Sunday, November 29, 2009

The Audacity of Some

Now comes Barrack H. Obama President of the United States of America and Commander in Chief of the United States Armed Forces. Does anyone see the audacity of this? Does anyone expect the United States Congress to represent “We the People”, and not their self-interests? Does anyone expect the Supreme Court of the United States of America to uphold and protect the United States Constitution? Does anyone expect the Chief Justice of the United States of America to uphold and protect the United States Constitution?

At this point the answer is NO! Since the nominating committees of all the parties who had candidates in the 2008 elections proclaimed their candidates for president there have been questions about eligibility of some of the candidates. In particular both major parties Democrat and Republican.

John McCain was the first; John was born in 1936 in Panama while his father was assigned to a United States Naval Base in that country. While McCain’s father was on assignment to that country John McCain was born. We will leave it there for now.

Barrack Obama was never questioned about his eligibility; we do not know where he was actually born. His records are sealed by his hand. Obama claims to have been born in 1961 in Hawaii. Hawaii had joined the confederation of the United States of America in 1959. However, until Obama produces his long form hospital birth certificate We the People will never know the truth. We will leave it there for now.

Our country, the United States of American, was born over 233 years ago as a Constitutional Republic; which means we are a nation of laws. This means the United States Constitution is the primary, or basic, law of the United States of America from which all other laws of the nation are derived.

That in mind, we can look to our Constitution for guiding principles that were set in place to protect We The People and our Constitutional Republic. First it established three important, but separate, branches of government; in so doing the founding fathers set in place a means for checks and balances on the three branches. It was the founding fathers’ intention that no one branch of government would be able to control the entire government with not accountability to We The People.

The Executive Branch of Government is the branch charged with carrying out the nations business as dictated by congress through their enacted legislation once signed into law by the President of the United States who has veto power over the legislation, therefore a check against congress. If the President vetoes the legislation then is does not become law, and is returned to the House of Representatives for further consideration. Once the vetoed legislation is returned to the House of Representatives they have two options; 1) rewrite the legislation, and go through the approval of process of both houses of congress; or 2) override the president’s veto by a vote of ¾ of the sitting House of Representatives; in which cases it becomes law over the president’s veto. This ensures that the President cannot arbitrarily veto the law when it is in the best interest of the nation and its people and congress is in concurrence.

The Legislative Branch of Government is the representative branch elected by We The People of the various states, and charged with the responsibilities given them by the Constitution, and no other; so in that regard the congressional houses of congress legislate the laws of the United States of America based on the authority given to it by our constitution. The congress is comprised of a House of Representatives and a Senate. Each state is allowed two Senators without regard to it’s population; the House of Representatives however, is allowed representatives based on the population of the various states, therefore the more populace states may have many seats while the less populace states may have only one seat which is mandated by our constitution for those states with very limited population such as North Dakota for example which has one representative.

The Judicial Branch of Government is charged with the responsibility of uphold in the laws of our constitution, and the laws enacted by congress so We The People are protected, and able to live our lives in accordance with the laws so enacted. In that duty the Supreme Court of the United States of American and The Chief Justice of the United States of American are responsible to us, We The People, to ensure the laws enacted by congress and signed into law by the president are in accordance with the Constitution of the United States of America. The Chief Justice and the Supreme Court do not make law only enforce the laws on the books, and contained in our Constitution. They review laws of congress to make certain that they are constitutional before enactment.

Now let’s look at our constitution; while we could spend hours going through each article of our constitution; remember, for those of us who were able to study our constitution, both in high school and college, it took up most of a semester. For now we will concentrate on Article II for purpose of this writing.

I have insert Article II below for reference as I take up the issue of this writing.

When John McCain and Barrack Obama were nominated to run for President of the United States of America the nominating conventions and the delegates thereto did not vet either of these candidates for the Office of President, and why do I say that? Either of these candidates were, in my opinion eligible to seek the office, because neither of them could meet the qualifications set out in Article II Section I Paragraph 5 of our constitution which requires they be Natural Born Citizens, and not just citizens of the United States.

John McCain was born in Panama to a mother and father who were US citizens; therefore he was a citizen of the United States by birth; however, he was born on foreign soil, and therefore was not a Natural Born Citizen. We know this for sure because he produced his long form birth certificate as proof.

Barrack Obama on the other hand was born in Hawaii, maybe, to a mother who was a US citizen under the age of 18 years, this will be important later, and a father who was from Kenya, a British Crown Colony of Africa. Since his father was a foreigner, living Hawaii while attending college there, he could only convey the citizenship to which he was subject, that of a Subject of the British Crown and later Kenya. Begin a Subject of the British Crown, once attained, is for life unless renounced. Being a Kenyan citizen at birth only lasts until the age of majority at which time that citizenship lapses unless formally reaffirmed by the individual.

So if we look at the dictates of Article II Section I Paragraph 5 we now need to determine what did the founding father mean when the inserted Natural Born Citizen when they wrote it into our constitution. We also must remember that the only way to change our constitution is through amendment thereto which needs to be ratified by 2/3 of the various states to become law’ a length and laborious process.

To do this we need for read the many letters, articles and documents called the Federalist Papers written by our founding fathers to provide the answer to this question.

One first needs to put themselves in the time period of the founding fathers, reflect on where they had been and where they were trying to go. The new nation had just fought a bitter and costly war of independence with the British Crown, to throw of the yoke of oppression, which they had suffered under for many years. This was a Monarchy administered by the single hand of the King of England with no meaningful representation of the Colonies. Therefore, the founding fathers did not want to repeat the past and looked beyond England for the answers to form a new government. Almost to a man, the founding fathers were intellectually astute, most spoke several languages, had served in some capacity aboard representing the Colonies prior to the revolution, and very religious, with exceptions. Franklin, having served in France was familiar with a book written by Vattel call the Law of Nations. Vattel was a philosopher, a legal scholar and lived in Switzerland. Being familiar with the works of Vattel Franklin wrote to a friend in France and asked for three copies of Vattel’s writings to help frame our new constitution. This is documented in his letters and the Federalist Papers and therefore of knowledge. Franklin, upon receiving these books kept one for him and left two for the founding fathers to use as their reference. John Jay the first Justice of the Supreme Court and legal source for the founding fathers also used Vattel’s works extensively. When we look at Vattel’s influence on the founding fathers in their deliberations we can understand why the setup our Constitutional Republic, and not a Democracy, or some other form of government; the founding fathers wanted a form of government that could survive, not last a few years and them become something else at the whim of a few.

So if we look at Vattel’s works and see his definition of citizen and natural born citizen we can see what the founding fathers intended without explanation in Article II Section I Paragraph 5.

Read carefully the following:

E. Vattel stated in 1758, as translated into English in 1797:

"The citizens are the members of the civil society: bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. As the society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights. The society is supposed to desire this, in consequence of what it owes to its own preservation; and it is presumed, as matter of course, that each citizen, on entering into society, reserves to his children the right of becoming members of it. The country of the fathers is therefore that of the children; and these become true citizens merely by their tacit consent. We shall soon see, whether, on their coming to the years of discretion, they may renounce their right, and what they owe to the society in which they were born. I say, that, in order to be of the country, it is necessary that a person be born of a father who is a citizen; for if he is born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country."

E. Vattel, The Law of Nations, Sec. 212 Citizens and natives. In Footnote 1 at the end of Sec. 212, Vattel stated that “as a general rule” the child inherits his father’s citizenship, or his mother’s but only if she isn’t married.

After reading this, and carefully reflecting on the intent of this writing, one can reasonably come to the conclusion that a Natural Born Citizen is one born of mothers and fathers who are already US citizens and in the country of their citizenship.

Some would have you believe otherwise, that all that is required is US Citizenship. They are wrong.

The founding fathers, if you read Article II Section I Paragraph 5 carefully, did, when drafting our constitution, exempt themselves from this requirement because most at that time they could not meet the requirements as most were either born abroad of parents not citizens of the new country, or had been born in the country of non citizens parents, and therefore would not be eligible to serve as president. You will also notice they restricted the waiver to those present in the country at the adoption and ratification of our constitution, and not beyond that time period. The founding fathers wanted citizenship purity of anyone to serve as President and Commander in Chief to ensure no outside influence on that office and its duties to the nation. This again is well established in their writings and documents.

Now lets go back and look at McCain and Obama, and their run for the office.

