"natural Born" Citizen
Origin, evolution and case law
 

Custom Search


  

Obama is a citizen.  He's just not a "natural born" citizen.
 

T O F

  

 

help fight the media

 

 

 

 
Items posted to this page are in chronological order or in the order discovered.  Click the blue titles for more information . . .
Natural Born

      

A statutory citizen (bestowed by man's pen) can never be a "natural born" citizen (bestowed by God/nature).

      

Is Barack Obama Eligible To Be President Of The United States Of America?
The question that the courts or Congress must decide is whether a British subject and citizen of Kenya, a person governed by the laws of Great Britain at the time of their birth should be considered a natural "born citizen" of the United States as required by Article 2 Section 1 Clause 5 of the United States Constitution.
  

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.

  
The Chart

People are confused because they don't understand the meaning of the relevant legal terms.  This chart shows the elements for each of the constitutional terms that are used in the Constitution or in case law by the Supreme Court.

 

For each presidential candidate, they can put the factual history of their birth in the equation and see if they fit the bill to be president of the U.S. under the Constitution of the United States of America, Article II, Section 1, Clause 5, and the 14th Amendment, Section 1, and the relevant federal law under Minor v. Happersett, (1874), U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898), and Perkins v. Elg, 307 U.S. 325 (1939).

The relevant portions of these cases and precedents are described below in their historical context.. 

 

As you can clearly see in the matrix, Obama is a citizen of the United States, but he's not a "natural born citizen" of the United States, and, as such, is not eligible for POTUS, because his father, a Kenyan, was not a U. S. citizen.

 

 

* Note:  U. S. mainland includes Alaska and Hawaii.  It does not include territories, commonwealths and possessions.

 

Click here for a comprehensive etymological deconstruction of the term "natural born Citizen," by John Greschak.

Blood And Place Of Birth


    
The graphic above demonstrates the distinction between Ronald Reagan, a "natural born" citizen and Barack Obama, a "native-born" citizen."

Ronald Reagan had no choice about his citizenship.  By blood and by place of birth, he was a "natural born" American citizen.  No law bestowed his citizenship upon him.  His father was an American.  His mother was an American.  He was born in America.  He was a "natural born" American.

As a "dual citizen," Barack Obama had choices about his citizenship.  His father was a Kenyan.  His mother was an American.  He was born in America.  He was a "native born," 14th Amendment American citizen.  He was also a citizen of Kenya and a British subject -- he had choices about being a Brit, an American, a Kenyan or combination.  According to the U. S. State department, dual nationals owe allegiance to both the United States and the foreign country.

The child in the left graphic is a "natural born" citizen because he or she was born in the United States of America (jus soli) and both parents are citizens (jus sanguinis).  The child meets both tests.

The child in the right graphic is a "native-born" citizen because he or she was born in the United States of America and both parents are not citizens.  The child meets only one test (jus soli).
Four Cases
Persons, eligible for the presidency, have no first generation ties to a foreign nation, whereas ineligible persons always do.

ALL statutory citizens are born with a tie to another nation by birthplace and/or blood, but NEVER is that the case with any natural born citizens who are only American.

A statutory citizen (bestowed by man's pen) can never be a "natural born" citizen (bestowed by God/nature).

Click the title link to see four prominent examples that clearly demonstrate the distinctions.

Obama Has Always Claimed "Native Born" Status
    

    
Obama...
...is not a "natural born" citizen because his father was a Kenyan national and a British subject, as was Obama, "at birth."  The Obama Campaign describes Barack Obama Sr. as, "a British subject whose citizenship status was governed by The British Nationality Act of 1948.  That same act governed the status of Obama Sr.‘s children."

...is a "native-born," 14th Amendment citizen because his mother was an American and he was born in Hawaii -- assuming he was born in Hawaii .  The Obama Campaign describes Barack Obama as a "native-born citizen" on it's website.

...is a "citizen" because his mother was an American and he was born in Hawaii -- assuming he was born in Hawaii.  If Obama was not born in Hawaii, all bets are off.

See:  Right there on Obama's own website, where it says, "The Truth About Barack's Birth Certificate" -- "The truth is, Barack Obama was born in the state of Hawaii in 1961, a "native citizen of the United States of America."

If you cursor down the page, Obama's dual citizenship status is described:
    

"When Barack Obama Jr. was born on Aug. 4,1961, in Honolulu, Kenya was a British colony, still part of the United Kingdom’s dwindling empire.  As a Kenyan native, Barack Obama Sr. was a British subject whose citizenship status was governed by The British Nationality Act of 1948.  That same act governed the status of Obama Sr.‘s children.

John Jay -- The First Chief Justice Of The U.S. Supreme Court
The term natural born citizen was first codified in writing in colonial reference books in 1758 in the legal reference book "Law of Nations."

That legal reference book was used by John Jay, who later went on to become the first Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court.  Jay had the clause inserted into the Constitution via a letter he wrote to George Washington, the leader of the Constitutional Convention.  Jay was considered the outstanding legal scholar of his time and he was the one is responsible for inserting that term into the U. S. Constitution, which was derived from the Law of Nations.

John Jay wrote: "Permit me to hint, whether it would be wise and reasonable to provide a strong check to the admission of Foreigners into the administration of our national Government; and to declare expressly that the Commander in Chief of the American army shall not be given to nor devolve on, any but a natural born Citizen."
Law Of Nations

Emmerich de Vattel was a Swiss jurist who attained world preeminence in international law.  This was primarily the result of his great foundational work, which he published in 1758.  His monumental work -- The Law of Nations --  applied a theory of natural law to international relations.  His scholarly, foundational, and systematic explanation of the Law of Nations was especially influential in the United States.

The Law of Nations was so influential in the United States because his principles of liberty and equality coincided with the ideals expressed in the U. S. Declaration of Independence.  In particular, his definitions in terms of Law governing nations regarding citizenship, defense of neutrality, and his rules for commerce between neutral and belligerent states were considered authoritative in the United States.

Many have said that de Vattel's Law of Nations was THE primary reference and defining book used by the framers of the U. S. Constitution.  It is really not possible to overstate the influence of de Vattel's Law of Nations as the primary reference book in the drafting of the U. S. Constitution.  Emmerich de Vattel's Law of Nations is almost beyond comparison in its value as a defining document regarding U. S. Constitution intent and interpretation.  The Law of Nations, or the Principles of Natural Law, published in 1758, is the first, and ONLY, definitive work the Framers of the U. S. Constitution used for the inclusion of the "Natural Born Citizen" phrase.  It nails what is meant by the "natural born citizen" phrase of Section 1, Article 2, of the U. S. Constitution.

It is amazing how perfectly, precisely, and explicitly what Emmerich de Vattel, wrote in paragraph 212, of book 1, chapter 19, of The Law of Nations entitled CITIZENS AND NATIONS, applies to the Obama FRAUD.  Quite clearly and explicitly it defines why Obama, can NOT possibly be qualified to be the President of the United States.  Obama MUST be disqualified from the office of President of the United States according to the U. S. Constitution Section 1 Article 2.

 

"The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens.  As the society can not 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 a 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."

The U. S. Constitution And The Law Of Nations
The defenders of Obama and his questionable eligibility routinely reject the influence of Emmerich de Vattel's Law of Nations on United States law.  However, the Law of Nations is an integral part of and referenced by the U. S. Constitution and court findings.

Article I, Section 8 of the United States Constitution states, in part: "The Congress shall have Power...To define and punish ... Offenses against the Law of Nations;..."

Other references in the law:

"The law of nations forms an integral part of the common law, and a review of the history surrounding the adoption of the Constitution demonstrates that it became a part of the common law of the United States upon the adoption of the Constitution." -- Filartiga v. Pena-Irala, 630 F. 2d 876 -- Court of Appeals, 2nd Circuit 1980

"When the United States declared their independence, they were bound to receive the law of nations, in its modern state of purity and refinement." -- Ware v. Hylton, 3 Dall. 199, 281 (1796) (Wilson, J.)

Dickenson, "The Law of Nations as Part of the National Law of the United States..." -- 101 U.Pa.L.Rev. 26, 27 (1952)

"The plainest evidence that international law has an existence in the federal courts independent of acts of Congress is the long-standing rule of construction first enunciated by Chief Justice Marshall: "an act of congress ought never to be construed to violate the law of nations, if any other possible construction remains ...." -- The Charming Betsy, 6 U.S. (2 Cranch), 34, 67, 2 L.Ed. 208 (1804), quoted in Lauritzen v. Larsen, 345 U.S. 571, 578, 73 S.Ct. 921, 926, 97 L.Ed. 1254 (1953)

“For two centuries we have affirmed that the domestic law of the United States recognizes the law of nations" -- Sosa v. Alvarez-Machain, 542 US 692 -- Supreme Court 2004

Chief Justice Rehnquist delivered the opinion of the Court, "The law of nations, as understood by Justice Story in 1824, has not changed" -- United States v. Alvarez-Machain, 504 US 655 -- Supreme Court 1992

But Obama's acolytes will argue none of this matters all day long -- insisting that all one needs to be eligible is to be born in the USA.
It's About Loyalty
The Founders wanted the President to be a Natural Born Citizen to ensure that the ONE person sitting at the top of the Executive branch had UNQUESTIONABLE, UNWAVERING loyalty to the United States, first and foremost.

At one point, the delegates writing the Constitution in 1787 considered THREE "presidents" in the Executive for "checks and balances."  They considered a "natural born citizen" clause for Senators as well.  Debating those issues, they felt that a "natural born citizen" clause for Senators would limit the pool of possible candidates and could cause bad feelings with immigrants needed to "jump start" the newly-formed republic.

In the end, the Framers compromised that Senators be required to be US residents for 9 years, while striking the "natural born citizen" clause for the office.

The Framers also compromised on ONE Executive vs. THREE.  But to ensure "checks and balances," the Framers inserted in Art II, Sect. 1, Clause 5: "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..."

The natural born citizen clause was NOT an accident, nor was it an inane rule to be restrictive to immigrants, and it certainly isn't just a "political" issue.  Loyalty to the US is the reason the natural born citizen clause was inserted into the Constitution.
Natural Born Citizen Was Defined In 1789
Attorney, Mario Apuzzo, contends that in defining an Article II "natural born Citizen," it is important to find any authority from the Founding period who may inform us how the Founders and Framers themselves defined the clause.  Who else but a highly respected historian from the Founding period itself would be highly persuasive in telling us how the Founders and Framers defined a "natural born Citizen."  Such an important person is David Ramsay, who in 1789 wrote, "A Dissertation on the Manners of Acquiring the Character and Privileges of a Citizen (1789)," a very important and influential essay on defining a "natural born Citizen."

David Ramsay (April 2, 1749 to May 8, 1815) was an American physician, patriot, and historian from South Carolina and a delegate from that state to the Continental Congress in 1782-1783 and 1785-1786.  He was the Acting President of the United States in Congress Assembled.  He was one of the American Revolution’s first major historians.  A contemporary of Washington, Ramsay writes with the knowledge and insights one acquires only by being personally involved in the events of the Founding period.  In 1785 he published History of the Revolution of South Carolina (two volumes), in 1789 History of the American Revolution (two volumes), in 1807 a Life of Washington, and in 1809 a History of South Carolina (two volumes).  In 1965 Professor Page Smith of the University of California at Los Angeles published an extensive study of Ramsay's History of the American Revolution in which he stressed the advantage that Ramsay had because of being involved in the events of which he wrote and the wisdom he exercised in taking advantage of this opportunity.  "The generosity of mind and spirit which marks his pages, his critical sense, his balanced judgment and compassion,'' Professor Smith concluded, "are gifts that were uniquely his own and that clearly entitle him to an honorable position in the front rank of American historians."

In his 1789 article, Ramsay first explained who the "original citizens" were and then defined the "natural born citizens" as the children born in the country to citizen parents.  He said concerning the children born after the declaration of independence, "[c]itizenship is the inheritance of the children of those who have taken part in the late revolution; but this is confined exclusively to the children of those who were themselves citizens…."  He added that "citizenship by inheritance belongs to none but the children of those Americans, who, having survived the declaration of independence, acquired that adventitious character in their own right, and transmitted it to their offspring…."  He continued that citizenship "as a natural right, belongs to none but those who have been born of citizens since the 4th of July, 1776…."

Continue reading here . . .
Parents  (pl)
In the official copies of the THIRD U.S. Congress (1795) margin notes state "Former act repealed. 1790. ch. 3." referencing the FIRST U.S. Congress (1790).

Document ONE: the actual text of the THIRD CONGRESS in 1795 states, "...children of citizens [plural, i.e. two parents] of the United States...shall be considered citizens of the United States; Provided That the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons, whose fathers have never been resident in the United States..."  (THIRD CONGRESS Sess. II. Ch.21. 1795, Approved January 29, 1795, pp. 414-415. Document margin note: "How children shall obtain citizenship through their parents" Document margin note: "Former Act repealed 1790 ch.3.")  See Attachment A.

