Posted on 04/27/2011 10:18:57 AM PDT by RobinMasters
Although President Obama released a purported long-form birth certificate today indicating he was born in Hawaii, he still might not fit the constitutional eligibility requirement that stipulates only "natural born" citizens can serve as U.S. president, according to a recent bestselling book.
An investigation by the authors found that according to correspondence from the original framers of the Constitution as well as multiple Supreme Court rulings and the legal writings that helped establish the principles of the Constitution, Obama is not eligible to serve as president since his father was not a U.S. citizen.
With nearly 900 endnotes, the book, "The Manchurian President: Barack Obama's Ties to Communists, Socialists and Other Anti-American Extremists," was written by WABC Radio host and WND senior reporter Aaron Klein with researcher Brenda J. Elliott.
While the book was released last May, the work takes on renewed relevance today with Obama's release of his purported long-form birth certificate. In a chapter investigating eligibility issues, the book concluded Obama may not be eligible regardless of his place of birth. The authors recommend further legislative and judicial debate.
"It is undisputed that Obama's father was not a U.S. citizen," wrote Klein, "a fact that should have led to congressional debate about whether Obama is eligible under the United States Constitution to serve as president."
(Excerpt) Read more at wnd.com ...
Yeah.....It takes the Supreme Court, ignoring the obvious, to change the Constitution to enable this goofball to be in office.
Covered in 1844:
(page 246)
And the constitution itself contains a direct recognition of the subsisting common law principle, in the section which defines the qualification of the President. “No person except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States at the time of the adoption of this constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President,” &c. The only standard which then existed, of a natural born citizen, was the rule of the common law, and no different standard has been adopted since. Suppose a person should be elected President who was native born, but of alien parents, could there be any reasonable doubt that he was eligible under the constitution? I think not.
(pg 250)
6. Upon principle, therefore, I can entertain no doubt, but that by the law of the United States, every person born within the dominions and allegiance of the United States, whatever were the situation of his parents, is a natural born citizen.
http://tesibria.typepad.com/whats_your_evidence/Lynch_v_Clarke_1844_ocr.pdf
I was just searching in the dictionary for the words “worthless Effers,” and lo and behold next to the definition ( which can’t be printed here) was a picture of the entire SCOTUS. Who knew? Ruth Buzzy Ginsburg has more balls than all of the males on the court combined. At any rate, they are all off for their “summer recess” so they can’t be bothered with trying to do their jobs.
From the Constitution, article 1 section 8 clause 4, one of the powers of Congress:
“To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;”
They did this in USC Title 8 Section 1401.
Those meeting the definition in that title are eligible to be president.
“Citizens at the time of birth” isn’t the same as “natural-born citizens.” Every Mexican woman who pops out a kid while shopping in San Diego for the day gives birth to a “ citizen at birth.” But that offspring will never be president ( at least that’s what the Constitution says), So from what I see, nothing you have written has any effect on FUBO’s eligibility to be president.
Obama has birthright citizenship because his mother was a US citizen. And because he was born on US soil. But his father was a British subject, so he's not a natural born citizen as required by Article II, and as defined by the body of international law referred to in the Constitution as the Law of Nations, whose preeminent codification at the time of the Constitutional Convention was in a book by de Vattel.
Minor v. Happersett , 88 U.S. 162 (1875):
The Constitution does not in words say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners.
Correspondence among the Framers makes it clear that the issue that motivated the "natural born citizen" requirement was to ensure that the Commander-in-chief of the military would have absolutely no allegiances or ties to any foreign power, and would not be a citizen or subject of any foreign power, nor be able to make any such claim. Obama's father was a British subject at the time of his birth, and Obama can legally claim to be a British subject based on that fact.
Only citizens at the time the Constitution was passed were eligible ... every one after that point had to be a “natural born citizen”
PRESENT this COLB as posted by Obama on White House website...to ALL STATE SECRETARIES OF STATE.....let them rule on his eligibility.
Watch the fun begin!
Oh, to be a fly on the wall of the second swearing in. . . . . The Chief Justice likely had to amend the text read to Obama (sic) with added citzenship conferrance.
Hold on to your hats people - this is about to get verrrrrry interesting!
There is a huge fly in your argument:
You don’t know the true identity of his father so it renders your point moot.
The first intelligent point. Hats off to you.
You are correct in that kids spit out are eligible under section sec 1401, however, there is section 1481 which indicates how this citizenship can be revoked:
-Becoming naturalized in another country
-Swearing an oath of allegiance to another country
-Serving in the armed forces of a nation at war with the U.S., or if you are an officer in that force
-Working for the government of another nation if doing so requires that you become naturalized or that you swear an oath of allegiance
-Formally renouncing citizenship at a U.S. consular office
-Formally renouncing citizenship to the U.S. Attorney General
-By being convicted of committing treason
My guess is that of kids born of illegals, you’ll either see them stay in the U.S., and be eligible to run for president, or go back to Mexico and be naturalized there, (so they can vote there, etc.), in which case they won’t be eligible to run in the U.S.
That case had to do with voting rights in Missouri.
The quote from the decision in that case does not supercede Title 8 USC Sec 1401.
The US Code cannot supercede the Constitution. And even if it could, the US Code does not claim to define “natural born Citizen.” It only claims to define who qualifies as a citizen. So you are refuted.
Actually I believe the law was changed AFTER Obamas birth..at the time of his birth you had to be born on american soil..
I agree..
bm
The WKA decision interprets the US Constitution’s meaning of natural born citizen. They echo, poorly, the reasoning used in the NY case I cited.
NBC was the Americanized term for the British natural born subject. When the colonies were free, the new states revised their law - prior to the Constitution - to change the wording NBS into NBC...so it is pretty reasonable to believe a natural born citizen is anyone who would have met the definition for natural born subject used prior to the Revolution.
And it is also reasonable to assume the lawyers writing the Constitution had THIS in mind when they put that phrase into the Constitution.
WKA: http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0169_0649_ZO.html
Lynch: http://tesibria.typepad.com/whats_your_evidence/Lynch_v_Clarke_1844_ocr.pdf
It is highly illogical to assume they had in mind a poor translation of Vattel made 10 years AFTER the Constitution.
In spite of what they had in mind when the wrote it, the framers knew that they did not define it clearly.
Hence they gave that authority to define it, to a future Congress, under article 1 section 8 clause 4 of the Constitution.
The laws of the U.S. did not end w/the Constitution. They began with it. Subsequent Congresses have the authority to expand it, which is where we get the the US Code.
Regardless of what quotes can be dug up out of US Supreme Court decisions, none of those decisions has overturned the constitutionality of Title 8 USC 1401.
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.