The Obama Eligibility Question

[rtrusty]

The Obama Eligibility Question

Is he eligible to serve as President of the United States, or is he a usurper? Let’s analyze what we know to be true.

By Paul R. Hollrah @ Canada Free Press

Never in American history has a national leader served under a darker cloud of suspicion than Barack Hussein Obama. Was he born in Hawaii or in Kenya? Did he become an Indonesian citizen in 1967? Where did he spend the summer of 1981? Did he actually attend classes at Columbia? Did he write Dreams from My Father? These are all interesting questions, but not the most critical ones. The most critical question relates to his eligibility. Is he eligible to serve as President of the United States, or is he a usurper? Let’s analyze what we know to be true.

First, we have the absolute and unequivocal requirements of Article II. Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution, which 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; 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.”

We know that Obama was not a citizen of the United States at the time the Constitution was adopted, we know that he was at least thirty-five years of age when he took office in January 2009, and we know that he has been a U.S. resident for at least fourteen years. But is he a “natural born” citizen? What is a “natural born” citizen, and how do we prevent an individual who is not a natural born citizen from ever becoming president or vice president?

To answer these questions we must examine how our political leaders, from the Founding Fathers through the present day, have defined the term “natural born;” we must understand U.S. government policy on dual citizenship; we must examine the circumstances of Obama’s birth and citizenship; and finally, we must examine the vetting process that was designed to prevent an ineligible person from ascending to the presidency or the vice presidency.

What is a “Natural Born” Citizen?

In drafting the U.S. Constitution, the Founders relied on the work of Swiss philosopher Emerich de Vattel. In his 1758 legal treatise, The Law of Nations, Book One, Chapter 19, in a section titled “Of the citizens and natives,” Vattel defines the term “natural born Citizen” as follows:

“… The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens… The country of the fathers is therefore that of the children; and these become true citizens merely by their tacit consent. I say that, in order to be of the country, it is necessary that a person be born of a father who is a citizen; for, if he is born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country [emphasis added].”

When the Founding Fathers met in Philadelphia in September 1787 to approve the final draft of the U.S. Constitution, the physical scars of the War of Independence from Great Britain were still visible all around them and a deep-seated animosity toward all things British colored every aspect of their daily lives. So is it conceivable that, just five years and eleven months after the British surrendered at Yorktown, the Founders would have presented to the states for ratification a Constitution that would allow an individual with divided loyalties – e.g. an individual with dual US-British citizenship – to serve as president or vice president of the United States? Not likely.

Expressing the prevailing concerns of the time, and as an expression of the fear of foreign influence that gripped the hearts of the Founders, Alexander Hamilton wrote in the Federalist Papers, “These most deadly adversaries of republican government (cabal, intrigue, etc.) might actually have expected to make their approach from more than one quarter, but chiefly from the desire in foreign powers to gain an improper ascendant in our councils. How could they better gratify this than by raising a creature of their own (a “Manchurian candidate?”) to the chief magistracy of the Union?”

What is likely, even probable, is that the Founders drafted Article II, Section 1 so as to reflect Vattel’s definition of a “natural born” citizen. That is precisely why the Framers found it necessary to include in Article II, Section 1 the often overlooked and little understood words, “or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution…”

At the time the Constitution was adopted there were three types of citizens: 1) The former British subjects who, having renounced all foreign allegiances and having pledged to each other their lives, their fortunes, and their sacred honor, became citizens of a sovereign American nation when the Declaration of Independence was signed on July 4, 1776; 2) The post-Declaration children of those who became U.S. citizens on July 4, 1776, the first “natural born” citizens of the United States, and all less than twelve years old at the time the Constitution was ratified on June 21, 1788; and 3) A class of citizens comprised of those who were naturalized citizens by act of law, requiring a loyalty oath and renunciation of all foreign allegiances, and those who were dual citizens by automatic operation of foreign laws.