McCain was born abroad, Panama, and even though born of two citizen parents was born abroad, and even though his parents were US citizens he was born on Panamanian soil and not sovereign US soil; therefore not eligible for the office of president. One could argue that if he had been born at the United States Embassy in Panama that he would have been a Natural Born Citizens since embassy property is sovereign US soil. However, if born on a United States Military Base in Panama, the base is not sovereign soil, but merely leased ground, and therefore still Panamanian soil. The United States Senate in their resolution declared McCain a Natural Born Citizen, and therefore eligible to run for president erred; first because the senate violated our constitution since the constitution does not give them that authority; second they were in effect legislating that which they are not empowered to legislate.

Now Obama, even though the Senate took it upon themselves to weigh in on McCain’s eligibility they completely ignored Obama. Why, only history will answer that question.

When we look at Obama’s eligibility I see vast gaps in his claim of citizenship, because number one he, by his own admission in his book and speeches, acknowledges he is a dual citizen because of his father. Second, there is much controversy about his Hawaiian birth; yet to be conclusively proved. Given these two facts, why was he declared eligible to run for the Office of President of the United States of America without conclusive proof of his eligibility? The answer, I believe, is the complicity of those who wanted anyone, regardless of eligibility, who could win over We The People and wanted change at any cost because of philosophical and political differences. The old axiom is “be careful of what you wish for you may end up fulfilling your wish but not like it”.

Barrack Obama, in my opinion, is not constitutionally eligible to be President of The United States of America simply because he is a dual citizen at best, if in fact he was born in Hawaii; and further not eligible because he cannot meet the requirements of Article II Section I Paragraph 5 thereof.

We have not even delved into his other issues, a possible Kenyan birth, an apparent adoption and his citizenship of Indonesia, his falsification of records (Illinois Bar License Application, Selective Service Records, Passport, College Records} none of which are available for public review since he has ensured to this date they are completely sealed, having spent over one million dollars to keep them from the light of day. Executive Privilege does not even factor into this secrecy since his personal records are not a matter of national security and were created long before he ever ran or was elected to the office. A reasonable person would believe Obama has much to hide; and absolutely nothing to gain by releasing the records, which would clear up this matter and establish his legitimacy for the office.

Who lose if he is declare ineligible for the office, for starters all of those in his cabinet, all of those on his white house staff; and all those behind his nomination and election who wanted our government changed.

We the People are currently the losers in this, since those who voted for an ineligible person to be president were either duped or blinded by the lack of facts. We have all been asleep for too long. We are waking now and as we wake a new dawning is coming starting in 2010 when the mid term elections are held. When you go to the polls remember the ones now sitting in congress, both houses, are complicit in the cover up of Obama’s eligibility, regardless of their reasons. They knew it and did nothing about it out of fear. They took the oath of office, and swore to protect and defend the constitution and immediately thereafter abdicated that oath for their own self-interests not the interested of the nation and We The People. It’s time to vote them out of office starting in 2010.

For reference: Blue for emphasis!

Article II

Section 1.

The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America. He shall hold his Office during the Term of four Years, and, together with the Vice President, chosen for the same Term, be elected, as follows:

Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector.

The Electors shall meet in their respective States, and vote by Ballot for two Persons, of whom one at least shall not be an Inhabitant of the same State with themselves. And they shall make a List of all the Persons voted for, and of the Number of Votes for each; which List they shall sign and certify, and transmit sealed to the Seat of the Government of the United States, directed to the President of the Senate. The President of the Senate shall, in the Presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the Certificates, and the Votes shall then be counted. The Person having the greatest Number of Votes shall be the President, if such Number be a Majority of the whole Number of Electors appointed; and if there be more than one who have such Majority, and have an equal Number of Votes, then the House of Representatives shall immediately chuse by Ballot one of them for President; and if no Person have a Majority, then from the five highest on the List the said House shall in like Manner chuse the President. But in chusing the President, the Votes shall be taken by States, the Representatives from each State having one Vote; a quorum for this Purpose shall consist of a Member or Members from two thirds of the States, and a Majority of all the States shall be necessary to a Choice. In every Case, after the Choice of the President, the Person having the greatest Number of Votes of the Electors shall be the Vice President. But if there should remain two or more who have equal Votes, the Senate shall chuse from them by Ballot the Vice President.

The Congress may determine the Time of chusing the Electors, and the Day on which they shall give their Votes; which Day shall be the same throughout the United States.

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; neither shall any person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.

In Case of the Removal of the President from Office, or of his Death, Resignation, or Inability to discharge the Powers and Duties of the said Office, the Same shall devolve on the Vice President, and the Congress may by Law provide for the Case of Removal, Death, Resignation or Inability, both of the President and Vice President, declaring what Officer shall then act as President, and such Officer shall act accordingly, until the Disability be removed, or a President shall be elected.

The President shall, at stated Times, receive for his Services, a Compensation, which shall neither be encreased nor diminished during the Period for which he shall have been elected, and he shall not receive within that Period any other Emolument from the United States, or any of them.

Before he enter on the Execution of his Office, he shall take the following Oath or Affirmation:--''I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.''

Section 2.

The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States; he may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any Subject relating to the Duties of their respective Offices, and he shall have Power to Grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offences against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.

He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.

The President shall have Power to fill up all Vacancies that may happen during the Recess of the Senate, by granting Commissions which shall expire at the End of their next Session.

Section 3.

He shall from time to time give to the Congress Information on the State of the Union, and recommend to their Consideration such Measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient; he may, on extraordinary Occasions, convene both Houses, or either of them, and in Case of Disagreement between them, with Respect to the Time of Adjournment, he may adjourn them to such Time as he shall think proper; he shall receive Ambassadors and other public Ministers; he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed, and shall Commission all the Officers of the United States.

Section 4.

The President, Vice President and all Civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.

45 comments:

  1. Re: "Barrack Obama was never questioned about his eligibility; we do not know where he was actually born. His records are sealed by his hand. Obama claims to have been born in 1961 in Hawaii. Hawaii had joined the confederation of the United States of America in 1959. However, until Obama produces his long form hospital birth certificate We the People will never know the truth. We will leave it there for now."

    We know that he was born in Hawaii because he posted and showed the physical copy of his official Hawaii birth certificate. He does not have the long form birth certificate because he lost the original that was sent to his parents. So in 2007 he asked for a copy from Hawaii, which now sends out only the Certification of Live Birth (http://www.starbulletin.com/columnists/kokualine/20090606_kokua_line.html)

    The Wall Street Journal commented: "Obama has already provided a legal birth certificate demonstrating that he was born in Hawaii. No one has produced any serious evidence to the contrary. Absent such evidence, it is unreasonable to deny that Obama has met the burden of proof. We know that he was born in Honolulu as surely as we know that Bill Clinton was born in Hope, Ark., or George W. Bush in New Haven, Conn."

    Re: "a possible Kenyan birth." This is what the National Review had to say about that: "The theory that Obama was born in Kenya, that he was smuggled into the U.S., and that his parents somehow hoodwinked Hawaiian authorities into falsely certifying his birth in Oahu, is crazy stuff.”

    Re: Indonesian citizenship. This is what the Wall Street Journal had to say about that: "After the president’s parents divorced, his mother married an Indonesian man and moved the family to Jakarta, where Barack lived from ages 6 through 10 (1967-71), at which point he returned to the U.S. The hypothesis--based on thin evidence and fat speculation--is that Obama was adopted by his stepfather and therefore became an Indonesian citizen.

    Even if that were true, however, it would not deprive him of his status as a natural-born citizen of America. As the State Department Web site notes:

    Parents cannot renounce U.S. citizenship on behalf of their minor children. Before an oath of renunciation will be administered . . ., a person under the age of eighteen must convince a U.S. diplomatic or consular officer that he/she fully understands the nature and consequences of the oath of renunciation, is not subject to duress or undue influence, and is voluntarily seeking to renounce his/her U.S. citizenship.

    It is outlandish to suggest that a boy under 10 could persuade a diplomat of all that. It is only a tiny bit less outlandish to think that Obama came back to the U.S., spent eight or more years here, and then decided to renounce his citizenship.

    Besides, the oath of renunciation is administered in writing. What are we to conclude about someone who refuses to accept an official state birth certificate as proof of birth but expects us to accept utterly preposterous theories with no documentary evidence whatever?"

