WHY Obama fails to be eligible in MULTIPLE WAYS..........

Why Obama fails to be eligible in MULTIPLE ways by DefendUSx July 21, 2009 00:12

Fact 1: The US Constitution requires a natural born citizen to hold office of the President (Article II)

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;

Fact 2: To be "natural-born", both parents must be "natural-born" citizens and with only US citizenships. If the child is born in the US, but has a parent who is not a US citizen, then he or she does not qualify for office of the President. Fact 3: Dual-citizenship to multiple countries is prohibited by the US for office of the President. Obama fails to be eligible for Fact 1, because what makes Fact 1 true is passing BOTH Fact 2 AND Fact 3. Obama doesn't pass either Fact 2 or Fact 3 because: For Fact 2:

“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." Source: NoBarack08.wordpress.com

For Fact 3: Indonesia only permits a single citizenship for ALL of Indonesia's inhabitants. If you have US citizenship and attempt to get Indonesia citizenship, the Indonesian government will not allow this according to their Constitution. You must first revoke any other citizenships. Obama went to Pakistan in 1981, at a time when the US State Dept. was not allowing any US citizens to travel to Pakistan because of major turbulance in the region. The only way Obama could have went to Pakistan is if the US government authorized him to do so OR he travelled there on another passport. It is believed Obama did have another passport - an Indonesian Passport (and still does). I guess we won't hear that testimony as a key witness who came forward that was going to testify against the Obama "Passport Gate" debacle, was shot and killed outside a church over a year ago. Also, there are no records of Obama revoking his Indonesian citizenship anywhere. What has Obama provided as proof? Everything has been "sealed". Obama in his first day as President, created and signed Executive Order 13489 over-turning amendments in the Freedom of Information Act that allowed the public to retrieve and access Presidential records for purposes of vetting and transparency. Obama has provided a forged image of Certificate of Live Birth - which is not even a real birth certificate. Foreign-born children can get a Hawiian Certificate of Live Birth document anytime.

* No access to any Occidental College records. * No access to medical records. * No access to Harvard records. * No access to Columbia University records. * No access to College Thesis reports. * No access to Passport records. * No access to Selective Service records. * No access to family hospital records (wherever that may be ..HI has said there are no records of Obama's Mother having been there and treated for Cancer.

Obama can provide his "tweaked" tax records for 2008 (showing he earned millions .. but is even certainly more than the numbers shown on those forms). Obama's whole cabinet are known tax cheats, sure can't expect him to show the real numbers. If Obama can show his tax records (tweaked or not), why can't he show his long-form birth certificate? Answer .. because he can't tweak that as easily. You would need a 1960 Hilderberg printing press from a Museum (in working order) to pull off the mother of all forgeries. By the way, a 1960 Hilderberg printing press was sold on April 21, 2009 at a UK web auction.

Birth Certificate | main E-mail | Kick it! | DZone it! | del.icio.us Permalink | Comments (17) | Post RSSRSS comment feed Related posts The Ultimate Obama COLB resourceJust click the Email link at the bottom to send this bad-boy off - all the info and coverage you cou...Affidavit in Support of Demand for Information Download PDF STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY ...Obots: All together now – say OMG!! Somehow, you know it’s coming. That OMG moment is just around the corner. You can feel the i...

**************************************** Comments ****************************************

Dear Mr. Dobbs, PLEASE TAKE THE TIME TO READ THIS LETTER The birth certificate issue, or lack thereof, in regards to Barack Obama's eligibility to hold office is a "red herring". I will speak more about this later on within this letter.

I am furnishing you with IRREFUTABLE PROOF that Barack Obama is not now, nor has he ever been and cannot ever be a "natural born citizen" of the United States and therefore is constitutionally ineligible to hold the office of President. I will include all necessary research data links for you.

Article II, Section I, Clause V of the U.S. Constitution: en.wikipedia.org/.../Article_Two_of_the_United_States_Constitution:_Qualifications_for_office

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.

( or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution ) This clause was added because at the time of the adoption of the constitution, THERE WERE NO NATURAL BORN CITIZENS old enough to be president. They were merely naturalized citizens. They had no choice, but to "grandfather" themselves in. It is clear that their intentions for eligibility of future presidents would require that one be a natural born citizen. They did this as a safeguard to prevent an individual with divided loyalties or allegiances from entering the office of president. They did this to prevent someone who doesn't have our country's best interest at heart from assuming the role of Commander in Chief, such as the situation we currently find ourselves in.