To fully understand the importance of the words, “or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution…,” it is necessary to recognize three significant dates. Those dates are: 1) July 4, 1776, the date on which the Declaration was signed, making all citizens of the thirteen colonies citizens of the United States; 2) June 21, 1788, the date on which ratification by the State of New Hampshire made the Constitution the official law of the land; and 3) July 4, 1811, the date on which the first “natural born” citizens… those born to U.S. citizens after the signing of the Declaration on July 4, 1776… became thirty-five years of age. (It was not until the thirty-fifth anniversary of the signing of the Declaration that the first natural born citizens became eligible to serve as president or vice president of the United States.)

Since the Founders intended that only “natural born” citizens should ever serve as president or vice president… excluding naturalized citizens and those with a history of dual nationality… it became necessary to provide an exemption of limited duration covering those who were born prior to July 4, 1776. For example, presidents Washington, J. Adams, Jefferson, Madison, Monroe, J.Q. Adams, and Jackson were all “citizens,” but not “natural born” citizens because they were born prior to July 4, 1776. All were “grandfathered” and made eligible under the phrase, “or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution…” Martin Van Buren, born to U.S. citizens on December 5, 1782, became the first “natural born” U.S. president.

It was the simplest and easiest way of creating a body of candidates during the earliest years of the republic, unconstrained by the requirement that they be “natural born” citizens, at least 35 year of age. Every U.S. president since Van Buren… with the exception of Chester A. Arthur, whose father was a British subject at the time of his birth, and Barack Obama, whose father was also a British subject at the time of his birth… has been a “natural born” U.S. citizen.

The Constitution limits candidates for president and vice president to “natural born” citizens and to those who were citizens of the United States at the time the Constitution was adopted. There can be no exceptions… not even for Barack Obama.

In 1866, John A. Bingham, chief framer of the 14th Amendment, which granted citizenship to the freed slaves, wrote as follows: “Every human being born within the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty [emphasis added] is, in the language of the Constitution itself, a natural born citizen.”

In subsequent years, as modern transportation systems were developed and international travel became commonplace, the term “natural born Citizen” evolved to include those who were born to American parents outside the continental limits of the United States… as was the case with former Michigan Governor George W. Romney (born in Mexico to American parents) and Senator John McCain (born in Panama to American parents.)

Clearly, those who drafted the U.S. Constitution and subsequent amendments knew what it meant to be a “natural born” citizen, but what of our political leaders of today?

In the early months of 2008, at a time when Hillarious Rodham Clinton was the frontrunner for the Democratic nomination and only those in the “tin foil hat” brigade of the party were taking Barack Obama seriously, a number of lawsuits were filed questioning whether Senator John McCain, having been born in the Panama Canal Zone, was a natural born U.S. citizen.

Former U.S. Solicitor General Theodore Olson, a conservative Republican, and Harvard Law professor Laurence H. Tribe, a liberal Democrat, were assigned the task of researching the issue. In a March 19, 2008 memorandum, Olson and Tribe concluded that, “based on original meaning of the Constitution, the Framers’ intentions, and subsequent legal and historical precedent, Sen. McCain’s birth, to parents who were U.S. citizens serving on a U.S. military base in the Panama Canal Zone in 1936, makes him a ‘natural born Citizen’ within the meaning of the Constitution.”

Weeks later, in an April 10, 2008 statement, Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-VT) chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, said, “Based on the understanding of the pertinent sources of constitutional meaning, it is widely believed that if someone is born to American citizens anywhere in the world they are natural born citizens. Because he was born to American citizens, there is no doubt in my mind that Senator McCain is a natural born citizen [emphasis added].”

This was followed by an April 30, 2008 Senate resolution, approved by a vote of 99-0 (Senator John McCain abstaining). The resolution declared: “Whereas John Sidney McCain, III, was born to American citizens on an American military base in the Panama Canal Zone in 1936: Now, therefore, be it Resolved, That John Sidney McCain, III, is a ‘natural born citizen’ under Article II, Section 1, of the Constitution of the United States.”

It is important to note that all four references… the 1866 Bingham statement, the Olson-Tribe Memorandum, the Leahy statement, and the U.S. Senate Resolution… all utilize the plural terms “parents” or “American citizens,” strongly suggesting that the “natural born” question rests, in large part, on the necessity of both parents being U.S. citizens.

