World Net Daily Drops The POTUS Ineligiblity Ball…(Donofrio)

While I agree that all 'angles' should be pursued (the BC may help to establish weather he is actually legally in this country or not (i.e. no record of Naturalization)), I also am of the opinion that the main...root issue here is his admitted British Citizenship AT BIRTH which begs the question Leo asks at the end of this snippet:

Whether they know it or not, WND is causing massive distraction by feeding the birth certificate smokescreen more and more fire while consistently failing to concentrate national focus on the core legal issue - Obama admits to being a British citizen at birth and therefore could not have been a “natural born citizen” of the United States as is required by the Constitution.

One of these days the Obama administration might serve up for your culinary consumption the most perfect long form birth certificate you could ever imagine. [Edit: Exactly what I've (& others) have indicated for a long time now] Hawaii officials will vouch for its authenticity under oath if need be. And numerous forensic experts will substantiate its veracity.

Then the POTUS eligibility movement is going to look like a vast nutjob right wing conspiracy.

And the ineligible one will be so much stronger and more powerful for it.
... Let me make this perfectly clear – below is the question that must be asked of White House Press Secretary Gibbs should anyone ever have the chance again. It’s been crafted with razor sharp precision so that slippery tongued vixens can’t slither out of the truth nexus without exposing themselves to even the most sleepy of audiences.
...
The false BC theory is – without a doubt - a conspiracy theory of epic proportions. Nobody can deny that it’s a textbook conspiracy theory. Regardless of whether he has a genuine long form BC saying he was born in Hawaii, the concept that the COLB is a forgery would certainly concern a vast conspiracy to defraud the American people. Conspiracies do exist, but they have a very bad reputation and the media can spin them as kookery with ease.

The dual nationality issue is NOT a conspiracy theory. It’s a genuine legal question. Obama admits he was a dual citizen at birth. Eligibility advocates have simply questioned whether that makes him ineligible to be President under Article 2 Section 1 Clause 5 of the US Constitution.

During the election, then Senator Obama published a statement at his website which said that his birth status was “governed” by the British Nationality Act of 1948. Can you please tell the American people how a natural born citizen of the United States can be governed – at birth – by British law?"[End Quote]
http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/2009/06/23/world-net-daily-drops-the-potus-ineligiblity-ball/

I would add, that something like this simple, to the point statement followed by a question would make a perfect letter to send to representatives as well as news organizations. Sometimes, very 'wordy' letters are tossed aside because they take too much time to read and address the multiple questions asked in it.

Use this poignant FACT, followed by the single question Leo has asked. They can't say...Snopes verified it, or Factcheck verified it, or the HI officials verified it, or it was posted for all to see. Let's see how they respond to this:

"During the election, then Senator Obama published a statement at his website which said that his birth status was “governed” by the British Nationality Act of 1948. Can you please tell the American people how a natural born citizen of the United States can be governed – at birth – by British law?"

If Natural born citizen status meant the citizenship of the parents was of no importance to the loyalties and allegiance towards the America, then the Founding Fathers would not have provided a clause to allow themselves elligible.

They added that clause because none of them would qualify as natural born citizens of the US since such citizenship did not exist before American independence. Without that provision, up until 35 years after the date of the Constitution, there would not have been anyone qualified to be US President. The Constitution does not refer to the citizenship status of one's parents when it comes to natural-born status.

Let me ask the question again, as I’m curious for your thoughts: if North Korea decided to grant citizenship to all Americans, would that mean no one would be qualified to be President?

If yes, then that means foreign countries have the power to decide who can and cannot be President in the US. If no, then that means holding dual citizenship by parents or by the Presidential candidate himself is irrelevant to NBC status.

I never mentioned other nations granting automatic citizenship to U.S. citizens as a reason for disqualification. It is your lame attempt to distract from the real issue of conflicted interest.

That is your extrapolation of the scenario of Americans born from foreign parents and a strawman argument that you have created to avoid the real topic of...

