OBAMA KNEW HE WASN’T ELIGIBLE FOR POTUS

If one were to look at the activity on Capitol Hill during the campaign, there would be no question in their minds that both McCain and Obama were sweating the “natural born citizen” issue.

How do we arrive at that conclusion? We take McCain’s ingrained, glib advice and “Look at the record, my friends“.

Doing just that, we find that back on February 28, 2008, Sen. Claire McCaskill (D-MO) introduced a bill to the Senate for consideration. That bill was known as S. 2678: Children of Military Families Natural Born Citizen Act. The bill was co-sponsored by Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL), Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-NY), Sen. Robert Menendez (D-NJ), and Sen. Thomas Coburn (R-OK).

Bill S. 2678 attempted to change article II, section 1, clause 5 of the Constitution of the United States with reference to the requirements of being a “natural born citizen” and hence; the entitlement to run for President of the United States. This bill met the same fate that similar attempts to change the Constitution have in the past. Attempts such as The Natural Born Citizen Act were known to have failed and the text scrubbed from the internet, with only a shadow-cached copy left, that only the most curious public can find.

Sen. McCaskill, her co-sponsors, fellow colleagues and legal counsel, contend that the Constitution is ambiguous in article II, section 1 and requires clarification. But does it? According to the framers and such drafters as John Bingham, we find the definition to be quite clear:

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… . . – John Bingham in the United States House on March 9, 1866

From the days of James Madison to the present, the courts have held that the amendment process be justiciable in accordance with its constitutionality and not self-serving or political. But is that what happened here? Again, we must go to the record.

Within only five short weeks after Senate Bill 2678 faded from the floor, we find Sen. Claire McCaskill back again, making another attempt with Senate Resolution 511. On April 10, 2008, she introduced a secondary proposal in the form of a non-binding resolution, recognizing John McCain as a “natural born citizen” in defiance of the Constitution. Curiously, it contained the same identical co-sponsors, Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton.

“With questions – however serious – about whether Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., is eligible to run for president since he was born outside U.S. borders on an American Naval base, Sens. Patrick Leahy, D-Vermont, the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, and Sen. Claire McCaskill, D-Mo. today introduced a non-binding resolution expressing the sense of the U.S. Senate that McCain qualifies as a “natural born Citizen,” as specified in the Constitution and eligible for the highest office in the land.

Co-sponsors include Sens. Hillary Clinton, D-NY, and Barack Obama, D-Illinois; Leahy said he anticipates it will pass unanimously.”

One has to wonder — what dire urgency could there possibly have been in persisting with trying to legislate a candidate into being a “natural born citizen”? Certainly providing a birth certificate and reading the Constitution would be more than sufficient. Why did these candidates and their wishful nominees go to such lengths in the Senate when obviously, they had more pressing matters to attend to? And why were there two Senators co-sponsoring such an issue, twice, who were in direct competition with John McCain in the 2008 election?

One answer is that looking at John McCain’s long-form birth certificate reveals he was not a natural born citizen and Barack Obama hasn’t submitted his long-form at all. John McCain was born in an “unincorporated territory”, held by the courts to be not part of the United States for constitutional purposes. Barack Obama has submitted only a Certification of Live Birth, but Hawaii law will certify a live birth using that document for births that occurred even outside of the country. Furthermore, Barack Obama’s father was Kenyan and never an American citizen. Since the status of citizenship occurs at birth, this makes Barack Obama a citizen if born in Hawaii, but not a natural born citizen. One must have two citizen parents, at the time of birth, and be born on U.S. soil, to be deemed a natural born citizen and be declared eligible for the presidency. The Senate, for all their trouble, cannot legislate a person’s born status. It happens at birth, according to the law.

While Senate Bill 2678 fell to the wayside, Senate Resolution 511 was passed on April 30, 2008 as a non-binding resolution. However, S.R. 511 is not a law, but rather, a unanimous opinion. Technically, it means absolutely nothing what they’ve written as it’s not a law, nor did the matter reach the House for review. It’s a stepping-stone in the larger scheme of things that haven’t happened yet; the push to change our Constitution.

More than a half-dozen legal challenges have been filed in federal and state courts demanding President-elect Barack Obama’s decertification from ballots or seeking to halt elector meetings, claiming he has failed to prove his U.S. citizenship status.

“All I can tell you is that it is just pure garbage,” she said. “There have been several lawsuits, but they have been dismissed.”

Perhaps someone should have informed Obama’s spokeswoman that many of these cases have not been dismissed at all, rather they are mounting, and her statements are in fact, pure “garbage”.