    ReplyDelete
  2. smrstrauss; you are back; welcome. I see that you still have not gotten it right. Please produce the proof, in the same form that McCain did during the electon; his long form hospital birth certificate. The Hawaii COLB, produced for Obama, is not enough; and actually is unacceptable in Hawaii for a state government job; as setout in state law.

    I do not suggest any parent can renounce the citizenship bestowed on a child. I do believe a child born, in any country is most likely a citizen of said country. That said, there are laws, which vary from country to country, where a child once a citizen by birth is a citizen of that country forever, unless that person chooses to renounce said citizenship after the age of majority i.e. England. There are other countries where citizenship once granted at birth may only continue until the age of majority at which time the person much reaffirm that citizenship or lose said citizenship, i.e. Kenya.

    The other issues surrounding Obama's elibility are that he is by his own admission a dual citizen of England, providing he was actually born in Hawaii of one citizen parent, and therefore a "citizen", and a foriegn parent.

    Read Article II Section I Paragraph 5 and reflect on the founding fathers, and their intent when restricting the Presidency and Commander in Chief to a "Natural Born Citizen" as Vatell setforth in the Law of Nations. This, for those who are well versed in constituional law, the founding fathers, their writings, and the Federalist Paper, know that Obama and his minions defrauded the American people, the nation and the office he now occupies.

    I am sure there is nothing I can do to convince you otherwise, but I will continue to try.

    Please respond with something other than what the WSJ and other MSM espouse, unfortunately they also have it wrong, or are beholding to someone also complicit in the cover up.

    We will get the answers eventually, and we know it will take time. Every dog has its day. Obama's is coming, along with the complicit congress.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Re: "smrstrauss; you are back; welcome."

    Thank you for the welcome and the civilized discussion.

    Re: “I see that you still have not gotten it right. Please produce the proof, in the same form that McCain did during the electon; his long form hospital birth certificate. “

    Answer: As you know, before Obama no president showed his birth certificate, much less posted it on line. I do not believe that the McCain birth certificate online was actually posted by John McCain. In fact, it is likely to be a forgery because he said that he was born in the Family Hospital in the US Naval Base in the Canal Zone, and the document on line claims that he was born in Colon Hospital. In any case, during the campaign I do not believe that McCain's birth certificate appeared on a McCain web site.

    Re: “The Hawaii COLB, produced for Obama, is not enough; and actually is unacceptable in Hawaii for a state government job; as setout in state law.”

    Answer: The Hawaii COLB is the official birth certificate of the state, so when you say that it is unacceptable in Hawaii for a state government job you are stretching belief. Show a citation, or admit that you made it up, or that you were misinformed. Here is the citation for the COLB being the official birth certificate and the only one that Hawaii sends out. (http://www.starbulletin.com/columnists/kokualine/20090606_kokua_line.html)

    Note also the logic of the situation. If Hawaii does not send out copies of the original anymore, then unless Obama has a copy of the original sent to his parents—and not lost it, as many of us do—then all that he can show is the document Hawaii sent him. We know, because the DOH of Hawaii was questioned by Politifact and FactCheck, that they sent a copy of the COLB to Obama in 2007, so it is likely that he lost it, and so this is all that he can show.

    The solution is to have Hawaii change the rules to allow the original to be sent out or viewed at its offices. But this is not something that Obama can do. Hawaii has to do it, but the fact that Hawaii does not send out copies of the original does not mean that Obama was not born in Hawaii. The officials have repeatedly said that the COLB conforms with the document in the files in the fact of being born in Hawaii in 1961 (http://www.swamppolitics.com/news/politics/blog/2008/11/obama_hawaaianborn_citizen_for.html)

    Re: “I do not suggest any parent can renounce the citizenship bestowed on a child. I do believe a child born, in any country is most likely a citizen of said country. That said, there are laws, which vary from country to country, where a child once a citizen by birth is a citizen of that country forever, unless that person chooses to renounce said citizenship after the age of majority i.e. England. There are other countries where citizenship once granted at birth may only continue until the age of majority at which time the person much reaffirm that citizenship or lose said citizenship, i.e. Kenya.”

    Answer: I’m not sure what you are getting at here. You did write “his citizenship of Indonesia,” so I responded by saying that he was never a citizen of Indonesia, and one reason was that he would have had to have renounced US citizenship. And by the way the US State Department has now said that he was never a citizen of Indonesia (
    http://www.scribd.com/full/17508463?access_key=key-1vg7c228ugapeqcnkki6).

    I wonder why you brought up Indonesia, if you already knew that in order to become an Indonesian citizen, he would have had to renounce US citizenship officially and in writing?

    ReplyDelete
  4. Re: “The other issues surrounding Obama's elibility are that he is by his own admission a dual citizen of England, providing he was actually born in Hawaii of one citizen parent, and therefore a "citizen", and a foriegn parent.”

    Answer: This moves from the issues of fact, such as where Obama was born, whether he lost citizenship, whether he forged something (he didn’t), to a Constitutional issue, which you hope will go your way, but won’t.

    Dual Citizenship does not affect Natural Born status. Why not? Because the original meaning of Natural Born at the time of the writing of the Constitution simply meant “born in the country.” The meaning does not come from Vattel (who never discussed dual nationality, by the way). The meaning comes from the British common law and the laws in the colonies before the revolution, in which anyone born in the area was considered Natural Born.

    Natural Born was the term used in those days for what we now call Native Born. Native Born was very seldom used, my research shows.

    Why not? Well, perhaps, in those days Native Born implied “born of natives.” We prefer not to use Natural Born today because it has medical connotations. But as late as World War I, men registering for the draft were asked whether they were citizens, and then if they were naturalized or natural born.

    Re: “Read Article II Section I Paragraph 5 and reflect on the founding fathers, and their intent when restricting the Presidency and Commander in Chief to a "Natural Born Citizen"

    I have, many times, and it is clear that it barred foreigners from becoming president, and it barred naturalized citizens from becoming president. But it did not forbid the US-born babies of foreigners from growing up and becoming president. If the writers had wanted to do that, it would have been easy enough to write such words in. But they didn’t, and Natural Born at the time was used overwhelmingly to mean “born in the country.”

    Here is an example: This is what St George Tucker wrote shortly after the adoption of the Constitution: ““Prior to the adoption of the constitution, the people inhabiting the different states might be divided into two classes: natural born citizens, or those born within the state, and aliens, or such as were born out of it. ” (Found in: St. George Tucker, View of the Constitution of the United States with Selected Writings > View of the Constitution of the United States > paragraph 493) http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=advanced_search.php

    Since there was no naturalization laws at the time, the people inhabiting the states (except for slaves and Indians) were either at-birth citizens, or they were aliens. And the word for at-birth citizens was Natural Born Citizen.

    This is what Blackstone said:

    The children of aliens, born here in England, are, generally speaking, natural-born subjects and entitled to all the privileges of such. In which the constitution of France differs from ours; for there, by their jus albinatus, if a child be born of foreign parents, it is alien.” http://www.lonang.com/exlibris/blackstone/

    (And the minor exceptions referred to in “generally speaking” refers to the children of foreign diplomats.)

    ReplyDelete
  5. I know that you hold to the Vattel view very strongly, but very few legal experts do. For example, such prominent conservative Senators who are also lawyers as Orren Hatch and Lindsay Graham say that a Natural Born Citizen is simply one who was born in the USA:

    Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC), said:

    “Every child born in the United States is a natural-born United States citizen except for the children of diplomats.” (December 11, 2008 letter to constituent)

    Senator Orrin G. Hatch (R-UT), said:

    “What is a natural born citizen? Clearly, someone born within the United States or one of its territories is a natural born citizen.” (Senate Judiciary Committee hearing hearing on OCTOBER 5, 2004)

    And, Yale Law review wrote:

    It is well settled that “native-born” citizens, those born in the United States, qualify as natural born. It is also clear that persons born abroad of alien parents, who later become citizens by naturalization, do not. (Jill A. Pryor, Yale Law Review, 1988)

    The dual nationality and two-parent assertion was raised with the electors of the electoral college via an e-mail campaign, and none of the 365 votes that Obama won on Nov 4 last year changed. The issues were raised with the congress that confirmed Obama as president, and no one objected. (The procedure was to file objections before the vote and no one did). Moreover, if any of them had changed his or her mind after the vote, they could have gone to the press and said something. Not one did.