Some will say that the term "natural born citizen" has never before been properly defined. That simply is not true, as it has been defined quite well. The founding fathers and framers of the U.S. Constitution, as did almost all nations, used the writings of Vattel's "Law of Nations" as a guide in adopting and writing their laws. Vattel here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emerich_de_Vattel Read what one of our founding fathers, Benjamin Franklin, wrote in regards to Vattel's writings. It is the first post on the page, Here: thelibertypole.ning.com/.../natural-born-citizen

Vattel used the term "natural born citizen", which is used only one time in the U.S. Constitution for the purpose of presidential eligibility, and he defined it as "those born in the country, of parents who are citizens." That is parents, plural, as in two or both. Here: http://www.thebirthers.org/USC/Vattel.html Here: naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/.../

The "Law of Nations" was used by John Jay, who later went on to become the first Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court. Jay had the clause inserted into the Constitution via a letter that he wrote to George Washington, the leader of the Constitutional Convention. Jay was considered to be the outstanding legal scholar of his time. He was also considered to be the architect of the U.S. Constitution. He was the one who was responsible for inserting the term natural born citizen, which was derived from the Law of Nations, into the U. S. Constitution.

John Jay wrote: "Permit me to hint, whether it would be wise and reasonable to provide a strong check to the admission of Foreigners into the administration of our national Government; and to declare expressly that the Commander in Chief of the American army shall not be given to nor devolve on, any but a natural born Citizen." The document is here; begin reading at the second paragraph. Click on the image to enlarge, Here: i477.photobucket.com/.../JohnJay-NBCletter.jpg

John Armor Bingham was a Republican congressman from Ohio, America, judge advocate in the trial of the Abraham Lincoln assassination and a prosecutor in the impeachment trials of Andrew Johnson. He is also the principal framer and architect of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. John Bingham confirms the understanding that the framers used in regards to birthright and jurisdiction while speaking on civil rights of citizens in the House on March 9, 1866: {{quote} 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"….}} Obama had one U.S. citizen parent and his other parent owed allegiance the British Crown. Look under the heading "Later life" about two thirds of the way down the page, Here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Bingham

As recently as last year, 2008, our own government officials, through Senate Resolution 511, also agreed that one of the requirements to be a natural born citizen was to be, someone born to two U.S. citizen parents. Here: www.govtrack.us/.../billtext.xpd?bill=sr110-511

Notice, that in Senate Resolution 511, it refers to the First Congress as a source for determining that Senator John McCain should be deemed a natural born citizen. In that First Congress document it also states that citizen PARENTS (plural) are a requirement for natural born citizen status. Of course that is a problem for Barack Obama, but there may be another problem for him in other wording contained within this document. Here is a direct quote; "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." Uh, Oh!!! Obama was one of the co-signers of SR 511. Is being in the U.S. on a temporary student visa, as was Barack Obama Sr., considered as being resident? Hmmm??? We will probably never know. Look within the [104] marker and about two thirds of the way down through the paragraph. Here: en.wikisource.org/.../Chapter_3

They made this assertion in an effort to establish that Senator John McCain was a natural born citizen, since his citizenship status was being challenged. Here: http://naturalborncitiz en.wor dpress.com/2009/06/24/why-do-both-obamas-state-department-and-the-senate-require-two-us-citizen-parents-for-those-born-abroad-to-attain-natural-born-citizen-status/

I don't think Senate Resolution 511 holds much legal weight due to the fact that the U.S. Supreme Court is the only true and final authoritative rule on matters of wording and interpretation of the constitution. It does at least exhibit the fact that they all agreed that being born to two U.S. citizen parents was one of the requirements in being a natural born citizen. Notice that in all the wording of Senate Resolution 511 and statements made from witnesses, Senator Leahy and Secretary Cherthoff, that they say "citizen parents", (plural) as in two or both parents.

Barack Obama clearly and openly admitted on his own, "Fight the Smears", web site that when he was born his father, Barack Obama Sr., was a citizen of Kenya. Click on the image to enlarge, Here: www.total411.info/.../...website-admitting-to.html" rel="nofollow">www.total411.info/.../...website-admitting-to.html Note: Barack Obama's "Fight the Smears" web site, as well as almost all web sites that ever contained anything that would expose Obama, has been scrubbed, hence the "screen grab" links.

