By far the most frequently asked question in America since August 28, 2008, the closing day of the 2008 Democratic National Convention, is this: “Does Barack Hussein Obama meet the constitutional qualifications to serve as President of the United States?” With every reason to believe that he does not, the second most-asked question has been, “How could every single member of Congress… all 535 of them… fail in their constitutional obligation to properly vet Obama’s qualifications before certifying the vote of the 2008 Electoral College?”
For the past two years Americans have been flooding congressional offices with demands for answers to these questions. And now we know. The answer to the first question is, “No, Obama is not eligible to serve as president because he is not a ‘natural born’ U.S. citizen.” The answer to the second question is, “The Jack Maskell Memorandum.”
But before we approach the question of who Jack Maskell might be, and the role he plays in what history will doubtless record as the greatest single crime of all time, let’s first review the facts surrounding Obama’s eligibility. Article II, Section 1 of the U.S. 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; 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 had been a U.S. resident for at least fourteen years at the time he was nominated. But is he a “natural born” citizen? What is a “natural born” citizen, and how do we prevent someone who is not a natural born citizen from becoming president or vice president?
When the Founding Fathers met in Philadelphia in September 1787 to sign 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 even conceivable that, just five years and eleven months after Cornwallis surrendered at Yorktown, the Founders would have affixed their signatures to a document 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.
That is precisely why the Framers found it necessary to include the words, “or a citizen of the United States, at the time of the adoption of this constitution…” At the time the Constitution was adopted, every citizen of the thirteen colonies was a British subject, or a citizen of some other country. And since the founders wished to exclude all those with dual citizenship (divided loyalties) from serving as president or vice president at any time in the future, they provided an exemption of limited duration for those who were officially U.S. residents at the time and who might wish to serve as president or vice president after reaching the age of thirty-five.
For example, George Washington was 57 years of age when he was inaugurated as our first president. But Washington, born and raised in Virginia, had been a British subject during all of his 57-plus years. Hence, as a means of qualifying a class of men for the presidency during the first thirty-five years of our nationhood, while preventing any man with dual or naturalized citizenship from ever serving as president, after a pool of “natural born” men had reached the age of thirty-five… limiting access to those offices only to those born to parents, both of whom were U.S. citizens… the founders included the words, “or a citizen of the United States, at the time of the adoption of this constitution…”
Few Americans, not even our distinguished members of Congress, have ever stopped to consider what those sixteen simple words mean, or, more importantly, who they exclude from presidential consideration. That is why, after sitting silently in their chairs while the names of 365 Obama electors were read from the Speaker’s rostrum, not a single member of Congress rose to object… preferring instead to hide behind the legal skirts of the Congressional Research Service (CRS) and their Legislative Attorney, Jack Maskell.
Read More: By Paul Hollrah, Bob McCarty.com
Please share this post with your friends and comment below. If you haven’t already, take a moment to sign up for our free newsletter above and friend us on Twitter and Facebook to get real time updates.
Follow @WestJournalism
Loading ...
Congress was right and you are wrong on the definition of Natural Born Citizen.
“What is a natural born citizen? Clearly, someone born within the United States or one of its territories is a natural born citizen.” (Senate Judiciary Committee hearing hearing on OCTOBER 5, 2004)–Senator Orrin G. Hatch (R-UT),
"Prior to the adoption of the constitution, the people inhabiting the different states might be divided into two classes: natural born citizens, or those born within the state, and aliens, or such as were born out of it. The first, by their birth-right, became entitled to all the privileges of citizens; the second, were entitled to none, but such as were held out and given by the laws of the respective states prior to their emigration. …St. George Tucker, BLACKSTONE'S COMMENTARIES: WITH NOTES OF REFERENCE TO THE CONSTITUTION AND LAWS OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES AND THE COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA. (1803)
"Therefore every person born within the United States, its territories or districts, whether the parents are citizens or aliens, is a natural born citizen in the sense of the Constitution, and entitled to all the rights and privileges appertaining to that capacity."—William Rawle, A VIEW OF THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. 2d ed. (1829)
“Under the longstanding English common-law principle of jus soli, persons born within the territory of the sovereign (other than children of enemy aliens or foreign diplomats) are citizens from birth. Thus, those persons born within the United States are "natural born citizens" and eligible to be President. Much less certain, however, is whether children born abroad of United States citizens are "natural born citizens" eligible to serve as President …"—- Edwin Meese, et al, THE HERITAGE GUIDE TO THE CONSTITUTION (2005)
“Natural born citizen. Persons who are born within the jurisdiction of a national government, i.e. in its territorial limits, or those born of citizens temporarily residing abroad.” — Black’s Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition
Kenya is not a territory of the USA. and his own grandmother testified that he was born in Kenya and that she was there.
