States, and was he qualified under the Constitution's
requirement that the office be occupied only by a "natural born"
citizen?
So U.S. Rep. Bill Posey did what most congressmen would
do regarding a subject of grave concern to their voters. He
proposed a
bill that would require future presidential candidates to document their
eligibility, and that action has earned him scorn and ridicule.
U.S.
Rep. Neil Abercrombie, D-HI, a close, personal friend of Obama's mom and
dad,
has gone so far as to suggest that Posey's judgment is skewed, saying,
"It's one thing to try to be responsive to your constituents, no matter
how marginal. I understand
that. But to take it to the point of putting it into a bill -- you open
yourself up, then, to having your judgment questioned."
Abercrombie, whose judgment is obviously beyond question, said
legislation generally is to "address common issues or concerns. The
citizenship of someone who has reached the point of running for
president of the United States is not really an issue," Abercrombie
said, ending all debate(sarcasm off).
"Why'd I do this?" Posey
wrote on his blog. "Well, for a number of reasons and the more and
the more
I get called names by leftwing activists, partisan hacks and political
operatives for doing it, the more and more I think I did the right
thing."
He said, "I've been called some pretty nasty things. That's fine. But none of these tolerant people actually want to discuss
the issue at hand … whether or not a presidential candidate should have
to file these documents with the government.
"I could easily
fill up a page listing all the activities an American needs to show
their ID for … everything from playing youth soccer to getting a drivers
license, buying cigarettes and alcohol, to opening bank accounts and
even playing little league. So I was pretty surprised to find out that
to run for president, despite the constitutional requirement and the
media scrubbing that goes on, it's not required for a candidate to file
these documents when they submit their statement of candidacy with the
FEC," he said.
"I thought I could offer a solution to this
question on eligibility," he wrote. "There's nothing anyone
can do about changing past elections… the president won. All the
lawsuits in the world are not going to change that. But if what some
folks are worried about -- that presidential candidates don't have to submit to the same
documentation that average folks have to submit to -- well, then we can
change that for the next election."
Posey cited an AOL poll that
found three-quarters of Americans participating in the survey agreed.
"I'm willing to discuss this issue with anyone who wants to talk
in a rational manner, but I WILL NOT engage in name calling, smear
campaigns, or any other venomous activity," Posey wrote. "For one thing,
it's childish. But on another level, we're supposed to be able to have a
civil debate on the issues in this country."
Posey's spokesman,
George Cecala, said the congressman has no plans to withdraw the
proposal, even though it may not get a lot of support.
Abercrombie told the Times that Posey's suggestion is "the kind of sick
politics that permeates a certain portion of the electorate."
Here are some comments
from the geniuses in Congress.
Congressional Ad Mainstreams Obama Eligibility
The Western Journalism blog
reports that
while much of the media and political establishment relegate
presidential eligibility issues to the "fringe," a congressman is trying
to make his bill requiring future presidential candidates prove "natural
born citizenship" a major campaign issue.
Rep. Bill Posey,
R-Fla., recently dispatched a message to constituents and supporters
asking for help in an effort to defeat House Speaker Nancy Pelosi in the
2010 election.
He introduced the proposal saying, "I wrote to you
not long ago asking that you stand behind me in defending our nation’s
constitution. … My bill (H.R. 1503) would require all candidates
for president in the future to provide documentation (such as a birth
certificate) to prove they are natural born citizens of the United
States, has resulted in the national liberal left making me Target #1
for defeat in the 2010 congressional elections.
"As I said
before," he continued, "I’m being lambasted by the media and late-night
comics and Nancy Pelosi’s team has already paid for tens of thousands of
automated phone calls in my district and are raising a
multi-million-dollar campaign war chest to defeat me."
As
more and more people come to understand Obama's far-left agenda and
mysterious background, they question his eligibility. The "fringe" is
now composed of a huge segment of the American population -- and it is
growing.