    Finally, there is what is commonly called “the Birther Bill,” which asks that in future elections all candidates must prove their eligibility. I have read this bill, and it only asks that the candidate prove the location of their birth. It does not ask candidates to prove that their parents were citizens.

    I am sure that you feel that it is a bad thing to allow the children of foreigners to become president (even though Andrew Jackson was the child of two foreigners). If so, the method is to change the Constitution to forbid this. But currently the Constitution does not say that the US-born children of foreigners are not eligible to be president. And dual nationality does not affect Natural Born status. If you are born in the USA, no foreign law can affect that.

    Re: “Please respond with something other than what the WSJ and other MSM espouse, unfortunately they also have it wrong, or are beholding to someone also complicit in the cover up.”

    As you can see, I have. However, it seemed to me that the WSJ and the National Review put the facts succinctly, so it was an efficient way to show them.

    ReplyDelete
  6. To smrstrauss: POST 1: Your points are neither codified or relevent. There are those that consider the Constitution of the United States of America as a living document; it is not. The founding fathers sought to prevent our constitution to be changed with a stroke of the pen by the very people they were affraid would do so at the detriment of the nation. Therefore, to make this constitution a living document it could only be done through amendment and ratification by the states. Therefore it is a static document only subject to amendment. As much as you will try to make our constitution something other than it is will fail in the face of that document.

    The founding fathers, a credit to their wisdon, saw the very elements that would seek to change our constitution on their immediate whims, and therefore made the changing extremely laborious, time consuming and lengthy.

    You might also note that the founding fathers, while leaving congress the ability to determine how they wanted to create citizens of the United States of America, reserved the decision on Natural Born Citizens to the constitution as written. Again, because they knew that congress on a whim would change the meaning and intent of how a Natural Born citizen is created to suit their immediate interests; that they did not want to happen because of the founding fathers' desires to protect the of the POTUS and CIC for any foriegn influence.

    I am pleased to see at least now you have come to see that Vattel did have and influence on the founding fathers and their writing of OUR constitution. If you will reflectively read Vattel's Law of Nations you will come away understanding that he did pointedly discuss and state what a Native Born Cititzen (Natural Born Citizen) was and how one was created, i.e. being born of parents, (notice the s in parents) who were already citizens of said country.

    ReplyDelete
  7. To smrstrauss: POST 2:The Senate's attempt to bless John McMain's Natural Born Citizenship was a good example of why the founding fathers reserved that definition to our constitution and did not leave it to the legislature to determine.

    That said, as I previously stated John McCain, one of my US Navy Shipmates, was not constitutionally eligible for the Office of the President of the United States. John was a war hero, lived through unspeakable cruelty from his North Vietnamese captors and believes passionately about our country; but that in and of itself did not and does not make him eligible to run for that office. As I previously discussed in my blog you are responding to; in order to be a Natural Born Citizen being born in foriegn country he would have had to meet our Constitutional requirements which requie that he be born on United States soil, which he was not. Unfortunate, because of this United States Naval service which took him all over the world but that is not an excuse to try to change the meaning and intent of our contitution. If congress wants to change the intent of our constitution to include children born of US citizen parents while serving abroad, then they can write an amendment thereto and seek ratificaton thereof. Had John McCain been born at the US Embassy in Panama then one could argue that because US Embassy soil is soveriegn soil he is a Natural Born Citizen of the United States; however, that did not happen and any military base was on leased ground and therefore not sovereign soil.

    ReplyDelete
  8. To smrstrauss: POST 3: Now back to Mr. Obama, when the founding fathers set down our constitution in final form the were intent on avoiding any foreign influence from entering into the office of POTUS and CIC; that's why you will find, at no time, did they consider dual citizens Natural Born Citizens; remember they did exempt those who were born in this country of parents who were not citizens or may have had one citizen partent and possible dual citizenship at that time; they were not concerned that the exemption would hinder the office of POTUS or CIC since all of them, then presently in the congress or government were not about to undo the very thing they were setting in place; given the Revolutionary War just completed. The only people eligible without Natural Born Citizenship status were those at the ratification and before ratification.

    If you will read John Jay's letter to George Washington; you will find his concerns for protecting the office of POTUS and CIC from any outside foriegn influence and wanted strict safeguards thereto. John Jay was the legal beagle of the founding fathers and the firs Chief Justice of the United States of America.

    I know you have every reason to see the office of POTUS and CIC protected, just as the founding fathers did, the first Chief Justice of the United States of America did, and I do. To do that we need to make sure our constitution prevails, that it is upheld, and the rule of law prevails in Our Contitutional Republic. Have a good day.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Re: “There are those that consider the Constitution of the United States of America as a living document; it is not. “

    What does this have to do with the original meaning of the term Natural Born? It was the ORIGINAL MEANING. The Constitution has not changed. It is the same. It meant when it was written that a Natural Born citizen was simply one who was born in the USA, and that is what it means today too.

    And when senators Graham and Hatch, who are conservatives, say that a Natural Born citizen is simply one who was born in the USA, they are not saying that this is a new meaning. They agree with you that the constitution is not a living document, and they say that:

    “Every child born in the United States is a natural-born United States citizen except for the children of diplomats.”

    Re: “founding fathers' desires to protect the of the POTUS and CIC for any foriegn influence.”

    Clearly they did. But the extent of their protection was to forbid foreigners from becoming president and forbid naturalized citizens from becoming president. They did not say that the US-born children of foreigners were not allowed to become president.

    Re: “ I am pleased to see at least now you have come to see that Vattel did have and influence on the founding fathers and their writing of OUR constitution. “

    Vattel said a lot of things that were not adopted in the Constitution. For example, he recommended that each country create a state religion and force people to join it—or allow them to leave the country. Moreover, Vattel did NOT say that the leader of a country should be a citizen, much less a natural born citizen. He has several examples of countries selecting leaders from the nobility of other countries, and he never said that was a bad thing to do.

    Moreover, the term “Natural Born Citizen” was not used in any translation of Vattel until AFTER the Constitution was written.

    He said something about the “idiges’ being the children of citizens, but he never says what the importance of this was. Does an “indeges” get to vote? No, not even citizens get the right to vote in Vattel. So, although some of Vattel’s recommendations about international law were important to the writers of the Constitution, there is NO evidence that his words about two parents, which is a domestic matter, influenced them. And the same words Natural Born were used in British common law, and the writers of the Constitution were primarily lawyers.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Re: The fact that McCain was or was not Natural Born does not affect the reality that Obama was Natural Born, meaning born in the USA.


    Re: “when the founding fathers set down our constitution in final form the were intent on avoiding any foreign influence from entering into the office of POTUS and CIC; that's why you will find, at no time, did they consider dual citizens”

    As I said, they avoided foreign influence to the extent of forbidding foreigners and naturalized citizens from being president. That is all. They did not forbid the US-born children of foreigners from being president, and seven presidents have had foreigners as presidents. To be sure, some were naturalized, but there is not proof that all of them were. Andrew Jackson had two parents who were foreigners, and there is no proof that either of them were naturalized. That being the case, he would have been a dual national.


    Re: “The only people eligible without Natural Born Citizenship status were those at the ratification and before ratification.”

    Yes, but why allow even them to be eligible” If the framers were that afraid of foreign-born citizens or the children of foreigners, they should have barred them all. Instead, they made exceptions. They weren’t really all that concerned. Hamilton would have been okay even though neither of his parents were citizens and he was born in Nevis.

    Re: “ If you will read John Jay's letter to George Washington; you will find his concerns for protecting the office of POTUS and CIC from any outside foriegn influence and wanted strict safeguards thereto.”

    Yes, but Jay was a lawyer, a lawyer, a lawyer, someone who was familiar with common law, and not necessarily someone who was familiar with Vattel. If he were familiar with Vattel, and it influenced him, he would have said “two citizen parents,” or “Natural born, as used by Vattel.” But he just said Natural Born, and that was used in the common law and the laws in the colonies to mean “born in the country.”

    Re: “I know you have every reason to see the office of POTUS and CIC protected, just as the founding fathers did, the first Chief Justice of the United States of America did,..”

    No problem. He used Natural Born as it was used in the common law and the laws in the colonies. If he had meant differently, he would have said so.

    Re: “Have a good day.”

    Have a great day.