Kenya, at that time, was a British Colony and Obama Jr.'s citizenship status fell under the "British Nationality Act of 1948". Here: naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/.../ Barack Obama was born to one U.S. citizen (mother) and one British subject (father) and at the time of his birth held dual citizenships of Great Britain and the U.S. A natural born citizen cannot, under any circumstances, be born with or have dual citizenship and owe any allegiance to any foreign nation. Obama has also admitted on his "Fight the Smears" web site that his citizenship status, at the time of his birth and due to his father's nationality, fell under the jurisdiction of the nation of Great Britain. That is a problem for Barack Obama and there is no denying this irrefutable fact. Again here: www.total411.info/.../...website-admitting-to.html" rel="nofollow">www.total411.info/.../...website-admitting-to.html

The term natural born citizen has already been previously determined and ruled on by the Supreme Court of the United States in the case of Marbury vs. Madison in 1803. A precedent has been established by the Supreme Court. There is no getting around this. Here: caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/.../getcase.pl Begin reading here at about the 18th paragraph where this, " POINT II: UNITED STATES LAW INCLUDES" is highlighted in blue. naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/.../ There are several other court cases in which natural born citizenship has been addressed and not a single one of them support Obama's assertion that he is a natural born citizen. NOT ONE!!!! Some are listed here: http://www.theobamafile.com/ObamaNaturalBorn.htm

I have NOT intentionally omitted any reference to any court case that would weigh favorably towards Obama's eligibility plight. I have not been able to find any and to my knowledge, they simply do not exist. Not a single case. NONE!!!

Obama's supporters will make up all sorts of lies to credit him. They will and have said things like, "The Supreme Court has already ruled that Barack Obama is a natural born citizen and that he is eligible". Its complete hogwash!!! To present date, not one single law suit that has been filed against Obama has ever been heard on it's merits by a judge. Almost every single case has been refused on the grounds of "standing", meaning that "we the people" have no right to question Obama. Its absolutely absurd, isn't it?

Some, even Barack Obama himself, will try to say that the Fourteenth Amendment confirms his eligibility. This also is simply not true. The 14th amendment NEVER mentions natural born citizenship in it anywhere or in any form or fashion. Also you may have noticed, in the the link that I posted above, that the case of Marbury vs. Madison strikes down that notion. Here: www.gpoaccess.gov/constitution/pdf/con025.pdf More on the 14th Amendment problem for Barack Obama. Here: puzo1.blogspot.com/.../...nt-nor-wong-kim-ark.html

There are different classifications of citizenship, such as U.S. citizen and naturalized citizen, both of which are referred to in the 14th Amendment, and then there is natural born citizen. There is a difference and when the defenders of Barack Obama try to make their arguments they will continually throw out the words "U.S. Citizen" or "Native born", but they will never use the term "natural born citizen". They will avoid it like the plague. Don't let them get away with it. Always remember that when the issue is being debated and references are being thrown your way in regards to Obama's "citizenship", stop them in their tracks and make them show you where their references to Obama's "natural born citizenship" can be found. They will become extremely flustered and may possibly even try to recite some law or passage, but it will never contain the phrase, natural born citizen. If it does, it would simply mean that they hammered a nail in their own coffin, because as I have already proven here, a natural born citizen is required to have been born of (1) TWO U.S. CITIZEN PARENTS, (2) ON U.S. SOIL, and (3) cannot fall under the jurisdiction of or owe any allegiance to any foreign nation. While #1 and #3 go hand in hand, all three of these are required and all three DO matter . Barack Obama absolutely lacks #1 and #3 and possibly #2 We will get back to #2 a little later in this letter.

I could go on and on and on with more documented references to the definition and determination of the natural born citizen clause within the constitution, but I think by now that I have made my case and you are well informed. Just incase you want to see more facts, I will add an additional link to some more excellent references. Here: http://people.mags.net/tonchen/birthers.htm

I would also like to add that the guest on your radio show, that was touted as the foremost authority on citizenship, misinformed you and your listeners. On second thought, I will rephrase that; He flat out lied to you!!! You can listen here: http://citizenwells.com/

Recap video of the greatest hoax ever to be perpetrated on the Citizens of the United States. Here: www.youtube.com/watch It can't be told anymore clearer than that.