An October 23rd item
reported that three-in-ten Americans think their current head of
state was not born in the United States, according to a poll by Angus
Reid Strategies. That's almost a third of all Americans.
Now,
Goddard's Political Wire
points to a new Public Policy Polling
survey in Arkansas shows that only 45% of voters in the state say
they believe Obama was born in this country, while 31% say they think he
was not and 24% are unsure.
"Arkansas is the first of four states
where we've polled the birther issue (Virginia, North Carolina, and
Colorado were the others) and found less than half of respondents
confident that Obama is a natural born citizen. The numbers are
particularly dramatic among Republicans with 49% saying Obama was not
born here to just 23% who grant that he was."
The Facts, The Law, The Inescapable Conclusion
The Post & Email says Barack Hussein Obama has written 2 biographies
about himself and has publically spoken of his origins in many public
speeches. He claims as his biological and legal father, a man who
went by the name Barrack Hussein Obama. That is the more common
Kenyan spelling of the name. His claimed father also went by the
names "Barak" and "Barack", the former when he penned an article in an
journal on economics, in Nairobi, in the 60’s, the latter when he
registered at the University of Hawaii. The latter form appears on
the electronic image of Obama’s alleged Certification of Live Birth.
If we apply the provisions of British and Kenyan law to the simple
facts, which Obama claims about himself -- though in truth there is not
documentation that the public has seen to confirm the truth of these
facts -- the inescapable conclusion is that Obama was born a British
subject and is now, still to this day, a British citizen.
The
laws and regulations which lead to this conclusion are the official
British Consular Registry Stipulations, the British Nationality Act of
1948 and of 1981, Kenya Constitution, and the Kenya Independence Act of
1963.
These Acts apply to Barack Hussein Obama, Jr. -- Obama was
born a British citizen-by-descent, and remains a British Overseas
Citizen even today -- if his birth story is true. He was also a
citizen of Kenya prior to age 21, and may still be one. He seems
also to have been a citizen of Indonesia from 1966-1980’s, but this is
uncertain.
Four Supreme Court
Cases Define "Natural Born Citizen"
The Post & Email has in several articles
mentioned that the Supreme Court of the United States has given the
definition of what a "natural born citizen" is. Since being a
natural born citizen is an objective qualification and requirement of
office for the U.S. President, it is important for all U.S. Citizens to
understand what this term means.
Let’s cut through all the
opinion and speculation, all the "he says," "she says," fluff, and go
right to the irrefutable, constitutional authority on all terms and
phrases mentioned in the U.S. Constitution: the Supreme Court of the
United States.
First, let me note that there are 4 such cases
which speak of the notion of "natural born citizenship":
"The citizens are the members of the civil
society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its
authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The
natives or indigenes are those born in
the country of parents who are citizens.
Society not being able to subsist and to perpetuate itself but by
the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the
condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights.
"The inhabitants, as distinguished from citizens, are strangers who
are permitted to settle and stay in the country. Bound by
their residence to the society, they are subject to the laws of the
state while they reside there, and they are obliged to defend it…
Ann Scott was born in South Carolina before
the American revolution, and her father adhered to the American
cause and remained and was at his death a citizen of South Carolina.
There is no dispute that his daughter Ann, at the time of the
Revolution and afterwards, remained in South Carolina until
December, 1782. Whether she was of age during this time does
not appear. If she was, then her birth and residence might be
deemed to constitute her by election a citizen of South Carolina.
If she was not of age, then she might well be deemed under the
circumstances of this case to hold the citizenship of her father,
for children born in a country,
continuing while under age in the
family of the father, partake of his national
character as a citizen of that country. Her citizenship, then,
being prima facie established, and indeed this is admitted in the
pleadings, has it ever been lost, or was it lost before the death of
her father, so that the estate in question was, upon the descent
cast, incapable of vesting in her? Upon the facts stated, it
appears to us that it was not lost and that she was capable of
taking it at the time of the descent cast.
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.
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.