The Court is considering the validity of the Constitution…so they sure won't end this case!! They are too cowardly, just like Congress!!! Congress should act on this, they know he is not fit for the job, but they are too gutless!!! I fear that if the court says the Constitution is invalid, we will have an immediate Police State, followed by Fascism, and we the people will have NO rights whatsoever!!! It's what the Pentagon, the Senate and far too many others want!!
You are right, but then how was he able to hand over to Kenya 124 million for their votes and how could they vote for him or his congress in the first place. Then I just read he handed over 2 billion dollars to the illegals. I am on SS and barely making ends meet as are millions of us in this country. How can he keep taking our money and give it to other countries when we are in such pain ourselves?
Obama’s Kenyan grandmother NEVER said that he was born in Kenya. She said repeatedly in the taped interview that he was born in Hawaii, where his father was studying, and she said in another interview that the first that her family in Kenya had heard of Obama’s birth was in a letter from Hawaii.
If a person were born in Kenya, she or he would need a US travel document to get to the USA. That would be either a US visa on a foreign passport or the change to his mother's US passport to include him. One or the other would have had to have been applied for at a US Consulate in Kenya and granted before the child would be allowed to enter the USA.
If such a document existed, it would be easy to find because the records of the application for the visa or for the change to the mother's passport would still be in the files of the US State Department, filed under applications for visas and applications for changes to passports in Kenya in 1961. The Republicans were in charge of the US State Department until January 2009. No such document has been found. No such document exists.
Obama was not born in Kenya. He was born in Hawaii, as his official birth certificate from Hawaii shows, and the facts on it were repeatedly confirmed by the officials in Hawaii. Obama has already posted a copy of the official birth certificate, the Certification of Live Birth, which is the only birth document that Hawaii has been sending out since 2001. Hawaii no longer sends out copies of the original birth certificate, only of the official birth certificate: The Certification of Live Birth.
This is a WorldNetDaily printer-friendly version of the article which follows.
To view this item online, visit http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?pageId=186…
Sunday, November 14, 2010
——————————————————————————–
WorldNetDaily Exclusive
Oops! Obama mama passport 'destroyed'
State Department claims records gone for Stanley Ann Dunham prior to 1968
——————————————————————————–
Posted: August 01, 2010
6:28 pm Eastern
By Jerome R. Corsi
——————————————————————————–
WorldNetDaily
Photo from Stanley Ann Dunham Soetoro's 1972 passport records
Responding to a Freedom of Information Act request, the State Department has released passport records of Stanley Ann Dunham, President Obama's mother – but records for the years surrounding Obama's 1961 birth are missing.
Representative John Bingham of Ohio, a principal framer of the Fourteenth Amendment, offered some definition for presidential qualifications in a discussion 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."
The Law of Nations, a 1758 work by Swiss legal philosopher Emmerich de Vattel, was read by many of the American Founders and informed their understanding of the principles of law, which became established in the Constitution of 1787.
De Vattel writes in Book 1, Chapter 19, of his treatise, "The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. As the society cannot 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. … 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."
Minor v. Happersett, in 1874, mentions the "natural born" issue.
"At common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the constitution were familiar," the decision states, "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."
Yes, the Swiss philosopher Vattel wrote that something called an “indigines” (translated as Natural Born Citizen by a British guy about ten years AFTER the Constitution was written) required two citizen parents. But Vattel also wrote that every country should have a state religion and force people to join it or leave the country. There is no evidence that the writers of the Constitution followed Vattel, and not the common law and the laws in the American colonies that they were familiar with.
Vattel is not even mentioned in the Federalist Papers, while the common law was mentioned about twenty times. John Jay, the lawyer, justice and first chief justice of the United States, who wrote the original letter to Washington recommending that the commander in chief be a Natural Born Citizen, never used Natural Born any differently than its use in the common law. Jay was the main writer of the New York constitution of 1777, which adopts the common law as the laws of New York until specifically changed by New York statute. So, we can see that Jay was thinking about the common law. There is not a shred of evidence that he was thinking of Vattel when he wrote to Washington.
When all else fails baffle them with bullshit. Try, at least, to baffle them with bullshit.
That is what you are trying to do, trying to fool the credulous with two ancient opinions about citizenship. Opinions about citizenship–not natural born citizenship, not the natural born portion of natural born citizenship. Both Bingham and the Minor case were speaking about whether a person requires two citizen parents to become a US citizen. Minor said that at one time there were doubts that mere birth in the country created citizenship. The context makes clear what that time was: it was BEFORE the Fourteenth Amendment.
