. . . . Article and #15.
[Thanks, Fred Nerks.]
Posted on 01/07/2010 9:17:33 PM PST by STARWISE
All Ineligible
All three of the 2008 presidential candidates, Obama (aka Soetoro), McCain, and Calero were not eligible under Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 of the U.S. Constitution to serve as Commander-in-Chief.
Just like a residential purchase of a home is void if fraud in the inducement (where one party conceals a material fact that if people knew about it ahead of time, they would not enter into a residential purchase of a home), the same thing has occurred with the primaries and presidential election on November 4, 2008.
Because these three candidates (Obama (aka Soetoro), McCain, and Calero) were ineligible under Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 of the U.S. Constitution, the 2008 presidential election and its results should be voided.
Regardless of what game of charades people in the mainstream media and people within our federal government are trying to pull. That is a legal fact that can not be disputed.
Obama has only one US citizen parent. His father was British subject and a Citizen of Kenya — as was Obama.
McCain was not born in the mainland US. John Sidney McCain III was born at the Colon Hospital, located at Avenida Melendez and 2nd Street, Manzanillo Island, City of Colon, Republic of Panama.
The time of birth on the birth certificate issued by Panama Railroad Company (which owned the Colon Hospital) was 5:25 PM and the day and date of birth was Saturday, August 29, 1936.
Calero was not born in the mainland US. He was born in Nicaragua.
***
Democrats Try To Change The Rules
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?
***
Senate Judicial Committee Chairman Says Obama Not Eligible — And Obama Agrees
On April 10, 2008, Sens. Patrick Leahy (D-VT) and Claire McCaskill (D-MO) introduced a resolution expressing the sense of the U.S. Senate that presidential candidate Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) was a ‘natural born Citizen,’ as specified in the Constitution and eligible to run for president.
Sen. McCaskill knew Obama was not a U.S. Citizen, that’s why she introduced this bill — dressing it up to look like it was in Sen. John McCain’s cause.
It was during the bill’s hearing that Sen. Patrick Leahy, Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, made the following statement:
“Because he was born to American citizens, there is no doubt in my mind that Senator McCain is a natural born citizen,” said Leahy. “I expect that this will be a unanimous resolution of the Senate.”
At a Judiciary Committee hearing on April 3, Leahy asked Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff, himself a former Federal judge, if he had doubts that McCain was eligible to serve as President.
“My assumption and my understanding is that if you are born of American parents, you are naturally a natural-born American citizen,” Chertoff replied.
“That is mine, too,” said Leahy.
What’s interesting here is that Sen. Leahy, the Chairman of the Senate Judiciary, confirms that a “natural born” citizen is the child of American citizen parents.
Parents — that’s two. That’s BOTH parents.
Every time the words, “citizen” and “parent,” are used by Sen. Leahy and Sec. Chertoff, the plural case, “citizens” and “parents,” is used. The plural case is the operative case.
It is Sen. Leahy’s opinion — his own recorded words, in a formal Senate Resolution and on his U. S. Senate website — that Barack Obama is not a “natural born” citizen, and therefore not eligible to serve as Commander-in-Chief, regardless of his birthplace.
Obama had one American parent —singular — his mother. His father was a citizen of Kenya, and a subject of Great Britain.
Obama, himself, “at birth,” was a citizen of Kenya, and a subject of Great Britain — he says so on his own campaign website. This fact introduces the concept of “divided loyalties,” — the reason the founders created the eligibility requirement in the first place — a fact that further underlines Obama’s ineligibility.
The source of this information is Sen. Leahy’s own website. The webpage contains a statement about the resolution; the resolution, itself; the Statement Of Senator Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.); and an excerpt of Sec. Chertoff’s testimony.
The plural word “parents” is used four times. When used to identify the parents, the word “citizens” is used five times. That’s nine times that Sen. Leahy, on his own website describes the eligibility requirement. There is NO PLACE in any of these four documents where the singular case of “parent” or “citizen” is used.
The real purpose of this bill was 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” by the Democratic Party leadership — paving the way for an Obama run.
Both Leahy and Chertoff avoid addressing the “in the US mainland” (jus solis) element of the eligibility requirement and focus solely on parentage (Jus sanguinis) in making their arguments and by doing so bring focus to the fundamental reason Obama is not qualified. He had one American parent and one foreign parent. Barack Obama is not a natural born citizen — no matter where he was born.
Obama is a co-signer of this resolution. So, I guess he too agrees that one needs two American parents to be eligible for POTUS — except he doesn’t care — after all, he’s the Obamamessiah. Rules don’t apply to him.
