Replies

The Amendments to the Constitution are not inferior in status to the Articles of the Constitution, they are one and the same.
The term “Natural Born Citizen” with respect to its usage in Article 2 Section One has never been tested in court for further definition.
The current US Supreme Court has rejected hearing any and all cases (thus far) that seek to test the meaning of the term natural born citizen with reference to the eligibilty of Barack Obama to be the 44th President of the United States.

The high court has denied a hearing to several law suits due to “lack of standing” by plaintiffs.

The 14th Amendment says that “All persons BORN or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside...” Thus far in American history, including the election of Barack Obama, it is the 14th Amendment’s definition that has prevailed. In effect, without further clarification, a BORN citizen is identical to a Natural Born Citizen and is distinguished from a “naturalized citizen.”

In effect, without further clarification, a BORN citizen is identical to a Natural Born Citizen and is distinguished from a “naturalized citizen.”

Not at all true, in fact, quite the opposite.

According to the 14th Amendment, a naturalized citizen is identical to a "person born" citizen:

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States

So, if "persons born" or "naturalized", are citizens enjoying all "privileges or immunities" alike, BUT naturalized citizens CANNOT become President, then it stands to reason that being that "person born" citizen is not sufficient qualification on its own to meet the Constitutional standard for the Presidency, and there is a third, and higher class of citizen who attains citizenship via something other than being born in the United States. That is the "natural born citizen"...a person who attains citizenship as a birthright, rather than as an effect of simple geography.

That citizen's birthright comes to him or her as a legacy from citizen parents (plural).

That fits perfectly well in with Vattel's definition of what a "natural born citizen" is.

The debate over Obama's birth certificate is a distraction, and a smoke screen designed to hide the real issue...Obama is NOT a "natural born citizen" because his father was not a citizen.

The answer is clear and unquestionable...he is NOT Constitutionally qualified to be President by virtue of his father's lack of American citizenship, birth certificate be damned.

Requiem æternam dona eis, Domine; In memoria æterna erit justus, ab auditione mala non timebit.

Beauseant!

a BORN citizen is identical to a Natural Born Citizen and is distinguished from a “naturalized citizen.”
NONSENSE. Did the 14th amendment REPEAL article II? NO. Does the 14th amendment address “natural born” NO. so Article II STANDS unchanged.

Actually, “natural born” is not determined by the 14th Amendment (note that the words in the 14th amendment say, persons born in the US are “citizens”, not “natural born citizens”.) There is a difference- the constitution is very precise in its wording.
Reading this will help:
http://citizenwells.wordpress.com/2009/08/07/natural-born-citizen-us-constitution-kerchner-update-august-6-2009-founding-fathers-obama-not-natural-born-citizen/

Yes, that is the same disinformation the Obaama Administration is using to deceive people.

In fact, the Supreme Court ruled a very long time ago in Marbury v. Madison that it is quite impossible for the term “citizen” as it is used in Amendment XIV to have the same meaning as “natural born citizen” phrase was used in Article 2 of the Constitution (Leo Donofrio and sister).

“It cannot be presumed that any clause in the constitution is intended to be without effect; and therefore such construction is inadmissible, unless the words require it.”

Constructing the word “citizen” in Amendment XIV to render the “natural born citizen” phrase without effect for the purpose intended by the Founding Fathers as it was written into the Constitution and actually effected to the present day is in the words of Justice Marshall “inadmissible, unless the words require it.”

For thousands of years, virtually every society and government within the tradition of our present Law of Nations has observed a custom of using allegiance by birth and allegiance by oath as a means of establishing citizenship in a society and nation. The Founding Fathers relied upon this universal principle of allegiance and citizenship when including the phrase “natural born citizen” to indicate a person born with allegiance only to the United States of America was a requirement for eligibility to the Office of the President.

Now we have a gang of people who have failed many attempts in very recent years to obtain an Amendment to the Constitution which would make Barack Hussein Obama Jr. eligible for the Office of the President. Having failed to lawfully obtain the required Amendment to the Constitution before the presidential campaign, they instead resorted to simply brazening it out in disregard of the Constitution. Now they seek to exploit legal loopholes, pettifoggery, and false propaganda as a means of obfuscating the obvious fact the Founding Fathers by word and deed denied the Office of the President to any person born with allegiance to a foreign sovereign and government.

Barack Hussein Obama Jr. has acknowledged the fact he was a natural born citizen of, therefore with allegiance to, the Sovereign United Kingdom of Great Britain, Queen Elizabeth II, by reason of his father’s citizenship. Before the era when dual citizenship was introduced, his father’s British citizenship conferred only British citizenship upon Barack Hussein Obama Jr. Since dual citizenship was introduced, Barack Hussein Obama Jr.was certainly natural born with British citizenship, and he may or may not have been additionally natural born with U.S. citizenship, depending upon yet to be revealed and proven facts of birth.

Nonetheless, whether or not Barack Hussein Obama Jr. was a natural born citizen of the United States, his status as a natural born citizen of the United Kingdom of Great Britain with allegiance to Quenn Elizabeth II conferred upon him at birth was the very foreign citizenship and allegiance to a foreign sovereign which the Founding Fathers used the “natural born citizen” phrase to make ineligible for the Office of the President. Any natural born citizenship or other U.S. citizenship retained by Barack Hussein Obama Jr. is irrelevant with respect to giving effect to the eligibility of a person who was ever a natural born or other citizen with allegiance to a foreign sovereign and government. Any attempt to construct a different meaning is “inadmissable” as Justice Marshall wrote in Marbury v. Madison.