Document TWO: the actual text of the FIRST CONGRESS in 1790 states, "...children of citizens (NB: plural, i.e. two parents) of the United States...shall be considered as natural born citizens of the United States; Provided That the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons, whose fathers have never been resident in the United States..." (FIRST CONGRESS Sess. II Ch.4 1790, Approved March 26, 1790, pp. 103-104. Document margin note: "Their children residing here, deemed citizens." Document margin note: "Also, children of citizens born beyond sea, & c. Exceptions.")  See Attachment B.

Document THREE: the actual text of the Constitution from the Continental Congress and the Constitutional Convention, 1774-1789, and subsequent official printings, of the Constitution of the United States of American: Article II Section 1 Clause 5 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…"  (See Attachment C)

    
Source
The Venus, 12 U.S. 8 Cranch 253 253 (1814)
The first was decided in A.D. 1814, at the beginning of the republic, by men who were intimately associated with the American Revolution.  In that year the following men sat on the Supreme Court:

Bushrod Washington, (b. June 5, 1762 — d. Nov. 26, 1829), served Feb. 4, 1799 till Nov. 26, 1829.

John Marshall (b. Sept. 24, 1755 — d. July 6, 1835), served Feb. 4, 1891 till July 6, 1835.

William Johnson (b. Dec. 27, 1771 — d. Aug. 4, 1834), served May 7, 1804, till Aug. 4, 1834.

Henry Brockholst Livingston (b. Nov. 25, 1757 — d. Mar. 18, 1823), served Jan. 20, 1807 till March 18, 1823

Thomas Todd (b. Jan. 23, 1765 — d. Feb. 7, 1826), served May 4, 1807 till Feb. 7, 1826.

Gabriel Duvall (b. Dec. 6, 1752 — d. Mar. 6, 1844), served Nov. 23, 1811 till Jan. 14, 1835.

Joseph Story (b. Sept. 18, 1779 — d. Sept. 10, 1845), served Feb. 3, 1812 till Sep. 10, 1845

Nearly all these men either participated in the American Revolution, or their fathers did.  Joseph Story’s father took part in the original Boston Tea Party.  Thomas Todd served 6 months in the army against the British; and participated in 5 Constitutional Conventions from 1784-1792.  During the Revolutionary War, Henry Brockholst Livingston was a Lieutenant Colonel in the New York Line and an aide-de-camp to General Benedict Arnold, before the latter’s defection to the British. William Johnson’s father, mother, and elder brother were revolutionaries, who served as statesman, rebel, or nurse/assistant to the line troops, respectively.  John Marshall was First Lieutenant of the Culpeper Minutemen of Virginia, and then Lieutenant in the Eleventh Virginian Continental Regiment, and a personal friend of General George Washington; and debated for ratification of the U.S. Constitution by the Virginian General Assembly.  Bushrod Washington was George Washington’s nephew and heir.

Being witnesses and heirs of the Revolution, they understood what the Framers of the Constitution had intended.

The Venus case regarded the question whether the cargo of a merchantman, named the Venus, belonging to an American citizen, and being shipped from British territory to America during the War of 1812, could be seized and taken as a prize by an American privateer.  But what the case said about citizenship, is what matters here.

What the Venus Case says on citizenship:

In the Venus Case, Justice Livingston, who wrote the unanimous decision, quoted the entire §212nd paragraph from the French edition, using his own English, on page 12 of the ruling:
    

Vattel, who, though not very full to this point, is more explicit and more satisfactory on it than any other whose work has fallen into my hands, says:

"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 indigenes are those
born in the country of parents who are citizens.   Society not being able to subsist and to perpetuate itself but by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights."

"The inhabitants, as distinguished from citizens, are strangers who are permitted to settle and stay in the country.  Bound by their residence to the society, they are subject to the laws of the state while they reside there, and they are obliged to defend it…"

      

Inglis v. Sailors’ Snug Harbor, 28 U.S. 99, 3 Pet. 99, 7 L.Ed. 617 (1830)
The majority cited Vattel on the right of election to change one’s allegiance and thus citizenship in the context of the new nation being formed after revolution.  The Court found on principles consistent with Vattel’s jus sanguinis and not on the English common law rule of jus soli, that simply being born in New York, after July 4, 1776 and before September 15, 1776, when the British took possession of New York, was not sufficient to establish one’s status as an American citizen, for a child of minor years is incapacitated from making any citizenship election but rather followed the citizenship held or chosen by the father.  On the contrary, relying upon principles of the English common law, Justice Johnson and Justice Story, who wrote separate minority concurring opinions, would have found the child born in New York during the same time period a citizen of the State of New York, regardless of the citizenship of his parents.  Id. 136 and 164.

This case shows what the majority rule was on citizenship and that it followed the Vattelian doctrine that a child when born took on the national character of his or her father (meaning father and mother under the doctrine of merger of the wife’s citizenship into the husband) and did not acquire his or her citizenship from the territory in which he or she was born.
Shanks v. Dupont, 28 U.S. 3 Pet. 242 242 (1830)
16 years later the Supreme Court heard the case regarding the dispute over the inheritance received by two daughters of an American colonist, from South Carolina; one of whom went to England and remained a British subject, the other of whom remained in South Carolina and became an American citizen.  At the beginning of the case, Justice Story, who gave the ruling, does not cite Vattel per se, but cites the principle of citizenship enshrined in his definition of a "natural born citizen":
    

Ann Scott was born in South Carolina before the American revolution, and her father adhered to the American cause and remained and was at his death a citizen of South Carolina.  There is no dispute that his daughter Ann, at the time of the Revolution and afterwards, remained in South Carolina until December, 1782.  Whether she was of age during this time does not appear.  If she was, then her birth and residence might be deemed to constitute her by election a citizen of South Carolina.  If she was not of age, then she might well be deemed under the circumstances of this case to hold the citizenship of her father, for children born in a country, continuing while under age in the family of the father, partake of his national character as a citizen of that country.  Her citizenship, then, being prima facie established, and indeed this is admitted in the pleadings, has it ever been lost, or was it lost before the death of her father, so that the estate in question was, upon the descent cast, incapable of vesting in her?  Upon the facts stated, it appears to us that it was not lost and that she was capable of taking it at the time of the descent cast.

      

Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. 393 (1857)
Justice Daniels concurring cites Vattel and The Law of Nations and provides his definition of natural born citizens and takes out of Vattel’s definition the reference to "fathers" and "father" and replaced it with "parents" and "person," respectively, stated: "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 society cannot perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their parents, and succeed to all their rights."  Again: I say, to be of the country, it is necessary to be born of a person who is a citizen; for if he be born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country. . . ."
John Bingham
Rep. John Bingham of Ohio, considered the father of the Fourteenth Amendment, confirms that understanding and the construction the framers used in regards to birthright and jurisdiction while speaking on civil rights of citizens in the House on March 9, 1866:
    

" ... I find no fault with the introductory clause [S 61 Bill], which is simply declaratory of what is written in the Constitution, that every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen..."

    

Bingham is also quoted saying in the Spring of 1868 some serious warnings:
    

"May God forbid that the future historian shall record of this day's proceedings, that by reason of the failure of the legislative power of the people to triumph over the usurpations of an apostate President, the fabric of American empire fell and perished from the earth!...I ask you to consider that we stand this day pleading for the violated majesty of the law, by the graves of half a million of martyred hero-patriots who made death beautiful by the sacrifice of themselves for their country, the Constitution and the laws, and who, by their sublime example, have taught us all to obey the law; that none are above the law..."

      

14th Amendment
The Fourteenth Amendment (Amendment XIV) to the United States Constitution is one of the post-Civil War Reconstruction Amendments, first intended to secure the rights of former slaves. It was proposed on June 13, 1866, and ratified on July 9, 1868.

The amendment provides a broad definition of citizenship, overruling Dred Scott v. Sandford (1857) which had excluded slaves and their descendants from possessing Constitutional rights.

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.  No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

The 14th Amendment does not address the "natural born citizen" issue, only citizenship.  Citizenship and eligibility are two distinct and separate issues.
From The Library Of Congress
  

This video lays it all out.  It's lengthy.  If you don't have time to view it now, bookmark this page and come back. 

You'll be glad you did.


Minor v. Happersett
Natural Born status is mentioned in case law: Minor v. Happersett (1874) 21 Wall. 162, 166-168

"'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 [plural] who were its citizens [plural], became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also.  These were natives or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners.  Some authorities go further, and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction, without reference to the citizenship of their parents.  As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first.  For the purposes of this case, it is not necessary to solve these doubts.  It is sufficient, for everything we have now to consider, that all children, born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction, are themselves citizens.' Minor v. Happersett (1874) 21 Wall. 162, 166-168."

Under Happersett, a natural born citizen is clarified to mean born citizen without a doubt.  Doubt entered the picture due to Obama being born a British citizen under The British Nationality Act of 1948, in effect at the time of his birth.   He cannot be, as a state of nature, considered a born citizen of the United States, when he was born British.

Attorney Leo Donofrio contends the citizenship issue decided in Minor v. Happersett has been documented as precedent by multiple sources of legal scholarship.  (See also my previous two reports analyzing Minor v. Happersett, here and here.)  Below, I have assembled multiple quotations from various published literature which cogently establish that the Supreme Court issued two holdings in Minor; one on citizenship and the other on voting rights.  That the citizenship issue is precedent, and not dictum, has never been questioned in our national history until now, just as the very words of the Constitution are being scrubbed.  My research indicates unequivocally that for over a century before the appearance of Obama, Minor was recognized and cited as precedent on the definition of federal citizenship.

THIS is an important essay and should be read and understood by all.
Donofrio On Minor

Spaulding says the 1790 Naturalization act asserted exceeded the authority of the Congress, and was eliminated from US Code in the 1795 act.  But it was a "Naturalization Act."  There are two classes of citizen, natural, and naturalized.  Like the 14th Amendment, the most it could have done was to create a naturalized "born citizen", which was called a "native born citizen of the US, as Obama declared himself to be.  The 1790 act, deceptively used by Obama’s constitutional law professor, Larry Tribe, when he asserted that McCain was a natural born citizen because he was born to two citizen parents in the submission by Tribe and Ted Olson to the Senate Judiciary Committee hearings over Senate Res 511, which was signed in agreement by all senators including Obama, but excluding McCain (as it could have cause legal trouble had he prevailed over Obama).
   

Leo Donofrio has erased any legal doubts about whether Justice Waite's statement was dictum.  The Minor case was built upon the “..., it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens.” statement, previously common law understood by our framers, as were almost all terms used in the Constitution.  It was the only constitutional definition of a class of citizen before the 14th Amendment.  Virginia Minor was one of the majority of citizens who were natural born citizens, thus asserting beyond doubt that she was a citizen.  About the class of naturalized citizens there were many doubts, so Waite told us his decision was independent of the 14th Amendment by design, and thus uncorrupted by the doubts about who were citizens.
   

No law, no amendment, no supreme court decision has altered the definition made precedent by Minor v. Happersett.  It is a remarkable time when states, beholden to political forces, unions, statists, will resort to altering the constitutional definition of who is eligible to be president in their official documents.  It is more understandable that Obama’s fellow travelers, people who honestly, as Barack told us, want to dispense with the Constitution because it prevents them from doing what they feel the nation needs.  The owners of justia.com, federal judges who are all political appointees, will lie to protect what they perceive as their political comrades.  Now both New York and Indiana have shown that holding temporary power -- because that is all that it will be -- trumps the constitution.

Apuzzo On Minor

Attorney Mario Apuzzo says you have got to love Obama’s enablers. They have a web site called, "A Place to Get the REALLY Right Answers About Natural Born Citizenship." Clearly, the title of this web site refers to this web site, "Natural Born Citizen -- A Place to Ask Questions and Get the Right Answers," which I created in December 2008.
  

Before I start, I must advise you of two things: first, you will rarely find an Obama enabler who will ever admit that he or she is a lawyer (most of those who admit it have been outed by citizen researchers). The reason for that is that operating under the blanket of anonymity, they get free reign to say whatever they want without any legal or ethical accountability. And they have said some pretty bad things in the past until many of them were outed and so now they are "perfect gentlemen." Hence, the first thing the owner of this blog tells us is that he or she is not a lawyer. Now it may be true that the owner of that blog is not a lawyer. But what about all the other enablers who feed at that blog under the cover of anonymity? So, we do need to ask ourselves whether these so-called "owners" are just straw owners who take on such tasks to provide cover for Obama’s enabler lawyers who operate in the background under the cloaking device of anonymity.
   