***
35 Or 36
Since the 1870s, assorted Congress critters have attempted to define or redefine “natural born” citizen status nearly 30 times!
There were five attempts to re-define “natural born” citizen status since 2001 — that’s six attempts, if you include Sen. Leahy’s Resolution for McCain in March 2008.
http://www.theobamafile.com/ObamaNaturalBorn.htm
A lot of people know he is defrauding America, problem is all those in a position of power to do anything about it are too busy trying to take advantage of this and to secure a more lucrative power base.
Collaborators in a polite sense.
Yeah..but it seems nobody can get any action going.
Ya know..in the world we live in today, it seems nothing is a secret. Somebody always uncovers something or other. I just dont get why some crooked person hasnt gotten his hands on any of these hidden documents.
Geeze, they even uncovered that info on global warming..and nobody can get their hands on any of this morons papers? He isnt God. Someone has GOT to know something..or be able to get their hands on something.
Ping
Well, somebody should have made it clear..maybe if they did, we would be dealing with HIM now.
I honestly think someone should fix this and make it absolutely clear...so we dont ever have to go thru this again.
If they want to judge it by the parents..or by the child plus the parents..or just by the child. They should pick something, so there is an absolute law on who can be president and who cant.
Actually, the law doesn't apply only to those in 1982 or later. The law is a little confusing because it is written in compound sentences. If you break it down into its parts ( as I have done in the bold type ) it becomes more clear :
Certificates for children born out of State. (a) Upon application of an adult or the legal parents of a minor child, the director of health shall issue a birth certificate for such adult or minor, provided that proof has been submitted to the director of health that the legal parents of such individual while living without the Territory or State of Hawaii had declared the Territory or State of Hawaii as their legal residence for at least one year immediately preceding the birth or adoption of such child.
As can be seen, someone today - who was born in 1964 or earlier - can go in and apply for a COLB as long as they can prove the residency requirement of the parent. An adult in 1982 would have been anyone born in 1964 or earlier. Therefore, it clearly doesn't apply to those born only after 1982.
Correction - Well actually someone today who is 18 or older can apply. The 1964 applied to the year 1982 when the law was written.
One approach to learning about our foundations is to read Wolf and Pufendorf and Leibniz, precursors of Vattel. Another is to read the extensive discussions of citizenship in supreme court cases (some lower courts pay little attention to precedent, such as the Indiana Supreme Court in their recent decision which rewrites the History around Chester Arthur).
Legal scholars have spent volumes on citizenship since The Revolution: Alexander Morse, Piggot, Collins, Kent, Story, Desty. Then there are the last ten years. I did not realize there had been five attempts to redefine Article II since 2001. I knew of Orren Hatch, who subsequently forgot his understanding of what it was he tried to change in 2003. Do you include statutes, which cannot, of course, amend The Constitution? What are some other attempt to alter Article II Sect 1?
Being lazy, I usually depend upon a citation in the Herlihy Paper wherein she cites 24 attempts to amend the definition of natural born citizen. She, of course, in her 26 pages, doesn't mention Marshall, or Happersett, or Waite, or Venus, or Hamilton, or Jay, or Washington, but makes the advent of globalism the reason we need to admit children of aliens to the restricted class of presidential qualities.
Has someone preserved the “shadow-cached” bills which have been scrubbed? I, for example, saved the Herlihy Chicago-Kent Law Review article, noting that it was so obviously aimed at supporting an Obama run that it might be useful. Of course it disappeared from the Internet. It must still be on paper in law libraries, so it appears the Obama team is just buying time; until what? Do they expect to have replaced the 1st Amendment? Perhaps.
I think we had his genuine Kenyan birth certificate. Otherwise, why would the lib hackers change the reference numbers and so quickly?
If the claim by Obama supporters, the main fringe media , and the birther deniers is true that he was not born in Kenya, why then ? does the government of Kenya have any of his personal records and have sealed them ?
I found it also curious that by BHO own admission has said when he was at Columbia it was “buckle-down” time. I thought you had to be have good grades to get into Columbia or was Occidental that easy. I also find it curious that no one at Columbia remembers him except his thesis advisor (who accidently through it out)
The more I read the more I believe he is a KGB plant.
. . . . Article and #15.
[Thanks, Fred Nerks.]
President Obama is not a baby anymore. I think your trying to defend him. I have a birth certificate, I can show it to anyone that needs to see it within a few hours, I have pictures of my birth. I have witnesses. I also do not have a stack of documents that would prove to the country and the world of who exactly I am sealed in a vault.
I wonder what records Kenya has on me?
Excellent Thought. Hmmmmm
Which one?
Which one?
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.