The Wall Street Journal shows that the basis of the two-parent theory is bullshit very well. It said:
“Some birthers imagine that there is a difference between being a “citizen by birth” or a “native citizen” on the one hand and a “natural born” citizen on the other. “Eccentric” is too kind a word for this notion, which is either daft or dishonest. All three terms are identical in meaning.” (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204619004574322281597739634.html
The question is, are you merely being daft or are you dishonest?
The Wall Street Journal points out that if there were anything to the two-parent theory, Obama could not have run because everyone—especially including his opponents, I add—would have known that he was not eligible. Hillary, in particular, would have said it very loudly. McCain perhaps too, though birthers claim that McCain kept quiet because of the fact that he was born in Panama. In any case, there were about four other Democrats who ran against Obama in the primaries.
Let me pound home the overwhelming disbelief in the two-parent theory.
Birthers and two-fers had a letter-writing campaign to the members of the Electoral College asking them to change their votes, but NOT ONE did. The US Congress voted to confirm Obama’s election UNANIMOUSLY, which could not have been the place if even one member had believed that Bingham was right or that the Minor case affects Natural Born Citizenship. There is a “birther bill” in Congress that would have future presidential candidates show their place of birth, but there is NO bill that would have them prove that their parents are citizens.
Why not? First because the key Supreme Court ruling, after Minor and hence resolving any doubts if there actually were any, is the Wong Kim Ark case, which as the Wall Street Journal summarized, said: ““every child born in England of alien parents was a natural-born subject unless the child of an ambassador or other diplomatic agent of a foreign State or of an alien enemy in hostile occupation of the place where the child was born.”
Does that apply to Natural Born Citizens, you may ask? Yes it does, since the ruling says that the same laws applied in the American colonies, the early states AND UNDER THE CONSTITUTION.
It is important to back up and focus on Natural Born and Citizen separately. A Natural Born Citizen is not merely a citizen. She or he is a member of a limited category of citizens, citizens who are also Natural Born. So, what does Natural Born mean? The original meaning under the common law and the laws in the colonies and early states was “born in the country.’ That is the way that John Adams and Alexander Hamilton and such a legal scholar at the Constitutional Convention as James Wilson used the phrase, and they NEVER used it to refer to parents AT ALL. It was always used as a synonym for Native Born, which was not a popular phase at the time.
Since Natural Born originally referred to the place of birth, it was a geographic term, like Ohio-born. One who is born in Ohio is Ohio-born, the citizenship status of the parents cannot affect it. The fact that Bingham believed that I required two citizen parents does not affect the fact that I was Ohio-born, and it does not affect the Natural Born portion of Natural Born Citizenship either.
Citizenship laws have changed, at one time American Indians were not considered citizens. Now they are. The Natural Born portion never changed. If the person was born in the USA and hence Natural Born, when the law changed to allow her or him to become a citizen, she or he was immediately a Natural Born Citizen.
Yale Law Review put it this way: “It is well settled that “native-born” citizens, those born in the United States, qualify as natural born. It is also clear that persons born abroad of alien parents, who later become citizens by naturalization, do not. (Jill A. Pryor, Yale Law Review, 1988)
First, notice that it is ‘WELL SETTLED.” That means that there is no doubt. No doubt at all. If there were any doubt under the Minor ruling, it is gone. Native born citizens, such as Obama, are Natural Born Citizens. Naturalized citizens are not Natural Born Citizens. Arnold is not eligible. Bobby Jindal and Marco Rubio ARE eligible.
Yes, the Swiss philosopher Vattel wrote that something called an “indigines” (translated as Natural Born Citizen by a British guy about ten years AFTER the Constitution was written) required two citizen parents. But Vattel also wrote that every country should have a state religion and force people to join it or leave the country. There is no evidence that the writers of the Constitution followed Vattel, and not the common law and the laws in the American colonies that they were familiar with.
Vattel is not even mentioned in the Federalist Papers, while the common law was mentioned about twenty times. John Jay, the lawyer, justice and first chief justice of the United States, who wrote the original letter to Washington recommending that the commander in chief be a Natural Born Citizen, never used Natural Born any differently than its use in the common law. Jay was the main writer of the New York constitution of 1777, which adopts the common law as the laws of New York until specifically changed by New York statute. So, we can see that Jay was thinking about the common law. There is not a shred of evidence that he was thinking of Vattel when he wrote to Washington.
There are still some people who believe that the Earth is flat and that US astronauts did not land on the moon. There is a guy on the internet who keeps insisting that Hawaii is not a state and remains a separate country from the USA. Some people believe that George Bush had a hand in the 911 attack. Some people believe that space aliens have landed and that their bodies are stored in Rosewell, NM. These myths are just as likely as either Obama being born outside of Hawaii, which has been repeatedly proven, or that the US Constitution requires two US citizen parents to be a Natural Born Citizen.