While the Constitution itself does not define the term “natural born Citizen,” the legal precedent referred to in the Olson-Tribe memorandum cited above is taken from Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162(1875), the only defining precedent established by the U.S. Supreme Court. The Court concluded in Minor 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.”

It is also important to note that, during the past decade, a number of resolutions have been introduced in the U.S. House of Representatives aimed at amending Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution, completely altering the traditional interpretation of the term “natural born Citizen.” For example, in support of Arnold Schwarzenegger’s stated presidential ambitions, Rep. Dana Rohrabacher (R-CA), introduced House Joint Resolution 104 on September 15, 2004. The resolution proposed to amend Article II, Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution by adding the following language:

“A person who is a citizen of the United States, who has been a citizen of the United States for at least 20 years, and who is otherwise eligible to hold the Office of the President, is not ineligible to hold that Office by reason of not being a native born citizen of the United States.”

H.J.R. 104 was referred to the House Judiciary Committee, Subcommittee on the Constitution, where it remained through the end of the 108th Congress. Then, early in the 109th Congress, on February 1, 2005, Rohrabacher made a second attempt with the introduction of H.J.R. 15, which contained essentially the same language as the failed H.J.R. 104 of the previous Congress. And while it is understandable that Rohrabacher would attempt to amend the Constitution to make it possible for his own governor, a naturalized citizen, to seek the presidency, similar attempts by Democrats during the same decade are not so easily understood or explained.

For example, on June 11, 2003, during the 108th Congress, Rep. Vic Snyder (D-AR) introduced H.J.R. 59 which would have totally eliminated the “natural born Citizen” requirement in Article II, Section 1 by substituting the following language:

“A person who has been a citizen of the United States for at least 35 years and who has been a resident within the United States for at least 14 years shall be eligible to hold the office of

President or Vice President.”

The Snyder proposal was followed by H.J.R. 67, introduced on September 3, 2003 by Rep. John Conyers (D-MI). The Conyers proposal would have added the following substitute language to Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution:

“A person who has been a citizen of the United States for at least 20 years shall be eligible to hold the Office of President.”

On January 4, 2005, early in the 109th Congress, Conyers made a second attempt with the introduction of H.J.R. 2, proposing the same language as contained in H.J.R. 67 of the 108th Congress. And on April 14, 2005, Rep. Vic Snyder made yet another attempt, introducing H.J.R. 42, containing amendatory language identical to his H.J.R. 59 of the 108th Congress.

All of the above resolutions, proposing to send constitutional amendments to the states for ratification, suffered the same fate. All died in committee without being acted upon.

Any member of Congress is free to introduce a resolution proposing an amendment to the U.S. Constitution. However, what distinguishes Rep. Rohrabacher’s resolutions from those of his Democratic colleagues is that his motive was clear… he was interested in making it possible for his governor, Arnold Schwarzenegger, to seek the presidency. The motivations of his Democrat colleagues, on the other hand, are a mystery; they only serve to raise important questions.

In other words, if the “natural born Citizen” requirement had not represented a major problem at any time in U.S. history, why were Democrats suddenly concerned about it in 2003, 2004, and 2005 when a young black man, the son of an American mother and an African father, was emerging as a rising star in the Democratic Party?

So the question arises, what did Congressmen Snyder and Conyers know that caused them to offer proposed constitutional amendments in the House of Representatives? More specifically, what did they know about Obama’s presidential ambitions and his inability to meet the “natural born Citizen” standard, and when did they know it?

U.S. Government Policy on Dual Citizenship

The official U.S. government policy regarding dual citizenship is found in publications of the Consular Affairs Division of the U.S. Department of State, as follows: CONTINUED HERE: http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/42350

[tim5400]

I hope they will reverse all bills signed by O IF he is found to be ineligible......but Ithink its too late now

[Shabibilicious]

This reminds me of when I give my son his list of chores. When I get home, half of the chores are done wrong or poorly. I have to be more precise in my directions. This goes on for an eternity and he still screws them up. He just doesn't get it, no matter how I express it. And in this case.......NEITHER DO I.