Why this president has not shown his birth certificate and is vigourously fighing every attempt to have it become public knowledge.

It explains why all pertinent records related to his life including his medical, educational, and professional records are sealed from the American citizens.

These records contain a number of inconsistencies and lies that contradict the life story he presented to the people that elected him.

The records he hides from the American public would reveal the time and place of his birth and publically disclose the fact that he is not a natural born citizen.

Welcome to Free Republic.

You seem well-versed, I am curious as to your view of whether the 20th A. refers to a duty of a President elect to “qualify”; and, if so, what the ratifiers may have had in mind.

If there is a duty, what is your view with regard to whether such a Constitutional duty is one a Congress can routinely dismiss? (Of course, 3 USC 15 appears to give the Congress the authority, if not the obligation, to object to any substantial election irregularities.)

If there is a duty, do you believe it is one that expires if an ineligible candidate is given the office?

You seem well-versed, I am curious as to your view of whether the 20th A. refers to a duty of a President elect to “qualify”; and, if so, what the ratifiers may have had in mind.

The language that says "If a President shall not have been chosen before the time fixed for the beginning of his term, or if the President elect shall have failed to qualify, then the Vice President elect shall act as President until a President shall have qualified" is meant to deal with the situation where the EC has not confirmed the President before his term starts. In that case, the VP would serve as President until the EC (or Congress) picks a President. When the EC cast their vote, Barrack Obama qualified as President for purposes of this Amendment. This sentence seems to deal with a situation where, for whatever reason, the EC is unable or unwilling to vote in the President and/or VP. It's meant to prevent the existence of a power vacuum while the mess is sorted out.

If, down the road, it is determined that Barrack Obama was not a NBC, then the VP becomes President, just as if the President died, was incapacitated, resigned or was removed via impeachment.

I realized that I didn’t answer your question regarding a candidate’s duty to qualify.

The 20th Amendment doesn’t deal with issues like NBC. When it talks about qualifying, it’s referring to a candidate getting qualified as President either by a vote of the EC or Congress (which votes if the EC can’t decide). After November 4, the President Elect doesn’t really have a duty to do anything, other than show up on Inauguration Day to be sworn in.

Obviously in that scenario North Korea would be doing so to prevent anyone from being president, that is quite different then the case of Barack Obama and the four countries that can claim him as a citizen (Britain, Kenya, Indonesia, and the United States).

At the time of his birth and throughout most of his life, each of these countries had a policy of no dual citizenship’s, which leads me to wonder why when he feels he is a citizen of the world and has said so, (in his speech in Berlin) can he also claim to meet the requirements of the presidency as laid out in the US constitution.

First and foremost is the requirement of natural born citizenry with no other allegiances to any other country, Obama clearly fails that test, the best example of that is that he has campaigned in Kenya on the behalf of his distant cousin in the Kenyan election for the presidency there. Under US law such actions are illegal, yet it did not slow down Obama in the least.

I can only assume that by his actions he places himself above US law and the Constitution itself, since he fails to abide by our laws and the very framework of our government.

Thank you for your response.

In reverse order, you state in your #90:
“The 20th Amendment doesn’t deal with issues like NBC.”

You should know it is wide believed that the 20th A is the first to specifically address a candidate’s ineligibility which, of course, would certainly include the candidate’s NBC status. (Incidentally, you and I agree on the foreign citizenship issues; and our Congress accepted his well-publicized foreign parentage, although I would argue the acceptance is not binding on the USSC.)

“When the EC cast their vote, Barrack Obama qualified as President for purposes of this Amendment.”
You must mean by this that the EC was acting as though Barrack Obama was qualified, certainly not that he was, indeed, qualified.
Otherwise, of course, there would have been no need for 3 USC 15 or the January 8 Joint Session of Congress.
May I assume you will agree the EC does not have the authority to waive a Constitutional requirement?