When all else fails baffle them with bullshit. Try, at least, to baffle them with bullshit.
That is what you are trying to do, trying to fool the credulous with two ancient opinions about citizenship. Opinions about citizenship–not natural born citizenship, not the natural born portion of natural born citizenship. Both Bingham and the Minor case were speaking about whether a person requires two citizen parents to become a US citizen. Minor said that at one time there were doubts that mere birth in the country created citizenship. The context makes clear what that time was: it was BEFORE the Fourteenth Amendment.
The Wall Street Journal shows that the basis of the two-parent theory is bullshit very well. It said:
“Some birthers imagine that there is a difference between being a “citizen by birth” or a “native citizen” on the one hand and a “natural born” citizen on the other. “Eccentric” is too kind a word for this notion, which is either daft or dishonest. All three terms are identical in meaning.” (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204619004574322281597739634.html
The question is, are you merely being daft or are you dishonest?
The Wall Street Journal points out that if there were anything to the two-parent theory, Obama could not have run because everyone—especially including his opponents, I add—would have known that he was not eligible. Hillary, in particular, would have said it very loudly. McCain perhaps too, though birthers claim that McCain kept quiet because of the fact that he was born in Panama. In any case, there were about four other Democrats who ran against Obama in the primaries.
Let me pound home the overwhelming disbelief in the two-parent theory.
Birthers and two-fers had a letter-writing campaign to the members of the Electoral College asking them to change their votes, but NOT ONE did. The US Congress voted to confirm Obama’s election UNANIMOUSLY, which could not have been the place if even one member had believed that Bingham was right or that the Minor case affects Natural Born Citizenship. There is a “birther bill” in Congress that would have future presidential candidates show their place of birth, but there is NO bill that would have them prove that their parents are citizens.
Why not? First because the key Supreme Court ruling, after Minor and hence resolving any doubts if there actually were any, is the Wong Kim Ark case, which as the Wall Street Journal summarized, said: ““every child born in England of alien parents was a natural-born subject unless the child of an ambassador or other diplomatic agent of a foreign State or of an alien enemy in hostile occupation of the place where the child was born.”
Does that apply to Natural Born Citizens, you may ask? Yes it does, since the ruling says that the same laws applied in the American colonies, the early states AND UNDER THE CONSTITUTION.
This is a dumb reply. First, the information in Obama's mother's passport file would not include an APPLICATION for a visa or a passport for Obama, or even every copy of an application to change his mother's passport to include him. Those documents would be contained in the files of APPLICATIONS for visas, passports or changes to passports IN KENYA and in 1961. And, if there were any such documents they would be easy to find, since there weren't that many applications in Kenya in 1961–and none has been found.
Second, the documents that you refer to having been scrapped are only applications for passports. The birther FOIA request that spawned this answer asked ONLY for applications. It did not request the records of the passports in the files, which have not been scrapped.
There is an interesting reason why the birther FOIA request did NOT ask for the records of passports in the file. That is because, if it showed that Obama's mother did not have a passport in 1961, the whole birther myth would collapse.
Fortunately, there is an anti-birther FOIA request for the records of the passports in Obama's mother's file and, while it may take months or years to conclude, it is likely to show that she did not have a passport.
Until then, we can rely on the fact that there are NO Kenyan records showing that she was ever in Kenya, no Kenyan birth certificate (except several obvious forgeries), no photos of her or the child in Kenya, and NO US travel documents issued for Obama in Kenya. On the Hawaii side, there is the official birth certificate, the confirmations of the officials and the governor and this witness http://www.buffalonews.com/incoming/article137495…
http://www.buffalonews.com/incoming/article137495…
Thank you, thank you,thank you.
You are clearly a person of some intellect and education. But trying to convince birthers with facts is like me talking to my dog……….in reality a stupid thing to do, because at the end of the day he really has no idea what I'm trying to say to him.
Indeed. But a puzzled few who stumble on the site by accident and see the word "journalism" in the title might actually think it credible, so it may be worthwhile to correct some things for those folks.
And besides, like a dog, birthers can be fun to play with, even if they don't learn as quickly.
Communist mentalities, and those with a desire for treachery and confusion of real law, use much the same argument. Non of those remarks demonstrates the meaning conferred by the Founders of our Constitution, and merely reflects the views held by some to wish to retain some allegiance to England. What you propose is that anyone can waltz into this nation and become President. That idea is more than just a little stupid. Take your Socialist viewpoints back to Fact Check. Org, and leave this nation to real Citizens.