I'd like to add to
these, Perkins v. Elg, the importance of which
is that it actually gives examples of what a "natural born citizen" of
the U.S. is; what a "citizen" of the U.S. is; and what a "native-born
citizen" of the U. S. is.
In this case, the U. S. Supreme Court
found that a "natural born citizen" is a person who is born of two U.S. citizen parents
AND born in the mainland of U.S.
Finally it should be noted, that to define a term is to indicate the
category or class of things which it signifies. In this sense,
the Supreme Court of the United States has never applied the
term "natural born citizen" to any other category than "those born in
the country of parents who are citizens thereof."
Hence
every U.S. Citizen must accept this definition or categorical
designation, and fulfill his constitutional duties accordingly. No
member of Congress, no judge of the Federal Judiciary, no elected or
appointed official in Federal or State government has the right to use
any other definition; and if he does, he is acting unlawfully.
Mario Apuzzo, Esq.’s Comments
Smrstrauss at July 29, 2012 5:38 PM,
You made the following
statements which I quote. My responses follow:
1. “You are
quoting Vattel, but there is no evidence that the writers of the US
Constitution followed him.”
You are wrong. I have explained in my
briefs to the courts and on my blog that the historical record shows
that the Founders and Framers looked to Vattel for their ideas on
natural law and the law of nations. These fundamental laws, and not the
English common law, were incorporated into the Declaration of
Independence and the Constitution, foundational documents of our
republic.
The Founders and Framers did not look to Vattel only in
a general way on natural law and the law of nations, but also
specifically for their definition of a “natural born Citizen.” As
examples only and not as an exhaustive list, during the 1789
Ramsay-Smith congressional debate on whether Representative William
Smith was at least a “Citizen of the United States” for seven-years so
as to be eligible to be a representative under Article I, Section 2,
Smith relied upon Vattel to show that he was such a “citizen.” David
Ramsay in 1789 said that birthright citizenship after July 4, 1776
belonged only to the children of “citizens.” St. George Tucker in 1803
said the same. Our first law school at the College and William and Mary,
along with many other early colleges, taught courses on Vattel, the law
of nations, which they considered to be “national law.” These courses
specifically provided explanations of Vattel’s definitions of “citizen”
and “natural born citizen” under natural law and the law of nations.
In my presentations, I have also explained that several U.S. Supreme
Court and lower court cases specifically cited and quoted or paraphrased
Vattel and his Section 212 definition of a “natural-born citizen.” Cases
that cited and quoted Vattel for the definition of a “natural born
Citizen” are The Venus, 12 U.S. (8 Cranch) 253, 289 (1814) (C.J.
Marshall concurring) (cited and quoted Vattel’s Section 212 definition
of a “natural-born citizen”); Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. 393 (1857)
(J. Daniels concurring) (cited and quoted Vattel’s Section 212
definition of a “natural-born citizen”); Ex parte Reynolds, 20 F.Cas.
582, 5 Dill. 394, No. 11,719 (C.C.W.D.Ark 1879) (cited and quoted
Vattel’s Section 212 definition of a “natural-born citizen”); and United
States v. Ward, 42 F.320 (C.C.S.D.Cal. 1890) (cited and quoted Vattel’s
Section 212 definition of a “natural-born citizen”). Cases that
paraphrased his definition are Inglis v. Sailors’ Snug Harbor, 28 U.S.
99 (1830) (a child inherits the citizenship of his parents); Shanks v.