Second, before I started explaining that there is a difference between an Article II "natural born" Citizen and a Fourteenth Amendment or Statutory "born" Citizen, we hardly saw the clause "natural born" Citizen in the Obama enablers’ arguments. At that time, they were simply content with telling us that Obama was a "Citizen" of the United States or a "native-born citizen," whether under U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898), the Fourteenth Amendment, or any Congressional Act. Now, no matter what case or statute they are speaking about, for these enablers its all "natural born" Citizen. The only citizens they have spared from this label are citizens who are naturalized after birth. I guess they figured that the clause would lose whatever little meaning they have given to it if they pushed it that far.
   

Let us now examine what Obama’s enablers are peddling on this blog. They must and do attack the Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162 (1875) decision on two fronts. First, they argue that the definition of a "natural-born citizen" given by the Court is dicta and therefore not binding precedent. But they are wrong. In Minor, the U.S. Supreme Court had to decide whether Virginia Minor, a woman, was a "citizen" in order to determine whether as a "citizen" she enjoyed a constitutional right to vote under the privileges and immunities clause of Article IV. So the Court reasoned that once she was shown to be a "citizen," it did not matter that she was a woman, unless Missouri could still disqualify a woman from voting because being a "citizen" did not guarantee any person the right to vote. It does not matter whether the Court chose to say that Minor was a "natural born Citizen" or just a "citizen." Either way, Virginia Minor would advance to the next step in the analysis which was whether as a "citizen" she had the right to vote which Missouri could not abrogate. The Court chose the "natural-born citizen" path. It thoroughly analyzed and considered what a "natural-born citizen" was and after saying that it is a child born in the country to citizen parents, found that Virginia Minor was a "natural-born citizen" and therefore also a "citizen." After the Court told us what a "natural-born citizen" was, it then made the comment about there being doubts as to whether a child born in the country to alien parents was even a "citizen." The Court said that it was not necessary for it to decide that question and it did not because Virginia Minor was a "natural-born citizen" which necessarily also made her a "citizen."
  

Appuzo provides a detailed legal analysis of this question here . . .
  

And concludes:
  

Finally, and this is Obama’s enablers’ favorite ploy, they say for the Birthers to be right, all smart and consequential people in America would have to be part of some grand conspiracy. They paint the "Birthers" with the same brush and paint that they paint those who question the moon landing, the Kennedy assassination, the 9-11 attacks, and whether there is some plot to create a "One World Order." But there is nothing conspiratorial about correctly defining an Article II "natural born" Citizen and applying that definition to Obama’s admitted birth circumstances. He has admitted and it is corroborated by documentation that he was born to a non-U.S. citizen father. Hence, he cannot be a "natural born" Citizen. There is no conspiracy in that, my friend.
  

And so it goes on, for this is how Obama’s enablers must make a living.

Chester Arthur
Chester A. Arthur perpetrated a fraud as to his eligibility to be Vice President by spreading various lies about his parents’ heritage.  Arthur’s father, William Arthur, became a United States citizen in August 1843, but Arthur was born in 1829 -- 14 years before.  Therefore, Arthur was a British Citizen by descent, and a dual citizen at birth, if not his whole life.

He wasn’t a "natural born citizen" and he knew it.

We’ve also uncovered many lies told by Arthur to the press which kept this fact from public view when he ran for Vice President in 1880.  Garfield won the election, became President in 1881, and was assassinated by a fanatical Chester Arthur supporter that same year.

Historical facts here, and there's more juicy stuff on Chester Arthur in the video above.
The Boston Globe On Natural Born
Donofrio's blog has a news item from the Boston Globe saying for presidential eligibility, "native born" does not equal "natural born."

You may add The Boston Globe to the growing list of influential media sources who have expressed the opinion that simply being born in the United States does not qualify one to be president.  Recently, this blog pointed to a similar opinion in the New York Tribune.  These pre-dated Breckenridge Long’s similar opinion as stated in the Chicago Legal News.

Recently, one of my readers uncovered this crucially relevant article published in the Boston Globe on November 9, 1896 by Percy A. Bridgham, aka "The People’s Lawyer."  (Mr. Bridgham’s book, One Thousand Legal Questions Answered by the "People’s Lawyer" of the Boston Daily Globe, can be found in the Harvard Law School library.)

The People’s Lawyer, upon answering a reader’s question regarding the Constitution’s natural born citizen clause, stated:
    
    

"The fact that the Constitution says "natural" instead of native shows to my mind that the distinction was thought of and probably discussed.  A natural born citizen would be one who by nature, that is by inheritance, so to speak, was a citizen, as distinguished from one who was by nativity or locality of birth a citizen.  A child born to Irish parents in Ireland cannot become a citizen except by naturalization, while his brother born in the United States is a native born citizen; the former is neither naturally nor by nativity a citizen, the latter is not naturally, but natively a citizen."

    
It’s important to note that, while this article was written two years before the controversial decision in Wong Kim Ark, Bridgham adopts a similar conclusion as Justice Gray did in that case by stating that children born of aliens on US soil are citizens.  But Bridgham also states that while these children are "native born" citizens, they are not "natural born" citizens and therefore cannot be president.

Bridgham further states:
    

"A comparison of the meanings of native and natural as given by Webster bears me out in my opinion of the intent of the constitution.  The very definition of natural is "fixed or determined by nature,"…I do not find that our courts have ever passed upon the meaning of the word natural in connection with citizenship, so we must take its ordinary meaning."

    
U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark

U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark's (1898) importance is that it is the first case decided by the Supreme Court that attempts to explain the meaning of "natural born citizen" under Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 of the U.S. Constitution.  Natural born citizen is similar to the meaning of what a natural born subject is under Common Law in England.  That is one of the reasons why the framers specifically included a grandfather clause (natural born Citizen OR a Citizen of the United States, at the time of adoption of this Constitution).  The founding fathers knew that in order to be president, they had to grandfather themselves in because they were British subjects.  If they didn't, they could not be President of the U.S.  The holding in U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark states that Wong Kim Ark is a native-born citizen.  If you look at the fact of Wong Kim Ark being born in San Francisco, CA, of Chinese parents, that holding is correct.

 

In U. S. v Wong Kim Ark, the court thoroughly discussed "natural born citizen," and in doing so, Justice Gray quoted directly from the holding in a prior Supreme Court case, Minor v. Happersett (above).

Perkins v. Elg
Perkins v. Elg's (1939) importance is that it actually gives examples of what a "natural born citizen" of the U.S. is; what a "citizen" of the U.S. is; and what a "native-born citizen" of the U. S. is.

In this case, the U. S. Supreme Court found that a "natural born citizen" is a person who is born of two U.S. citizen parents AND born in the mainland of U.S.

 

Citizen:

On cross appeals, the Court of Appeals affirmed the decree, 69 App.D.C. 175, 99 F.2d 408. Certiorari was granted, December 5, 1938, 305 U.S. 591, 59 S.Ct. 245, 83 L.Ed. --. First.-- On her birth in New York, the plaintiff became a citizen of the United States.  Civil Rights Act of 1866:


Ms. Elg was found to be a "citizen" because she was born in the mainland USA (New York)

 

native-born citizen:

This principle was clearly stated by Attorney General Edwards Pierrepont in his letter of advice to the Secretary of State Hamilton Fish, in Steinkauler's Case, 1875, 15 Op.Atty.Gen. 15. The facts were these: One Steinkauler, a Prussian subject by birth, emigrated to the United States in 1848, was naturalized in 1854, and in the following year had a son who was born in St. Louis. Four years later Steinkauler returned to Germany taking this child and became domiciled at Weisbaden where they continuously resided. When the son reached the age of twenty years the German Government called upon him to report for military duty and his father then invoked the intervention of the American Legation on the ground that his son was a native citizen of the United States. To an inquiry by our Minister, the father declined to give an assurance that the son would return to this country within a reasonable time. On reviewing the pertinent points in the case, including the Naturalization Treaty of 1868 with North Germany, 15 Stat. 615, the Attorney General reached the following conclusion: 'Young Steinkauler is a native-born American citizen.


Mr. Steinkauler was found to be a "native-born citizen" because he was born in the mainland USA (St. Louis)


Natural Born Citizen:

U. S. Supreme Court's Relevant Facts:  Miss Elg was born in Brooklyn, New York, on October 2, 1907.  Her parents, who were natives of Sweden, emigrated to the United States sometime prior to 1906 and her father was naturalized here in that year. In 1911, her mother took her to Sweden where she continued to reside until September 7, 1929. Her father went to Sweden in 1922 and has not since returned to the United States. In November, 1934, he made a statement before an American consul in Sweden that he had voluntarily expatriated himself for the reason that he did not desire to retain the status of an American citizen and wished to preserve his allegiance to Sweden. [Perkins v. Elg, 307 U.S. 325, 327 (1939).]

U. S. Supreme Court's Holding:  The court below, properly recognizing the existence of an actual controversy with the defendants (Aetna Life Ins. Co. v. Haworth, 300 U.S. 227, 57 S.Ct. 461, 81 L.Ed. 617, 108 A.L.R. 1000) declared Miss Elg 'to be a natural born citizen of the United States' (99 F.2d 414) and we think that the decree should include the Secretary of State as well as the other defendants. [Perkins v. Elg, 307 U.S. 325, 350 (1939).]

Rationale of the logic is as follows: The U. S. Supreme Court in 1939 held that Elg was a NATURAL BORN CITIZEN because she was born in Brooklyn, New York on October 2, 1907, her father was naturalized as a U.S. citizen in 1906 under the Naturalization Act of 1906, and her mother derived her US citizenship in 1907 under the Expatriation Act of 1907.  The Expatriation Act of 1907 extended the logic linking a woman's citizenship to her marital status and the status of her spouse.

Ms. Elg was found to be a "natural born citizen" because she was born in the mainland USA (New York) of TWO US citizen parents.
The Acts of 1906 and 1907
After the Naturalization Act of 1906 created the Naturalization Standards for U.S. Citizenship, Congress passed the Expatriation Act of 1907 to allow SPOUSES of naturalized U.S. citizens to be considered naturalized U.S. citizens as well.

Perkins v. Elg doesn't explain that but that was THE LAW ENACTED at the time when Elg was born in New York.  The Court's job is to apply the relevant facts to the law.  The law as discussed in U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark in 1898 was that in order to be a "natural born citizen," you had to be born in the U.S. Mainland AND born to U.S. Citizens PARENTS (PLURAL NOT SINGULAR).  The key here is BOTH PARENTS WERE U.S. CITIZENS at the time of Elg's birth.  The  U.S. Supreme Court, in 1939, ruled that Elg was a "natural born citizen"  using DEDUCTIVE REASONING to clarify why.  The law is corroborated.

All you have to do is read the Expatriation Act of 1907 (federal statute) as proof.  Remember, Elg was born prior to enactment of the U. S. Constitution's Nineteenth Amendment, ratified on August 18, 1920, and a woman's status was tied to that of her husband.
Derivative Law
Elg's Mother derived US citizenship when her father was naturalized.  This was automatic -- it's called derivative citizenship.  These are the forms of derivative citizenship that were effective due to federal statute at the time Elg was born:

1.  An alien woman obtained automatic US citizenship when she married a US citizen male.

2.  An alien woman obtained automatic us citizenship when her alien husband became naturalized.

So, in 1907 when Elg was born on US soil, both of her parents were US citizens, therefore she was a "natural born citizen."

Funny thing is, when the US Supreme Court decided the case, the derivative citizen laws had changed, however, they retroactively applied them... because they had to.  They had to use the law at the time of Elg's birth... because that's when she was born, hence she was a natural born citizen at the time of her birth and nothing could change that.

In essence, the 19th Amendment gave a woman equal footing under the law overriding the common law (e.g. judge made law) which referred to women as "property" of a man.  That is the essence of derivative citizenship.
19th Amendment
The Nineteenth Amendment (Amendment XIX) to the United States Constitution prohibits each of the states and the federal government from denying any citizen the right to vote because of that citizen's sex.  It was ratified on August 18, 1920.

Prior to this date, a woman's citizenship was derived from her husband.  If the husband was an American citizen, then the wife was an American citizen (derivative law).

This fact plays a role in determining natural born citizen status -- two American citizen parents.

With the passage of the 19th Amendment, a woman's citizenship status is determined on her parents, place of birth or naturalization.
Immigration And Naturalization
1952 Immigration and Nationality Act Title3 Chapter1, Nationality at Birth and by Collective Naturalization.
TWO Citizen Parents
Why does it require two citizen parents?  What is the policy behind the language requiring two US citizen parents?  Policy as used with regards to the drafting of laws is a legal term of art.  It’s analogous to concern.  What legal concern is acknowledged by requiring two citizen parents?