As an aside, it appears the EC almost certainly chose based on the President elect doing nothing more than simply signing a certification in the primary elections that he was eligible. The fact he was a US senator may have been an influence, but it was irrelevant.
Certainly, his substantial effort and expense to avoid revealing his birth certificate argues he provided the states with nothing more than a signature.

Much of your response in #89 deals with the “shall not have been chosen” aspect of the Amendment. We can move beyond that point because here the EC qualified and chose and has no other duty or involvement. We can move to the next clause that addresses the failure to qualify. Who is to perform the qualification? The language is express.

At the risk of sounding argumentative, let me ask this: If the Congress at the Joint Session, pending its acceptance of the EC’s work, had asked the President elect, to provide evidence he was a NBC, do you believe he was obligated to provide a verifiably authentic birth certificate?

... the core legal issue - Obama admits to being a British citizen at birth and therefore could not have been a “natural born citizen” of the United States as is required by the Constitution.

That's it in a nutshell. In his own words, in his own book. No further authentication is necessary, nor would any such change his prior admission. Thus he is a fraud, he knew he was ineligible to be a candidate for the presidency, and we currently don't have a legitimate president.

Well, according to the way I understand the Consitution, if Korea granted all citizens of the USA citizenship, and these citizens did not renounce USA citizenship, then these citizens would be ineligible.

But, aren’t you begging the question? Or is this one of those “false choice” arguments? I didn’t take logic in College, went to RISD, and it wasn’t considered important to artists-in-training.

Maybe another Freeper can help me with the fallacious argument here?

Leo indicates he may be working on a 'legal paper' soon for perhaps another (related) angle:

"I agree that Mr. Walpin has standing under the Newman case to challenge Obama under Quo warranto by jury trial. Within the next two weeks I plan on posting a legal memo on this issue. I can't promise the date of delivery. But it is on my list." http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/2009/06/23/world-net-daily-drops-the-potus-ineligiblity-ball/#comments

"if Korea granted all citizens of the USA citizenship, and these citizens did not renounce USA citizenship, then these citizens would be ineligible."

Since this 'granting' would presumably be post birth (key point) i would suspect the next question would be...does the Korean (Naturalization?) process have language in it (like ours does: see below) that requires the US citizens to renounce their US Citizenship and all allegiance to the US? If those US citizens did not swear an oath to Korea, or renounce their US Citizenship...how then could the be considered Korean citizens?

How could the Koreans 'grant' citizenship to un-wanting US citizens...and be legally binding internationally, everywhere save for Korea? By what law could they do that? Would this be recognized by international law/treaties?

Barry got his British citizenship NOT by some Post Birth legal 'proclamation', or by his willful act of Naturalization to Britain, but rather by controlling British citizenship law already in place Prior to his being born.

Oath of Allegiance for Naturalized Citizens
In part: "I hereby declare, on oath, that I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty of whom or which I have heretofore been a subject or citizen;"

The latest from Leo:

Why do both Obama’s State Department and the Senate require two US citizen parents for those born abroad to attain natural born citizen status?
...

The magic question is:
Why was it important to all who co-sponsored Senate Resolution 511 that both parents be citizens?
...

What was their logic?

What is the policy behind the language requiring two US citizen parents? This is where the issue can be further supported by your questioning of Senators. Policy as used with regards to the drafting of laws is a legal term of art. It’s analogous to concern. What legal concern is acknowledged by requiring two citizen parents? Get the Senate and Obama to answer that question.
...

But more important is that the very same question now needs to be asked of Obama’s own State Department which to this day also acknowledges the necessity of citizen parents on the same issue in their continued publication of the Foreign Affairs Manual at 7 FAM 1131.6-2.
...

Why does the Obama State Department’s continued publication of the Foreign Affairs manual acknowledge that the issue requires two US citizen parents?
...

What is the policy requiring both parents be US citizens as opposed to just one?
Why do both Obama’s State Department and the Senate require two US citizen parents for those born abroad to attain natural born citizen status?

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.