Dupont, 28 U.S. 242, 245 (1830) (a child inherits the citizenship of his
parents); Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162, 167-68 (1875) (said that the
Founders and Framers were familiar with the “common-law” definition of a
“natural-born citizen;” the American “common-law” definition that the
Court gave was a paraphrase of Vattel’s Section 212 definition of a
“natural-born citizen” and not that of the English common law’s
definition of a “natural born subject”) and U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, 169
U.S. 649, 708 (1898) (cited and quoted Minor and its Vattel paraphrased
American “common-law” definition of a “natural-born citizen”). These
cases, along with other historical evidence, show that Obama’s
supporters are wrong when they say that Vattel did not provide the
Founders and Framers with the definition of a “natural born Citizen.” On
the contrary, this evidence demonstrates that it was, indeed, Vattel who
provided the Founders and Framers with the definition of a “natural born
Citizen.” Indeed, this historical and case law evidence conclusively
demonstrates that the definition of a “natural born Citizen” can be
traced to Vattel’s Section 212 and was handed down from there to the
Founders and Framers when they wrote the Constitution and continued to
be confirmed in case law of our U.S. Supreme Court and lower court down
to even the 1898 seminal case on citizenship, Wong Kim Ark.
2.
“He [Vattel] is not even mentioned once in the Federalist Papers, while
the common law was mentioned about twenty times.”
The specific
issue is the meaning of a “natural born Citizen,” not the English common
law in some general way. The English common law may be mentioned, but
there is no evidence that the Founders and Framers used the English
common law to define a “natural born citizen.” On the contrary, and only
as one example, we know from his Federalist No. 42 that Madison called
the English common law “a dishonorable and illegitimate guide” in
defining terms in the Constitution. James Madison sat on the convention
committee that drafted Article II presidential eligibility. Hence, he
would not have relied upon the English common law to define a “natural
born Citizen” or a “Citizen of the United States.” Moreover, the law of
nations is not only mentioned many times in the Federalist Papers, but
was actually incorporated in Article I, Section 8, Clause 10 as part of
Article III’s “Laws of the United States.” The English common law cannot
make the same claim.3. “And the Wong Kim Ark decision was AFTER the
Minor vs Happersett decision, and hence would have overturned it (if the
Minor vs Happersett decision was actually a ruling on the matter, and it
isn’t. It is merely dicta).”
Minor did confirm through a binding
precedent what the American “common-law” meaning of a “natural-born
citizen” was, i.e., “[a]t 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.”
Second, Wong Kim Arkdid not abandon or amend this American “common-law”
meaning of a “natural born Citizen.” Rather, it interpreted and
construed the Fourteenth Amendment and thereby defined a “citizen of the
United States” at birth thereunder. It did not amend the meaning of an
Article II “natural born Citizen.”
4. “And the Wong Kim Ark
decision ruled six to two (one not voting) that the meaning of Natural
Born comes from the common law (thus NOT from Vattel), and that it
refers to the PLACE of birth (not the parents), and that every child
born in the USA except for the children of foreign diplomats is Natural
Born.”
First, you are confused about what the “common law” means.
The “common law” does not only come from the English. It also comes from
the law of nations. Second. Wong Kim Ark used the colonial English
“common law” as an aid in interpreting, construing, and applying the
“subject to the jurisdiction thereof” clause of the Fourteenth
Amendment. It did not use the English “common law” to define an Article
II “natural born Citizen.” From that English “common law,” it concluded
that every child that is born in the United States and “subject to the
jurisdiction thereof” (which at a minimum necessarily excluded children
born to diplomats and invading armies), is a “citizen of the United
States” at birth. The Court did not hold that such a child is
necessarily a “natural born Citizen” also, and it would not have given
that Wong Kim Ark also expressly recognized that a person has to satisfy
the American “common law” standard of a “natural born Citizen” and not
only be a “citizen” in order to be born with that status.
5.
“THAT is why Meese had that quotation in his book. It corresponds to a
ruling of the US Supreme Court. It does not differ from the ruling of
the Supreme Court.”
The quote that Obama supporters like you
plaster all over the internet as being made by Edwin Meese was not made
by him, but rather by James C. Ho. Ho’s love affair with Wong Kim Ark
jus soli puts Ho in a bind. Ho argues that, under English common law jus
soli, simply being born in the United States makes one a born citizen of
the United States which in turn makes one a “natural born Citizen.”