GO RV, then BV

[DinarMillionaire]

This is exactly what I have been arguing on here for the past couple of months. I have said his birth certificate or lack of one, does not matter. Obama's father was KENYAN!

Obama is not eligible, he is a usurper, period!

Thanks for posting rtrusty.

[Weapon X]

This is exactly what I have been arguing on here for the past couple of months. I have said his birth certificate or lack of one, does not matter. Obama's father was KENYAN!

Obama is not eligible, he is a usurper, period!

Thanks for posting rtrusty.

Funny thing that no birther has been able to make that point stick, why would that be??? Shucks i forgot they are wrong.

Edited November 15, 2011 by Weapon X

[DinarMillionaire]

Funny thing that no birther has been able to make that point stick, why would that be??? Shucks i forgot they are wrong.

So why would the Democrats eliminate the language certifying that Obama and Biden were both eligible to serve “under provisions of the U.S. Constitution?” Is it not reasonable to assume that they knew when they nominated him that Barack Obama was ineligible to serve by virtue of the fact that he is not a “natural born” U.S. citizen? So the question arises, what did Nancy Pelosi know, and when did she know it? And is it Pelosi’s certification of Obama’s eligibility that the State of Hawaii has relied upon in refusing to disclose details of his long form birth certificate?

Since no Democratic presidential candidate in history has ever been in danger of failing to meet the “natural born Citizen” standard, why did congressional Democrats make four attempts to eliminate that requirement from the U.S. Constitution… twice while Obama was in his second term in the Illinois state senate and twice during his first fourteen weeks in the U.S. Senate?

Since August 4, 2010, as Barack Obama sits in the Oval Office, he has been reinstated as a citizen of Kenya “by birth,” a dual citizen of the United States and Kenya.

It ain't over 'til it's over.

[tampa1000]

I hope and pray America wakes up before its too late!!!

[rtrusty]

So why would the Democrats eliminate the language certifying that Obama and Biden were both eligible to serve “under provisions of the U.S. Constitution?” Is it not reasonable to assume that they knew when they nominated him that Barack Obama was ineligible to serve by virtue of the fact that he is not a “natural born” U.S. citizen? So the question arises, what did Nancy Pelosi know, and when did she know it? And is it Pelosi’s certification of Obama’s eligibility that the State of Hawaii has relied upon in refusing to disclose details of his long form birth certificate?

Since no Democratic presidential candidate in history has ever been in danger of failing to meet the “natural born Citizen” standard, why did congressional Democrats make four attempts to eliminate that requirement from the U.S. Constitution… twice while Obama was in his second term in the Illinois state senate and twice during his first fourteen weeks in the U.S. Senate?

Since August 4, 2010, as Barack Obama sits in the Oval Office, he has been reinstated as a citizen of Kenya “by birth,” a dual citizen of the United States and Kenya.

It ain't over 'til it's over.

Very well said.

[Weapon X]

So why would the Democrats eliminate the language certifying that Obama and Biden were both eligible to serve “under provisions of the U.S. Constitution?” Is it not reasonable to assume that they knew when they nominated him that Barack Obama was ineligible to serve by virtue of the fact that he is not a “natural born” U.S. citizen? So the question arises, what did Nancy Pelosi know, and when did she know it? And is it Pelosi’s certification of Obama’s eligibility that the State of Hawaii has relied upon in refusing to disclose details of his long form birth certificate?

Since no Democratic presidential candidate in history has ever been in danger of failing to meet the “natural born Citizen” standard, why did congressional Democrats make four attempts to eliminate that requirement from the U.S. Constitution… twice while Obama was in his second term in the Illinois state senate and twice during his first fourteen weeks in the U.S. Senate?

Since August 4, 2010, as Barack Obama sits in the Oval Office, he has been reinstated as a citizen of Kenya “by birth,” a dual citizen of the United States and Kenya.

It ain't over 'til it's over.

