LATEST: Go to BirtherReport.com for the latest Article II eligibility news ...
Tuesday, November 15, 2011

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 Hillary 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].” 

CONTINUED HERE: http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/42350

Obama's SSN Fails E-Verify System - 17 Oct 2011 Wash Times National Wkly edition - pg 5

8 comments:

  1. We, America's Web Radio.com, support and believe there is only one law of the land and it is Our United States of America Constitution. It is NOT a living document it is written with ink (or for me etched in stone) and to be followed as written with the ability to be amended, no ifs, ands, or buts about it, period. Obama is NOT eligible and should be arrested and tried for crimes against this country. Please listen to Officer's Oath the Terry Lakin Radio Hour every Monday 3PM ET only on America's Web Radio.com. Thank you for your article and support of OUR Constitution!

    ReplyDelete
  2. With all the people in a position to do something, yet, nothing is done, tells me, as always, only we can end this national nightmare. There is no sheriff, no congressman, no other law enforcement that would even utter the words "illegal alien usurper". A lot of folks are dreaming if they think for one minute that Soetoro is going to be arrested. Congress is even more guilty than Soetoro. There is no way one can go after the illegal alien without going after congress as well. All of congress needs to be arrested. We're the only ones that can do the arresting. Congress is never going to come clean. If anything is ever to be done, we're the only ones left to do it. We've been abandoned and betrayed by our military. There is no media. Coming to terms with the fact that "it's just us" is disturbing, but normal. We're going to have to fight for freedom again. And this time, let's get it right. I'm talking about taking back the country. It's obvious we've lost it. This is about all or nothing. There is no in-between. If Barry goes, so must congress. They're fucking us good. I'm sick of all the pussy candidates. Fuck them. Goddamn, I want action.

    ReplyDelete
  3. We Americans desrve the government that we get. And as Eric Holder aptly said "We are a nation of cowards when it comes to race". For that reason white America is afraid to force the issue of a half-balck man illegally attaining the highest public office in the land.

    Who you gonna call, Eric Holder?

    ReplyDelete
  4. Is Putative President Barack Obama’s Mother, Stanley Ann Dunham, Really Jo Ann Newman?

    http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2011/11/is-putative-president-barack-obamas.html

    http://terribletruth.wordpress.com/2011/11/15/stan-the-sham-and-true-love/

    Rob

    ReplyDelete
  5. Hotlanta is completely right...we got what we deserve. If at least half of the people in the country are misguided enough to vote for him again, we'll deserve it again. And in this day and age, you can't fight a revolution without at least some of the military at your disposal. If people rose up with arms, they would be portrayed as terrorists and massacred. In order to be viewed as a revolution you have to have a formidable force. It just isn't possible in modern times.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Overall it was very well-written and persuasive, but I am a bit confused by the following quote:

    "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.)"

    Can the author provide legal citations to support his claim that the term has "evolved" to include those born overseas to US citizens? I'm not so sure that is a true statement from a strictly legal sense. The Senate Resolution that stated McCain was a NBC was simply a congressional opinion. And I don't know of any legal claims that Romney was NBC...please point those out to me if they exist. The only SC definition that exists, as binding precedent btw, is one born in the US of citizen parents. I don't see how you get around that. If you want to make an exception for someone born on a base because his/her parents were serving, you would need a Constitutional ammendment. None exists.

    The author correctly quotes, and explains the binding nature of, the SC precedent in Minor but fails to see his contradicts his claims in the first half of the article. In my option McCain and Romney Sr. are not NBC either.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Quote:

    "If at least half of the people in the country are misguided enough to vote for him again, we'll deserve it again."

    What is this "we" thing? If half the people in the country vote for Barry the usurper...again, how does that make those of us who didn't deserve the Marxist usurper....again??

    ReplyDelete
  8. @Anon 5:47pm -- Very well said. The term “natural born citizen” has not evolved – its definition remains as one born in the country to citizen parents.

    I agree that George Romney and McCain were ineligible. Both of these men were naturalized citizens at birth, since their citizenship at birth relied upon man-made law. The citizenship at birth of a natural born citizen relies only upon the laws of nature.

    ReplyDelete

“As long as I am an American citizen and American blood runs in these veins I shall hold myself at liberty to speak, to write, and to publish whatever I please on any subject.” - Elijah Parish Lovejoy(1802-1837)

Comments posted here do not necessarily reflect the views of BirtherReport.com. Readers are solely responsible for the content of the comments they post on this web site.