First, he cannot explain if mere birth in the United States is
sufficient to make on a “natural born Citizen,” why did the Founders and
Framers in Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 say “natural born Citizen”
rather than “born Citizen.” Second, Ho cannot explain why if just being
born a citizen makes one a “natural born Citizen,” why should Wong Kim
Ark have concluded that persons born abroad to citizen parents who are
also born “citizens of the United States” are not “natural born
Citizens.” Ho offers no explanation why Wong Kim Ark gave birth on a
soil so much more power than birth to parents? Not having an answer, Ho
simply suggests that we not paying attention to Wong Kim Ark when it
comes to the question of whether our citizens born abroad to citizen
parents are “natural born Citizens.” He submits that they are. So Ho
uses Wong Kim Ark anyway he wants, given the particular needs of the
moment. He takes from the decision what he needs and throws away what he
does not.
So, as we can readily see, there is no merit to any of
your assertions.
Mario Apuzzo, Esq. -- Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
Law Offices of Mario Apuzzo 185 Gatzmer Avenue Jamesburg, New
Jersey 08831 Phone: (732) 521-1900 Fax: (732) 521-3906 Email:
apuzzo@erols.com
Dr. Herb Titus On "Natural Born" Citizen
Stephen Tonchen's Presidential Eligibility
Primer
Punahou alum Stephen Tonchen document is subject to
ongoing updating as relevant new information becomes available.
This Primer, by Stephen Tonchen, should not be confused with any other
primer. The Tonchen Primer first appeared on the Internet in June
2009.
UPDATE (4/27/2011): Now that Barack Obama has released his
long-form birth certificate, questions 31 through 34 in this Primer have
become moot. They are retained for posterity purposes only.
The other 33 questions and corresponding answers remain entirely
unaffected. Those questions have acquired even greater importance
and relevance, now that Obama's newly-released long-form birth
certificate has further substantiated his dual nationality at birth.
Note: Obama's long-form
birth certificate remains as bogus as his short-form, but it locks him
into the fact that it clearly states Barack Obama of Kenya is his
father, documenting Obama's dual nationality.
Born a
Brit -- he's not legit!
Arizona Eligibility Bill Introduced -- Numerous Sponsors
If Barack Obama wants to run for re-election he would need to
produce proof of both his U.S. birth and citizenship to get on the
ballot in Arizona, at least under a measure being pushed by a state
legislator -- State of Arizona
HB 2441.
Rep. Judy Burges, R-Skull Valley, is crafting a
measure to require anyone running for president or vice president to
provide proof to the Arizona Secretary of State's Office that they are
legally eligible to seek the office. The U.S. Constitution
requires the president -- and, by extension, the vice president -- to be
"a natural born" citizen.
More to the point, Burges would require
the secretary of state to verify, independently, that the information is
accurate, "and if it's not certifiable, then that person's name would
not go on the ballot," she said.
Burges told Capitol Media
Services the measure is not necessarily about Obama, though she admitted
she has her doubts that he was born in Hawaii as he claims and, even if
so, that he can show he is a "natural born" citizen.
"With what's
happening throughout the world, we need to make sure that our candidates
are certifiable," she said.
Burges did not support Obama and is
not a fan. And she said if, in fact, he is not a "natural born"
citizen, that makes him suspect.
"When someone bows to the king
of Saudi Arabia and they apologize for our country around the world, I
have a problem with that," she said.
Mary C. Curtis
reports law professor James Chen, dean of the University of
Louisville Brandeis School of Law, has worked for both Barack Obama and
U.S. Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, though not at the same time.
He offered a unique perspective on the subject of the Obama
presidency and race at a gathered in Louisville, Ky.
Chen, who
served on the Harvard Law Review when Obama was its first black
president, and then went on to clerk for Thomas, said of the two men,
"if you had to say which person's life story is closer to the absolute
center of the African American experience, hands down, it's Clarence
Thomas." The only black Supreme Court justice now on the court, he
noted, was a product of the deep, rural South, speaks Gullah and is
"descended of the longest line of the darkest-skinned, least-regarded
members of that community."