Then perhaps someone may prompt an answer from the Obama spokespeople as to why they were entertaining the thought of fiddling with the United States Constitution back in February and April of THIS YEAR? Perhaps because it was in the best interest of Sen. Obama.

Then what of Sen. Claire McCaskill? What possible interest could she have had in these proceedings and leading the charge with her proposals? Was it a bonafide Constitutional issue of judicial importance, or rather a political one?

Digging further into the record we find that according to Wikki and subsequent footnotes therein:

“In January 2008, Claire McCaskill decided to endorse Senator Barack Obama in his campaign for the Democratic nomination for the presidential elections of 2008, making her one of the first senators to do so. She has been one of the most visible faces for his campaign.[14] McCaskill’s support was crucial to Obama’s narrow victory in the Missouri primary in February, 2008. She had been frequently mentioned as a possible vice presidential choice of Senator Obama in the 2008 run for the White House…”

So what we see is a definite political motive being dragged into the Senate for the purposes of legitimizing the 2008 candidates. But if these candidates were legitimate already, there would obviously be no reason for these proceedings.

So political was the motive of McCaskill, even Missouri’s Governor, Matt Blunt revealed that Sen. McCaskill was involved in the “abusive use of Missouri Law Enforcement“. This was dubbed as the “Truth Squad” during the election campaign by the media. The Truth Squad was comprised of Missouri officials and attorneys who set up shop on the streets of Missouri and threatened the public with criminal penalties and lawsuits if they engaged in critical speech against Sen. Obama. The Obama campaign also issued cease and desist letters to media station managers who carried advertisers who were unfriendly towards Barack Obama, namely, the NRA. Citizen outrage prompted this response from Governor Blunt:

“Obama and the leader of his Missouri campaign Senator Claire McCaskill have attached the stench of police state tactics to the Obama-Biden campaign.

What Senator Obama and his helpers are doing is scandalous beyond words, the party that claims to be the party of Thomas Jefferson is abusing the justice system and offices of public trust to silence political criticism with threats of prosecution and criminal punishment.”

Considering these facts and the judicial record, there is every reason to believe that Sen. McCaskill had no interest in resolving Sen. McCain’s eligibility, but Sen. Obama’s long-term. She manipulated the Senate and then threatened the media and the public thereafter, politically motivated at the prospect of becoming Obama’s Vice-Presidential pick. But it didn’t stop there.

Chairman Patrick J. Leahy entered into the Senate record a legal analysis of two high-powered attorneys hired by Sen. McCain – Theodore Olson and Laurence Tribe - both of whom are extremely politically active and biased, and attached that opinion to S.R. 511.

So controversial was that legal opinion, that it prompted a rebuttal by Professor Gabriel J. Chin of The University of Arizona, James E. Rogers College of Law, in a discussion paper #08-14 entitled, Why Senator John McCain Cannot Be President. Professor Chin points out clearly where Tribe-Olson sought to draw out implied theories in the law, which in reality, are simply not there and in fact have been decided by the courts already, in opposition to the suggestions offered by Tribe-Olson. Simply put, the attorneys hired by Sen. McCain attempt to fit the law into their agenda with contrived implications. Professor Chin brings the law back into focus, requiring no implied theories.

Legalities aside, in anticipation of the feared “Fairness Doctrine”, the whole of the main stream media has since acquiesced to the intimidation tactics of the Obama campaign and paraded the non-binding resolution known as S.R. 511 to the public with unfactual foolishness. S.R. 511 is neither a constitutional amendment nor legally binding in any way. Yet the media caved to political pressure and reported it to the public as Chairman Leahy dictated, giving the illusion to the pubic that said resolution was binding to the 2008 election. Nothing could be farther from the truth.

The public responded, initially by way of lawsuits contesting the eligiblity of not only John McCain, but Barack Obama and Roger Calero as well, citing them all, with equal disqualifying merit, as being constitutionally ineligible to run for President of the United States. Later, netizens of the internet caught wind of the court actions and responded with their own explosion of blogs, forums, websites, chatrooms, emails, etc. In an attempt to quell the discord, the main stream media offered personalities such as Thomas Goldstein which only served to infuriate the public further. The public saw such maneuvers as deceitful and an attempt to embarrass the now educated public.

However, the greater proof is in the activity which originated in the Senate in early 2008 which was hidden from the public, that sought to change what our representatives knew to be unconstitutional from the start. The public really needs to look no further than this activity, for it speaks to the heart of the deals that went on beyond the Senate doors. Rather than trust the preservation model our founding forefathers wrote into our Constitution, these respresentatives, beholden of the public trust, saw fit to manipulate the clauses contained therein, for the sole benefit of their own political self-interests.

