OBAMA KNEW HE WASN’T ELIGIBLE FOR POTUS

Give Me Liberty ^ | 8/12/09 | Lynn Dartez

[pissant]

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.

ABCNews.com reported:

“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.

World Net Daily reported on November 13, 2008:

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.

An Obama campaign spokeswoman told WND the complaints are unfounded.

“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.

We the people, deserve an answer!

[Kansas58]

You are lying about what I have said, or you are not intelligent enough to understand what I have said:

“I do know what I’m talking about. There are areas of contention, as to the original intent of the words “natural born citizen,” and I have strong belief as to the source of that original intent. But, no one contends that Congress can make a natural born citizen by changing a law, but you.”

---

WHEN did I ever say that?

I have said NO SUCH THING!

I said that Natural Born Citizen means a citizen of the United States from the very moment of birth.

I also said that CONGRESS does have the power to change the laws, concerning citizenship. I have pointed out, with posts to the State Department website, and with a post of an application for a US Passport, that Congress has CHANGED those rules, on occasion -—

So the rules that apply are the rules in force at the MOMENT of BIRTH!

I have stated, clearly, that Congress can not, RETROACTIVELY, make someone a “Natural Born Citizen” -— but that, instead, you had to qualify at the moment of birth!

You are dishonest, or not very smart.

Either way, I have an obligation, to other posters, lurkers, and birthers, to point out that you are not to be listened to, as you do not post the truth.

You can not even interpret MY simple, to the point, opinion.

Why on Earth would anyone listen to you on more complex matters?

Yes, I am angry with you.

I am angry with you because you are behaving like an Alinsky trained provocateur, and not like a conservative.

I am a PROUD BIRTHER! I demand that Obama release ALL of his documents.

I simply disagree with your interpretation of the law.

[Kansas58]

OK, YOU type “naturalization” into your browsers.

You will get lots of hits.

My definition is accurate, as will match the vast majority of hits you get, on your browser.

[Kansas58]

You might ask yourself why the State Department agrees with me, on this issue:

http://www.uscis.gov/portal/site/uscis/menuitem.eb1d4c2a3e5b9ac89243c6a7543f6d1a/?vgnextoid=2de5bece24e7b110VgnVCM1000004718190aRCRD&vgnextchannel=2de5bece24e7b110VgnVCM1000004718190aRCRD

[Lmo56]

You might ask yourself why the State Department agrees with me, on this issue:

I wuz bein’ sarcastic - why use an unvetted source, when something like say ... Black’s Law Dictionary will suffice, with annotations included (8 U.S.C.A 1401) ...

[Kansas58]

Thanks, my apologies. No offense intended, and for those who do not know how to look it up:
_________________________

§ 1401. Nationals and citizens of United States at birth
How Current is This? The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth:
(a) a person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof;
(b) a person born in the United States to a member of an Indian, Eskimo, Aleutian, or other aboriginal tribe: Provided, That the granting of citizenship under this subsection shall not in any manner impair or otherwise affect the right of such person to tribal or other property;
(c) a person born outside of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents both of whom are citizens of the United States and one of whom has had a residence in the United States or one of its outlying possessions, prior to the birth of such person;
(d) a person born outside of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is a citizen of the United States who has been physically present in the United States or one of its outlying possessions for a continuous period of one year prior to the birth of such person, and the other of whom is a national, but not a citizen of the United States;
(e) a person born in an outlying possession of the United States of parents one of whom is a citizen of the United States who has been physically present in the United States or one of its outlying possessions for a continuous period of one year at any time prior to the birth of such person;
(f) a person of unknown parentage found in the United States while under the age of five years, until shown, prior to his attaining the age of twenty-one years, not to have been born in the United States;
(g) a person born outside the geographical limits of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is an alien, and the other a citizen of the United States who, prior to the birth of such person, was physically present in the United States or its outlying possessions for a period or periods totaling not less than five years, at least two of which were after attaining the age of fourteen years: Provided, That any periods of honorable service in the Armed Forces of the United States, or periods of employment with the United States Government or with an international organization as that term is defined in section 288 of title 22 by such citizen parent, or any periods during which such citizen parent is physically present abroad as the dependent unmarried son or daughter and a member of the household of a person
(A) honorably serving with the Armed Forces of the United States, or
(B) employed by the United States Government or an international organization as defined in section 288 of title 22, may be included in order to satisfy the physical-presence requirement of this paragraph. This proviso shall be applicable to persons born on or after December 24, 1952, to the same extent as if it had become effective in its present form on that date; and
(h) a person born before noon (Eastern Standard Time) May 24, 1934, outside the limits and jurisdiction of the United States of an alien father and a mother who is a citizen of the United States who, prior to the birth of such person, had resided in the United States. Search this title:

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/8/1401.html

[Kansas58]

And, I will say that this law does NOT apply, 100%, to Obama, as the law was slightly different when Obama was born and slightly different when McCain was born.

Still the fact remains, this is evidence that Congress can and Congress does change the law from time to time.

Which means: THAT CONGRESS HAS THE POWER TO DO SO!

[Kansas58]

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/8/1401.html

[Kansas58]

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/8/1401.html

[Radix]

Were Goldwater's parents American citizens when he was born? That is the question as I see it.