When you look at the profile of the
first African American president of the United States, Chen said, you
see he's the son of a temporary resident, was born in Hawaii, the least
demographically typical of American states, and has lived abroad.
"The son of a temporary resident."
Interesting that it's now
getting easier to come right out with it.
The end of this video is quite
revealing. The hip, and very left-leaning, New York audience laughs
heartily at jokes about Obama's birthplace. One year ago, this skit would have been verboten, and certainly described as
racist.
The De Facto President of the United States
Barack Obama eligibility supporters maintain that he
is an Article II “natural born Citizen” and therefore eligible to be
President. But to do so, they have blended together, through ignorance
or intent, “citizen,” “born citizen,” and “natural born Citizen,” and
denied that there is a critical constitutional distinction between these
phrases. These supporters and enablers, who I call the citizen/born
citizen/natural born citizen conflationists, in constitutionally
supporting Barack Obama to be president, have allowed our Constitution,
the rule of law, and our nation to be violated. Allow me to explain.
In order to understand the meaning of an Article II “natural born
Citizen,” we have to understand the constitutional distinction between a
“citizen,” “born citizen,” and “natural born Citizen.” The first
constitutional distinction is between “citizen” and “natural born
Citizen.” In Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 the Framers provided in
pertinent part: “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.” Here, we see the Framers
distinguished between a “natural born Citizen” and a “Citizen of the
United States.” There is no other type of “citizen” mentioned. So, our
Constitution, Acts of Congress, and treaties, call “citizens,” or
members of the United States, either “natural born Citizens” or
“citizens of the United States.” As we shall see, the former are defined
by American common law (the definition being based on natural law and
the law of nations) and the latter by the Fourteenth Amendment (the
definition being in part based on colonial English common law),
Congressional Acts, or treaties. From this we can see that a “citizen”
is either a “natural born Citizen” or a “citizen of the United States.”
Because of the requirement of having to be born in the country to
citizen parents, a “natural born Citizen” will necessarily also qualify
under these sources as a “citizen of the United States.”
Article
II refers to a “natural born Citizen,” but does not define it. In fact,
the definition of a “natural born Citizen” is not found anywhere in the
original or amended Constitution or any Act of Congress. Rather, it is
found in the common law upon which the Founders and Framers relied at
the time of the adoption and ratification of the Constitution. Under
this common law, the three constituent elements of being a “natural-born
citizen” are time (at the moment of birth), birth place (in the
country), and birth parents (U.S. citizen parents), what I will call
birth time, birth country, and birth parents. SeeMinor v.
Happersett, 88 U.S. 162, 167-68 (1875) (the unanimous U.S. Supreme
Court explained that the definition of a “natural-born citizen” is not
found in the Constitution and confirmed that “[a]t 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”); United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S.
649, 679-80 (1898) (the majority and dissent agreed on the Minor
definition of a “natural-born citizen,” but they disagreed as to the
definition of a Fourteenth Amendment “citizen of the United States” at
birth). Given this settled common law definition of a “natural born
Citizen,” these elements are both necessary and sufficient to make a
“natural born Citizen.” In the definition, the parents have to have as a
minimum the status of a “citizen” (“born citizen” or “natural born
Citizen” is not necessary) in order to produce a “natural born Citizen.”
Note that Minor said that at common law, if one was not a
“natural-born citizen,” one was an alien or foreigner. This means that
if these persons qualified, the Fourteenth Amendment, Act of Congress,
or treaty could make them a “citizen of the United States.”
These historical and legal developments inform that at common law there
is a critical distinction between a “citizen” and a “natural born
citizen.” In fact, natural law and the law of nations have always
recognized this distinction. See Emer de Vattel, The Law of
Nations, Section 212 (London 1797) (1st ed. Neuchatel 1758) (“The
citizens are the members of the civil society: bound to this society by
certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate
in its advantages. The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born
in the country, of parents who are citizens.”
http://www.lonang.com/exlibris/vattel/vatt-119.htm ). At common law,
if one was a “citizen” but not a “natural born citizen,” then, except
for the original “citizens” who became such by the Declaration of
Independence and by adhering to the American Revolution, one had to have
been alien born and become a “citizen” by naturalization statute.