As I said earlier, I believe that the birth certificate issue is a "red herring" designed to distract people from the real problem of Obama's birth status. I have absolutely no doubt that when the time is right, Usurper Obama WILL produce a "long form" birth certificate, whether it be authentic or the best forgery that money can buy, showing him to have been born in Hawaii. I think that anyone with at least half a brain can see this coming.

However, there does seem to be something that he is trying to hide in regards to his original birth certificate. No one spends around a million dollars to keep from having to show a $12 .50 document. There is a distinct possibility that he was born in Kenya. We just don't know.

There are signed affidavits that originate from an interview with Obama's grandmother, Sarah, in which she stated that she was present in the hospital room in Mombassa, Kenya where Barack was born. Here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OirvxsUsxb0 I believe that Attorney Phillip Berg, who has had or has several court cases challenging Obama's eligibility, posses the affidavits, as well as the original audio tape of the phone conversation to Kenya. Mr. Berg video is here: www.youtube.com/watch Mr. Berg's web site is here: http://www.obamacrimes.info/

There is also audio of an interview between a Chicago radio program and a Kenyan Ambassador in which the Ambassador also stated that Obama was born in Kenya. Here: www.youtube.com/watch

There have been headlines and articles from African print media which also state that Obama was born in Kenya. Is any of it true? I don't know, but he is going to extreme lengths to hide something, thats for sure. This image was from usafricaonline.com web site in 2008: www.usafricaonline.com/barackbama08usafrica.gif This from graphicghana.com; read the fourth paragraph: www.graphicghana.com/news/page.php?news=2497 Again here, from modernghana.com: www.theobamafile.com/.../...ontinentOfHisBirth.htm

Possibly his VERY FIRST act as president / usurper was to sign an executive order into law (unlawful; a usurper can't sign an executive order) that exempts him from having to disclose any personal documents, whatsoever. Wow!!! Who does that? Why was it the first order of business? Why so urgent? Here: freedomedium.com/.../

Earlier, I mentioned the possibility of a forged long form birth certificate being put forward. The reason that I would ever think that could be possible is that there is evidence that forgery of other documents may have already taken place. The online "Certification of Live Birth" / "short form" has MANY hallmarks of a tampered with or fabricated document. Here: freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/2136816/posts

His Selective Service Registration Form / document for the military draft has some very alarming signs of tampering or outright fabrications also. Here: www.debbieschlussel.com/.../exclusive_did_n.html

Unless he really was born in Kenya, which we simply do not know, the fact is that absolutely none of this matters. He was born with dual nationalities / citizenship and to one U.S. citizen parent. Ineligible!!!

There are still other problems yet. It would seem that Obama was adopted by his stepfather, Lolo Soetoro, and lived in Indonesia where he went to school and had to relinquish his U.S. citizenship. This was required by the government to be able to enter into school. Indonesia did not allow for dual citizenship. When did he relinquish his Indonesian citizenship and reaffirm his U.S. citizenship? There should be documentation of that. While there, Barack Obama's legal name was changed to Barry Soetoro. When did he LEGALLY change his name back to Barack Obama? There should be documentation of that too. Did he fraudulently run for office on an alias name rather than on his legal name? Here: http://www.daylife.com/photo/01u33pL9Ns06D

Obama stated in his memoirs that he traveled to Pakistan in 1981 via Indonesia where he stopped first to visit his mother. In 1981 Pakistan was under martial law and was on the U.S. government's list of restricted countries for travel. Few U.S. passports were issued to civilians. How did he manage that? Did he acquire an Indonesian passport while visiting his mother there? How can an American get an Indonesian passport? They can't, but an Indonesian citizen can.

While all of these secondary issues DO matter and should be resolved, they can all be set aside and put on the back burner for now, because no matter if he was born in Hawaii or if he was born in the oval office, he is not now, nor can he ever be a natural born citizen as defined by the sources that I have provided for you here.

Barack Obama is ineligible to hold the office of President of the United States.

