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 would think the antichrist would not be such an incompetent boob.

As I've said all along, Obama isn't "old Mr Triple-Six". He is, as you said, too incompetent for the job.

What he is, however, is a stand in, who is part of the perhaps final dress rehearsal for "opening night" of that prophesied time. We have seen that the machinery to elevate someone from obscurity, to great prominence in a flash, without any real attempt to discern the basics (who, what, when, where, why, and how), works, and all too well.

This machinery *will* be used again, and the real "show" will be on!

the infowarrior

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.

I hope and pray the wind will shift favorably, and soon, and that it will not be too late.

[...]

He knew, or was told, that he would be safe, probably because of all the advance legal preparation.

It's instructive to have in hand a list of major American law professors and from it see whose campaign they so generously supported with their money.

Albert Gore, Jr. was born in Washington, D.C., to Albert Gore, Sr., a U.S. Representative (1939–1944, 1945–1953) and Senator (1953–1971) from Tennessee, and Pauline LaFon Gore, one of the first women to graduate from Vanderbilt University Law School.

Are you certain he wasn't born in Tennessee? I know he spent the entirety of his, pretentious formative years in the lap of luxury of some swank hotel being chauffeured about, but actually born there?

If so, that makes me lean very heavily in the direction of original intent to exclude those born in the District of Columbia, lol. The Founders were quite prescient, in seeking to eliminate certain influences, as Obama demonstrates. Gore's demonstrated allegiance has been to the concentration of political power, something the Founders sought to distribute and decentralize as much as possible.

So many Presidential candidates with plainly or potentially doubtful eligibility from 2000 onward, coinciding with so many efforts, five at least, to alter or remove the natural born citizen requirement for eligibility under the Constitution.

Makes me want to scour through John Forbes Kerry's various French connections, to see where his eligibility is in doubt.

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 ...

Assuming that English common law regarding royal subjects inspired men seeking to break from the monarchy, as far as their own citizenship in a new polity that was regarded as a group of rebel colonies by that monrachy, is not logical.

There are ample cites demonstrating a certain reverence among the Framers for de Vattel in several Constitutional matters, and direct quotes from the first Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, to validate the notion, that the definitive understanding of the term natural born citizen was drawn from The Law Of Nations.

First,
Those who disagree with me on my primary point:

“Natural Born Citizen” means “Citizen at Birth” do seem to keep changing the argument.

I admit that there is some, small argument against my position, but my position is legally and historically sound.

However, there is NO argument that Congress has the ability to pass laws concerning citizenship, both NATURALIZATION and NATURAL BORN!

Your legal opinions are crabbed, twisted and silly.

The Constitution does NOT prohibit Congress from passing laws on the entire matter of citizenship. IMHO, this is PRECISELY why the founders used the term “Natural Born Citizen” -— to make SURE that Congress would never grant RETROACTIVE citizenship to someone that was not, otherwise, qualified for POTUS!

Look at your own post:

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 ...

That the Constitution DOES provide for Congress to make laws concerning Naturalization in NO WAY prohibits Congress from making laws concerning Citizenship at Birth.

That the Constitution Does provide for Congress to make laws concerning Naturalization also, IN NO WAY prohibits Congress from making laws concerning Natural Born Citizen definitions, EITHER!

(The Constitution only prevents RETROACTIVE laws, in this regard!)

One other point:

Congress is a CO-EQUAL branch of government.

That you give 100% of the power to interpret the Constitution to the Courts is NOT at ALL a conservative position.

The Supreme Court ruled that IT had sole authority to interpret the Constitution?

So what?

The Congress could simply pass a law, by simply majority, telling the Courts that they do NOT have jurisdiction over most of the stuff that the Courts have ruled upon!

You worship at the alter of the Courts.

You ALSO do not seem to care about “unintended consequences”

These traits, of yours, are troubling.

Your traits put you outside of Conservative jurisprudence.

“Obama knows it is just a matter of time before he is exposed, but he has a couple of cards he has to play before he brings about the destruction of the United States.

I have no doubt that this healthcare bill will be rammed down our throats, and that Obama has waiting in the wings even more socialist programs that this nation cannot pay for. Watch for them to be fast tracked as well.

But the two that are going to break this country are amenesty for illegal aliens and reparations for slavery.

He has been holding back on reparations and amnesty because they will be played just before he is forced to step down with in a month of any sort of disclosure you will start to hear talk about them from all the usual sources.”

Very well written and worth repeating.

This info will take him out.

1. Certified copy of original birth certificate
2. Columbia University transcripts
3. Columbia thesis paper
4. Campaign donor analysis requested by 7 major watchdog groups
5. Harvard University transcripts
6. Illinois State Senate records
7. Illinois State Senate schedule
8. Law practice client list and billing records/summary
9. Locations and names of all half-siblings and step-mothers
10. Medical records (only the one page summary released so far)
11. Occidental College Transcripts
12. Parent’s marriage Certificate
13. Record of baptism
14. Selective Service registration records
15. Schedules for trips outside of the United States before 2007
16. Scholarly articles
17. Access to his grandmother (Obama’s grandmother has since passed away from cancer)
18. List of all campaign workers that are lobbyists
19. Punahou grade school records

However, there is NO argument that Congress has the ability to pass laws concerning citizenship, both NATURALIZATION and NATURAL BORN!

There is no argument that Congress was enumerated the power of anything pertaining to citizenship other than naturalization.

It is written in plain English in the Constitution itself.

Naturalized is not natural born.

Any dependence upon statutory law, to determine natural born citizen status is erroneous for this reason.

The Constitution makes the distinction, and the only distinction the Constitution makes is in regard to eligiblity for the office of President. Read Osborn v. Bank Of U.S. for one example of the Supreme Court's ruling on the matter.

And, by the way, I have said REPEATEDLY on these threads that “Natural Born” is the OPPOSITE of “Naturalized” as far as the types of citizenship we have in this country.

Why you want to bring up “Naturalized” in your rants against me is a bit perplexing, as I fully agree that nobody who is a “Naturalized” Citizen is qualified to be POTUS. I further agree that no “retro active” act of Congress can qualify someone, for POTUS.

I believe that you must be a citizen, from the moment of birth, under the laws in place at that time, to qualify for POTUS.

There are others who feel that there are even more restrictions. I follow those arguments, I understand those arguments. I do NOT thing those arguments will hold up.

(And, many of the people making those arguments are far more coherent and knowledgeable than you.)

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.