Posted on 12/06/2008 5:15:13 PM PST by Smokeyblue
I received the following e-mail from one of the electors I have been sending letters to:
December 6, 2008
I have been asked by some concerned citizens as part of my Constitutional responsibility as a member of the College of Electors to review the evidence and make a determination regarding the natural born citizenship of Barack Hussein Obama II, or to join in a lawsuit against him in this matter. They have also forwarded a great deal of information to me which I have now reviewed.
After reading this information it is my opinion that none of it is conclusive in its own right. Most of it is speculation, rumor, or opinion rendered by "experts" or others whose qualifications and motives are suspect. However, given the volume of information put forth, the question of Mr. Obama's natural born citizenship was worth my understanding.
Since the United States Supreme Court has not rendered an opinion regarding the validity of the "natural born" status of a U.S. citizen or otherwise defined this term, I am therefore at liberty to make my own determination as a Presidential Elector. In my opinion a person is a natural born citizen if he or she is granted citizenship either at birth or at the age of majority by the United States government. And has never been required by the United States government to become "naturalized" or take the oath of citizenship. This seems to me to be a straightforward and logical understanding of the term. If you are presumed to be a U.S. citizen at your birth, and no government entity says otherwise, then in fact you are.
If someone emigrates from another country to the United States, and wishes to become a citizen, that person must enter a legal process culminating in taking the oath of citizenship and being "naturalized." This is why for example the current Governor of California cannot claim "natural born" status and become the President of the United States. He was born an Austrian. He emigrated here. He sought citizenship. And he was "naturalized" in a ceremony conducted by United States officials.
And there is also in the United States the use of Common Law as a part of our judicial system. Most of the time the law is codified by us, but in fact there are traditions and understandings which have not always been codified. My point here is that for example if you have a right of way from your property across another person's property to a road, that person after a specified period of time (dependent upon a particular state's statutes) cannot suddenly decide that you cannot cross his property anymore to get to the road. It is presumed after a certain period of time that this right of way is a right that you retain since he did not protest your crossing his property for years.
These are the two bases upon which I have rendered my decision. Even if some or all of the scenarios to which these concerned citizens have pointed regarding Mr. Obama's citizenship are true, two facts remain. The United States government has never required Mr. Obama to take the oath of citizenship, or even to render a decision at the age of majority between having U.S. citizenship and Kenyan citizenship, or U.S. citizenship and Indonesian citizenship. And he has lived here and been reared and educated as a U.S. citizen. It would seem to me that 47 years is a sufficient amount of time to have lived here as a U.S. citizen, with no government entity challenging it, for us and for Mr. Obama to presume that he is a natural born U.S. citizen.
Whether through clerical error, or bureaucratic malfeasance, or simply because it is actually true as was stated on October 31, 2008 by the Director of the Health Department for the State of Hawaii, that he was in fact born in Hawaii on August 4, 1961. Barack Hussein Obama II has been presumed by the United States government itself to be a natural born citizen of the United States for 47 years.
It issued him a Social Security number and a passport, obviously accepting his Hawaiian birth certificate without requiring a team of forensic scientists to examine it. He has lived in the United States as a U.S. citizen for his entire adult life. He has been not only a de facto U.S. citizen, he has been a de jure U.S. citizen. A citizenship conferred upon him by the United States government at his birth, and never questioned by any court, or executive branch official for 47 years. The United States government itself accepted his natural born citizenship when it issued him a passport without requiring him to take the oath of citizenship in a ceremony like all other immigrants to this country.
Therefore, as the Presidential Elector for the 6th Congressional District of North Carolina it is my Constitutional determination that Barack Hussein Obama II is a natural born citizen of the United States, and is qualified to become the 44th President of the United States of America. I will cast my Electoral College vote accordingly on December 15, 2008.
Sincerely,
Wayne Abraham
Since the United States Supreme Court has not rendered an opinion regarding the validity of the “natural born” status of a U.S. citizen or otherwise defined this term, I am therefore at liberty to make my own determination as a Presidential Elector.
***He’s probably right about that.
This thread is interesting, possibly worthy of your ping lists.