P.S. Dr. Orly Taitz is a national treasure. She is a naturalized U.S. citizen and formerly from Russia. She has seen firsthand and lived through the nightmare of Socialism. That is why she is fighting so hard to defend our constitution. She is a true patriot and while I admire her courage and very much appreciate her efforts, she doesn't always articulate her facts as well as some others may. Instead of just interviewing Dr. Taitz, I implore you to also contact Attorney Mario Apuzzo and interview him as well. His contact information is posted on his web site. Mr. Apuzzo's web site is here: puzo1.blogspot.com/.../...-national-weekly-20.html

Mr. Apuzzo, on behalf of plaintiff, Mr. Kerchner, is also currently in the middle of a very high profile law suit in challenging the eligibility of Barack Obama.

Here is one of a series of educational ads that are being ran in the Washington Times National Weekly by Mr. Kerchner, Mr. Apuzzo's plaintiff in Kerchner vs. Obama & Congress. This particular ad is being ran on July 20th, 2009 on page nine.

Controls, to zoom in and out, are at the bottom of the pdf. page here: www.scribd.com/.../Kerchner-et-al-v-Obama-Congress-et- al-Advertorial-in-20090720-Issue-Wash-Time s-Natl-Wkly-pg-9 Mr. Apuzzo will be able to, very eloquently, verify everything that I have laid out for you here. You and your radio listeners or television viewers would come away from the interview with a precise and clear understanding of the facts surrounding this issue of Obama's ineligibility.

By the way, I was absolutely appalled and disgusted by the well planned, finely timed and executed, intentional hatchet job that Kitty Pilgrim performed in your absence, for the CNN interview of Dr. Taitz and Alan Keyes. She had a condescending smirk on her face before the interview ever even got underway and it was obvious that she enjoyed every last second of that "hit job". Until then, I had always liked Ms. Pilgrim whenever she would fill in for you. Now, as far as I'm concerned, she deserves to go by the way of Susan Roesgen, Fired!!! It was inexcusable. << | < | > | >> | Reply | Quote

This from file. I believe the parents need only be citizens not Natural Born citizens as the author of the article has written.

from;
http://www.theobamafile.com/ObamaNaturalBorn.htm
The Chart referred to here is at that link and didn’t make the paste.

The
Issue The question that the court must decide is whether a person governed by the laws of Great at the time of their birth could be considered a natural “born citizen” of the United States as required by Article 2 Section 1 Clause 5 of our Constitution.

The question remains unanswered in any United States court.

The Chart

People are confused because they don’t understand the meaning of the relevant legal terms. This chart shows the elements for each of the constitutional terms that are used in the Constitution or in caselaw by the Supreme Court.

For each presidential candidate, they can put the factual history of their birth in the equation and see if they fit the bill to be president of the U.S. under the of , Article II, Section 1, Clause 5, and the 14th Amendment, Section 1, and the relevant federal law under U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898), and Perkins v. Elg, 307 U.S. 325 (1939). As you can clearly see, Obama is a citizen of the United States, but he’s not a “natural born citizen” of the United States, and, as such, is not eligible for POTUS, because his father, a Kenyan, was not a U. S. citizen.

Obama... is not a “natural born citizen” because his father was a Kenyan national and a British subject. To be a natural born citizen, a person’s parents must BOTH be citizens of the United States of America. Further, that person must be born in the United States.

is a “citizen” because his mother was an American citizen. There are question about his birthplace and whether he was naturalized after his period of time as an Indonesian citizen.

may be a “native born citizen” — a child born in the United States of foreign (non-citizen) parents. He will have to release his birth certificate, which he hasn’t, to ascertain this status.
John Jay The term natural born citizen was first codified in writing in colonial reference books in 1758 in the legal reference book “Law of Nations.”

That legal reference book was used by John Jay, who later went on to become the first of the U.S. Supreme Court. Jay had the clause inserted into the Constitution via a letter he wrote to George Washington, the leader of the Constitutional Convention. Jay was considered the outstanding legal scholar of his time and he was the one is responsible for inserting that term into the U. S. Constitution, which was derived from the Law of Nations.

John Jay wrote: “Permit me to hint, whether it would be wise and reasonable to provide a strong check to the admission of Foreigners into the administration of our national Government; and to declare expressly that the of the American army shall not be given to nor devolve on, any but a natural born Citizen.”
Law Of
Nations

Emmerich de Vattel was a Swiss jurist who attained world preeminence in international law. This was primarily the result of his great foundational work, which he published in 1758. His monumental work — The Law of Nations — applied a theory of natural law to international relations. His scholarly, foundational, and systematic explanation of the Law of Nations was especially influential in the United States.