The Natural Born Citizen clause bars foreigners from becoming president because you have to be a citizen. And, it bars naturalized citizens from becoming president because you have to be natural born. But it does not bar the US-born children of foreigners from becoming president. There are no articles or letters from the writers of the Constitution that held that the US-born children of foreigners are foreigners or that they are lower quality citizens than the US-born children of US citizens.
I remember the news of 1961! He can't prove it!
If you rad that entire transcript you'd know that congress already tried that in 1890 and it didn't work. Everyone in that hearing knew it. What they agreed to do was vote to commit treason.
Hi James!
(or Ellen.)
Sorry That We Waste So Much Time On The Manchurian Muslim President Obamacare, Yikeess, However Lets Get It Straight His Grandmother Has Sworn He Was Born In Mombosa Kenya, Now The Obama Rope-A-Dope Starts As Being Adopted Barry Satoro AKA Barack Obama Without Any Paperwork That This Was Ever Changed Hence The Manchurian President Obamacare, Which Is Good Reading For All The Smart Obama Goons. Just Produce His Phoney Social Security Card From A Conn. Man Aged Over 100 Yrs, Or Maybe His School Records From A College He Never Attended Columbia College, Yikeess, Just Good Old Chi-Town Politics. Or Like The Social Security Aministration Investigator Susan Daniels Stated "There Is Obviously A Case Of FRAUD Going On Here, Yikees Anyway You Spell It This President Is A Imposter. God Bless America.
Obama’s Kenyan grandmother NEVER said that he was born in Kenya. She said repeatedly in the taped interview that he was born in Hawaii, where his father was studying, and she said in another interview that the first that her family in Kenya had heard of Obama’s birth was in a letter from Hawaii.
Here is a transcript of the taped interview with Obama’s Kenyan grandmother after she is asked where was Obama born. ( http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/wp-content/uploads…
Quotes begin:
MCRAE: Could I ask her about his actual birthplace? I would like to see his birthplace when I come to Kenya in December. Was she present when he was born in Kenya?
OGOMBE: Yes. She says, yes, she was, she was present when Obama was born.
MCRAE: When I come in December. I would like to come by the place, the hospital, where he was born. Could you tell me where he was born? Was he born in Mombasa?
OGOMBE: No, Obama was not born in Mombasa. He was born in America.
MCRAE: Whereabouts was he born? I thought he was born in Kenya.
OGOMBE: No, he was born in America, not in Mombasa.
MCRAE: Do you know where he was born? I thought he was born in Kenya. I was going to go by and see where he was born.
OGOMBE: Hawaii. Hawaii. Sir, she says he was born in Hawaii. In the state of Hawaii, where his father was also learning, there. The state of Hawaii.
END QUOTE
A second interview in which Obama’s Kenyan grandmother said that the first that she had heard of Obama’s birth was in a letter from Hawaii is reported by the Tribune News Service in the Hartfort Courant, which describes how the Kenyan family received a letter announcing the Aug. 4, 1961, birth. The Tribune reporter noted an interview with Sarah Obama in which she said she was "so happy to have a grandchild in the U.S."
The actual quotation is:
“Six months after they wed, another letter arrived in Kenya, announcing the birth of Barack Hussein Obama, born Aug. 4, 1961. Despite her husband's continued anger, Sarah Obama said in a recent interview, she "was so happy to have a grandchild in the U.S." ( http://www.courant.com/news/nationworld/world/chi…
This shows that the birth did not take place in Kenya, but that it took place in Hawaii because the family in Kenya had heard of the birth in a letter from Hawaii.
He was never adopted in Indonesia, as a call to the Indonesian embassy in Washington will confirm (and he was never a citizen of Indonesia either).
He attended and graduated from Columbia College:
http://www.wikicu.com/Barack_Obama
And this
http://www.college.columbia.edu/cct_archive/jan05…
And this:
http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/2008-05-15-…
And this
http://cityroom.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/01/20/reco…
And this:
http://www.politico.com/static/PPM116_obamaessay….
And this:
http://www.college.columbia.edu/news/barack-obama…
You need to re-read the constitution– o's father was a british citizen therefore o is too.
Here is the relevant section of Article II of the 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."
Does that say anything about dual nationality? NO.
It says that someone must be Natural Born and it says that they must be a citizen.
What does Natural Born mean? At the time that the Constitution was written, it referred only to the place of birth. It referred to someone who became a citizen at birth due to jus soli, the law of soil, of place, of citizenship due to birth within the country. There is also good evidence that the writers of the Constitution did not believe in divided loyalty. They believed with Blackstone that a person could have only one allegiance, to the country where she or he was born.
In any case, neither the citizenship of Obama's father, nor his dual nationality at birth (which lapsed, by the way) has any effect on his Natural Born Citizen status.