We have had this discussion before and you have no legal/constitutional basis that Obama does not qualify, he IS a natural born citizen, i have provided SCOTUS and lower courts decisions stating this point and yet you have not found 1 legal recourse to discredit any of them, our constitution was based on English common law, and not the "Vattel" (sp) crap birthers insist is the way the constitution should be interpreted.

The record stands 58-0 the law has trumped the birthers.

There is only one court decision which squarely interprets the "natural born citizen" clause as applied to a candidate for president, which is Ankeny v. Daniels, 916 N.E.2d 678 (Indiana Ct. App. 2009, ). The Ankeny court ruled that the citizenship of President Obama's father is irrelevant:

Based upon the language of Article II, Section 1, Clause 4 and the guidance provided by Wong Kim Ark, we conclude that persons born within the borders of the United States are "natural born Citizens" for Article II, Section 1 purposes, regardless of the citizenship of their parents.

Edited November 15, 2011 by Weapon X

[bright]

I love it....all you guys that hate this president and keep this eligibility crap going are just what the president needs......unfortunately for me the GOP will have better sense they know all this talk will lead to the president being re-elected.........the main blessing for the President is the candidates running for the GOP nomination and comedy of the republican debates............he is getting free ads by these debates......

[BrokeNoMore]

I believe Obama was born overseas.

I don't believe he was ever eligible to be President.

This issue has been thru the courts...how many times?

Obviously the people with the power to do something about it just don't care.

I'm sick of it, and sick of hearing about it. If for no other reason, I hope Obama is not reelected just so this daily mantra can die a natural death.

I hope the bum is evicted from our White House because he is a traitor all around, either with impeachment for violating the constitution repeatedly, or by another being voted in. Clearly his not being a citizen isn't a big enough deal. Hasn't it been more than 3 years since this first surfaced, yet there he is, still holding the most powerful and influential office in the world...until he gives enough of it away to the UN.

Is anybody else still pissed off about how he went around the world as soon as he took office apologizing for us?

[bright]

We have had this discussion before and you have no legal/constitutional basis that Obama does not qualify, he IS a natural born citizen, i have provided SCOTUS and lower courts decisions stating this point and yet you have not found 1 legal recourse to discredit any of them, our constitution was based on English common law, and not the "Vattel" (sp) crap birthers insist is the way the constitution should be interpreted.

The record stands 58-0 the law has trumped the birthers.

There is only one court decision which squarely interprets the "natural born citizen" clause as applied to a candidate for president, which is Ankeny v. Daniels, 916 N.E.2d 678 (Indiana Ct. App. 2009, ). The Ankeny court ruled that the citizenship of President Obama's father is irrelevant:

what gets me is the doctor's signature that has been verified by his children......they were excited to find out their late father was the doctor and again they verified his signature.......why don't you guys try some other angle like catching the President having affairs on his wife.......you know something that would stick as you throw things against the wall......oh but you can't.....your best bet would be finding a candidate that could challenge the President but luckily for the democrats theone candidate is Mitt Romney and the chriatain right will stay home than vote for a Mormon.....I have done my own research on this and every Pentesoctal and Baptist republicans that I talk to(even in my own family) cannot vote for a Mormon...this is the GOP dilema.....but that is what you get when you throw olive branches out to the extremes....perhaps a independent candidate would be the answer......just like the Perot..Bush....Clinton election...that works for me.....

[DinarMillionaire]

We have had this discussion before and you have no legal/constitutional basis that Obama does not qualify, he IS a natural born citizen, i have provided SCOTUS and lower courts decisions stating this point and yet you have not found 1 legal recourse to discredit any of them, our constitution was based on English common law, and not the "Vattel" (sp) crap birthers insist is the way the constitution should be interpreted.

The record stands 58-0 the law has trumped the birthers.