The Law of Nations was so influential in the United States because his principles of liberty and equality coincided with the ideals expressed in the U. S. Declaration of Independence. In particular, his definitions in terms of Law governing nations regarding citizenship, defense of neutrality, and his rules for commerce between neutral and belligerent states were considered authoritative in the United States.

Many have said that de Vattel’s Law of Nations was THE primary reference and defining book used by the framers of the U. S. Constitution. It is really not possible to overstate the influence of de Vattel’s Law of Nations as the primary reference book in the drafting of the U. S. Constitution. Emmerich de Vattel’s Law of Nations is almost beyond comparison in its value as a defining document regarding U. S. Constitution intent and interpretation. The Law of Nations, or the Principles of Natural Law, published in 1758, is the first, and ONLY, definitive work the Framers of the U. S. Constitution used for the inclusion of the “Natural Born Citizen” phrase. It nails what is meant by the “natural born citizen” phrase of Section 1, Article 2, of the U. S. Constitution.

It is amazing how perfectly, precisely, and explicitly what Emmerich de Vattel, wrote in paragraph 212, of book 1, chapter 19, of The Law of Nations entitled CITIZENS AND NATIONS, applies to the Obama FRAUD. Quite clearly and explicitly it defines why Obama, can NOT possibly be qualified to be the President of the United States. Obama MUST be disqualified from the office of President of the United States according to the U. S. Constitution Section 1 Article 2.

“The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. As the society can not exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights. The society is supposed to desire this, in consequence of what it owes to its own preservation; and it is presumed, as a matter of course, that each citizen, on entering into society, reserves to his children the right of becoming members of it. THE COUNTRY OF THE FATHERS IS THEREFORE THAT OF THE CHILDREN.”
It’s About
Loyalty The Founders wanted the President to be a Natural Born Citizen to ensure that the ONE person sitting at the top of the Executive branch had UNQUESTIONABLE, UNWAVERING loyalty to the United States, first and foremost.

At one point, the delegates writing the Constitution in 1787 considered THREE “presidents” in the Executive for “checks and balances.” They considered a “natural born citizen” clause for Senators as well. Debating those issues, they felt that a “natural born citizen” clause for Senators would limit the pool of possible candidates and could cause bad feelings with immigrants needed to “jump start” the newly-formed republic.

In the end, the Framers compromised that Senators be required to be US residents for 9 years, while striking the “natural born citizen” clause for the office.

The Framers also compromised on ONE Executive vs. THREE. But to ensure “checks and balances,” the Framers inserted in Art II, Sect. 1, Clause 5: “No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President...”

The natural born citizen clause was NOT an accident, nor was it an inane rule to be restrictive to immigrants, and it certainly isn’t just a “political” issue. Loyalty to the US is the reason the natural born citizen clause was inserted into the Constitution.
1st U. S.
Congress
Parents (pl) In the official copies of the THIRD (1795) margin notes state “Former act repealed. 1790. ch. 3.” referencing the FIRST U.S. Congress (1790).

Document ONE: the actual text of the THIRD CONGRESS in 1795 states, “...children of citizens [plural, i.e. two parents] of the United States...shall be considered citizens of the United States; Provided That the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons, whose fathers have never been resident in the United States...” (THIRD CONGRESS Sess. II. Ch.21. 1795, Approved January 29, 1795, pp. 414-415. Document margin note: “How children shall obtain citizenship through their parents” Document margin note: “Former Act repealed 1790 ch.3.”) See Attachment A.

Document TWO: the actual text of the FIRST CONGRESS in 1790 states,
“...children of citizens (NB: plural, i.e. two parents) of the United States...shall be considered as natural born citizens of the United States; Provided That the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons, whose fathers have never been resident in the United States...” (FIRST CONGRESS Sess. II Ch.4 1790, Approved March 26, 1790, pp. 103-104. Document margin note: “Their children residing here, deemed citizens.” Document margin note: “Also, children of citizens born beyond sea, & c. Exceptions.”) See Attachment B.

Document THREE: the actual text of the Constitution from the and the , 1774-1789, and subsequent official printings, of the of American: Article II Section 1 Clause 5 states,
“No person, except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President…” See Attachment C.

Source

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.