My own son was born in an overseas American Army hospital. The notion that he is not a natural born citizen is simply ludicrous to me.

On the other hand, the notion that some illegal immigrant can walk across our borders and give birth (at American taxpayer expense) to a “natural born citizen “ is even more ludicrous.

[El Gato]

Are you saying that the United States Department of State does not know the rules for citizenship?

The problem is, the laws the state department must follow change from time to time, without benefit of a Constitutional amendment. Thus, their rules reflect the rules for "naturalizatioin", not natural born, or even native born citizenship, unless they are duplicative of the meaning of those two terms.

McCain is a citizen, he's not runnig for President and is unlikely to ever do so again, so his status is somewhat academic at this point.

[x]

There's an article in the same issue of the same law journal, "Why John McCain Was a Citizen at Birth."

Lawyers can argue any side of a case and usually do. The "no man's land" argument wouldn't stand up in court, though. It's more of a logical exercise than a defensible legal argument. More here.

[TigersEye]

That is a compelling argument put forth in your first link. He uses the word "may" a lot when building his main premise I might point out. It is also, as you said of Chin's piece, more of a logical exercise than a defensible legal argument.

What really makes Chin's argument the more compelling of the two is the fact that both a bill and a resolution were introduced in the Senate to address McCain's eligibility. That was before Chin wrote his article and to my knowledge before anyone else had seriously challenged McCain's status so it does leave one wondering just what is going on. Apparently there was some real concerns over eligibility in the Senate ... about someone.

Thanks for the reply.

[El Gato]

Albert Gore, Jr. was born in Washington, D.C.,

. Thanks, did not think to check Vice Presidents. Now I wonder if any of them were born in territories before they became states.

I would not be too surprised, since regional "ticket balancing" has always been popular, and since so many Presidents were "easterners, including the many Virginians, balancing with a "western", however that was defined at the time, Vice President, might have resulted in a VP pick born before his state entered the union.

I found one, Charles Curtis, VP under Herbert Hoover, was born in January 1860 in the Kansas Territory prior to the arrival of statehood in January 1861.

I'm surprised there weren't more. But, I certainly don't recall any such controversy over AlGore, and there would have been, I'd think. And have never read of any over Curtis either.

[El Gato]

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

It's a basic principal of our Constitutional Republic that the Federal government, in all branches, has no power not specificaly delegated to it in the Constitution. Just for good measure, they put in the 10th amendment, to make that clearer.

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

[El Gato]

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

It doesn't concern itself with, natural born citizenship, only citizenship. It speaks to "born in the US", "born outside the US of two citizen parents" and "born outside the US to one citizen parent. All but the first are only codified in 8 USC 1401, passed under the power to define rules for "naturalization". "born in the US, is defined as a citizen by the 14th amendment.

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.

That's true, there are, but since Congress may only legitimately pass laws it is empowered to pass by the Constitution, any such laws much concern "naturalized" citizenship.

McCain was clearly a citizen at birth, whether he was natural born, is a matter of the definition of "natural born", not "citizen at birth", although all natural born citizens are of necessity also citizens at birth. Being born on a US Military base, if he was as he says, may or may not be considered to be born on US sovereign territory. Whichever side of the "natural born" question, McCain comes down on, he's, much much closer to the dividing line than Obama, who clearly had divided allegiences at birth, and possibly still does.

There is no question that McCain did not and does not. I do think if the founders could be asked, or if they'd thought about their new nation someday having signifigant numbers of young military members living on bases outside the US, they might have made an exception. I would certainly support a Constitutioinal amendment to make persons born of two citizen parents, while one or both of them are serving outside the US as uniformed military or diplomatic personnel, to be "natural born citizens".

[Kansas58]

El Gato,
If you will read the ENTIRE thread, you will see that at least one of my critics seems to think that Congress has NO POWER to write any law concerning citizenship, outside of Naturalization rules.

I disagree with you, of course, on the definintion of “Natural Born Citizen” and we have had our discussions, in the past -—

However, we are dealing here with a person who is totally ignorant of the law, the process of the law, and how the Constitution was intended, and how legislation flows from the Constitution.

And, this supposed “genius” is trying to lecture ME!

[Kansas58]

OK, try this one:

IF CONGRESS IS, OBVIOUSLY, through the Constitution, given the power to legislate on the issue of “Naturalization” -— Congress has also been given the right to decide who does and does not need any formal “naturalization” process.

Therefore, Congress has the right to decide that those born on foreign soil, to United States Citizens, have automatic citizenship at birth, if Congress chooses to do so.

(Again, the laws have changed several times. The law in place at the moment of birth is the only law that counts.)

[shield]

If you put my brother with my/his father...you’d never know he was his son. My brother takes after my Mom’s family completely in build and looks. There is ZILCH resemblance to my/his Dad.

[GizmosAndGadgets]

Just for the fun of it (and, obviously, not a scientific study of any sort), I found this facial recognition meter at www.myheritage.com

Baby Barack, Stanley Ann & Barack Sr.

Baby Barack, Stanley Ann & Frank Marshall Davis

Baby Barack, Stanley Ann & Malcolm "X" Little

"Barack Obama, who's your daddy??!!??

[shield]

Wonder if he knows? He was abandon by his mother and his dad...his commie gramps and grandmother were actually the only people he could ever consider his parents.