Posted on 04/17/2011 7:32:49 PM PDT by RobinMasters
U.S. Rep. Michele Bachmann, R-Minn., says President Obama has neglected to clearly demonstrate he's eligible to hold his office, and says it would be simple for him to do so.
"It's an interesting issue that has gone on for so long and it's one that the president could have solved very early on," Bachmann told Fox News host Judge Jeanine Pirro last night.
"All he had to do is just answer some questions and show his [long-form birth] document and then have people do an attestation that this in fact is a legal document and it's over, it's done. And I think the president has neglected to focus on answering that question for people, and that's why a lot of people still have it lingering in their minds. None of us can prove, none of us can do attestation. Only the president and someone who is legally tasked with attesting to the validity of that document can do that, and I think that's what the president should do."
Bachmann, who is considering her own run for president next year, said, "One thing I know is that people have weighed President Obama in the balance, and he's been found wanting. I think we have a real opportunity to win back the White House. And again, it's not about a political party winning, it's about taking the country back. That's the bigger issue, and I think it's really gonna happen in 2012."
(Excerpt) Read more at wnd.com ...
In defining an Article II “natural born Citizen,” it is important to find any authority from the Founding period who may inform us how the Founders and Framers themselves defined the clause. Who else but a highly respected historian from the Founding period itself would be highly persuasive in telling us how the Founders and Framers defined a “natural born Citizen. ” Such an important person is David Ramsay, who in 1789 wrote, A Dissertation on the Manners of Acquiring the Character and Privileges of a Citizen (1789), a very important and influential essay on defining a “natural born Citizen.”
David Ramsay (April 2, 1749 to May 8, 1815) was an American physician, patriot, and historian from South Carolina and a delegate from that state to the Continental Congress in 1782-1783 and 1785-1786. He was the Acting President of the United States in Congress Assembled. He was one of the American Revolution’s first major historians. A contemporary of Washington, Ramsay writes with the knowledge and insights one acquires only by being personally involved in the events of the Founding period. In 1785 he published History of the Revolution of South Carolina (two volumes), in 1789 History of the American Revolution (two volumes), in 1807 a Life of Washington, and in 1809 a History of South Carolina (two volumes). Ramsay “was a major intellectual figure in the early republic, known and respected in America and abroad for his medical and historical writings, especially for The History of the American Revolution (1789)…” Arthur H. Shaffer, Between Two Worlds: David Ramsay and the Politics of Slavery, J.S.Hist., Vol. L, No. 2 (May 1984). “During the progress of the Revolution, Doctor Ramsay collected materials for its history, and his great impartiality, his fine memory, and his acquaintance with many of the actors in the contest, eminently qualified him for the task….”
www.famousamericans.net/davidramsay. In 1965 Professor Page Smith of the University of California at Los Angeles published an extensive study of Ramsay's History of the American Revolution in which he stressed the advantage that Ramsay had because of being involved in the events of which he wrote and the wisdom he exercised in taking advantage of this opportunity. “The generosity of mind and spirit which marks his pages, his critical sense, his balanced judgment and compassion,'' Professor Smith concluded, “are gifts that were uniquely his own and that clearly entitle him to an honorable position in the front rank of American historians.”
In his 1789 article, Ramsay first explained who the “original citizens” were and then defined the “natural born citizens” as the children born in the country to citizen parents. He said concerning the children born after the declaration of independence, “[c]itizenship is the inheritance of the children of those who have taken part in the late revolution; but this is confined exclusively to the children of those who were themselves citizens….” Id. at 6. He added that “citizenship by inheritance belongs to none but the children of those Americans, who, having survived the declaration of independence, acquired that adventitious character in their own right, and transmitted it to their offspring….” Id. at 7. He continued that citizenship “as a natural right, belongs to none but those who have been born of citizens since the 4th of July, 1776….” Id. at 6.
Here we have direct and convincing evidence of how a very influential Founder defined a “natural born citizen.” Given his position of influence and especially given that he was a highly respected historian, Ramsay would have had the contacts with other influential Founders and Framers and would have known how they too defined “natural born Citizen.” Ramsay, being of the Founding generation and being intimately involved in the events of the time would have known how the Founders and Framers defined a “natural born Citizen” and he told us that definition was one where the child was born in the country of citizen parents. In giving us this definition, it is clear that Ramsay did not follow the English common law but rather natural law, the law of nations, and Emer de Vattel, who also defined a “natural-born citizen” the same as did Ramsay in his highly acclaimed and influential, The Law of Nations, Or, Principles of the Law of Nature, Applied to the Conduct and Affairs of Nations and Sovereigns, Section 212 (1758 French) (1759 English). We can reasonably assume that the other Founders and Framers would have defined a “natural born Citizen” the same way the Ramsay did, for being a meticulous historian he would have gotten his definition from the general consensus that existed at the time.