    ReplyDelete
  11. To: smrstrauss Try this on for size:

    From Mario Apuzzo's blog:

    We have seen that Obama cannot be an Article II “natural born Citizen” because when he was born, regardless of what place that may be, he was not born to a United States citizen father and mother. The "natural born Citizen" clause of our U.S. Constitution requires that both of the child’s parents be U.S. Citizens at the time of birth. Rather, if Obama was born in Hawaii as he claims, then under the liberalized and questionable meaning of “subject to the jurisdiction thereof,” he can be a born Fourteenth Amendment “citizen of the United States” and a “citizen of the United States at birth” under 8 U.S.C. Sec. 1401 (a). Again, that citizenship status does not make him an Article II “natural born Citizen.” But what would Obama's citizenship status be if he was not born in the United States? First, let us examine why there is still existing doubts as to whether Obama was born in Hawaii. Second, let us examine what law would apply to determine Obama’s citizenship status should he not be born in Hawaii or any other part of the United States and what his citizenship status would be under that law. These are the reasons for the existing doubts regarding Obama's place of birth:

    ReplyDelete
  12. Re: "he was not born to a United States citizen father and mother."

    Do you know anyone who wears both suspenders and a belt? To hold pants up it is sufficient to wear either suspenders or a belt.

    Yet Apuzzo believes that a Natural Born Citizen must both be born in the USA and have two US parents at the time of birth. The equivalent of wearing both suspenders and a belt.

    There are words in the Constitution that say that to be eligible the president has to have two US parents and be born in the USA , and there is a very commonly used meaning of the term Natural Born used at the time of the writing of the Constitution, which was that it simply meant "born in the country."

    Yet Apzzo believes that the founders, without saying a word, require the president to have both jus soli-based and jus sanguinis-based citizenship. For the framers of the Constitution to have required this, without saying it, is highly unlikely. NO country requires it.

    The meaning of Article II is highly unlikely to be exotic. It had to be understood, and so it used terms that people were familiar with. The meaning of 35 years old and 14 years of residence is clear to everyone. Natural Born at the time meant "born in the country." If the framers had meant Natural Born to mean "two citizen parents" or "jus soli plus jus sanguinis," or "Natural Born as in Vattel," they would have written it.

    Remember strict construction? Under the rules of strict construction, it is not allowed to read into a meaning something that is not there, especially when there is a simple alternative meaning. Apuzzo is desperate (I know because he often knocks alternative views off of his site) to show that the writers of the Constitution meant "two US parents plus born in the country." But the writers did not say that in the document, or in any explanatory articles.

    And, if the view of such prominent conservative Senators who are also lawyers as Orren Hatch and Lindsay Graham is that a Natural Born Citizen is simply one who was born in the USA, then you are likely to lose the votes of such strict constructionist justices as Alito, Roberts and Scalia:

    Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC), said:

    “Every child born in the United States is a natural-born United States citizen except for the children of diplomats.” (December 11, 2008 letter to constituent)

    Senator Orrin G. Hatch (R-UT), said:

    “What is a natural born citizen? Clearly, someone born within the United States or one of its territories is a natural born citizen.” (Senate Judiciary Committee hearing hearing on OCTOBER 5, 2004)


    Re: "But what would Obama's citizenship status be if he was not born in the United States? "

    If Obama was not born in the USA, I would agree that he is not a Natural Born Citizen. But there is legal proof that he was born in the USA and no legal or other proof (remember, the grandmother did NOT say that he was born in Kenya)that he was born outside of the USA.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Re: "There are words in the Constitution that say that to be eligible.."

    That should read "There are NO words in the Constitution that say..."

    ReplyDelete
  14. Excerpt from Mario Apuzzos's post: The only part of Sec. 1401 that could apply to Obama is subsection (g). A child born in wedlock and abroad to one U.S. citizen parent and one alien parent acquires U.S. citizenship at birth under Section 1401(g) (Section 301(g) INA), provided the citizen parent was physically present in the U.S. for the time period required by the law applicable at the time of the child's birth. (For birth on or after November 14, 1986, a period of five years physical presence, two after the age of fourteen is required. For birth between December 24, 1952 and November 13, 1986, a period of ten years, five after the age of fourteen are required for physical presence in the U.S. to transmit U.S. citizenship to the child). http://travel.state.gov/law/info/info_609.html. Hence, the Immigration and Nationality Act 1952, 8 U.S.C. 1401(g), Sec. 301 (g) [Effective November 14, 1986] does not apply to Obama because he was born in 1961. What does apply to Obama is the Nationality Act of 1940, as Revised June 1952, which was in effect when he was born. But under this older version of the statute, for birth between December 24, 1952 and November 13, 1986, a period of ten years, five after the age of fourteen are required for physical presence in the U.S. for the United States citizen parent to transmit United States citizenship to the child. United States of America v. Cervantes-Nava, 281 F.3d 501 (5th Cir. 2002) (citing United States v. Gomez-Orozco, 188 F.3d 422, 426-27 (7th Cir. 1999)) and Drozd v. INS, 155 F 3d 81, 85-88 (2d Circuit 1998).

    ReplyDelete
  15. Re: The above long clipping applies only to people born outside of the USA.

    Obama was born in the USA as his official birth certivicate, repeatedly confirmed by the officials in Hawii, shows.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Prove up your statement. No one can, including Obama. He is clearly ineligible; and now the pressure grows, as Chrysler dealers who lost their dealerships unite and start asking the same question. Palin, has made is public, and since she is on her book tour will get press. Hannity has now joined the millions who share the view that the usurper president needs to pony up his history, including the long form birth certificate from where ever he was born. This man, as I have said before, my in the end prove to be an illegal alien who has scammed our nation from the years of his majority todate. It's only a matter of time. I can tell you his administrative staff scrambles daily to continue the criminal coverup and all have much to lose; remember Nixon, it was not the crime of the break in the dethroned him, it was the attempted cover up. As this thing matter unfolds watch his handlers start to scatter in their attempts to shield themselves from criminal complicity, but in reality it is already to late. The only thing that could save him is Frank Marshall Davis, will that happen? The man is a fraud. Have a Good Day!

    ReplyDelete
  17. Obama was born in Hawaii, as his official birth certificate shows. The facts on the birth certificate were confirmed by the officials in Hawaii, who said that the document that was posted and shown to both Politifact and FactCheck has the same facts on it as in the files.

    This is legal proof of birth in Hawaii, confirmed legal proof.

    Re the long-form birth certificate.

    Obama cannot post it because he does not have it. However, the official birth certificate, confirmed by the officials, is sufficient proof.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Where is that long form birth certificate from Hawaii? All we have seen is a computer generated certificate of birth that isn't even acceptable in Hawaii to prove native born Hawaiian status, or for employment with the State of Hawaii; why then should the American people accept this internet document as proof of where he was born. As I said his only hope is Frank Marshall Davis being his father, as would be shown on his long form birth certificate from the Hawaiian hospital he was born in, if in fact he was born in one in Hawaii. He may have been born in Canada; but then it would make him foriegn born. My My how the world turns. The Chickens Are Coming Home To Roost!! God speed in your quest to keep the usurper in the White House.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Re: "Where is that long form birth certificate from Hawaii? All we have seen is a computer generated certificate of birth that isn't even acceptable in Hawaii to prove native born Hawaiian status, or for employment with the State of Hawaii; why then should the American people accept this internet document as proof of where he was born."

    Yes, it is a computer-generated certificate. That is what Hawaii sends out to everyone. And Hawaii is not the only state to do this. Many states are using short-form, computer generated documents. For example, Missouri is one such state. ("Missouri Vital Records issues only certified copies of Missouri birth certificates (short forms), which are typically acceptable for passport, social security, employment, personal identification purposes and other legal purposes.") (http://www.vitalchek.com/agency_info.aspx?t=birth&p=8661&s=loc)


    Re: "computer generated certificate of birth that isn't even acceptable in Hawaii to prove native born Hawaiian status, or for employment with the State of Hawaii..."

    Who told you this? It is simply wrong. The Certification of Live Birth of Hawaii is the official birth certificate of the state. It is accepted as proof of birth in Hawaii by ALL the departments in the state. It is accepted as proof of birth in Hawaii for employment with the state of Hawaii. And, when it says on it "born in Hawaii (born in Honolulu, in this case), it is accepted as proof of birth in the USA by the US State Department.