“Under the longstanding English common-law principle of jus soli, persons born within the territory of the sovereign (other than children of enemy aliens or foreign diplomats) are citizens from birth. Thus, those persons born within the United States are "natural born citizens" and eligible to be President. Much less certain, however, is whether children born abroad of United States citizens are "natural born citizens" eligible to serve as President …"—- Edwin Meese, et al, THE HERITAGE GUIDE TO THE CONSTITUTION (2005) [Edwin Meese was Ronald Reagan’st attorney general, and the Heritage Foundation is a well-known Conservative organization.]
“Natural born citizen. Persons who are born within the jurisdiction of a national government, i.e. in its territorial limits, or those born of citizens temporarily residing abroad.” — Black’s Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition
“What is a natural born citizen? Clearly, someone born within the United States or one of its territories is a natural born citizen.” (Senate Judiciary Committee hearing hearing on OCTOBER 5, 2004)–Senator Orrin G. Hatch (R-UT).
What really bothers me is that if I applied for any responsible position with the U.S. Government, I would be seriously vetted. My past would be an open book. My parents, my place of birth,my friends, my education etc. Yet, this man holding the highest position in 'the world' was never investigated. Why?
Who is, or should be responsible for this vetting? Is it the job of the Pentagon or the C.I.A. or the F.B.I?
Whomever was responsible should be held accountable. Let's hear from them!
Dr. F.J. Trapani
In one of his speaches he said, don['t try to figure out who I am, but judge me by whom I surround myself with. So I did that and discovered who he hung with were murderers, communists, tax evader's, crooks, and you name it, none of them good. All of us have known he is not a US citizen, but who would listen to us. Many times I said the Judges were either scared off or bought off and I feel whenever all of this is out in the open, the judges that dismissed the case against BO should go down with him. First off he is not who he says he is. He was adopted by an Indonrsian man to be an Indonsian boy. His name is no longer Obama and he has never changed that or applied for a US Citizenship.
His wife knew all of this about him and knew he was lying to us and she said nothing. She enjoyed the big bucks she could spend on herself that didn't belong to either of them. WE are the ones having to pay for her 500 dollar tennis shoes, her vacations, his vacations, the dogs own air plane and vacation. He is hitting us hard and if he is not stopped before 2012 he will see to it we are all dead. WHAT IS THE MATTER WITH THE JUDGES THAT HAVE HAD HIM IN THEIR COURT. Greed can't be so high that they are willing to put all their families at risk or are they
Obama was never adopted while in Indonesia, nor did he become an Indonesian citizen, and he did not even legally change his name while in Indonesia, as a simple telephone call to the Indonesian Embassy in Washington will confirm.
Indonesia is now running the US? Maybe they phoned in to the supremes too. That's it by golly, the Indonesians are running the US. Good work Holmes.
So if it has been proven he is not eligible to be president, my question is now, why is he still sitting in the oval office with that smug ass look on his face and not in the nearest jail? If he had been as smart as he thinks he is, he would have grabbed his wife, kids and dog and headed for France or Russia and left us alone. I feel we could have governed ourselves better than he did. Now what does this mean is he is arrested for treason and everything else he has signed bills into law for? Will they still be the law or can they be kicked out with him, his wife and every member of congress that knew what and who he is.
Exactly. Why isn't he in jail pending trial like anyone of us would be? This is all getting to be so
ridiculous and "They" think WE"RE stupid. huh
During the campaign, Obama and his cohorts made McCain produce his birth certificate. Do you remember that?
WHY DID McCAIN AND HIS FOLLOWERS, NOT REQUEST OBAMA TO DO THE SAME ???
DUMB MISTAKE BY THE REPUBLICAN LAWERS !!!
Actually, McCain did not produce his birth certificate. The one that is online is not his. The US Senate simply accepted his word that he was born in the family hospital on the US Naval Base in the Canal Zone.
In contrast, Obama has both shown the physical copy and posted the image of his official birth certificate from Hawaii, and the officials in Hawaii (members of a Republican governor's administration) and the Republican governor of Hawaii have repeatedly confirmed the facts on the document that Obama was born in Hawaii in 1961.
Absolutely right in Ohio. The online birth certificate showing birth in Colon City is a proven forgery. McCain's campaign showed the actual BC to a Washington Post reporter, but not to the public.