Leo Donofrio addresses why Senate Resolution 511 doesn’t state that a person born abroad to one citizen parent is a natural born citizen. (link no longer functional)
Even Wikipedia
Even Wikipedia gets it right:

"It is generally agreed that these constitutional provisions mean anyone born on American soil to parents who are U.S. citizens is a "natural born citizen" eligible to someday become president or vice-president..."

Two American parents and on American soil -- simple as that.
State Department On Dual Nationality
The U. S. State Department defines the concept of dual nationality as meaning that a person is a citizen of two countries at the same time.  Each country has its own citizenship laws based on its own policy.  Persons may have dual nationality by automatic operation of different laws rather than by choice.  For example, a child born in a foreign country to U.S. citizen parents may be both a U.S. citizen and a citizen of the country of birth.

A U.S. citizen may acquire foreign citizenship by marriage, or a person naturalized as a U.S. citizen may not lose the citizenship of the country of birth.  U.S. law does not mention dual nationality or require a person to choose one citizenship or another.  Also, a person who is automatically granted another citizenship does not risk losing U.S. citizenship.  However, a person who acquires a foreign citizenship by applying for it may lose U.S. citizenship.  In order to lose U.S. citizenship, the law requires that the person must apply for the foreign citizenship voluntarily, by free choice, and with the intention to give up U.S. citizenship.

Intent can be shown by the person's statements or conduct.  The U.S. Government recognizes that dual nationality exists but does not encourage it as a matter of policy because of the problems it may cause.  Claims of other countries on dual national U.S. citizens may conflict with U.S. law, and dual nationality may limit U.S. Government efforts to assist citizens abroad.  The country where a dual national is located generally has a stronger claim to that person's allegiance.

However, dual nationals owe allegiance to both the United States and the foreign country.  They are required to obey the laws of both countries.  Either country has the right to enforce its laws, particularly if the person later travels there.  Most U.S. citizens, including dual nationals, must use a U.S. passport to enter and leave the United States.  Dual nationals may also be required by the foreign country to use its passport to enter and leave that country.  Use of the foreign passport does not endanger U.S. citizenship.  Most countries permit a person to renounce or otherwise lose citizenship.

And that's why the Founders included Article II, Section I, Clause 5 in The U. S. Constitution.
Conclusion
It should be noted, that to define a term is to indicate the category or class of things which it signifies. In this sense, the Supreme Court of the United States has never applied the term "natural born citizen" to any other category than "those born in the country of parents who are citizens thereof".

Hence every U.S. Citizen must accept this definition or categorical designation, and fulfill his constitutional duties accordingly.  No member of Congress, no judge of the Federal Judiciary, no elected or appointed official in Federal or State government has the right to use any other definition; and if he does, he is acting unlawfully.
A Question Of Allegiance
The supreme law of the United States of America is the Constitution and Amendments thereto.  Everything else is subordinated to the Articles of the Constitution, which is why the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) is virtually powerless to remove any usurper in unlawful occupation of the Office of the President as the court of original jurisdiction.  The Founding Fathers wrote the Constitution giving Congress the sole authority to inaugurate and remove a President and Vice President to the Congress.  Congress in turn subsequently authorized by Public Law and statute for the Supreme Court to establish an inferior court, the Federal District Court for the District of Columbia, to be the only Federal with jurisdiction for the removal of Federal Public Officers, which includes the President of the United States (POTUS).

With respect to questions about a "citizen" versus a "natural born citizen," The Articles of the Constitution are superior to and take precedence over anything Congress enacts as a Public Law and statute in the U.S. Code and anything the Supreme Court and inferior courts hold as their decisions.  This is what is meant by the impropriety of legislating from the bench.  The only lawful means of changing and altering the Constitution is for Congress to lawfully enact an Amendment to the Constitution.

Since the "natural born citizen" phrase is a provision of the Constitution, no Public Law or statute can lawfully change the meaning of the phrase as it was stated in the Constitution without an Amendment doing so.  At the time the Constitution was adopted, it did not include any provisions to determine the requirements for being a citizen of the United States, because each State was already responsible for enacting their own State Constitutions and state laws and statutes governing natural born and naturalized citizenship in the State.  Whosoever was a citizen of a State was thereby also a citizen of the United States of America.

This circumstance arose as a consequence of the sequence of events occutring during the American Revolutionary War.  Upon adoption of the Declaration of Independence by Congress on 4 July 1776, the preceding English or British common-law governing citizenship was abolished.  Since the States in the Continental Congress had not yet formed a national government, each State was responsible for the task of replacing the former British legal codes and common-law by enacting its own state Public Laws.  The adoption of the Articles of Confederation and later adoption of the Constitution resulted in many important changes, but Congress continued to respect the power of each State to enact its own citizenship laws in the State constitution and/or public laws and statures of the state.  As a result, the qualifications for natural born and naturalized citizenship were sometimes different from one State to the next.  The statutory laws of some States continued the previous common-law in part before changing it altogether at a later date, while other Sates adopted little or none of the previous common-law in their new statutory law.  Uniform national laws and statutes regarding citizenship and naturalization were not established by the federal Government of the United States until the mid-19th Century.

Consequently, the qualifications and methods for determining who was a natural born citizen with allegiance only to the United States was determined by state constitutions and or state laws or statutes governing who was a natural born citizen of the State during the Early Republic.  In every circumstance, however, a person could be natural born with one and only one allegiance and attendant citizenship to a sovereign government.  Dual citizenship was not recognized.

What created a conflict, however, was the establishment of the Federal uniform citizenship and naturalization statutory laws which began to confer U.S. citizenship upon persons who were previously ineligible due to the dual citizenship.  The Founding Fathers included the "natural born citizen" phrase in the Constitution for the stated purpose of excluding any person natural born with an allegiance to a foreign sovereign and government from being eligible to the Office of the President and Commander-in-Chief of the American Army, responsible for protecting the Constitution and Citizens of the Republic from all enemies, foreign and domestic.  Dual citizenship was not recognized in the Law of Nations at the time the Constitution was adopted, so a person could be born with allegiance and therefore citizenship to only one sovereign and nation.  When the Law of Nations and the Federal statutory laws were changed to begin recognition of dual and multiple citizenship status, a potential conflict was created with the original "natural born citizen" phrase in the Constitution.

Absent an Amendment to the Constitution which specifically changes the "natural born citizen" phrase and its purpose as stated by the Founding Fathers, previous Supreme Court decisions demand that the phrase and its intended purpose take precedence as superior law over any Federal statutory law, state constitution, state law, or Supreme Court case law.

Consequently, who was and was not a natural born citizen was and still may be determined by state constitutional law, state statutory law, Federal statutory law, and Federal case law as determined by Congress; but it may only do so to the extent it gives effect to the Founding Fathers’ intent and Constitutional phrase to make a person eligible to the Office of the President who is a natural born citizen as it existed at the adoption of the Constitution, which did not admit any possible allegiance to a foreign sovereign and government at birth.
Obama Continues To Be A British Subject
Attorney Mario Apuzzo sys that assuming that Obama was born in the United States, he was not only born a dual national of the United States and Great Britain, but at present he continues to be such.  Some maintain that American law on citizenship cannot be subjected to any foreign law.  But such an argument does not resolve the question of Obama’s dual nationality, for each nation has the sovereign right to make its own citizenship laws and one nation cannot deny another nation that right.  This point can be better understood when we consider that McCain was born in Panama to U.S. citizen parents and U.S. citizenship law declared him a U.S. citizen even though he was born in Panama and Panamanian law may have declared him a citizen of Panama.  Neither Panama nor any other nation questioned the United States' right to pass a law that gave McCain U.S. citizenship by descent from his parents even though he was born in Panama.  Great Britain, being a sovereign nation, has the same right as does the United States to pass such citizenship laws.  Now let us examine the British law that applies to Obama and his father and which makes Obama a British citizen not only at the time of his birth in 1961 but still today.

The British Nationality Act of 1948 provides in pertinent part as follows:

"4. Subject to the provisions of this section, every person born within the United Kingdom and Colonies after the commencement of this Act shall be a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies by birth:

Provided that a person shall not be such a citizen by virtue of this section if at the time of his birth—
(a) his father possesses such immunity from suit and legal process as is accorded to an envoy of a foreign sovereign power accredited to His Majesty, and is not a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies; or
(b) his father is an enemy alien and the birth occurs in a place then under occupation by the enemy.

5.—(1) Subject to the provisions of this section, a person born after the commencement of this Act shall be a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies by descent if his father is a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies at the time of the birth ...."

Under the British Nationality Act of 1948, Obama's father became a British citizen under Section 4 by being born on the soil of an English Colony, Kenya.  Under Section 5, when Obama was born in 1961 in Hawaii or some other place, he automatically became a British citizen by descent from his father who was a British citizen under Section 4.

Obama has deflected attention to his British citizenship by focusing the public’s attention on his former Kenyan citizenship.  Notwithstanding what Obama may lead the public to believe, this British citizenship is not a type of citizenship that he has since lost.  Moreover, this citizenship did not expire with Obama's 21st birthday nor is it one that had to be registered in any specified period of time.

Continue reading here . . .
Born Subject To A Foreign Power
Attorney Mario Apuzzo believes that being born subject to a foreign power, Obama cannot be President and Military Commander.

Having just won a revolution, the Founders were faced with constituting a new nation.  Under the constitutional plan devised by the Founders, they had to identify who were the members of the new nation.  They called these members "citizens" of the United States. Thus, they created our first generation of United States "citizens."  These persons were either born abroad or in the British colonies before July 4, 1776 or abroad or in the new States thereafter, but in all cases inhabited one of the colonies or States and were loyal to the American revolution.  The Founders under Article II grandfathered these original "citizens" to be eligible to be President.  Under this plan, once the new nation had its first generation "citizens," it was placed in position to have in the future its Article II "natural born Citizens," who would be born in the United States after the adoption of the Constitution and descend from mothers and fathers who were both original "citizens."  Given that America was already a land of immigrants and that the Founders expected that many more immigrants would come to its shores in search of a new life and to share in its vast resources, they gave Congress in Article I, Sec. 8, cl. 4 the power to naturalize aliens and thereby create more future first generation United States "citizens."  Having become a naturalized "citizen," one would then be in a position to procreate with another "citizen" (born or similarly naturalized) a "natural born Citizen" who would be eligible to be president.

Throughout American history, there have been no doubts or disputes as to who is a "natural born Citizen."  As we have seen, it was not English common law but the law of nations that became United States common law that defined a "natural born Citizen."  It defined such a citizen as being born in the country to parents who are themselves citizens.  It is this definition which our United States Supreme Court incorporated into our federal common law.  It is this definition that creates subsequent generation "citizens" who are "natural born Citizens."  They are subsequent generation because born in the country to a mother and father who are citizens.

On the other hand, throughout our history, there have been doubts and disputes as to who may be a born "citizen" (as distinguished from a "natural born Citizen" or a naturalized citizen).  These disputes have concerned the question of whether to be a "citizen," must a child be simply born on U.S. soil and be subject to its jurisdiction, without any reference to the citizenship of the parents (jus soli which follows the old English common law), or must that child also be born to U.S. citizen parents (jus soli and jus sanguinis united which follows the law of nations’ definition and which any way only applies to "natural born citizens").  This dispute has concerned the question of whether we should declare a child a first generation "citizen" (in effect having the same status as one of the original first generation "citizens" which Article II grandfathered to be eligible to be President).  The dispute has not been with whether we should declare that child a subsequent generation "natural born Citizen."  The Fourteenth Amendment settled who could be a "citizen" by bestowing such status upon those born in the United States or naturalized here and subject to the jurisdiction thereof.  "Citizens" who meet this Fourteenth Amendment definition can be either first or subsequent generation United States "citizens."  If first generation, they are simply "citizens."  If subsequent generation, they are not only "citizens" but also "natural born Citizens."  Congress has also declared who may be a born "citizen" through legislation and has thereby not only confirmed what is already stated in the Fourteenth Amendment but has also granted citizenship to children born out of the United States to U.S. citizen parents (one or two).  Senator McCain, being born in Panama, falls into the two United States-parent category.  The question of whether foreign-born children, born to two United States parents and thus falling in this category (by definition they would be subsequent generation "citizens" but not born in the United States) are "natural born Citizens" has not been resolved by any Court.  If such a child were born to just one United States citizen parent, he or she would not only acquire the allegiance and loyalty of the nation on whose soil he or she may be born but also that of his or her foreign parent’s nation and thereby further compromise his or her claim for "natural born Citizen" status.