    I repeat, it is accepted by all departments in Hawaii as proof of birth in Hawaii. One department, DHHL, said at one time that it preferred the original, which some people have because they have saved it from the time of birth. But, DHHL now says that when someone has lost the original birth certificate, it will accept the Certification of Live Birth as proof of birth in Hawaii because this document is (1) the official birth certificate, and (2) the only one that Hawaii now sends out.

    In addition to the document itself legally proving Obamas' birth in Hawaii, the officials in Hawaii have repeatedly said that the facts on the Certification are the same as the facts in the file and that this means that Obama was born in Hawaii (http://www.swamppolitics.com/news/politics/blog/2008/11/obama_hawaaianborn_citizen_for.html).

    As to your question: "Where is the long-form?"

    The answer is that it is in the file, but that Hawaii does not send it out. Obama cannot show it because he does not have it.

    ReplyDelete
  20. Re: "He may have been born in Canada."

    He was born in Hawaii, as the birth certificate shows.

    The Canada claim is particularly funny. Those of us who remember Canada in the 1960s remember that Canada would not allow pregnant women to visit for fear that they would give birth in Canada. So, who gave you the absurd idea that he was born in Canada?

    ReplyDelete
  21. Wake up; he does not have a birth certificate, if he did and it could prove where he was born to satisfy the citizenship question he would have produced it; the cover up continues.

    ReplyDelete
  22. Re: "Wake up; he does not have a birth certificate."

    He has a birth certificate. He has posted an image of it. It is the official birth certificate of Hawaii. Two officials of Hawaii have repeatedly said that the facts on the birth certificate are the same as in the file, and that this means that he was born in Hawaii (http://www.swamppolitics.com/news/politics/blog/2008/11/obama_hawaaianborn_citizen_for.html). And there is even a witness who recalls being told that he was born in Hawaii in 1961 (http://www.buffalonews.com/494/story/554495.html).

    He HAS proven where he was born.

    ReplyDelete
  23. You are miss informed on what his handlers posted as a birth certificate, it is not. Anyone residing in Hawaii can obtain the form posted for him. It, alone, does not meet the challenge.

    ReplyDelete
  24. Re: ". Anyone residing in Hawaii can obtain the form posted for him."

    Not true. No one in Hawaii can obtain an official Hawaii birth certificate that says on it that the person was born in Hawaii if the person was not born in Hawaii. Obama's says that he was born in Honolulu, Oahu, Hawaii.

    Moreover, in 1961 you could not get a birth certificate from Hawaii unless you were born in Hawaii. Moreover, the officials in Hawaii have repeatedly said that the document in the files shows that Obama was born in Hawaii (http://www.swamppolitics.com/news/politics/blog/2008/11/obama_hawaaianborn_citizen_for.html). Moerover, there is even a witness who recalls being told of his birth in Hawaii in 1961 (http://www.buffalonews.com/494/story/554495.html).

    ReplyDelete
  25. i.e. you are right in 1961 you could not get a Hawaiian birth certificate unless you were born there; hence Obama's inability to produce nothing other than the Certificat of Birth now known as a Certificato of Live Birth which only validates he was born to a resident of Hawaii. It does not confirm his birth or the attending doctor, etc. with is what a real birth certificate does. The man cannot produce valid evidence, on spin what was present as meeting the challenge for elibility, which it does not. Sorry you still have not gotten it.

    ReplyDelete
  26. Re: "It does not confirm his birth or the attending doctor, etc. with is what a real birth certificate does."

    The so-called "birther bill," the bill sponsored by a group of Republicans that would make future candidates for president show proof that they were born in the USA asks only for the official birth certificate of the state, not the original birth certificate, not a birth certificate signed by a doctor.

    The Certification of Live Birth is the official birth certificate of Hawaii, and the facts on it, that Obama was born in Hawaii, were confirmed twice by the officials in Hawaii, with a statement saying that the facts in the files MEAN that Obama was born in Hawaii. (http://www.swamppolitics.com/news/politics/blog/2008/11/obama_hawaaianborn_citizen_for.html).

    This is certainly legal and confirmed evidence. Moreover, it is more evidence of birth in the USA than any other president has shown before.

    The last point is that Obama cannot show the original birth certificate or the doctor-signed birth certificate (which are probably different things) because Hawaii does not send them out. It does not even send them out when the person involved asks for a copy of the original. It only sends out the Certification.

    So, who is responsible for the situation? Hawaii. No, Obama could not get them to make an exception for him. It would be improper for him to ask for a special benefit when Hawaii does not send the documents out to other people.

    Hawaii, however, could change its mind and rule that in the case of a president's birth certificate, it should be a public document. If you would like that to happen, petition Hawaii. The governor's name is Linda Lingle, and she is a Republican.

    Of course, the original birth certificate will show EXACTLY what the Certification says and what the two officials say and what a witness who recalls being told of the birth says ((http://www.buffalonews.com/494/story/554495.html), that he was born in Hawaii.

    Re: "what a real birth certificate does."

    Some long-form birth certificates show those details (usually without the signature of the doctor because that is the hospital certificate, not the official state birth certificate), but many states are changing to short-form birth certificates, which this is. It is the official birth certificate of Hawaii, and it is accepted as proof of birth in the USA by all the branches of the US military and by the US State Department.

    ReplyDelete
  27. smrstrauss: It is unfortunate that you are so misguided. I would think by now, given all the secrecy of Obama's past, you would have gotten the message. The man is a man without a country, and has managed to hijeack the United States of America to give himself a temporary home and assumed citizenship. The man will never be able to prove up his right for the office he occupies or his Natural Born Citizen as required by our constitution. If he could he would have already done so instead of spending millions to cover up his past. Who is this man? Have a Merry Christmas!

    ReplyDelete
  28. Since you like to cite articles in the WSJ as definitive, try this as a difinitive source.

    14 Dec 2009: Obama is a usurper. Obama is an unconstitutional illegal putative president. See this 14 Dec 2009 issue of the Washington Times National Weekly edition - pg 15. To be a "natural born Citizen" as is required in the U.S. Constitution, Article II, Section 1, Clause 5, the person must be born in the country to parents who both are Citizens of the country when the child was born. Obama's father was a British Subject when Obama was born in 1961. Obama's father was never a U.S. Citizen nor was he even an immigrant to the USA. We are a nation of immigrants but Obama Sr. was not one. And under the British Nationality Act of 1948 and international law, Obama (Jr.) was also born a British Subject and thus is a dual-citizen Citizen to this day, if he was born in Hawaii as he claims. To date, he has not conclusively proved exactly where he was born to any investigative controlling legal authority. Photoshop'd digital images and pictures of computerized summary data put on the internet proffered by Obama proves nothing. That computer data registration record could have been based on false birth location registration testimony by a family member using a simple mail-in form available in 1961. GIGO - false location of birth registration into a data base yields false data out today on a computer print out. The original "ribbon copy" long-form birth records with the names and signatures of medical attendants and of witnesses, if any, to the alleged birth in Hawaii must be examined by experts as well as all his other hidden and sealed records of his early life. If he was born in Kenya as his relatives and news account there claim, then Obama could even be an illegal alien since his mother was not old enough under U.S. laws at that time to convey U.S. citizenship to her child born of a foreign father if the child is born in a foreign country. Obama had dual allegiance at birth if he was born in Hawaii - British via his father and U.S. via his mother. How can a person born a British Subject and a dual-citizen ever be considered a "natural born Citizen" of the USA with sole allegiance to the USA per the intent of our nation's founders and framers, to Constitutional standards, for the office of the Presidency? He cannot.

    Yes, this man may be an illegal alien!

    ReplyDelete
  29. Re: "To be a "natural born Citizen" as is required in the U.S. Constitution, Article II, Section 1, Clause 5, the person must be born in the country to parents who both are Citizens of the country when the child was born."

    This looks more like a letter than an article. In any case, it is simply not true that to be a Natural Born citizen you have to have two US parents. The original meaning of Natural Born is simply "born in the country." That is why Yale Law review wrote: It is well settled that “native- born” citizens, those born in the United States, qualify as natural born." And such prominent conservative Senators who are also lawyers as Orren Hatch and Lindsay Graham say that a Natural Born Citizen is simply one who was born in the USA:

    Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC), said:

    “Every child born in the United States is a natural-born United States citizen except for the children of diplomats.” (December 11, 2008 letter to constituent)

    Senator Orrin G. Hatch (R-UT), said:

    “What is a natural born citizen? Clearly, someone born within the United States or one of its territories is a natural born citizen.” (Senate Judiciary Committee hearing hearing on OCTOBER 5, 2004)

    Re: "That computer data registration record could have been based on false birth location registration testimony by a family member using a simple mail-in form available in 1961. GIGO - false location of birth registration into a data base yields false data out today on a computer print out."