There is only one court decision which squarely interprets the "natural born citizen" clause as applied to a candidate for president, which is Ankeny v. Daniels, 916 N.E.2d 678 (Indiana Ct. App. 2009, ). The Ankeny court ruled that the citizenship of President Obama's father is irrelevant:

If not Vattel, then where did they arrive at this term? Many of those who ridicule us like to quote Blackstone as authoritative that the United States adopted English Common Law. They like to state that Blackstone’s natural born subject is equivalent of a natural born citizen. There is no doubt that the Founding Father’s were influenced from Blackstone’s Commentary. However, the Framers of the Constitution recognized that it was Blackstone, who argued that the Parliament and King could change the constitution at will. Blackstone was increasingly recognized by the Americans as a proponent of arbitrary power. In fact, the framers rejected the notion that the United States was under English Common Law, “The common law of England is not the common law of these States.” George Mason one of Virginia’s delegates to the Constitutional Convention.

British Nationality Act, 1948, applied to Barack Obama.

Part II Citizenship of the United Kingdom and Colonies.

5. Citizenship by descent.

“(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:

Provided that if the father of such a person is a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies by descent only, that person shall not be a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies by virtue of this section unless—

(a) that person is born or his father was born in a protectorate, protected state, mandated territory or trust territory or any place in a foreign country where by treaty, capitulation, grant, usage, sufferance, or other lawful means, His Majesty then has or had jurisdiction over British subjects; or”

When trying to articulate the qualifications for the Office of the US President, it is important to remember s/he is also the Commander in Chief of the military, the militias, and can declare martial law. It is therefore imperative to narrow the possible candidates who from birth on the soil and of the blood of two citizens, would derive loyalty to this soil and people. The natural born citizen, owes loyalty to no foreign nation or people, and is the only pool of candidates for the Office of the US President.

A natural born U.S. citizen can choose dual citizenship at majority, but must relinquish foreign nationality before taking political office in the US, and anybody previously a dual-national is ineligible for the US Presidency and Commander of the military.

A person born a dual-national is not eligible to ascend to the presidency.

It has been said that citizenship carries with it all of the rights and prerogatives of citizenship obtained by birth in this country ‘save that of eligibility to the Presidency.’ Luria v. United States, 231 U.S. 9, 22 , 34 S.Ct. 10, 13.

John Bingham in the Congressional Globe, House of Representatives, 39th Congress, 1st Session 1866, Who are natural born citizens?

“All persons born within the Republic, OF PARENTS OWING ALLEGIANCE TO NO OTHER SOVEREIGNTY, ARE NATURAL BORN CITIZENS.”

[ems]

Is anybody else still pissed off about how he went around the world as soon as he took office apologizing for us?

I'm still ticked off about his apologies. I'm also ticked that he would bow to certain world leaders, especially the Saudi king. American presidents prior to him have never bowed; they always stand, look at the eyes and give a firm handshake. Bowing is a sign of submission; standing and looking at someone is a sign of mutual respect. The US respects; we do not submit.

[ems]

every Pentesoctal and Baptist republicans that I talk to (even in my own family) cannot vote for a Mormon

As a conservative independent who has attended weekly services in a Baptist church for over 20 years, I would vote for Romney over The O in a heartbeat. Conservatives don't care for Romney becuase he is a RINO. He was the governor of a blue state (Massachusetts) and as such, he has democrat tendencies. He also has Romneycare hanging around his neck. Romney in 2012 will be the equivalent to McCain in 2008: milktoast! At a time when our nation is in such dire economic straits, we don't need a milktoast president. We need a man with the guts to stand up to Congress and to turn this nation around. Romney's religion has nothing to do with why people say they won't vote for him. We don't want him as our first choice because he is the most liberal of all the GOP candidates.

[CarbonCoyote]

You Obot's need a Natural Born Citizen 101 class, and here it is:

"No person except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the united States at the time of the adoption of this constitution" ...... The Founders just fought a bloody Revolutionary War to rid themselves of the Crown (British). The Founders trusted themselves to be Presidents because they "THEMSELVES" helped fight the war, but they did NOT trust any future "BRITS" to be Presidents. This is why they had to grandfather themselves into the document by saying " Or a citizen at the time of the adoption of this Constitution ". Because they themselves were not natural born citizens, they were all BRITS.