"Citizen at birth" is arguable, certainly it's necessary condition for "natural born citizen". but some "granted" citizenship at their majority is a naturalized citizen, thus not natural born.
But the "United States Government" cannot define or redefine any term in the Constitution for purposes of the Constitution. The reason should be obvious. It's a written contract, it means today, what it meant when passed, nothing more, nothing less.
Since those records haven't been released either, we don't know that he has or ever had one. Other than his diplomatic one, issued to him because he's a Senator. I don't think they require proof of citizenship for those, and I know they don't require proof of natural born citizenship, since it's not required to get a passport, diplomatic or regular.
<<“What happens when some of our soldiers are seized and accused of unlawfully operating under the orders of an illegitimate leader?”
____________________________________________
I had not considered that before. Just sent chills up my spine. Thanks for posting that. Dark reality check.>>
On the gripping hand, I pity the fool who tried ‘seizing’ American soldiers, sailors or airmen. They have ways of enforcing a strict ‘hands-off’ policy in that regard. They also have brothers and sisters who’d come looking for them... ;)
If you are presumed to be a U.S. citizen at your birth, and no government entity says otherwise, then in fact you are.
Seems rather contradictory to Obama's web site which states:
"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."
I think this is a thoughtful and reasoned response to the letter he received. Abraham has not been presented with any evidence that Obama ever went through the naturalization process. In the course of nearly a half century, no government entity at the local, state, or federal level has ever challenged Obama’s citizenship status or the documents provided to substantiate his citizenship claim. The default position is therefore that Obama is a natural citizen.
For Abraham, either substantial and credible evidence undermining Obama’s citizenship status would have to be put forward and/or the Supreme Court would have to issue defining guidance on “natural born citizen” that clearly excludes Obama.
Other electors may feel differently.
It appears that Wayne Abraham, if an actual elector, wants to redefine a “natural Born” citizen to meet his own needs and personal preferences. In my humble opinion, I would suggest he read the constitution. He truly appears to be confused between “native born citizen” and “natural born citizen”.
Here are some avenues of research for an Elector who should realize that his Job, under the Constitution, is not to rubber stamp a presidential candidate. It goes much further than that. It is my understanding, through research done on the internet, that there may be criminal liabilities, pertaining to aiding and abetting a fraud, to Electors who elect a constitutionally unqualified candidate to the Presidency.
http://www.newswithviews.com/Vieira/edwin84.htm
http://sites.google.com/site/obamabirth/
http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/2008/12/04/
http://www.freerepublic.com/tag/birthcertificate/index
http://www.earthfrisk.com/blog/?p=134#comment-8191
http://www.earthfrisk.com/blog/?p=135
http://www.therightsideoflife.com/?page_id=1518
http://www.bloggernews.net/118851
http://news.aol.com/political-machine/2008/12/02/qanda-with-obama-birth-certificate-doubters/
http://www.grassfire.org/111/petition.asp?PID=19020955&NID=1
http://www.conservativeusa.org/megalink.htm
http://countusout.wordpress.com/
http://zachjonesishome.wordpress.com/
http://texasdarlin.wordpress.com/2008/11/16/four-questions-for-the-trojan-candidate/#more-5183
http://moniquemonicat.wordpress.com/
http://www.democratic-disaster.com/
http://americamustknow.com/default.aspx
http://contrariancommentary.blogspot.com/
http://www.theobamafile.com/ObamaLatest.htm
http://f2a.org/coast2coast/obamacitizenship.htm
http://www.therightsideoflife.com/?m=20081204
http://www.peoplespassions.org/
http://www.contrariancommentary.com/community/
http://www.contrariancommentary.com/community/
http://freedommarch.org/FreedomMarch_Radio.html#Orly_Taitz_Part_1
http://www.f2a.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=aboutus.home
http://www.rallycongress.com/constitutional-qualification/1244/stop-obama-constitutional-crisis/
http://www.howobamagotelected.com/
http://larrysinclair-0926.blogspot.com/
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/2136816/posts
http://obambi.wordpress.com/2008/12/04/
http://obacalypse.blogspot.com/
Please pass these along to the elector so he can expand his knowledge on this issue and fulfill his obligations, under our constitution, seriously.