THERE IS NO JUSTICE OTHER THAN THAT YOU ARE ABLE TO BUY….DO YOU NOT UNDERSTAND
THE CHICAGO WAY OF BUSINESS ??? I HAVE MADE MY VIEWS KNOWN EVER SINCE MR. OBAMA
CAME ON THE SCENE AND NO ONE HAS DONE ANYTHING ABOUT IT. THE OBAMA APOINTED
JUDGES ARE NOT GOING TO LET ANYTHING HAPPEN TO THEIR MONEYBAG, THEY WILL PASS ON
ANY THREAT THAT THE CROOKS IN WASHINGTON WANT TO GET TO THE OTHER JUDGES,
THEREFORE I SAY "THERE IS NO JUSTICE"
Again; let it go! Our Hebrew Savior(Zeph. 3:9, Acts 26:14, 1 Cor. 4:6) will deal with this matter! In fact, Yahshua's(meaning: "Yahweh is salvation") Two-Witnesses are coming, starting one of these soon September's, on the Feast of Trumpets(war) to begin their testamony for 3 1/2 years, which is called Jacob's trouble! Once their witnessing ends, 3 1/2 days later comes salvation for those left! Watch!
Pelosi should take most of the blame. And for that JAIL time for treason to America.
Indeed, the answers were given to us little people, shut up! I think it fair that a sass like that be rewarded with a razor strap across the buttocks so as to raise a welt reminding them all that their insolence will not be tolerated. But that would be for a child, adults are to risk a far greater penalty and at some point death for those who put tyranny above our liberty. The only real question is where shall the de jure court convene?
Paul Hollrah wrote: “At the time the Constitution was adopted, every citizen of the thirteen colonies was a British subject, or a citizen of some other country.”
That statement is historically incorrect.
At the time the Constitution was adopted in 1789, every citizen of the thirteen States of the United States was a citizen of the United States, not a British subject, nor a citizen of some other country. Those are the historical facts.
The poster repeats the error when he states “the day before the Constitution was adopted, none of the residents of the thirteen colonies were U.S. citizens because the country didn’t exist.”
That is absurd. The United States existed on the day before the adoption and on the day after.
Read the Constitution. The very first words are “We the People of the United States….”
The United States of America had existed since July 4, 1776, the date of the Declaration of Independence. Read it. The new nation sent and received ambassadors, signed a treaty with France, and waged the War of Independence, won it, and signed the Treaty of Paris with Britain. That Treaty recognized the independent nation that had existed since 1776 and its citizens.
The United States did in fact exist the day before the adoption of the Constitution. The citizens of the United States did not create a county when they adopted the Constitution, but instead adopted a new national government for that country.
The poster persists in his ignorance of elementary facts of American history, and cannot even distinguish between the Declaration and the Constitution. Since most of the essay is based on this incredible historical error, its conclusions must and do come to an erroneous end.
Once again, does the commenter really believe that “the day before the Constitution was adopted, none of the residents of the thirteen colonies were U.S. citizens because the country didn’t exist”?
There were no “colonies” on the day before the adoption.
There were thirteen “States.”
The United States of America.
Mr Observer Sounds Like You Might Be The Manchurian President Obamas Telepromter Writer, Yikees, However All Your Legal Garbage Does Not Help If The President Has A Few Social Security Cards, Yikees, The Latest One 042- -4425 From A Conn Man Over 100 Yr Of Age, Forget The Birth Certificate, Constitution, Declaration Of Independence And Your Rope-A-Dope Spinning, This President Is A Imposter And There Is Obviously A Case Of Fraud Going On Here, Using More Than One Social Security Card, Yikeess, Guilty As Charged. God Bless America.
You too are incorrect.
There was no United States until the document was ratified. Before that there were only states in a confederacy. http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents… Before that the Declaration of Independence , "The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America" is exactly what it says, States united in declaring independence. http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents…
Don't be ridiculous. Iit was a sovereign nation that wage war and negotiated treaties and sent and received ambassadors. Even the King recognized the citizens of the United States.
The latest historical ignorance of Paul Hollrah: “There is no evidence that he [Obama] ever took steps to renounce either his British or his Kenyan citizenship.”
The facts are different. The Obama campaign explained this in 2008:
“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.
“Since Sen. Obama has neither renounced his U.S. citizenship nor sworn an oath of allegiance to Kenya, his Kenyan citizenship automatically expired on Aug. 4,1982.” http://fightthesmears.com/articles/5/birthcertifi…
The historical fact is that Obama lost his dual citizenship when he took no action before age 21. That citizenship was conditional and contingent. He lost it when he did nothing to claim it.
Paul cannot even read his own pasted-up source material. Here is what he posted: ““(1) A person who, upon the attainment of the age of twenty-one years, is a citizen of Kenya and also a citizen of some country other than Kenya shall, subject to subsection (7), cease to be a citizen of Kenya upon the specified date unless he has renounced his citizenship of that other country, taken the oath of allegiance and, in the case of a person who was born outside Kenya, made and registered such declaration of his intentions concerning residence as may be prescribed by or under an Act of Parliament.”