Natural law and the law of nations, along with both English and American
common law, have also always recognized that a child gains allegiance
and citizenship by either being born on the soil of a country (jus soli)
or by being born to parents of that country (jus sanguinis). The
Founders and Framers accepted the distinction between a “citizen” and a
“natural born Citizen” and understood that birth country and birth
parents produce in the child allegiance from the moment of birth.
Because they expected the President and Commander in Chief of the
Military to have absolute allegiance from birth only to the United
States, they applied the distinction to the Office of President. In
fact, they used it when they made the “natural born Citizen” clause a
requirement of eligibility for the Office of President (the XII
Amendment extends it to the Office of Vice-President) and for no other
office, requiring, for those to born after the adoption of the
Constitution and who would aspire to be President and Commander in Chief
of the Military, that they be not only a “citizen,” but a “natural born
Citizen.” (The grandfather clause of Article II, Section 1, Clause 5
allowed “Citizens of the United States” to be eligible to be President,
provided they had that status “at the time of Adoption of this
Constitution.”) The English did not nor did they have to demand such
allegiance from their would-be Kings, for their Kings did not have to
qualify from among the people. Rather, they lay their claim to the
throne by royal blood. Rejecting as a requisite to be President royal
blood, the Founders and Framers instead settled with the natural
elements of birth time, birth country, and birth parents, and made their
distinction between a “citizen” who was also a “natural born Citizen”
and a “citizen” who was not. And it was the combination of these three
elements at the time of birth which assured them that all means of
inheriting allegiance and citizenship (birth country and birth parents)
were united at the moment of birth to produce in the child absolute
allegiance only to the United States.
The next constitutional
distinction is between “born citizen” and “natural born Citizen.” These
same Obama eligibility supporters add the word “born” to the word
“citizen” and want us to accept that combination as the definition of a
“natural born Citizen.” But those who assert that a “natural born
Citizen” is just any “born citizen” commit two errors: a textual error
of missing the point (or by refusing to see the point) that the clause
is “natural born Citizen,” not “born citizen” and a definitional error
of not understanding (or refusing to accept) that “born citizen” is
neither a definition nor a description of the clause “natural born
Citizen.”
First, regarding the textual error, as I have already
explained in other articles such as Logic and Defining the “Natural Born
Citizen” Clause, at
http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2012/11/logic-and-defining-natural-born-citizen.html
, we cannot define a clause by merely repeating parts of the clause
itself. For example, if we wanted to know what the definition of a
“natural born German Shepherd” is, we would not accept as a correct
definition the answer that it is a “born German Shepherd.” To argue that
a “natural born German Shepherd” is a “born German Shepherd” is
tautological, for it only repeats part of the form of the clause and
does not define the clause. Such an argument does nothing more than to
state the obvious that a “natural born German Shepherd” is a “born
German Shepherd.” Likewise, a “natural born Citizen,” is, of course, a
“born citizen,” but saying so does not define the clause.
Second, in this “born German Shepherd” definition example, a rational
person should also want to know what happened to the qualifier “natural”
and its meaning. Does not that word tell us something about under what
conditions the “born German shepherd” must come into existence?
Likewise, those rational persons who want to know the meaning of a
“natural born Citizen” should want to know what happened to the
qualifier “natural,” and whether that qualifier also requires that
certain conditions be met in order to have a “natural born Citizen.”
Actually, these persons would be correct in raising such questions.