    If this were true, the two officials in Hawaii would be lying when they said repeatedly that t he original document in the files shows that Obama was born in Hawaii. IN addition, it was not possible for just a parent to register a birth in Hawaii without some kind of proof that the child was born in Hawaii. It was possible to register the birth, but not to get a documet that listed the place of birth on it, but Obama's COLB and the statement by the officials was that Obama was born in Hawaii.

    Re "as his relatives claim." His Kenyan grandmother actually said that he was born in Hawaii.

    Re: "How can a person born a British Subject and a dual-citizen ever be considered a "natural born Citizen" of the USA...?"

    He does. Under US law, if you are born on US territory, you legally have allegiance to the USA. That is our law, which no other country's law can take away. The idea that some other country's law makes a US-born person not have allegiance to the USA is (1) silly and (2) subjecting the power and sovereignty of the USA to some other country's law.

    And besides, the original meaning of Natural Born had not the slightest connotation of loyalty. It simply meant "born in the country." Dual nationality cannot take away the fact that someone was born in the country.

    ReplyDelete
  30. Re: "Since you like to cite articles in the WSJ as definitive, try this as a difinitive source."

    What makes this definitive?

    ReplyDelete
  31. It is as difinitive as the WSJ.

    ReplyDelete
  32. How do you equate this to Article II Section I Paragraph 5? If he was in fact born on US soverign soil he would, at best as US citizen; not a Natural Born Citizen since is missing one more US citizen parent.

    "He does. Under US law, if you are born on US territory, you legally have allegiance to the USA. That is our law, which no other country's law can take away. The idea that some other country's law makes a US-born person not have allegiance to the USA is (1) silly and (2) subjecting the power and sovereignty of the USA to some other country's law."

    ReplyDelete
  33. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  34. It does when you read and understand the intent of the founding fathers as the researched Vattel to make sure the English common law did not find its way into our new constitution.

    "And besides, the original meaning of Natural Born had not the slightest connotation of loyalty. It simply meant "born in the country." Dual nationality cannot take away the fact that someone was born in the country."

    ReplyDelete
  35. Vattel was a Swiss philospher. The writers of the US Constitution were 60%-70% lawyers who had studied the British common law. John Jay, who first used the term 'Natural Born" in his letter to Washington, was a lawyer and a jurist, and he was the main writer of the New York State Constitution of 1777 which grandfathered the British common law into New York State law, holding that it applied in New York until New York laws were written to change it.

    Moreover, Vattel was hardly the kind of experts that the writers of a Republic's consititution would consult. Vattel was a monarchist. He talks only about kings and emperors, not about elections. And, in the few cases he gives where countries pick their own sovereigns, he cites only examples of countries picking from the nobility of other countries---meaning picking people who were not even citizens. Vattel never says that this is a bad thing. He cites examples where it was successful.

    Vattel also recommended things that the framers of the Constitution did not adopt. One was that every country should have a state religion, and force people to join it or allow them to leave the country. Finally, Vattel never used the words Natural Born in any translation that appeared before the writing of the Constitution. He said that the "indignes" were born in the country of two citizen parents.

    If the Constitution had said that the president had to be an indienes, then it would have referred to Vattel. But, since it said Natural Born Citizen, it referred to the common use of the term Natural Born at the time, which was simply 'born in the country."

    And, as I said earlier, Dual Nationality cannot take away the fact that you are born in the country.

    ReplyDelete
  36. Your point about Vattel?

    Again you fail to understand the founding fathers were not about to instill English Common Law as the Law of the New Republic which they were about to constitutionalize, and was the point for the Revolutionary War. I think you have failed to read and comprehend the Federalist Papers. John Jay's reference material include Vattel. Sorry you have not made your point.

    ReplyDelete
  37. Re: "the founding fathers were not about to instill English Common Law as the Law of the New Republic which they were about to constitutionalize."

    Mere speculation. We know that John Jay DID install the English Common Law as the law of the State of New York because he wrote it into the first independent Constitution of New York State (1777):

    It reads:

    "XXXV. And this convention doth further, in the name and by the authority of the good people of this State, ordain, determine, and declare that such parts of the common law of England, and of the statute law of England and Great Britain, and of the acts of the legislature of the colony of New York, as together did form the law of the said colony on the 19th day of April, in the year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and seventy-five, shall be and continue the law of this State, subject to such alterations and provisions as the legislature of this State shall, from time to time, make concerning the same. " (http://www.nhinet.org/ccs/docs/ny-1777.htm)

    Obviously they had to incorporate the common law until the new state legislature made New York's own laws. But that does not change the fact that they (1) respected the common law and saw it was useful; (2) were familiar with the common law as lawyers.

    The next point is that the term "Natural Born" used in the Constitution does not mean that they were adopting common law. It simply was the way that the phrase was used at the time. They were lawyers. They were familiar with the common law. The words Natural Born appear in the common law. (They did not, not until much later, appear in a translation of Vattel.) The common meaning of Natural Born at the time, as shown in the Wong Kim Ark case, was that EVERY child born in England, or in the US colonies, or in the early states, or under the Constitution, was Natural Born.

    This is hardly shocking. Natural Born was simply a synonym for Native Born. It was used all the time. Native Born was not popular at the time. Natural Born always was used to mean "born in the country" (with the exception of the children of foreign ambassadors.)

    Re: "I think you have failed to read and comprehend the Federalist Papers."

    I have read them several times. There is not a single reference in the Federalist Papers to Natural Born. IF, the meaning of Natural Born was different than the meaning used in the common law, they would have explained it.

    Re: Jay used Vattel as a source. I have just done a search of the Federalist Papers and cannot find a reference to Vattel, but Jay may have cited him separately. When he did, used Vattel's expertise on International Law, not on his recommendations for the leadership of a REPUBLIC because Vattel, a monarchist, had no recommendations for the leadership of a Republic.

    Here is the searchable Federalist Papers: (http://federali.st/). You will see that a search for Vattel produces nothing. Blackstone has two references and Common Law five. The common law is also referred to in the US Constitution, where it says "In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved."

    The point is that in searching hundreds of quotations written by Jay, Adams, Hamiliton, Etc. I cannot find one use of Natural Born that means "two US parents," or "dual nationality is excluded" or "as Vattel uses the term." It always means "born in the country" (except for the children of diplomats).

    ReplyDelete
  38. John Jay may have established English Common Law in the State of New York, at the time,1977, but a the first Chief Justice of the United States of America, and during the writing of our constitution he and his collegues had a much different take on the laws of the new United States of America. New York, is not the United States only on state within the union and the legislators and writters of it constitution had differing views I am sure so what ever evolved only affected New York not the rest of the new nation. Spin and slant this issue all you wish the reality is that Vattel had a profound effect on our constitution and John Jay was one of the framers and a legal scholar many of the framers used to bounce the law of the new nation off.

    You might wish to reread:

    Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. (1Cranch) 137 (1803), and
    Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162, 167-68 (1875)

    to refresh your mind on the meaning of Natural Born Citizen.

    Have a good day!

    ReplyDelete
  39. I would also like to share from Atty/ Mario Apuzzo's blog a composit posting regarding the last several comments from SMRSTRUSS who can't seem to get his head around Natural Born Citizen. Quote:

    "Thomas Jefferson to J.Cartwright 1824

    It(Our Revolution)….presented us an album on which we were free to write what we pleased. We had no occasion to search into musty records, to hunt up royal parchments, or to investigate the laws and institutions of a semi-barbarous ancestry. We appealed to those(laws) of nature…

    I have shared my above posting, previously with you folks here & elsewhere , culled from a volume of Jefferson's letters collected for republication some 70 odd yrs ago However, in light of Mario's focus -in this particular comments section- on the English common law vs the Law of Nations/natural law based American common law & the Framers/Founders reliance upon the latter...I thought it(T.Jeff's own words) might merit reiteration

    Your find is very good. I have the citation and quote as supporting materials to my argument that the Framers did not use English common law to guide them in constituting the new Republic but rather natural law and the law of nations. This new law would have included defining what a "natural born Citizen" was.