Ramsay’s article and explication are further evidence of the influence that Vattel had on the Founders in how they defined the new national citizenship. This article by Ramsay is one of the most important pieces of evidence recently found (provided to us by an anonymous source) which provides direct evidence on how the Founders and Framers defined a “natural born Citizen” and that there is little doubt that they defined one as a child born in the country to citizen parents. This time-honored definition of a "natural born Citizen" has been confirmed by subsequent United States Supreme Court and lower court cases such as The Venus, 12 U.S. (8 Cranch) 253, 289 (1814) (Marshall, C.J., concurring and dissenting for other reasons, cites Vattel and provides his definition of natural born citizens); Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. 393 (1857) (Justice Daniels concurring took out of Vattel’s definition the reference to “fathers” and “father” and replaced it with “parents” and “person,” respectively); Shanks v. Dupont, 28 U.S. 242, 245 (1830) (same definition without citing Vattel); Slaughter-House Cases, 83 U.S. 36, 21 L.Ed. 394, 16 Wall. 36 (1872) (in explaining the meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment clause, “subject to the jurisdiction thereof,” said that the clause “was intended to exclude from its operation children of ministers, consuls, and citizens or subjects of foreign States born within the United States;” Elk v. Wilkins, 112 U.S. 94 (1884) (“the children of subjects of any foreign government born within the domain of that government, or the children born within the United States, of ambassadors or other public ministers of foreign nations” are not citizens under the Fourteenth Amendment because they are not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States); Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162, 167-68 (1875) (same definition without citing Vattel); Ex parte Reynolds, 1879, 5 Dill., 394, 402 (same definition and cites Vattel); United States v. Ward, 42 F.320 (C.C.S.D.Cal. 1890) (same definition and cites Vattel); U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898) (quoted from the same definition of “natural born Citizen” as did Minor v. Happersett); Rep. John Bingham (in the House on March 9, 1866, in commenting on the Civil Rights Act of 1866 which was the precursor to the Fourteenth Amendment: "[I] find no fault with the introductory clause, 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 A. Bingham, (R-Ohio) US Congressman, March 9, 1866 Cong. Globe, 39th, 1st Sess., 1291 (1866), Sec. 1992 of U.S. Revised Statutes (1866)).
The two-citizen-parent requirement would have followed from the common law that provided that a woman upon marriage took the citizenship of her husband. In other words, the Framers required both (1) birth on United States soil (or its equivalent) and (2) birth to two United States citizen parents as necessary conditions of being granted that special status which under our Constitution only the President and Commander in Chief of the Military (and also the Vice President under the Twelfth Amendment) must have at the time of his or her birth. Given the necessary conditions that must be satisfied to be granted the status, all "natural born Citizens" are "Citizens of the United States" but not all "Citizens of the United States" are "natural born Citizens." It was only through both parents being citizens that the child was born with unity of citizenship and allegiance to the United States which the Framers required the President and Commander in Chief to have.
Obama fails to meet this “natural born Citizen” eligibility test because when he was born in 1961 (wherever that may be), he was not born to a United States citizen mother and father. At his birth, his mother was a United States citizen. But under the British Nationality Act 1948, his father, who was born in the British colony of Kenya, was born a Citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies (CUKC) which by descent made Obama himself a CUKC. Prior to Obama’s birth, Obama’s father neither intended to nor did he become a United States citizen. Being temporarily in the United States only for purpose of study and with the intent to return to Kenya, his father did not intend to nor did he even become a legal resident or immigrant to the United States.
Obama may be a plain born “citizen of the United States” under the 14th Amendment or a Congressional Act (if he was born in Hawaii). But as we can see from David Ramsay’s clear presentation, citizenship “as a natural right, belongs to none but those who have been born of citizens since the 4th of July, 1776….” Id. at 6. Hence, Obama is not an Article II "natural born Citizen," for upon Obama's birth his father was a British subject and Obama himself by descent was also the same. Hence, Obama was born subject to a foreign power. Obama lacks the birth status of natural sole and absolute allegiance and loyalty to the United States which only the President and Commander in Chief of the Military and Vice President must have at the time of birth. Being born subject to a foreign power, he lacks Unity of Citizenship and Allegiance to the United States from the time of birth which assures that required degree of natural sole and absolute birth allegiance and loyalty to the United States, a trait that is constitutionally indispensable in a President and Commander in Chief of the Military. Like a naturalized citizen, who despite taking an oath later in life to having sole allegiance to the United States cannot be President because of being born subject to a foreign power, Obama too cannot be President.
Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
April 2, 2010
http://puzo1.blogspot.com/
Thanks for that link, very informative, however I’m afraid that the documentation of the debates over the 14th Amendment isn’t legally binding. Combined with all the other circumstantial evidence it should be, but with the judges currently in this country it’s probably not going to fly, unfortunately. We need the current House to bring it up for a vote, and try to use it as a campaign issue, to prevent these types of issues in the future, since everyone should (although they won’t of course) be willing to accept that.
And who is “Anna Obama” with a baby apparently was in Seattle a lot earlier than SADO was supposedly there with a baby?
It has, however, been defined...as mentioned, by some very noteworthy authorities...especially those who actually discussed the nature of citizenship during the debates on the drafting of the 14th.