They wanted any future Presidents and Commanders of the American Army/Navy to be natural born citizens, who's parents were BOTH citizens .... Why? .... Because they didn't want some Brit coming over here (Obama Sr.), siring an offspring using an American mother, so that one day 35 years later, that child would grow up, gain a position of power and govern in favor of his fathers homeland, and ultimately help destroy the country that they fought and died for. This was a safeguard to ensure all future Presidents would have 100% loyalty to their own homeland, since both parents had no hidden loyalty to another land. Obama Sr. went back to his homeland of Kenya after he completed his education; he was NEVER loyal to the United States.

That's Article II, Section 1 for dummies.

Peace.

[Weapon X]

You Obot's need a Natural Born Citizen 101 class, and here it is:

"No person except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the united States at the time of the adoption of this constitution" ...... The Founders just fought a bloody Revolutionary War to rid themselves of the Crown (British). The Founders trusted themselves to be Presidents because they "THEMSELVES" helped fight the war, but they did NOT trust any future "BRITS" to be Presidents. This is why they had to grandfather themselves into the document by saying " Or a citizen at the time of the adoption of this Constitution ". Because they themselves were not natural born citizens, they were all BRITS.

They wanted any future Presidents and Commanders of the American Army/Navy to be natural born citizens, who's parents were BOTH citizens .... Why? .... Because they didn't want some Brit coming over here (Obama Sr.), siring an offspring using an American mother, so that one day 35 years later, that child would grow up, gain a position of power and govern in favor of his fathers homeland, and ultimately help destroy the country that they fought and died for. This was a safeguard to ensure all future Presidents would have 100% loyalty to their own homeland, since both parents had no hidden loyalty to another land. Obama Sr. went back to his homeland of Kenya after he completed his education; he was NEVER loyal to the United States.

That's Article II, Section 1 for dummies.

Peace.

Article II of the U.S. Constitution indeed specifies that only natural-born citizens are eligible for the office of the presidency:

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.

Though the term "natural-born citizen" was left undefined by the Framers of the Constitution, it was broadly understood in English common law at the time as referring to one who possesses citizenship by virtue of the circumstances of their birth, which is still the general meaning of the phrase as it's used today.

In the United States there are two established legal principles upon which individuals are said to acquire citizenship at birth: jus sanguinus ("right of blood"), meaning citizenship conferred by being born to parents who are U.S. citizens, and jus soli ("right of soil"), meaning citizenship conferred by being born on U.S. soil. Per the Fourteenth Amendment, which states that "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," all individuals born on U.S. soil are considered "birthright citizens" under the law regardless of the citizenship status of their parents.

In lawsuits challenging Obama's Constitutional eligibility it has been argued that while birth on U.S. soil confers "birthright" or "native-born" citizenship, it does not confer natural-born citizenship unless both parents are also U.S. citizens. Citing precedents they claim establish the Framers' intent to disqualify individuals who could possess dual nationality or dual allegiance by virtue of having a foreign national for a parent, these litigants assert that such an individual ought not to be regarded as a natural-born citizen eligible to hold the office of the presidency (see Leo D'Onofrio, "Why Obama Is Ineligible - Regardless of His Birthplace").

But among Constitutional scholars the distinction between "natural born" and "native born" is not universally accepted as a crucial one. Short of a Supreme Court decision or legislative statute settling the matter, it remains but one way of interpreting a longstanding legal ambiguity concerning the eligibility clause. There are other interpretations, most notably that found in an analysis of Republican presidential candidate John McCain's standing as a natural-born citizen conducted by former U.S. Solicitor General Theodore Olson and Constitutional law professor Laurence Tribe in 2008. In their view — "based," Tribe and Olson wrote, "on the original meaning of the Constitution, the Framers' intentions, and subsequent legal precedent" — either the fact of birth on U.S. soil or the fact of birth to parents who are U.S. citizens is independently sufficient to confer natural born status.

Until 1971, the US Supreme Court recognized two types of citizenship, and two types only: natural born and naturalized. In the 1971 case, Rogers v. Bellei, 401 U.S. 815 (1971), the Court, in a 5-4 opinion, created a third type of "non-constitutional" citizenship, holding that a person who attains his/her US citizenship by virtue of being born abroad to a US citizen is not a "Fourteenth Amendment first sentence citizen" and, as such, is not entitled to the protections of the 14th Amendment.

