Posted on 04/27/2011 6:46:49 PM PDT by geraldmcg
At long last, Barack Obama Jr. released his long form birth certificate today, clearly proving he is NOT a natural born citizen. So, why has there been virtually no call in the Senate to begin impeachment proceedings? And why are so many news reporters acting as if all Obama needed to substantiate he was a Natural Born Citizen was to prove he was born in the U.S.A?
The U.S. Constitution and U.S. law, as of the time of Obama Junior’s birth, still required a President to have a father (pictured top left) who was a U.S. citizen. Clearly Obama’s father was a British citizen, as clearly shown on the very document Obama released.
Still not convinced? Let’s take a refresher course in U.S. history. Our founding fathers didn’t want any U.S. President to have mixed loyalties so they required that both parents of a President be U.S. citizens in order to qualify their son or daughter to be a Natural Born U.S. Citizen. Period. Simple. Not complicated.
Here’s the exact language of the Naturalization Act of 1790, passed by the first U.S. Congress: “And the children of citizens of the United States, that may be born beyond sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born citizens: Provided, That the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in the United States…”
So there you have it. Obama is not eligible to be U.S. President and needs to be impeached and convicted quickly to avoid a constitutional crisis and to follow rule of law.
Bottom line: It doesn’t matter if Obama was born in Hawaii, which was actually a U.S. Territory at the time of Obama’s birth and not yet a U.S. state. What does matter is that Obama Jr.’s dad Obama Sr. was not a U.S. citizen and thus rendering his son’s Presidential aspirations patently illegal.
Need more proof? The founding fathers put the definition in writing from the defining documents of their day. Founding father John Jay used the definition of “natural born Citizen” straight from The Law of Nations (Vattel) that states: “The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens…” (Vattel in Book 1, Sec 212)
“It defies logic.”
More to the point, it defies law and the US Constitution.
The Constitution had residency requirements for most offices, but required the President to be born in the US. It was left to the voters to reject America-hating baby killers, but America didn’t do that in 2008.
“Until the 14th Amendment, a newborn’s citizenship status was determined by the citizenship status of his parents.”
Not true. The 14th was written to clarify the position of blacks, but citizenship by birth had always been recognized in the USA.
you are just wrong.
being born in the US makes you a citizen. at least a naturalized citizen.
if both parents are citizens at that time, then you are a natural born citizen.
if this was not the case, then any foreign dictator could squat a child on our shores, raise them elsewhere, and put them in the office. this was the situation the founders were pushing to avoid. hence the language.
And the ‘intent’ that all the legalese tries desperately to ignore.
BO/BS can’t be impeached! He’s not President! He must be removed from office and charged with treason!
page 246)
And the constitution itself contains a direct recognition of the subsisting common law principle, in the section which defines the qualification of the President. “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,” &c. The only standard which then existed, of a natural born citizen, was the rule of the common law, and no different standard has been adopted since. Suppose a person should be elected President who was native born, but of alien parents, could there be any reasonable doubt that he was eligible under the constitution? I think not.
(pg 250)
6. Upon principle, therefore, I can entertain no doubt, but that by the law of the United States, every person born within the dominions and allegiance of the United States, whatever were the situation of his parents, is a natural born citizen.
http://tesibria.typepad.com/whats_your_evidence/Lynch_v_Clarke_1844_ocr.pdf
“And if, at common law, all human beings born within the ligeance of the King, and under the King’s obedience, were natural-born subjects, and not aliens, I do not perceive why this doctrine does not apply to these United States, in all cases in which there is no express constitutional or statute declaration to the contrary. . . . Subject and citizen are, in a degree, convertible terms as applied to natives, and though the term citizen seems to be appropriate to republican freemen, yet we are, equally with the inhabitants of all other countries, subjects, for we are equally bound by allegiance and subjection to the government and law of the land.”
James Kent, COMMENTARIES ON AMERICAN LAW, pg. 258 (1826)
“The country where one is born, how accidental soever his birth in that place may have been, and although his parents belong to another country, is that to which he owes allegiance. Hence the expression natural born subject or citizen, & all the relations thereout growing. To this there are but few exceptions, and they are mostly introduced by statutes and treaty regulations, such as the children of seamen and ambassadors born abroad, and the like.”
Leake v. Gilchrist, 13 N.C. 73 (N.C. 1829)
If you don’t know what a naturalized citizen is, perhaps you should read more before posting.
Thank you, thank you for clearing that up!
It’s has been reported that O’s mother was three months pregnant when she married Obama Sr. Further, Obama Sr. had a wife and child in Kenya and was already married. Where is the evidence that Obama Sr. was a US citizen?
Keep smoking the Jerome Corsi crap and you’ll fry you brain, champ.
If you are right that is an amazing program to recognize all the lines without a trace of a line reaming anyplace.
I downloaded the PDF and opened it with Corel Paint Shop Pro... When I check the layers, I only see one. Do me a favor, just in case they replaced the PDF wit a flattened on, The PDF I downloaded is 376 KB (385,354 bytes)... what size is the PDF you broke down... also, can you send me a copy of the PDF you downloaded?
“Don’t practice law without a license champ. Since the Supreme Court decided U.S. v Wong Kim Ark in 1898, the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution has been interpreted as conferring citizenship on anyone born in the U.S. Who are legally present in the U.S. Regardless of their parents’ citizenship status. The 14th amendment trumps the naturalization act, which by the way, has been amended many times now.
Get over it. You’re not a lawyer. Focus on the real issues of the lousy economy and Obama’s failure as a president...”
Amen! It is crystal clear to anyone who has even a vague understanding of the law that the Wong Kim decision makes anyone born in the US a citizen at birth.
There is no NBC v. citizen-by-birth-in-the-US distinction. And there is no official document that makes such a distinction.
There is 0, none, zero, nada mention in the Constitution requiring both parents to be citizens of the US to be a NBC elligible to be president. What we have is Article 2, the 14th Amendment, Wong Kim Ark, and the US code defining citizenship pursuant to powers granted to Congress in Article 1. The Supremacy Clause says these count and Vatel or whoever doesn’t. End of story.
You can have two foreign born parents as long as they are not diplomats and still be a U.S. Citizen if you are born on U.S. Soil. This was the English common law adopted 2 centuries ago by the U.S.
Obama was born in 1961. Hawaii became a state in 1959... so your dog don’t hunt. Try again.
Well, it was voting for the Kennedy-Johnson slate in 1960, the only Pacific state to have done so! Hiram Fong was the leading Nixon man there.
Yes, and the American people have been doing that for a long time now! And sadly will continue to do so
oh my gosh
I opened it in Photoshop CS5 and it had no layers... did the WH take it down and upload a “fixed” version with the layers flattened?
naturalized and natural born are two different things.
if you’re opinion were accurate, then any citizen would be eligible to be president. at which point, why would the founders use the language?
they wouldn’t. they understood the definition of natural born as someone born in the country of citizen parents.
amazing how far some people will go in order to twist a simple definition.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.