    Those who advocate that the Framers used the English common law to define new national citizenship ignore that the Framers were writing in the context of having just gone through a revolution. They were, indeed, writing on a tabula rasa.

    The English common law continued to have its effect in the States where it was applied to resolve state issues concerning contracts, property, inheritance, torts, criminal procedure, marriage, etc. Those who advocate the English common law position take the use of English common law on state issues and impose it upon what the Framers did on the national level. Hence, by taking such an approach they incorrectly argue that the Framers also used the English common law to define new national citizenship. But various historical evidence and U.S. Supreme Court cases which I have cited in my essays show that this is not so and that rather the Framers used natural law and the law of nations to define the new national citizenship including defining an Article II "natural born Citizen." The Jefferson quote, along with other historical materials, bears this out."

    As we can see, which has been iterated in my past writtings; the founding fathers wanted distance themselves as far away from English Common Law as the new law for the new nation. Even though many states still practice English Common Law in those state, such as New York as SMRSTRUSS stated in one of his answers to my blog above; it was not to be the new law of the new nation, and was not and is not.

    ReplyDelete
  40. Re: "the Framers did not use English common law to guide them in constituting the new Republic but rather natural law and the law of nations."

    There are all kinds of Natural Law philosophers. Vattel is only one of them. Vattel recommended that all countries have a state religion and force people to join it, or allow them to leave the country. If this is what "Natural Law" holds, then clearly the writers of the Constitution wanted nothing to do with it.

    The use of the term "Natural Born" in the Constitution does not mean that the US adopted common law. It only means that the writers of the Constitution used Natural Born in the commonly used way that it was used at the time that they wrote, which meant "born in the country."

    IF they may have meant "Natural Born" in some way other than "born in the country," they did not say so. Why didn't they say so?

    Under the conservative judicial philosophy of strict construction, it is not allowed to read into a phrase something that it does not clearly mean. You cannot say "they must have meant two citizen parents" unless they said "two citizen parents." You cannot say: "They must have meant Vattel," unless they said "Natural Born as in Vattel."

    There are hundreds of quotations from the American writers at the time, none of which show that they meant "two citizen parents" or "as in Vattel."

    Here is only one, but it was signed by Ben Franklin, John Adams, John Jay and Henry Livingston. It was part of a draft treaty with England, and it used the term Natural Born Citizen as equivalent to the British Natural Born Subject.

    (The spelling and capitalization are what they were at the time.)

    Quote begins:

    Draft Articles to Supplement the Preliminary Anglo-American Peace Treaty [ca 27 April 1787 [in Paris]

    Articles agreed on by David Hartley Esq., Minister Plenipotentiary of His Brittanic Majesty for &c in behalf of said Majesty on the one part, and J.A. [John Adams], B.F. [Benjamin Franklin], J.J. [John Jay] and H.L [Henry Livingston, who was also at the US Embassy in France, but is not as famous as the other three], ministers plenipotentiary of the Unites States of America for treating of peace….in addition to the articles agreed on the 30th day of November 1782…The subjects of the Crown of Great Britain shall enjoy in all and every of Said United States, all Rights, Liberties, Privileges and Immunities and be Subject to the Duties and Allegiance of natural born Citizens of the Said States---and, on the other hand, all the citizens of the Said United States shall enjoy in all and every of the Dominions of the Crown of Great Britain all Rights, Liberties, Privileges and Immunities and be Subject to the Duties and Allegiance of natural born Subjects of that Crown, excepting Such Individuals of either Nation as the legislature of the other shall judge fit to exempt."

    http://books.google.com/books?id=vemc7Vuqk1YC&pg=PA448&lpg=PA448&dq=%22draft+articles+to+supplement%22&source=bl&ots=Aojo7Iux2Z&sig=r8tN3gtsaDaRYWKBox5fOWNPo4M&hl=en&ei=K4pBSvW6ComJtge3iN2dCQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=3

    End quotation

    Another way of wording the same thing, in another draft, was that “the subjects of his Brittanic Majesty and the citizens of the United States shall mutually be considered as Natural born Subjects & enjoy all rights and privileges as such in the Respective Dominions and Territories in the manner heretofore accustomed.”

    http://books.google.com/books?id=vemc7Vuqk1YC&pg=PA214&dq=franklin+subject:%22History+/+United+States+/+Revolutionary+Period+(1775-1800)%22&lr=

    ReplyDelete
  41. What does this mean? It means that as far as the writers of this document were concerned (Adams, Franklin, Jay and Livingston on the US side), the term natural born citizen is equivalent to natural born subject.

    The term “natural born citizen” meant to these US writers just what “natural born subject” meant to the British. It could not be that in the arrangement for equal treatment between the USA and Britain, that someone had to have two US parents to be treated just the same as a natural born subject in Britain who simply had to be born in the British realm.

    The key ruling from the Supreme Court is Wong Kim Ark. That is a six-to-two ruling, and there were no concurring votes, all six justices support everything in the ruling, and it said:

    “It thus clearly appears that, by the law of England for the last three centuries, beginning before the settlement of this country and continuing to the present day, aliens, while residing in the dominions possessed by the Crown of England, were within the allegiance, the obedience, the faith or loyalty, the protection, the power, the jurisdiction of the English Sovereign, and therefore every child born in England of alien parents was a natural-born subject unless the child of an ambassador or other diplomatic agent of a foreign State or of an alien enemy in hostile occupation of the place where the child was born.

    III. The same rule was in force in all the English Colonies upon this continent down to the time of the Declaration of Independence, and in the United States afterwards, and continued to prevail under the Constitution as originally established.”

    What is the meaning of Natural Born in this quotation? It can only be “born in the country.”

    “Natural born citizen. Persons who are born within the jurisdiction of a national government, i.e. in its territorial limits, or those born of citizens temporarily residing abroad.” — Black’s Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition.

    "Some birthers imagine that there is a difference between being a “citizen by birth” or a “native citizen” on the one hand and a “natural born” citizen on the other. “Eccentric” is too kind a word for this notion, which is either daft or dishonest. All three terms are identical in meaning." The Wall Street Journal (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204619004574322281597739634.html)

    ReplyDelete
  42. The United States Constitution requires a Nature Born Citizen in Article II thereof to be president. I does not say native born or citizen by birth. You still fail to understand the intent and meaning of this requirement. It requires two U S citizen parents to bestow Natural Born Citizen status on any of their offsprings. In Obama's case he is at best a U S citizen; at worst an illegal alien with no credentials; otherwise why would he not produce the documents necessary to prove up the matter? The only way Obama becomes a Natural Born Citizen is if Frank Mitchell Davis turns up as his father; that is alway a possibility but again there needs to be proof, and the proof is not is some contrived document which his campaign tried to post as a valid document of proof during his run for the presidency. Being born by natural child birth does not make one a Natural Born Citizen. Repeat after me: It takes two U S citizen parents to bestow Natural Born Citizen status. Say this three times and turn around you may have a revolaton.

    ReplyDelete
  43. Natural Born was and is a synonym for native born. It does NOT require two citizen parents, any more than one needs both suspenders and a belt.

    Obama is a Natural Born citizen, having been born in Hawaii, as his official birth certificate which has twice been confirmed by the officials in Hawaii shows.

    Neither of Andrew Jackson's parents were citizens.

    That is why such prominent conservative Senators who are also lawyers as Orren Hatch and Lindsay Graham say that a Natural Born Citizen is simply one who was born in the USA:

    Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC), said:

    “Every child born in the United States is a natural-born United States citizen except for the children of diplomats.” (December 11, 2008 letter to constituent)

    Senator Orrin G. Hatch (R-UT), said:

    “What is a natural born citizen? Clearly, someone born within the United States or one of its territories is a natural born citizen.” (Senate Judiciary Committee hearing hearing on OCTOBER 5, 2004)

    ReplyDelete
  44. The 1775 edition of this legal book was used as a reference by Benjamin Franklin and other founders to set up our new nation in 1776 in the writing of the Declaration of Independence and also in drafting the new form of federal government in 1789 and the writing of our Constitution, the fundamental law of our nation.

    To borrow a quote,"Obama was born British. How can a person born a British Subject ever be considered to be a "natural born Citizen" of the USA, to constitutional standards? He cannot. Our founders must be rolling over in their graves witnessing what transpired in the 2008 election cycle."

    ReplyDelete