Perhaps our representatives, the United States Supreme Court and the main stream media would be interested in reflecting on these records and then start answering truthfully the questions which have so far been ignored. The public has been promised transparency, but to date has only been dealt scoffing, deceitful rhetoric, if they choose to address it at all.

While the public has been patient and eduring, the questions remain and refuse to be dismissed. We expect them to be answered, preferrably prior to January 20, 2009.

I too agree. Seeing all the law review articles which carefully avoid John Marshall or Bingham, as well as the scrubbing and sealing of most of Obama’s background suggests that there are lots of people in high places who have gone along for the ride, and probably believe that the idiots of the proletariat need smart people to help them make smarter decisions, tell them when their children are useful, and tell them when they are too old to be useful. They are impressed with the Sunsteins and Holdrens - Holdren who has been so far afield in his scientific predictions as to rival his mentors Paul Ehrlich and Harrison and Lester Brown (not relations,but both Holdren mentors).

While the popular protests as people begin to understand the loss of liberties and ruin he intends to make of our economy, give me hope, there is another possibility: seeing how hard it is to explain, even to people who don't like anything Obama stands for, his constitutional ineligility, some major power brokers, perhaps including the courts, may be waiting for the polls to shift.

Obama’s very radical past doesn't mean much to most people. Who knew of Van Jones background, or John Holdren, or the dozens of Soros-backed left-wing activist groups. The SDS founders are baby boomers. These radical fringe groups have acted in the shadows for decades. Anyone from the political mainstream who doesn't jump on when the sentiment has shifted will never be trusted again.

Constitutional citizenship is not the stuff of tin hats, or Bilderbergers or rumors about a clearly bizarre childhood and family. Obama told us his father was a British Kenyan. Those who dismiss that don't deserve to be leaders. He knew, or was told, that he would be safe, probably because of all the advance legal preparation. We need to help others understand that the issue is with our constitution, as much as his secret background is frustrating. Our courts and our congress let him get away with that.

An officer of the court has a legal responsibility to uphold the the constitution, and our officers have, thus far, chosen not to. Either we will lose our republic, as our constitution is demonstrably irrelevant, or we'll strengthen it, having seen how close we have come to losing it.

That British law, governing Barack Hussein Obama II at the time of his birth, to a father who was a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies, does claim him as a British subject, no matter what his citizenship, to this day. So, it's not exactly irrelevant.

His father being an alien under statutory law and the Constitution is the larger issue at play, yes, but the very idea of a British subject ever being President of the United States would have been complete anathema to the Founders, and so it really puts an exclamation point upon the whole problem.

His being a British subject, and the problematic nature of his being so, would also explain his seemingly inexplicable lack of cordiality to our British allies ... seeking to avoid the appearance of allegiance. But, the opposite is a problem for him, too, since a hostile relationship to the British calls his status into even greater question. Hence, the wisdom of the Founders in excluding such individuals from the single, most powerful office in the land.

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 Chief Justice 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 Commander in Chief 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

Has there ever been a winner of a Presidential election, who was born in Washington, DC? Or, even a candidate? I’m unaware of one, if there has been, and there surely would be controversy and challenges, based upon a strict reading of the Constitution.

It's not a matter of a strict reading of the Constitution, but rather a correct definition of the term "Natural born citizen". If it means of two citizen parents and born in a state, then DC residents would not be eligible, it it means "two citizen parents and born in The United States", then persons born in DC, and most territories would seem to be eligible, as those are part of the United States, generally under direct federal rule.

Unless you are referring to some other criteria than the "natural born citizen" one? In which case, I'd have to know which one, and think about it. Can't be the one that requires the President and VP to be residents of different states, unless the person still lived in DC or a territory.

Lets say you are correct.
My harshest comments, on this subject, directed at other “birthers”, are reserved for those who claim that John McCain was NOT a “natural born citizen” -—

McCain's father clearly WAS a United States citizen! (And old enough, at the time of McCain's birth, to pass citizenship to his son, automatically!)

So, much of what you have posted supports me on that point.

Also, common law takes precedence only when there is no STATUTE on the matter. There are Federal laws, passed by Congress and signed by the President, which cover citizenship issues.

The opinions and wishes of our founders relate only to the law at the time of our founders. The Constitution does NOT prophibit Congress from setting rules for citizenship, as long as those rules do not conflict with the Constitution.

I have posted the laws on this thread.

Anyone who thinks that the application for US Passport does not contain the LAW OF THE LAND is, well, a KOOK!