I think I know why Obama won’t release his college transcripts.
Most of the course titles are geared towards, or literally about Marxism/communism. He as much as said so in one of his (ghost-written) books.
Agreed!
Yes, I agree it has been defined, correctly, several times in hisotry, most importantly at the time of its inclusion in the US Constitution. What must be done now is for that defintion to become legal, and binding, and applied to any future US Presidential candidates before their name can be placed on the ballot. The US House could have the votes available now, and should move ahead to prevent such controversy in the future. However they don’t seem particularly interested at the moment, unfortunately, so keeping the heat up on Obama is probably the best we can probably do.
And I bet not just Marxist, also pro-fag, and black liberation racist stuff as well. Maybe toss in some Nation of Islam or regular Muslim stuff and - ta da!
Certainly wouldn’t surprise me, nor many others around here.
Right---and he's also said he chose his pals carefully---they were mostly Third World misfits who got into top US colleges b/c of sap-happy affirmative action educators.
Welcome back to the sane constitutional position, Congresswoman.
But I so wish you had come there, not in response to pressure from a lying liberal opportunist like Donald Trump, but because it was the right thing to do from the beginning, in accord with your oath of office.
I wish you, or even one of your colleagues, had done the right thing and called for his credentials at the moment the responsibility was directly upon you, at the counting of the electoral votes subsequent to the 2008 election.
” And I bet not just Marxist, also pro-fag, and black liberation racist stuff as well. “
Sure. Obama worships anything that is a part of the evil “underbelly” of our country.
“Either way, he woud not be a “NATURAL BORN” citizen.”
That’s just plain old ignorance you guys keep putting out there to try to discredit the birth certificate issue. Both the 14th amendment and 8 USC 1401 stipulate who is a citizen at birth and anyone a citizen at birth is a natural born citizen. There is no such thing a “natural born” and a different “natural born”.
14th Amendment: Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.
Title 8 United States Code Section 1401, 1952: 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.
Sorry, but you guys are trying to redefine what a natural born citizen is and how it is made. If you are a citizen at birth you are natural born. Any attempt at redefinition is just conspiracy theorist style stupidity.
The logical conclusion you guys are trying to make is not only must a candidate show a birth certificate but they must also show their parents certificate and all other certificate going back to when the contry was founded.
The fact is some countries consider a person and all their offspring citizens. So, if England wants to keep EVERYONE from becoming President all they would need to do is grant citizenship status to all current US citizens and then everyone would be dual citizens and not qualified according to your broken logic.
And the Marxist professors were all to willing to give a “fellow traveler” a good grade ;-)
The general consensus from his fellow law profs at U of C was that Obama was..
Sloppy
Intellectually and personally lazy
Out of his league as an “ instructor”.....he never even made it to Asst. Professor, and of course, he lied about that too ;-)
McCain wasn't a citizen at birth.
The amendment to allow canal zone births be American citizens was passed a year or so after he was born.
In a sense, he is a naturalized citizen, not natural born, thus the congressional resolution.
Re: Obama. My best guess is that he is illegitimate, meaning he is a US citizen regardless of being born on US soil or abroad.
How that plays out with being natural born is very iffy because of various (confusing, for me) regulations and amendments dealing with out-of wedlock births and transferrence of paternal citizenship.
“The issue is this — IS HE NATURAL BORN as UNDERSTOOD BY THE FRAMERS?”
So what? the 14th Amendment makes clear who is and isn’t a natural born citizen. You can’t ignore that little number just because it doesn’t fit your theory.
RE: The logical conclusion you guys are trying to make is not only must a candidate show a birth certificate but they must also show their parents certificate and all other certificate going back to when the contry was founded.
Only the parent’s CITIZENSHIP AT TIME OF BIRTH OF THE CHILD will suffice. Please don’t add more than what was required.
For instance, if Bobby Jindal’s parents were Naturalized US citizens at the time of his birth ( and we know he was born in Louisiana ), that makes him Natural Born.
If his parents were not US citizens at the time of his birth, that makes him Native born and not constitutionally qualified to be President ( as much as I like him ).
We don’t have to go all the way to his ancestors.
RE: the 14th Amendment makes clear who is and isn’t a natural born citizen
Nope, the 14th amendment tells us WHO IS A US CITIZEN PERIOD, not WHO IS a NATURAL BORN CITIZEN.
We do not question Obama’s US citizenship, we question his meeting the NATURAL BORN CITIZEN requirement to be President.
The only reference to the term : NATURAL BORN CITIZEN is in ARTICLE II Section 1 detailing the requirements for being President of the United States.
The term NATURAL BORN has a specific meaning to the framers.
“WHO IS A US CITIZEN PERIOD, not WHO IS a NATURAL BORN CITIZEN”
If a person is a citizen at birth they are a natural born citizens. There ar eno other definitions. You trying to claim a child must have two American only parents is hogwash and is just you redefining the term.
You obviously cannot read the 14th and the resulting law of the Title 8 and understand what you are reading.
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.