It is extremely important that we verify, beyond all doubt, that the president Elect is actually qualified to hold the position of President, not just assume and hope that what we have heard is true.
The president will have to swear an oath to uphold the constitution. If he is shredding it at the same time he is swearing to uphold it, then he has perjured the office and he should be impeached. Better to find out up front for absolute sure, then to have to impeach another Democratic President...not good for the party, you know.
Thank you.
We have contacted by letter all our 27 state elector with similar explanation including excerpts from Rep. Bingham's commentaries about the Constitution specific on this issue. This elector is natural a political hack where his party nominee trumps the Constitution.
You should write all the elector delegates in you State, not only ONE!!
Really, amazing....???
I found this on your own page: "I believe in the Constitution, The Bill of Rights, and The Rule of Law. I live in a Constitutional Republic...", hmmmm!!!
That photo is the best I have seen as portraying the “Drive-By” LSM!!!
For all you FReepers wanting Eclair’s eligibility to be confirmed, I love each and every one of you. But I have to accept this logic put forth by the Elector. We must move on.
This outcome ultimately is the fault of the Republican Party, that abandoned Reagan conservatives in favor of big spending liberal pandering. Our party put forth the most unelectable Republican since Bob Dole. A man who spent his time in the Senate destroying his own party, many on our side were insane enough to vote for him.
Even if Eclair gets bumped, a stretch, what would our choices be? McAmnesty? Biden? At least Eclair looks to have the stones to put Pelosi in her place. McCain would’ve kissed her feet.
Life must go on fellow FReepers. The best we can do for ourselves is to hunker down and ride out the oncoming 4 year Obama hurricane.
Spread the word about Palin and Jidahl for 2012. And let’s prep for 2010, which will become 1994 revisited.
The source for the claim is an apparently now-discredited online identity, known as "techdude," who was presumably impersonating a "real" authority on document imaging analysis, named Adam Fisk.
The claims of this "techdude," whoever that may be, apparently were incorporated in some manner, in Berg's suit.
Online identities claiming to be an authority on document imaging analysis seem to have learned from this example, and are now not providing any indication of actual professional background.
Weird, ain't it?
Hmmm... “move on”...
Note that this Wayne fellow says this:
“or at the age of majority by the United States government...”
How is this a natural born citizen?
Rockefeller lived in the United States since the early 1980's, and had come here from Germany as an exchange student. He disappeared and reemerged under several assumed names over the years.
During that time, the United States also treated Rockefeller as an assumed citizen, until he was caught up in a child custody battle, fled with his daughter, was caught by police and then had his true identity discovered.
-PJ
Could another nation declare an American citizen one of their citizens and thereby make him/her ineligible for the presidency? For example, in the last election if Panama passed a law declaring McCain a citizen of Panama would he then not be eligible to become president if he won?
If that’s the case, then any foreign power could disqualify any US presidential candidate. Just wondering.
So because he did the official thing and waited in line, he can never be President, but an illegal alien's child, pushed from the womb on this side of the Rio Grande, can.
It's not, by the plain language of the term. It's a status present at birth. It's also clearly more restrictive than the basic citizenship, that all individuals born on U. S. "soil" are due, when subject to the jurisdiction thereof, of the United States. No need to even look at naturalized citizenship, as that is clearly not a status present at birth.
Beyond that, our Constitution does not clarify the term further. There is plenty of source material, that can be attributed as a source for the term, but it's not actually "codified." There has been no definitive case law to establish a precedent, no matter what any poster here might claim. The natural born citizen requirement for eligibility to the office of President has never been put to the test, legally. Barack Obama would be the first, assuming at least one of the many plaintiffs is found to have standing.
I just don’t think this will go anywhere. And even if it does, we have useless idiots lining up behind him, just in case Eclair’s not bad enough...
I’ve been saying this forever on these threads. Obviously this would have to be considered when this country finally defines “natural born.” One cannot just blanket disqualify candidates who have citizenship conferred upon them. We cannot control what foreign governments might do.
Iran could have thus conferred citizenship on George Bush and he would have had to step down from the presidency.
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.