A study of citizenship and nationality case law, statutes, treatises, and other sources shows that one acquires allegiance and loyalty through citizenship.  Obama has admitted that under the British Nationality Act 1948 when he was born, his father was a British subject/citizen and not a U.S. citizen and that he himself was a British subject/citizen by descent from his father.  Therefore, what is clear and established by his own factual admissions is that Obama cannot satisfy the definition of an Article II "natural born Citizen," for he was born with allegiance and loyalty not only to the United States (assuming he was born here) but to the same degree also to Great Britain.  The best that Obama can be is a Fourteenth Amendment "citizen," assuming that he was born in the United States and assuming that one born subject to a foreign power can also be born subject to the full and complete legal and political jurisdiction of the United States.  In such a case, he would be a subsequent generation "citizen" through his American mother but only a first generation "citizen" because of his foreign father.  If Obama was not born in the United States or if being born in the United States he was not born subject to its jurisdiction, then he is not even a "citizen" under the Fourteenth Amendment or any applicable Congressional Act.  Hence, we can see that Obama is missing the mandatory Article II constitutional status of being at a minimum a second generation "citizen" through both a citizen mother and citizen father.  What creates further allegiance and loyalty problems for Obama is that his birthright British citizenship, which continues in effect until today, also allowed him to gain Kenyan citizenship from the age of 2 to the age of 21 or 23.  Being 47 years old when he was elected, just his Kenyan allegiance and loyalty occupied him for almost one-half of his then life span.

It is Obama’s being only a first generation U.S. citizen because of his father not being a United States citizen at Obama’s birth that caused his divided allegiance and loyalty at birth (United States v. British and Kenyan) and disqualifies him to be President and Commander in Chief.  It is through his father that Obama was born with allegiance and loyalty to Great Britain (which continues until today), which then converted to allegiance and loyalty to Kenya.  It does not matter that his mother was a United States citizen because at birth Obama inherited allegiance and loyalty to a foreign power (Great Britain) from his father just as he would have inherited allegiance and loyalty to a foreign power if born to parents who were both non-United States citizens.  By Obama’s mother being a United States citizen at his birth, Obama was just spared acquiring even another foreign allegiance and loyalty.  Just like a naturalized citizen who -- despite taking an oath renouncing all foreign allegiances and loyalties and which incidentally Obama has never done -- cannot be President because he or she is born with allegiance and loyalty to a foreign country, Obama, born with allegiance and loyalty to a foreign country, also cannot be President.  All this leads to the inescapable conclusion that Obama is not an Article II "natural born Citizen" and is therefore ineligible to be President and Commander in Chief of the Military.
The Biggest Cover-Up In American History

In our previous article, “Exonerating President Obama”, we noted that the only Supreme Court precedent for the meaning of the term “natural born Citizen” in Article II, Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution appears to be the Judge Harlan dissent in the United States v. Wong Kim Ark case. In collaboration with a constitutional attorney, we have examined the subject matter further.
 

We believe that to understand the complexity of this issue it will be essential to have an understanding of the place that the concepts of “Natural Law” and the book titled Law of Nations had obtained in the run up to the War of Independence with Great Britain. These concepts of natural law were commonly used throughout the colonies to explain, defend and justify the colonists’ contentions in our dispute with Great Britain. Our investigation leaves no doubt that the Founding Fathers of our nation clearly understood the meaning of the term “natural born Citizen” and its relation to Natural Law and Law of Nations. When you have finished studying our research you will also understand that these terms were used in the Declaration of Independence as well as in our Constitution and in the constitutions of a large number of states written at the same time as the Constitutional Convention was in session.
 

This background understanding will clarify why the delegates to the 1787 Constitutional Convention elected to include “natural born Citizen” in the eligibility requirements for the Office of the President of our nation and what it truly means.

In this article we will prove beyond all doubt that Barack Hussein Obama is not a natural born Citizen and is thus ineligible to be President of the United States.
 

Read this argument here . . .

 

By: Amil Imani with James H. Hyde

All Ineligible
All three of the 2008 presidential candidates, Obama (aka Soetoro), McCain, and Calero were not eligible under Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 of the U.S. Constitution to serve as Commander-in-Chief. 

Just like a residential purchase of a home is void if fraud in the inducement (where one party conceals a material fact that if people knew about it ahead of time, they would not enter into a residential purchase of a home), the same thing has occurred with the primaries and presidential election on November 4, 2008.

Because these three candidates (Obama (aka Soetoro), McCain, and Calero) were ineligible under Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 of the U.S. Constitution, the 2008 presidential election and its results should be voided.

Regardless of what game of charades people in the mainstream media and people within our federal government are trying to pull.  That is a legal fact that can not be disputed.

Obama has only one US citizen parent.  His father was British subject and a Citizen of Kenya -- as was Obama.

McCain was not born in the mainland US.  John Sidney McCain III was born at the Colon Hospital, located at Avenida Melendez and 2nd Street, Manzanillo Island, City of Colon, Republic of Panama.  The time of birth on the birth certificate issued by Panama Railroad Company (which owned the Colon Hospital) was 5:25 PM and the day and date of birth was Saturday, August 29, 1936.

Calero was not born in the mainland US.  He was born in Nicaragua.
Democrats Try To Change The Rules

On February 28, 2008, Sen. Claire McCaskill (D-MO) introduced a bill to the Senate for consideration.  That bill was known as S. 2678: Children of Military Families Natural Born Citizen Act.  The bill was co-sponsored by Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL), Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-NY), Sen. Robert Menendez (D-NJ), and Sen. Thomas Coburn (R-OK).

 

Bill S. 2678 attempted to change article II, section 1, clause 5 of the Constitution of the United States with reference to the requirements of being a "natural born citizen" and hence; the entitlement to run for President of the United States.  This bill met the same fate that similar attempts to change the Constitution have in the past.  Attempts such as The Natural Born Citizen Act were known to have failed and the text scrubbed from the internet, with only a shadow-cached copy left, that only the most curious public can find.

 

Sen. McCaskill, her co-sponsors, fellow colleagues and legal counsel, contend that the Constitution is ambiguous in article II, section 1 and requires clarification.  But does it? 

Senate Judicial Committee Chairman Says Obama Not Eligible -- And Obama Agrees
On April 10, 2008, Sens. Patrick Leahy (D-VT) and Claire McCaskill (D-MO) introduced Senate Resolution 511  expressing the sense of the U.S. Senate that presidential candidate Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) was a 'natural born Citizen,' as specified in the Constitution and eligible to run for president.  Sen. McCaskill knew Obama was not a U.S. Citizen, that’s why she introduced this bill -- dressing it up to look like it was in Sen. John McCain's cause.

It was during the bill's hearing that Sen. Patrick Leahy, Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, made the following statement:

"Because he was born to American citizens, there is no doubt in my mind that Senator McCain is a natural born citizen," said Leahy.  "I expect that this will be a unanimous resolution of the Senate."

At a Judiciary Committee hearing on April 3, Leahy asked Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff, himself a former Federal judge, if he had doubts that McCain was eligible to serve as President.

"My assumption and my understanding is that if you are born of American parents, you are naturally a natural-born American citizen," Chertoff replied.

"That is mine, too," said Leahy.

What's interesting here is that Sen. Leahy, the Chairman of the Senate Judiciary, confirms that a "natural born" citizen is the child of American citizen parents.

Parents -- that's two. That's BOTH parents.

Every time the words, "citizen" and "parent," are used by Sen. Leahy and Sec. Chertoff, the plural case, "citizens" and "parents," is used.  The plural case is the operative case.

It is Sen. Leahy's opinion -- his own recorded words, in a formal Senate Resolution and on his U. S. Senate website -- that Barack Obama is not a "natural born" citizen, and therefore not eligible to serve as Commander-in-Chief, regardless of his birthplace.

Obama had one American parent --singular -- his mother.  His father was a citizen of Kenya, and a subject of Great Britain.

Obama, himself, "at birth," was a citizen of Kenya, and a subject of Great Britain -- he says so on his own campaign website.  This fact introduces the concept of "divided loyalties," -- the reason the founders created the eligibility requirement in the first place -- a fact that further underlines Obama's ineligibility.

The source of this information is Sen. Leahy's own website.  The webpage contains a statement about the resolution; the resolution, itself; the Statement Of Senator Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.); and an excerpt of Sec. Chertoff's testimony.

The plural word "parents" is used four times.  When used to identify the parents, the word "citizens" is used five times.  That's nine times that Sen. Leahy, on his own website describes the eligibility requirement.  There is NO PLACE in any of these four documents where the singular case of "parent" or "citizen" is used.
  

Note:  Leahy has scrubbed the above referenced document from his official Senate website, but guess what?  I've been on top of these criminals for years -- here's my archived copy.  Now why would a sitting senator scrub a bill he sponsored from his own website?

    

If you go to this scumbag's Senate website and enter "S. R. 511" into the "Search" textbox you get and error message:

   

"We're sorry.  The page you requested cannot be found."
  
Sen. Patrick Leahy is one of the principal conspirators and should be impeached, tried and jailed.

  
The real purpose of this bill was to change article II, section 1, clause 5 of the Constitution of the United States with reference to the requirements of being a "natural born citizen" by the Democratic Party leadership -- paving the way for an Obama run.

Both Leahy and Chertoff avoid addressing the "in the US mainland" (jus solis) element of the eligibility requirement and focus solely on parentage
(Jus sanguinis) in making their arguments and by doing so bring focus to the fundamental reason Obama is not qualified.  He had one American parent and one foreign parent.  Barack Obama is not a natural born citizen -- no matter where he was born.

Obama is a co-signer of this resolution.  So, I guess he too agrees that one needs two American parents to be eligible for POTUS -- except he doesn't care -- after all, he's the Obamamessiah.  Rules don't apply to him.
35 Or 36
Since the 1870s, assorted Congress critters have attempted to define or redefine "natural born" citizen status nearly 30 times!

There were five attempts to re-define "natural born" citizen status since 2001 -- that's six attempts, if you include Sen. Leahy's Resolution for McCain in March 2008.
Rule Of Law

All U. S. military personal and every other American under oath to protect and defend the U. S. Constitution will be duty bound to remove the fraudulent usurper.  This situation is REGARDLESS of votes, electors, media blackouts, high profile embarrassments, state court decisions, supreme court actions or inaction, birth certificates real or forged, or any other documents -- Obama can NOT LEGALLY BE The US President.

No documentation is required.  Everyone should understand and KNOW the answer to the question of what country is the country of which Obama was a natural born citizen.  It is IMPOSSIBLE for Barry Obama, Barry Soetoro, or Barack Hussein Obama II, to be a natural born United States citizen.  Obama can NOT POSSIBLY be a "natural born citizen" of the U. S. because his father, Barack Hussein Obama Senior, was a subject of Great Britain and a citizen of Kenya.  He was a British subject whose citizenship status was governed under Section 32(1) of the The British Nationality Act of 1948.  Even the Obots at FactCheck.org, confirm the British Act governed Obama's status until he was 21 years of age.

 

Kenya’s Constitution specifies that at age 21, Kenyan citizens who possesses citizenship in more than one country automatically lose their Kenyan citizenship unless they formally renounce any non-Kenyan citizenship and swear an oath of allegiance to Kenya.

 

Obama’s American citizen parent, Ann Dunham, had to have been a resident of the United States for 10 years, at least five of which were over the age of 14.  Dunham did not meet that requirement (of the Nationality Act of 1940, revised June 1952) until her 19th birthday in late November of 1961, almost four months after Obama was born.

 

Whether Obama was born in Hawaii, Kenya, or the moon, is irrelevant.  Birth documents, real or forged, are irrelevant.  Yes, even VOTES ARE IRRELEVANT.  Even Supreme Court action, or inaction, is irrelevant.  It is simply FRAUD and illegal for Obama to be put in the office of U. S. President by any means or reason.

Obama is at the epicenter of the greatest national disaster in the history of the United States.  NOTHING that Obama would ever do in the office of U. S. President could ever be anything other than FRAUD and ILLEGAL.

The Electoral College Meets

From the National Archives for the U.S. Electoral College:

 

The Congress is scheduled to meet in joint session in the House of Representatives on January 6, 2009 to conduct the official tally of electoral votes.

The Vice President, as President of the Senate, is the presiding officer. Two tellers are appointed to open, present and record the votes of the States in alphabetical order.

 

The President of the Senate announces the results of the vote and declares which persons, if any, have been elected President and Vice President of the United States. The results are entered into the official journals of the House and Senate.

 

The President of the Senate then calls for objections to be made.

 

(...also referenced by Cornell University Law School, and likely all authorities and credible educational institutions who reference historical fact.)

 

If any objections are registered, they must be submitted in writing and be signed by at least one member of the House and Senate. The House and Senate would withdraw to their respective chambers to consider the merits of any objections according the procedure set out under 3 U.S.C. section 15."

Most unfortunately, the above did not happen, the call was not made, as documented in this video of the actual event.

The Facts Don't Lie
Irrefutable Proof that Obama is Not Eligible to be President of the United States, the Facts Don't Lie!
Spiked!
Charges that Barack Obama is not a natural born citizen of the U.S. and, therefore, constitutionally ineligible to serve as president top the list of the 10 most "spiked" or underreported stories of the last year, according to an annual survey.