My point was merely that the BNA ‘48 is irrelevant. Any other country’s laws (Arlan Specter aside) are irrellevant. It’s only the US Constitution and laws made in conformance to it that are relevant. If US law did not consider BHO Sr a US Citizen, which it did not, then BHO Jr, was born of a foreign father and a citizen mother. That is what is relevant to the question of “natural born”. Where he was born is rel event to whether the Usurper is even a citizen at birth, or a citizen at all if not later naturalized.

***

Oh - I wholeheartedly agree ...

However, there are those who claim that ANYONE born on U.S. soil is a natural born citizen ...

In my posts, I was playing Devil’s Advocate - conceding that Obama was born in Hawaii, but pointing out at the same time WHY he was not a natural born citizen ...

In order to do this cogently, it was necessary to show that SCOTUS has determined that there is NO Common Law in the United States.

However, SCOTUS HAS ALSO ruled that Common Law be consulted when necessary.

I then showed WHO AND WHAT a natural born citizen is vis-a-vis Common Law.

I then showed HOW the Founding Fathers got around the impossibility of severing ties with England by embracing the Law of Nations (Vattel). Additionally, Vattel states that citizenship follows the paternal bloodline (and allegiance) - not place of birth, although I did not include that.

FINALLY, I showed that although Obama was born in Hawaii and was a citizen at birth of the United States per the 14th Amendment, he was also a citizen of the British Empire per the BNA of 1948.

These facts made him a dual national and NOT eligible for natural born citizenship. In fact, he MOST CLOSELY resembles what Blackstone called a Denizen - a child born of an alien who enjoys MOST of the rights of natural born citizenship EXCEPT that of holding high office ...

ALL of this was written to show those that feel he was natural born in Hawaii - THAT HE WAS NOT ...

My smarter half survived her second bout with breast cancer this time due to our private insurance outlawed by Obamacare.
I've called the Beltway Butchers daily on this, that Obama lies--can't read page 16 apparently.
Made the crack about grannie's hip--"out of pocket" he bragged--
Hey, Goat Boy, we paid out of pocket first time--but you're outlawing that,too, Phony.
Not only do I have a birth certificate, he says, but I have a picture of me and Elvis and Jimmy Hoffa playing cards last week--
--but you can't see it--
--you don't have standing.

Au Contraire, mon frere:

1. common law takes precedence only when there is no STATUTE on the matter.

***

READ Wheaton v. Peters (January Term 1834), Minor v. Happersett (March 29, 1875), Smith v. Alabama (January 30, 1886), and United States v. Wong Kim Ark (March 28, 1898):

SCOTUS has ruled that there IS NO Common Law in the United States, BUT it has ALSO ruled that Common Law ought to be consulted in cases where original intent necessarily needs to be construed.

2. The opinions and wishes of our founders relate only to the law at the time of our founders.

***

BULL HOCKEY !!!

IF this were true, you WOULD NOT have Gideon v. Wainwright, Miranda v. Arizona, and more recently the District of Columbia v. Heller.

3. The Constitution does NOT prophibit Congress from setting rules for citizenship, as long as those rules do not conflict with the Constitution.

***

READ Article I, Section VIII of the United States Constitution:

” ... To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization ...”.

Congress CAN ONLY establish NATURALIZATION laws - it CANNOT define natural born citizenship.

It is for SCOTUS to decide what natural born citizenship means, if or when they get around to it. They will have to consult Common Law, the Founding Fathers’ original intnet and common sense in order to arrive at a decision ...

For, in Marbury v. Madison (5 U.S. 137, 1803):

” ... It is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is. Those who apply the rule to particular cases, must of necessity expound and interpret that rule. If two laws conflict with each other, the courts must decide on the operation of each. [5 U.S. 137, 178] So if a law be in opposition to the constitution: if both the law and the constitution apply to a particular case, so that the court must either decide that case conformably to the law, disregarding the constitution; or conformably to the constitution, disregarding the law: the court must determine which of these conflicting rules governs the case. This is of the very essence of judicial duty ...

... If then the courts are to regard the constitution; and he constitution is superior to any ordinary act of the legislature; the constitution, and not such ordinary act, must govern the case to which they both apply ...

... Thus, the particular phraseology of the constitution of the United States confirms and strengthens the principle, supposed to be essential to all written constitutions, that a law repugnant to the constitution is void, and that courts, as well as other departments, are bound by that instrument.”

HOWEVER, FWIW, English Common Law had been revised several times to confer natural born citizenship to children born abroad or on the high seas to English citizens who were in service to their Sovreign.

THEREFORE, SCOTUS would MOST LIKELY state that McCain was a natural born citizen ...

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.