The US Supreme Court has consistently and repeatedly equated the concept of "natural born citizenship" with "native-born citizenship" and "born a US citizen." Indeed, there is no case in which the Court makes any distinction between a natural born citizen and a native born citizen or born US citizen.

1. PRIMARY SOURCES.

"The law" -- i.e., asource with the force of law (e.g., statute, case, AG opinion, etc.).

(a) Primary Sources - Presidential Eligibility and "Natural Born Citizen".

U.S. Constitution.

Lynch v. Clarke (N.Y. 1844). (expressly stating that person born in US to non-citizen parents is eligible for Presidency)

( Primary Sources - "Natural Born Citizen" Generally.

(i) Pre-1868 Primary Sources - Natural Born Citizen Generally (Pre-14th Amendment Adoption)

Lynch v. Clarke (N.Y.1844). (location of birth; expressly rejects citizenship by parentage argument)

Munro vs. Merchant (N.Y. 1858). New (1/8)

United States v. Rhodes (Ky. 1866). (location of birth). New (1/8)

Opinion of Attorney General Bates on Citizenship (Non-whites) (1862). (location of birth; expressly rejects citizenship by "heredity"). New (1/8)

Opinion of Attorney General Bates on Citizenship (Non-citizen Parents) (1862). (location of birth).

(ii) Post-1868 Primary Sources - Natural Born Citizen Generally (Post-14th Amendment Adoption - reverse chron order)

Perkins v. Elg (U.S. 1939). (location of birth).

United States v. Wong Kim Ark (U.S. 1898). (location of birth; expressly rejects citizenship by parentage argument).

Town of New Hartford v. Town of Canaan (Ct. 1886). (location of birth; expressly rejects citizenship by parentage argument). New (1/8)

In Re Look Tin Sing (Fed. Cir. (Ca.) 1884). (location of birth). New (1/8)

Elk v. Wilkins (U.S. 1884). (location of birth). New (1/8)

Like I have said before the SCOTUS and lower courts have made many many decisions on what is and what makes a natural born citizen.

Now it would be nice for you to prove with proof and or legal decisions, remember dissenting opinions are not valid because just like Wong Kim Ark where De Vattel was mentioned, the 2 judges that used that in their opinion were overruled 7-2 making it quite clear de vattel has no part in this party.

Edited November 16, 2011 by Weapon X

[TPSprayduster]

X no matter what you bring to the table there is always going to be something esle. All of these old post reposted after being debunked serveral times. it is a way to keep the fire burning. We all know the answer you have some who wont let it go. Keep it buring and keep confusing and we will be hear again in 2012 and they will be asking how did he get elected again????

[desimo]

The fact that these questions have not gone away should give some support to the idea of the question. If I was asked I could easily produce evidence that I was born in Chicago. People could find people I was a child with, they could find my relatives that I played with as a child, they could find people who knew my parents when I was a baby. Maybe it is time people started asking why they have not been able to find the same amount of these things regarding Obama? No one is that sterilized or without trails of people they have met throughout their lives.

[Anti This Anti That]

Funny thing that no birther has been able to make that point stick, why would that be??? Shucks i forgot they are wrong.

These so-called birthers as you liberal communist call them cannot make it stick, because you have a judicial system that is corrupt, and people in high places preventing it from going to trial. Payoffs, bribes, kickbacks, threats, and other dis-honest things going on. If the media would report facts, and truth, Obama would have been removed a long time ago. Also you have a bunch of jelly backboned politicians who have the goods, and evidence to impeach Obama, but they are in fear of the race card. Holder is also corrupt, and stonewalls the federal law enforcement by calling the dogs off. Plain and simple, there are no justice left in America, and the majority of authorities have corrupted themselves.

Edited November 17, 2011 by Anti This Anti That

[desimo]

I have had various businesses. I have hired people to represent my companies in the public. If I had someone working for me who kept saying how sorry he was for my company and kept telling everyone what he thought my company was doing wrong, I would fire them. Maybe it is time to fire Obama.