Crystal clear. He “ceased to be a citizen of Kenya” when he failed to renounce US citizenship and take an oath to Kenya. Sure, there is no evidence that he renounced Kenyan citizenship. He lost it when he failed to renounce US citizenship.
There is nothing in the Constitution, in its history, or in the court cases that supports his theory. It is a crank constitutional notion.
Who is going to listen to this guy Paul if he still thinks the United States did not exist as a country until adoption of the Constitution.
He will not even learn some history and correct his mistakes.
He does not like to be corrected. They just cut off comments at the McClarty site.
Cowards.
http://bobmccarty.com/2010/11/25/understanding-th…
That is all a fine opinion but again, there are documents required to even begin proposing that scenario were even the right one. What are we supposed to take as fact? If it helps, the DoH in HI has refused to verify the document posted by factcheck and Obama's own campaign site is one they generated. Why? Some way there must be a document produced and verified by it's originator as true. That has not happened yet has it?
http://www.scribd.com/doc/28117439/Sb2937-Testimo…
“For more than a year, the Department of Health has continued to receive approximately 50 e-mail inquiries a month seeking access to President Barack Obama’s birth certificate in spite of the fact that President Obama has posted a copy of the certificate on his former campaign website. Hawaii is a “closed records” state, meaning that vital records are available on ly to those with a direct and tangible interest as defined by statute; hence they are not subject to disclosure under public records requests.”
So in testimony to a state legislative subcommittee, the official custodian of state birth records reaffirmed that they were still getting requests for Obama’s birth certificate even though it was posted on his website.
What can you expect from a nation of brain dead cretins? The product of the communist infiltration of our educational system in order to dumb us down, and they did a great job of just doing that! Our only hope will be the HOME SCHOOLED YOUTH who are not influenced by the communist mind set. GOD HELP THE UNITED STATES
It Appears That All Washington DC Politics Are Afraid Of George Soros Because The Manchurian Muslim President Obamacare Has Lost His Power, Yikeess, However The CRS Congressional Reserch Service And Their Legislative Attorney Jack Maskell Should Be Fired Now, This President Has Never Been Vetted, Why? Maybe We Should Hire Wikileaks To Get At The Bottom Of This Imposter, Yippee. God Bless America And The Tea Party.
You asked: "This President Has Never Been Vetted, Why?'
Because no president has ever been vetted. However, Obama has proved that he was born in Hawaii and hence a Natural Born Citizen by showing the official birth certificate of Hawaii and the repeated confirmations of the officials in Hawaii who are Republican officials and the Republican governor of Hawaii.
The Wall Street Journal said: "Obama has already provided a legal birth certificate demonstrating that he was born in Hawaii. No one has produced any serious evidence to the contrary. Absent such evidence, it is unreasonable to deny that Obama has met the burden of proof. We know that he was born in Honolulu as surely as we know that Bill Clinton was born in Hope, Ark., or George W. Bush in New Haven, Conn.'
Every US citizen who was born on US soil is a Natural Born Citizen.
“Under the longstanding English common-law principle of jus soli, persons born within the territory of the sovereign (other than children of enemy aliens or foreign diplomats) are citizens from birth. Thus, those persons born within the United States are "natural born citizens" and eligible to be President. Much less certain, however, is whether children born abroad of United States citizens are "natural born citizens" eligible to serve as President …"—- Edwin Meese, et al, THE HERITAGE GUIDE TO THE CONSTITUTION (2005) [Edwin Meese was Ronald Reagan’st attorney general, and the Heritage Foundation is a well-known Conservative organization.]
“Natural born citizen. Persons who are born within the jurisdiction of a national government, i.e. in its territorial limits, or those born of citizens temporarily residing abroad.” — Black’s Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition
“What is a natural born citizen? Clearly, someone born within the United States or one of its territories is a natural born citizen.” (Senate Judiciary Committee hearing hearing on OCTOBER 5, 2004)–Senator Orrin G. Hatch (R-UT),
http://standupamericaus.com/operation-clean-sweep…
Settle the legalities once justice is restored to legitimate constitutional courts. Only when the republic is run by true republicans can there be legitimate government. Federalist 43 art 6
We have a right and a duty to uphold and defend the constitution. "a right implies a remedy; and where else could the remedy be deposited, than where it is deposited by the Constitution? "
Federalist 28 p6 "If the representatives of the people betray their constituents,"
http://www.foundingfathers.info/federalistpapers/…
So an unconstitutional military coup (politely titled "Clean Sweep") is the way to "protect" the Constitution? And who protects us from those who then stage the coup and decide they like the power?
It's your opinion james, back it up. I backed up mine with legal documentation. Of course you view the federalist papers as polite but in fact they are the guidance we are legally entitled to cite. Where is your backing? Oh, I forgot, we won get over it.