At the end of each year, news organizations typically present their retrospective replays of what they consider to have been the top news stories in the previous 12 months.

The authors have long considered it far more newsworthy to publicize the most important unreported or underreported news events of the year -- to highlight perhaps for one last time major news stories that were undeservedly "spiked" by the establishment press.

Joseph Farah has sponsored "Operation Spike" every year since 1988.

Here are the picks for the 10 most underreported stories of 2008 -- and four of them are about Obama.
Allegiance Issues
The definition of "natural born citizen" at the framing came from the jus solis of the English common law

"When Barack Obama Jr. was born on Aug. 4,1961, in Honolulu, Kenya was a British colony, still part of the United Kingdom’s dwindling empire.  As a Kenyan native, Barack Obama Sr. was a British subject whose citizenship status was governed by The British Nationality Act of 1948.  That same act governed the status of Obama Sr.‘s children.

Jus sanguinis (Latin for "right of blood"), by which nationality or citizenship is not determined by place of birth, but by having an ancestor who is a national or citizen of the state.

Jus soli (Latin for "right of soil"), or birthright citizenship, by which nationality or citizenship can be recognized to any individual born in the territory of the related state.

This is the case we have in the US now: If you're an illegal alien, and you "break your water" and give birth ON US SOIL, that child is a US Citizen.  The history of American citizenship has long been centered around MEN.  While the 1790 Naturalized Act included all (white) "persons" and so included women, it also declared that "the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in the United States...."

This prevented the automatic grant of citizenship to children born abroad whose mother, but not father, had resided in the United States.  As a course of Congressional law, this was the case until 1868, although citizenship court cases in New York and other states as early as 1802 extended the right to women as well in judicial manner.  Legally, until the ratification of the 14th Amendment, Citizenship (NOT to be confused with Natural Born Citizenship which is NOT addressed in the 14th Amendment) was inherited exclusively through the father.  In terms of Naturalization, the US Congress did not remove this until 1934, when the mother could extend her US citizenship to her children born overseas (with age requirements as well).

Remember also that the 14th Amendment did NOT resolve all citizenship issues.  Children of immigrants were barred from citizenship until Wong Kim Ark in 1898, but many rights were STILL not completely granted to this group until 1952.  Also, in Elk v Wilkins, the SCOTUS felt the Indians owed alliance to their tribes and thus were NOT part of the United States.  Congress however extended Native Indians birth citizenship in 1924.  Subsequently, that same right has been extended to Puerto Rico, Guam and other US Territories.  Illegal aliens born ON US SOIL are extended US citizenship as a matter of Executive policy exercised through the State Department.  But no Congressional law or SCOTUS decision officially and specifically recognizes the group of "illegal alien" and Citizenship rights.  So let's look at British Law (PAST AND PRESENT):

The British Nationality Act of 1981 came into force on January 1, 1983.  Prior to 1983, British nationality was only be transmitted from the father through one generation only, and parents were required to be married.  This is jus sanguinis or possibly even a type of lex soli in Obama Sr's case, but not jus soli (unless you want to give the Kenyan birth theory credence...).

Because England has LONG been in the business of worldwide Colonization, this policy has been in place since AT LEAST the year 1350.  Going back BEFORE America was "discovered" is statute 25 Edw. III st. 2 (Status of Children Born Abroad Act of 1350) that naturalized children of English parents born overseas.  THIS IS JUS SANGUINIS AND IS STILL IN PLACE TODAY.  This was in place throughout the British empire -- regardless of birthplace, because of Colonization in FAR-OFF LANDS such as "New England", Hong Kong, India and British East Africa (later subdivided and in part known as "Kenya").  If you want to consider the specific case of BHO Sr. and his heirs, entitlement to the status of British subject/citizen was first codified by the British Nationality and Status of Aliens Act 1914.  Fast forwarding to CURRENT LAW, just like the US today, the UK today is currently BOTH jus solis and jus sanguinis.  Taking the position that BHO was born ON US soil, he was born a US Citizen while also UK Citizen, later a Kenyan Citizen (and maybe even an Indonesian Citizen).  The UK/Kenyan bond of allegiance did NOT dissolve until he turned 21 years of age, per the Kenyan Constitution.  BUT keep in mind that ALL of those countries WOULD restore his Citizenship RIGHT NOW if he desired it -- ALL of their Constitutions and nationality laws permit this.  THAT IS THE TWO-WAY BOND OF ALLEGIANCE.  So yes, there ARE allegiance issues with him holding DUAL or MULTIPLE NATIONALITY for nearly half his life!
Adoption Implications
U. .S law makes it impossible for a parent to PERMANENTLY renounce a minor’s US citizenship.  The US is a signatory to the Hague Convention’s standards for international adoption, and those rules do allow the legal parents and guardians to renounce any former citizenship of a custodial minor.  Upon reaching the age of 18, the minor can go before the appropriate US State Dept Official and apply for re-instatement of citizenship, and swear allegiance to the US. 

There is no evidence that Obama has done so, and even if he did, he would then be a NATURALIZED citizen and will forever have lost any natural born citizen status to be president.
Perception

Several times a week I get an email like this one:

 

----- Original Message -----
From: Senator Robert P. Casey, Jr.
To: xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx@msn.com
Sent: Tuesday, March 10, 2009 7:45 PM
Subject: Response from Senator Casey

Dear Mr. XXXXXX:

Thank you for taking the time to contact me about President Obama and his eligibility to be President under Article II of the Constitution.  I appreciate hearing from all Pennsylvanians about the issues that matter most to them.

Article II of the Constitution states that "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."  This clause is generally interpreted to mean that one must be born as a U.S. citizen on American soil in order to become president.  During the 2008 presidential election, concerns were raised about the ability of both Senator McCain and then-Senator Obama to meet this constitutional requirement.  Questions about Senator McCain's eligibility centered around his birth on a naval base in the Panama Canal Zone, but a Senate Resolution, S. Res. 511, passed by unanimous consent on April 30, 2008, officially recognized Senator McCain as a natural born citizen.

While not every American voted for Mr. Obama, and it is unlikely that that you or I will agree with every decision he makes while in office, I am confident that Mr. Obama meets all the constitutional requirements to be our 44th president.  Mr. Obama has posted a copy of his birth certificate on his campaign website and submitted an additional copy to the independent website FactCheck.org.  The birth certificate demonstrates that he was born in Honolulu, Hawaii in 1961, thereby making him a natural-born citizen eligible to be president.

I share your strong belief in upholding the Constitution and want to thank you for sharing your concern with me.  Please do not hesitate to contact me in the future about this or any other matter of importance to you.

If you have access to the Internet, I encourage you to visit my web site, http://casey.senate.gov.  I invite you to use this online office as a comprehensive resource to stay up-to-date on my work in Washington, request assistance from my office or share with me your thoughts on the issues that matter most to you and to Pennsylvania.

Sincerely,
Bob Casey
United States Senator

 

Sen. Casey parrots the the "official story" -- his birth certificate -- independent website FactCheck.org -- Honolulu.  If you believe that, you're "mainstream."  You're OK!

 

Where to begin?

 

1.  Obama has never, ever released his birth certificate to anybody at any time.   As a matter of fact he's spent over a million dollars and has legal teams in a dozen states fighting its release.  So, Sen. Casey is factually incorrect when he says, "Mr. Obama has posted a copy of his birth certificate on his campaign website."  He hasn't.

 

2.  FactCheck.org is hardly independent and is in the same financial stream as the unrepentant domestic terrorist, Bill Ayers' Woods Fund.  FactCheck.org also incorrectly identifies the website document as Obama's "birth certificate."  It isn't.  FactCheck.org is factually incorrect in its analysis of Obama's "birth certificate."  Here is an analysis of FactCheck.org's "birth certificate" page.

 

3.  Obama's birth certificate (the real one) only affects Obama's eligibility if it shows he was born outside the US mainland.  Obama is not eligible to be POTUS because his father was a British subject and a Kenyan citizen -- as was Barack Obama -- AT BIRTH!  Obama admits this on his own website, using a FactCheck.org reference -- Barack Obama is not a "natural born citizen."

 

Notice how FactCheck.org keeps popping up as the organization that stamps their imprimatur on  Obama's eligibility. 

 

Sen. Casey's understanding of the facts are incorrect -- as is his conclusion.  There is no "birth certificate" and Obama is not a "natural born citizen."  Nothing anybody does is going to change that.

 

Sen. Casey is mainstream.  Sen. Casey is OK!  But, Sen. Casey's facts are just plain wrong!

 

I know Obama is fighting the release of his birth certificate tooth-and-nail -- and Internet geniuses, like Ben Smith, assign me to "the fringe" with the UFO-ers, while also getting his facts wrong in the process.

 

I know that as a British subject and a Kenyan citizen for 21 years, Obama has the "divided loyalties" that caused the founders to place the "natural born" language in the US Constitution, in the first place.  The founders specifically wanted to bar Brits!

 

Obama's behavior towards the Brits in his first four months underlines the dangers of "divided loyalties."

 

Now, start adding in Obama's other loose ends:

 

Was Grandma Sarah in the delivery room at Mombasa, Kenya, like she says she was?
What was Anna doing in Seattle days after giving birth?
Did Lolo adopt Barry -- was/is Barry a citizen of Indonesia?
Was Barry's attendance at Occidental financed by a foreign-student scholarship?
Did Barry travel to Pakistan on an Indonesian passport?
Did Barry ever sell drugs?
And, no documentation -- none, nada, zilch!

 

I'm sure there's more, but you get the idea.  There's plenty to question about this guy. 

 

I believe many Americans, including Sen. Casey are just simply afraid to turn this rock over -- they're terrified at what they might find -- and where it might lead.

U.S. Rep. Bill Posey
A new member of Congress arrived in Washington to a flood of questions from his constituency about Barack Obama's eligibility to be president.  Was he really born in the United States, and was he qualified under the Constitution's requirement that the office be occupied only by a "natural born" citizen?

So U.S. Rep. Bill Posey did what most congressmen would do regarding a subject of grave concern to their voters.  He proposed a bill that would require future presidential candidates to document their eligibility, and that action has earned him scorn and ridicule.

U.S. Rep. Neil Abercrombie, D-HI, a close, personal friend of Obama's mom and dad, has gone so far as to suggest that Posey's judgment is skewed, saying, "It's one thing to try to be responsive to your constituents, no matter how marginal.  I understand that.  But to take it to the point of putting it into a bill -- you open yourself up, then, to having your judgment questioned."

Abercrombie, whose judgment is obviously beyond question, said legislation generally is to "address common issues or concerns.  The citizenship of someone who has reached the point of running for president of the United States is not really an issue," Abercrombie said, ending all debate (sarcasm off).

"Why'd I do this?"  Posey wrote on his blog.  "Well, for a number of reasons and the more and the more I get called names by leftwing activists, partisan hacks and political operatives for doing it, the more and more I think I did the right thing."

He said, "I've been called some pretty nasty things.  That's fine.  But none of these tolerant people actually want to discuss the issue at hand … whether or not a presidential candidate should have to file these documents with the government.

"I could easily fill up a page listing all the activities an American needs to show their ID for … everything from playing youth soccer to getting a drivers license, buying cigarettes and alcohol, to opening bank accounts and even playing little league. So I was pretty surprised to find out that to run for president, despite the constitutional requirement and the media scrubbing that goes on, it's not required for a candidate to file these documents when they submit their statement of candidacy with the FEC," he said.

"I thought I could offer a solution to this question on eligibility," he wrote.  "There's nothing anyone can do about changing past elections… the president won. All the lawsuits in the world are not going to change that. But if what some folks are worried about -- that presidential candidates don't have to submit to the same documentation that average folks have to submit to -- well, then we can change that for the next election."

Posey cited an AOL poll that found three-quarters of Americans participating in the survey agreed.

"I'm willing to discuss this issue with anyone who wants to talk in a rational manner, but I WILL NOT engage in name calling, smear campaigns, or any other venomous activity," Posey wrote.  "For one thing, it's childish.  But on another level, we're supposed to be able to have a civil debate on the issues in this country."

Posey's spokesman, George Cecala, said the congressman has no plans to withdraw the proposal, even though it may not get a lot of support.

Abercrombie told the Times that Posey's suggestion is "the kind of sick politics that permeates a certain portion of the electorate."

Here are some comments from the geniuses in Congress.
Congressional Ad Mainstreams Obama Eligibility
The Western Journalism blog reports that while much of the media and political establishment relegate presidential eligibility issues to the "fringe," a congressman is trying to make his bill requiring future presidential candidates prove "natural born citizenship" a major campaign issue.