Given the meaning of a “natural born Citizen,” with its three
constituent elements of birth time, birth country, and birth parents, we
know that the word “natural” when combined with “born citizen” demands
that all three elements be satisfied in order to have a “natural born
Citizen.” We might be willing to include others as “born citizens” and
Congress has the naturalization powers to do so and has done so
throughout our history. But that we are willing to tolerate by the
application of some law certain persons as “born citizens” does not,
given the applicable common law definition of the clause and its
requirements, make them “natural born Citizens”
Regarding the
definitional error, the clauses “natural born Citizen” and “born
Citizen” are conclusions, birth statuses that do not provide sufficient
factual information as to how one arrives at the conclusions or statuses
themselves. Rather, to know if one satisfies the status of being a
“natural born Citizen,” one must start with the definition of a “natural
born Citizen,” identifying its constituent elements. If one satisfies
those elements, then one is a “natural born Citizen.” And to know if one
satisfies the status of being a “born citizen,” one must also start with
the available definitions, however many there are and whether provided
by the Fourteenth Amendment or Congressional Acts, of a “born citizen,”
identifying their constituent elements. If one satisfies those elements,
then one is a “born citizen.” But obviously, we are defining two
different clauses which necessarily contain different definitions and
requirements. The clause does not tell us how one arrives at being a
“born citizen,” which process must be equivalent to the process by which
one arrives at being a “natural born Citizen” if the two clauses are to
mean the same thing. Hence, to simply use other legal mechanisms of
citizenship which produce a “born citizen” and proclaim that they too
produce a “natural born Citizen,” simply because they, like “natural
born Citizens,” are “born citizens,” is to err. It is to err because
being a “born citizen” is only a necessary consequent (a conclusion or
status) of being a “natural born Citizen” and by itself, because it is
based on a different definition, represents a different class of
citizen, one produced by the Fourteenth Amendment or Congressional Act
and not by American common law.
There is only one process or
means by which one can be a “natural born Citizen,” i.e., by satisfying
the necessary and sufficient conditions of birth time (at the moment of
birth), birth country (born in the United States), and birth parents
(born to U.S. citizen parents). Simply stated, any “born citizen” who
does not satisfy these three conditions, while still being a “born
citizen” under some legal mechanism (e.g., under the Fourteenth
Amendment or Congressional Act), is not a “natural born Citizen” under
American common law which is the natural law/law of nations-based law
that provides the constitutional definition of the clause.
Minor v. Happersett confirms all this and United States v. Wong
Kim Ark changes none of it.
Barack Obama maintains that he
was born in Hawaii. With a dispute involving whether his birth
certificate, social security number, and military draft registration are
authentic still continuing and not having been definitively resolved
through any legal process, we have yet to see conclusive legal proof of
his place of birth. But even assuming for sake of argument that he was
born in Hawaii, he is still not an Article II “natural born Citizen.” We
have seen that the three elements of being a “natural born Citizen” are
birth time, birth country, and birth parents. Minor; Wong Kim
Ark. If Obama was born in Hawaii, he satisfies the birth country
requirement. But while Obama was born to a U.S. “citizen” mother, his
father never became nor did he strive to become a U.S. “citizen.”
Rather, his father was born in the English colony of Kenya, was born a
British citizen, and remained such until his death. Hence, Obama was not
born to a U.S. “citizen” father. He therefore fails to satisfy the
elements of being born to citizen parents at the moment of birth. This
means that he can be a “born citizen” under the Fourteenth Amendment or
Congressional Act, which provide a more relaxed allegiance standard ,
but he cannot be a “natural born Citizen” under Article II, which
provides a more exacting allegiance standard for would-be Presidents and
Commanders of the Military. This also means that because he is neither
“a natural born Citizen” nor “a Citizen of the United States, at the
time of the Adoption of this Constitution,” he is not eligible to be
President.
On January 20, 2013, Barack Obama was again sworn in
as the President of the United States. But because he is not an Article
II “natural born Citizen,” he is at best a de facto President of the
United States, not a constitutionally legitimate one.
Note: It is the position of The Obama
File that a "natural born" citizen is a person born in the mainland USA
(includes Hawaii and Alaska after statehood) of two American citizen
parents. This position is not open to discussion or debate here,
so if you believe otherwise, you can save your time and effort by not
posting arguments to the contrary. They will be deleted.