Rep. Bill Posey, R-Fla., recently dispatched a message to constituents and supporters asking for help in an effort to defeat House Speaker Nancy Pelosi in the 2010 election.

He introduced the proposal saying, "I wrote to you not long ago asking that you stand behind me in defending our nation’s constitution.  … My bill (H.R. 1503) would require all candidates for president in the future to provide documentation (such as a birth certificate) to prove they are natural born citizens of the United States, has resulted in the national liberal left making me Target #1 for defeat in the 2010 congressional elections.

"As I said before," he continued, "I’m being lambasted by the media and late-night comics and Nancy Pelosi’s team has already paid for tens of thousands of automated phone calls in my district and are raising a multi-million-dollar campaign war chest to defeat me."

As more and more people come to understand Obama's far-left agenda and mysterious background, they question his eligibility.  The "fringe" is now composed of a huge segment of the American population -- and it is growing.

An October 23rd item reported that three-in-ten Americans think their current head of state was not born in the United States, according to a poll by Angus Reid Strategies.  That's almost a third of all Americans.

Now, Goddard's Political Wire points to a new Public Policy Polling survey in Arkansas shows that only 45% of voters in the state say they believe Obama was born in this country, while 31% say they think he was not and 24% are unsure.

"Arkansas is the first of four states where we've polled the birther issue (Virginia, North Carolina, and Colorado were the others) and found less than half of respondents confident that Obama is a natural born citizen.  The numbers are particularly dramatic among Republicans with 49% saying Obama was not born here to just 23% who grant that he was."
The Facts, The Law, The Inescapable Conclusion
The Post & Email says Barack Hussein Obama has written 2 biographies about himself and has publically spoken of his origins in many public speeches.  He claims as his biological and legal father, a man who went by the name Barrack Hussein Obama.  That is the more common Kenyan spelling of the name.  His claimed father also went by the names "Barak" and "Barack", the former when he penned an article in an journal on economics, in Nairobi, in the 60’s, the latter when he registered at the University of Hawaii.  The latter form appears on the electronic image of Obama’s alleged Certification of Live Birth.

If we apply the provisions of British and Kenyan law to the simple facts, which Obama claims about himself -- though in truth there is not documentation that the public has seen to confirm the truth of these facts -- the inescapable conclusion is that Obama was born a British subject and is now, still to this day, a British citizen.

The laws and regulations which lead to this conclusion are the official British Consular Registry Stipulations, the British Nationality Act of 1948 and of 1981, Kenya Constitution, and the Kenya Independence Act of 1963.

These Acts apply to Barack Hussein Obama, Jr. -- Obama was born a British citizen-by-descent, and remains a British Overseas Citizen even today -- if his birth story is true.  He was also a citizen of Kenya prior to age 21, and may still be one.  He seems also to have been a citizen of Indonesia from 1966-1980’s, but this is uncertain.

Continue reading here . . .
Four Supreme Court Cases Define "Natural Born Citizen"
The Post & Email has in several articles mentioned that the Supreme Court of the United States has given the definition of what a "natural born citizen" is.  Since being a natural born citizen is an objective qualification and requirement of office for the U.S. President, it is important for all U.S. Citizens to understand what this term means.

Let’s cut through all the opinion and speculation, all the "he says," "she says," fluff, and go right to the irrefutable, constitutional authority on all terms and phrases mentioned in the U.S. Constitution: the Supreme Court of the United States.

First, let me note that there are 4 such cases which speak of the notion of "natural born citizenship":

The Venus, 12 U.S. 8 Cranch 253 253 (1814)
    

"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 indigenes are those born in the country of parents who are citizens.   Society not being able to subsist and to perpetuate itself but by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights.

"The inhabitants, as distinguished from citizens, are strangers who are permitted to settle and stay in the country.  Bound by their residence to the society, they are subject to the laws of the state while they reside there, and they are obliged to defend it…

    
Shanks v. Dupont, 28 U.S. 3 Pet. 242 242 (1830)
   

Ann Scott was born in South Carolina before the American revolution, and her father adhered to the American cause and remained and was at his death a citizen of South Carolina.  There is no dispute that his daughter Ann, at the time of the Revolution and afterwards, remained in South Carolina until December, 1782.  Whether she was of age during this time does not appear.  If she was, then her birth and residence might be deemed to constitute her by election a citizen of South Carolina.  If she was not of age, then she might well be deemed under the circumstances of this case to hold the citizenship of her father, for children born in a country, continuing while under age in the family of the father, partake of his national character as a citizen of that country.  Her citizenship, then, being prima facie established, and indeed this is admitted in the pleadings, has it ever been lost, or was it lost before the death of her father, so that the estate in question was, upon the descent cast, incapable of vesting in her?  Upon the facts stated, it appears to us that it was not lost and that she was capable of taking it at the time of the descent cast.

   
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. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents.

   
United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898)
  

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.

   
I'd like to add to these, Perkins v. Elg, the importance of which is that it actually gives examples of what a "natural born citizen" of the U.S. is; what a "citizen" of the U.S. is; and what a "native-born citizen" of the U. S. is.

In this case, the U. S. Supreme Court found that a "natural born citizen" is a person
who is born of two U.S. citizen parents AND born in the mainland of U.S.


Finally it should be noted, that to define a term is to indicate the category or class of things which it signifies.  In this sense, the Supreme Court of the United States has never applied the term "natural born citizen" to any other category than "those born in the country of parents who are citizens thereof."

Hence every U.S. Citizen must accept this definition or categorical designation, and fulfill his constitutional duties accordingly.  No member of Congress, no judge of the Federal Judiciary, no elected or appointed official in Federal or State government has the right to use any other definition; and if he does, he is acting unlawfully.
Mario Apuzzo, Esq.’s Comments
Smrstrauss at July 29, 2012 5:38 PM,

You made the following statements which I quote. My responses follow:

1. “You are quoting Vattel, but there is no evidence that the writers of the US Constitution followed him.”

You are wrong. I have explained in my briefs to the courts and on my blog that the historical record shows that the Founders and Framers looked to Vattel for their ideas on natural law and the law of nations. These fundamental laws, and not the English common law, were incorporated into the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, foundational documents of our republic.

The Founders and Framers did not look to Vattel only in a general way on natural law and the law of nations, but also specifically for their definition of a “natural born Citizen.” As examples only and not as an exhaustive list, during the 1789 Ramsay-Smith congressional debate on whether Representative William Smith was at least a “Citizen of the United States” for seven-years so as to be eligible to be a representative under Article I, Section 2, Smith relied upon Vattel to show that he was such a “citizen.” David Ramsay in 1789 said that birthright citizenship after July 4, 1776 belonged only to the children of “citizens.” St. George Tucker in 1803 said the same. Our first law school at the College and William and Mary, along with many other early colleges, taught courses on Vattel, the law of nations, which they considered to be “national law.” These courses specifically provided explanations of Vattel’s definitions of “citizen” and “natural born citizen” under natural law and the law of nations.

In my presentations, I have also explained that several U.S. Supreme Court and lower court cases specifically cited and quoted or paraphrased Vattel and his Section 212 definition of a “natural-born citizen.” Cases that cited and quoted Vattel for the definition of a “natural born Citizen” are The Venus, 12 U.S. (8 Cranch) 253, 289 (1814) (C.J. Marshall concurring) (cited and quoted Vattel’s Section 212 definition of a “natural-born citizen”); Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. 393 (1857) (J. Daniels concurring) (cited and quoted Vattel’s Section 212 definition of a “natural-born citizen”); Ex parte Reynolds, 20 F.Cas. 582, 5 Dill. 394, No. 11,719 (C.C.W.D.Ark 1879) (cited and quoted Vattel’s Section 212 definition of a “natural-born citizen”); and United States v. Ward, 42 F.320 (C.C.S.D.Cal. 1890) (cited and quoted Vattel’s Section 212 definition of a “natural-born citizen”). Cases that paraphrased his definition are Inglis v. Sailors’ Snug Harbor, 28 U.S. 99 (1830) (a child inherits the citizenship of his parents); Shanks v. Dupont, 28 U.S. 242, 245 (1830) (a child inherits the citizenship of his parents); Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162, 167-68 (1875) (said that the Founders and Framers were familiar with the “common-law” definition of a “natural-born citizen;” the American “common-law” definition that the Court gave was a paraphrase of Vattel’s Section 212 definition of a “natural-born citizen” and not that of the English common law’s definition of a “natural born subject”) and U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, 708 (1898) (cited and quoted Minor and its Vattel paraphrased American “common-law” definition of a “natural-born citizen”). These cases, along with other historical evidence, show that Obama’s supporters are wrong when they say that Vattel did not provide the Founders and Framers with the definition of a “natural born Citizen.” On the contrary, this evidence demonstrates that it was, indeed, Vattel who provided the Founders and Framers with the definition of a “natural born Citizen.” Indeed, this historical and case law evidence conclusively demonstrates that the definition of a “natural born Citizen” can be traced to Vattel’s Section 212 and was handed down from there to the Founders and Framers when they wrote the Constitution and continued to be confirmed in case law of our U.S. Supreme Court and lower court down to even the 1898 seminal case on citizenship, Wong Kim Ark.

2. “He [Vattel] is not even mentioned once in the Federalist Papers, while the common law was mentioned about twenty times.”

The specific issue is the meaning of a “natural born Citizen,” not the English common law in some general way. The English common law may be mentioned, but there is no evidence that the Founders and Framers used the English common law to define a “natural born citizen.” On the contrary, and only as one example, we know from his Federalist No. 42 that Madison called the English common law “a dishonorable and illegitimate guide” in defining terms in the Constitution. James Madison sat on the convention committee that drafted Article II presidential eligibility. Hence, he would not have relied upon the English common law to define a “natural born Citizen” or a “Citizen of the United States.” Moreover, the law of nations is not only mentioned many times in the Federalist Papers, but was actually incorporated in Article I, Section 8, Clause 10 as part of Article III’s “Laws of the United States.” The English common law cannot make the same claim.3. “And the Wong Kim Ark decision was AFTER the Minor vs Happersett decision, and hence would have overturned it (if the Minor vs Happersett decision was actually a ruling on the matter, and it isn’t. It is merely dicta).”

Minor did confirm through a binding precedent what the American “common-law” meaning of a “natural-born citizen” was, i.e., “[a]t 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.” Second, Wong Kim Arkdid not abandon or amend this American “common-law” meaning of a “natural born Citizen.” Rather, it interpreted and construed the Fourteenth Amendment and thereby defined a “citizen of the United States” at birth thereunder. It did not amend the meaning of an Article II “natural born Citizen.”

4. “And the Wong Kim Ark decision ruled six to two (one not voting) that the meaning of Natural Born comes from the common law (thus NOT from Vattel), and that it refers to the PLACE of birth (not the parents), and that every child born in the USA except for the children of foreign diplomats is Natural Born.”

First, you are confused about what the “common law” means. The “common law” does not only come from the English. It also comes from the law of nations. Second. Wong Kim Ark used the colonial English “common law” as an aid in interpreting, construing, and applying the “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. It did not use the English “common law” to define an Article II “natural born Citizen.” From that English “common law,” it concluded that every child that is born in the United States and “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” (which at a minimum necessarily excluded children born to diplomats and invading armies), is a “citizen of the United States” at birth. The Court did not hold that such a child is necessarily a “natural born Citizen” also, and it would not have given that Wong Kim Ark also expressly recognized that a person has to satisfy the American “common law” standard of a “natural born Citizen” and not only be a “citizen” in order to be born with that status.

5. “THAT is why Meese had that quotation in his book. It corresponds to a ruling of the US Supreme Court. It does not differ from the ruling of the Supreme Court.”

The quote that Obama supporters like you plaster all over the internet as being made by Edwin Meese was not made by him, but rather by James C. Ho. Ho’s love affair with Wong Kim Ark jus soli puts Ho in a bind. Ho argues that, under English common law jus soli, simply being born in the United States makes one a born citizen of the United States which in turn makes one a “natural born Citizen.” First, he cannot explain if mere birth in the United States is sufficient to make on a “natural born Citizen,” why did the Founders and Framers in Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 say “natural born Citizen” rather than “born Citizen.” Second, Ho cannot explain why if just being born a citizen makes one a “natural born Citizen,” why should Wong Kim Ark have concluded that persons born abroad to citizen parents who are also born “citizens of the United States” are not “natural born Citizens.” Ho offers no explanation why Wong Kim Ark gave birth on a soil so much more power than birth to parents? Not having an answer, Ho simply suggests that we not paying attention to Wong Kim Ark when it comes to the question of whether our citizens born abroad to citizen parents are “natural born Citizens.” He submits that they are. So Ho uses Wong Kim Ark anyway he wants, given the particular needs of the moment. He takes from the decision what he needs and throws away what he does not.

So, as we can readily see, there is no merit to any of your assertions.

Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
--
Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
Law Offices of Mario Apuzzo
185 Gatzmer Avenue
Jamesburg, New Jersey 08831
Phone: (732) 521-1900
Fax: (732) 521-3906
Email: apuzzo@erols.com
Dr. Herb Titus On "Natural Born" Citizen
       
     
Stephen Tonchen's Presidential Eligibility Primer
Punahou alum Stephen Tonchen document is subject to ongoing updating as relevant new information becomes available.

The most current version is found here.

This Primer, by Stephen Tonchen, should not be confused with any other primer.  The Tonchen Primer first appeared on the Internet in June 2009.

UPDATE (4/27/2011): Now that Barack Obama has released his long-form birth certificate, questions 31 through 34 in this Primer have become moot.  They are retained for posterity purposes only.  The other 33 questions and corresponding answers remain entirely unaffected.  Those questions have acquired even greater importance and relevance, now that Obama's newly-released long-form birth certificate has further substantiated his dual nationality at birth.

Note:  Obama's long-form birth certificate remains as bogus as his short-form, but it locks him into the fact that it clearly states Barack Obama of Kenya is his father, documenting Obama's dual nationality.

Born a Brit -- he's not legit!
Arizona Eligibility Bill Introduced -- Numerous Sponsors
If Barack Obama wants to run for re-election he would need to produce proof of both his U.S. birth and citizenship to get on the ballot in Arizona, at least under a measure being pushed by a state legislator -- State of Arizona HB 2441.

Rep. Judy Burges, R-Skull Valley, is crafting a measure to require anyone running for president or vice president to provide proof to the Arizona Secretary of State's Office that they are legally eligible to seek the office.  The U.S. Constitution requires the president -- and, by extension, the vice president -- to be "a natural born" citizen.

More to the point, Burges would require the secretary of state to verify, independently, that the information is accurate, "and if it's not certifiable, then that person's name would not go on the ballot," she said.

Burges told Capitol Media Services the measure is not necessarily about Obama, though she admitted she has her doubts that he was born in Hawaii as he claims and, even if so, that he can show he is a "natural born" citizen.

"With what's happening throughout the world, we need to make sure that our candidates are certifiable," she said.

Burges did not support Obama and is not a fan.  And she said if, in fact, he is not a "natural born" citizen, that makes him suspect.

"When someone bows to the king of Saudi Arabia and they apologize for our country around the world, I have a problem with that," she said.

Continue reading here . . .
The Son Of A Temporary Resident
Mary C. Curtis reports law professor James Chen, dean of the University of Louisville Brandeis School of Law, has worked for both Barack Obama and U.S. Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, though not at the same time.

He offered a unique perspective on the subject of the Obama presidency and race at a gathered in Louisville, Ky.

Chen, who served on the Harvard Law Review when Obama was its first black president, and then went on to clerk for Thomas, said of the two men, "if you had to say which person's life story is closer to the absolute center of the African American experience, hands down, it's Clarence Thomas."  The only black Supreme Court justice now on the court, he noted, was a product of the deep, rural South, speaks Gullah and is "descended of the longest line of the darkest-skinned, least-regarded members of that community."

When you look at the profile of the first African American president of the United States, Chen said, you see he's the son of a temporary resident, was born in Hawaii, the least demographically typical of American states, and has lived abroad.

"The son of a temporary resident."

Interesting that it's now getting easier to come right out with it.
Cpt. Pamela Barnett's Scribd File
  
NATURAL Born Citizen Chapter of Never Vetted by Pamela Barnett
    
Saturday Night Live Scorches Obama

      

    
The end of this video is quite revealing.  The hip, and very left-leaning, New York audience laughs heartily at jokes about Obama's birthplace.  One year ago, this skit would have been verboten, and certainly described as racist.
The De Facto President of the United States
Barack Obama eligibility supporters maintain that he is an Article II “natural born Citizen” and therefore eligible to be President. But to do so, they have blended together, through ignorance or intent, “citizen,” “born citizen,” and “natural born Citizen,” and denied that there is a critical constitutional distinction between these phrases. These supporters and enablers, who I call the citizen/born citizen/natural born citizen conflationists, in constitutionally supporting Barack Obama to be president, have allowed our Constitution, the rule of law, and our nation to be violated. Allow me to explain.

In order to understand the meaning of an Article II “natural born Citizen,” we have to understand the constitutional distinction between a “citizen,” “born citizen,” and “natural born Citizen.” The first constitutional distinction is between “citizen” and “natural born Citizen.” In Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 the Framers provided in pertinent part: “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.” Here, we see the Framers distinguished between a “natural born Citizen” and a “Citizen of the United States.” There is no other type of “citizen” mentioned. So, our Constitution, Acts of Congress, and treaties, call “citizens,” or members of the United States, either “natural born Citizens” or “citizens of the United States.” As we shall see, the former are defined by American common law (the definition being based on natural law and the law of nations) and the latter by the Fourteenth Amendment (the definition being in part based on colonial English common law), Congressional Acts, or treaties. From this we can see that a “citizen” is either a “natural born Citizen” or a “citizen of the United States.” Because of the requirement of having to be born in the country to citizen parents, a “natural born Citizen” will necessarily also qualify under these sources as a “citizen of the United States.”

Article II refers to a “natural born Citizen,” but does not define it. In fact, the definition of a “natural born Citizen” is not found anywhere in the original or amended Constitution or any Act of Congress. Rather, it is found in the common law upon which the Founders and Framers relied at the time of the adoption and ratification of the Constitution. Under this common law, the three constituent elements of being a “natural-born citizen” are time (at the moment of birth), birth place (in the country), and birth parents (U.S. citizen parents), what I will call birth time, birth country, and birth parents. See Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162, 167-68 (1875) (the unanimous U.S. Supreme Court explained that the definition of a “natural-born citizen” is not found in the Constitution and confirmed that “[a]t 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”); United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, 679-80 (1898) (the majority and dissent agreed on the Minor definition of a “natural-born citizen,” but they disagreed as to the definition of a Fourteenth Amendment “citizen of the United States” at birth). Given this settled common law definition of a “natural born Citizen,” these elements are both necessary and sufficient to make a “natural born Citizen.” In the definition, the parents have to have as a minimum the status of a “citizen” (“born citizen” or “natural born Citizen” is not necessary) in order to produce a “natural born Citizen.” Note that Minor said that at common law, if one was not a “natural-born citizen,” one was an alien or foreigner. This means that if these persons qualified, the Fourteenth Amendment, Act of Congress, or treaty could make them a “citizen of the United States.”

These historical and legal developments inform that at common law there is a critical distinction between a “citizen” and a “natural born citizen.” In fact, natural law and the law of nations have always recognized this distinction. See Emer de Vattel, The Law of Nations, Section 212 (London 1797) (1st ed. Neuchatel 1758) (“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.” http://www.lonang.com/exlibris/vattel/vatt-119.htm ). At common law, if one was a “citizen” but not a “natural born citizen,” then, except for the original “citizens” who became such by the Declaration of Independence and by adhering to the American Revolution, one had to have been alien born and become a “citizen” by naturalization statute. Natural law and the law of nations, along with both English and American common law, have also always recognized that a child gains allegiance and citizenship by either being born on the soil of a country (jus soli) or by being born to parents of that country (jus sanguinis). The Founders and Framers accepted the distinction between a “citizen” and a “natural born Citizen” and understood that birth country and birth parents produce in the child allegiance from the moment of birth. Because they expected the President and Commander in Chief of the Military to have absolute allegiance from birth only to the United States, they applied the distinction to the Office of President. In fact, they used it when they made the “natural born Citizen” clause a requirement of eligibility for the Office of President (the XII Amendment extends it to the Office of Vice-President) and for no other office, requiring, for those to born after the adoption of the Constitution and who would aspire to be President and Commander in Chief of the Military, that they be not only a “citizen,” but a “natural born Citizen.” (The grandfather clause of Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 allowed “Citizens of the United States” to be eligible to be President, provided they had that status “at the time of Adoption of this Constitution.”) The English did not nor did they have to demand such allegiance from their would-be Kings, for their Kings did not have to qualify from among the people. Rather, they lay their claim to the throne by royal blood. Rejecting as a requisite to be President royal blood, the Founders and Framers instead settled with the natural elements of birth time, birth country, and birth parents, and made their distinction between a “citizen” who was also a “natural born Citizen” and a “citizen” who was not. And it was the combination of these three elements at the time of birth which assured them that all means of inheriting allegiance and citizenship (birth country and birth parents) were united at the moment of birth to produce in the child absolute allegiance only to the United States.

The next constitutional distinction is between “born citizen” and “natural born Citizen.” These same Obama eligibility supporters add the word “born” to the word “citizen” and want us to accept that combination as the definition of a “natural born Citizen.” But those who assert that a “natural born Citizen” is just any “born citizen” commit two errors: a textual error of missing the point (or by refusing to see the point) that the clause is “natural born Citizen,” not “born citizen” and a definitional error of not understanding (or refusing to accept) that “born citizen” is neither a definition nor a description of the clause “natural born Citizen.”

First, regarding the textual error, as I have already explained in other articles such as Logic and Defining the “Natural Born Citizen” Clause, at http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2012/11/logic-and-defining-natural-born-citizen.html , we cannot define a clause by merely repeating parts of the clause itself. For example, if we wanted to know what the definition of a “natural born German Shepherd” is, we would not accept as a correct definition the answer that it is a “born German Shepherd.” To argue that a “natural born German Shepherd” is a “born German Shepherd” is tautological, for it only repeats part of the form of the clause and does not define the clause. Such an argument does nothing more than to state the obvious that a “natural born German Shepherd” is a “born German Shepherd.” Likewise, a “natural born Citizen,” is, of course, a “born citizen,” but saying so does not define the clause.

Second, in this “born German Shepherd” definition example, a rational person should also want to know what happened to the qualifier “natural” and its meaning. Does not that word tell us something about under what conditions the “born German shepherd” must come into existence? Likewise, those rational persons who want to know the meaning of a “natural born Citizen” should want to know what happened to the qualifier “natural,” and whether that qualifier also requires that certain conditions be met in order to have a “natural born Citizen.” Actually, these persons would be correct in raising such questions. Given the meaning of a “natural born Citizen,” with its three constituent elements of birth time, birth country, and birth parents, we know that the word “natural” when combined with “born citizen” demands that all three elements be satisfied in order to have a “natural born Citizen.” We might be willing to include others as “born citizens” and Congress has the naturalization powers to do so and has done so throughout our history. But that we are willing to tolerate by the application of some law certain persons as “born citizens” does not, given the applicable common law definition of the clause and its requirements, make them “natural born Citizens”

Regarding the definitional error, the clauses “natural born Citizen” and “born Citizen” are conclusions, birth statuses that do not provide sufficient factual information as to how one arrives at the conclusions or statuses themselves. Rather, to know if one satisfies the status of being a “natural born Citizen,” one must start with the definition of a “natural born Citizen,” identifying its constituent elements. If one satisfies those elements, then one is a “natural born Citizen.” And to know if one satisfies the status of being a “born citizen,” one must also start with the available definitions, however many there are and whether provided by the Fourteenth Amendment or Congressional Acts, of a “born citizen,” identifying their constituent elements. If one satisfies those elements, then one is a “born citizen.” But obviously, we are defining two different clauses which necessarily contain different definitions and requirements. The clause does not tell us how one arrives at being a “born citizen,” which process must be equivalent to the process by which one arrives at being a “natural born Citizen” if the two clauses are to mean the same thing. Hence, to simply use other legal mechanisms of citizenship which produce a “born citizen” and proclaim that they too produce a “natural born Citizen,” simply because they, like “natural born Citizens,” are “born citizens,” is to err. It is to err because being a “born citizen” is only a necessary consequent (a conclusion or status) of being a “natural born Citizen” and by itself, because it is based on a different definition, represents a different class of citizen, one produced by the Fourteenth Amendment or Congressional Act and not by American common law.

There is only one process or means by which one can be a “natural born Citizen,” i.e., by satisfying the necessary and sufficient conditions of birth time (at the moment of birth), birth country (born in the United States), and birth parents (born to U.S. citizen parents). Simply stated, any “born citizen” who does not satisfy these three conditions, while still being a “born citizen” under some legal mechanism (e.g., under the Fourteenth Amendment or Congressional Act), is not a “natural born Citizen” under American common law which is the natural law/law of nations-based law that provides the constitutional definition of the clause.

Minor v. Happersett confirms all this and United States v. Wong Kim Ark changes none of it.

Barack Obama maintains that he was born in Hawaii. With a dispute involving whether his birth certificate, social security number, and military draft registration are authentic still continuing and not having been definitively resolved through any legal process, we have yet to see conclusive legal proof of his place of birth. But even assuming for sake of argument that he was born in Hawaii, he is still not an Article II “natural born Citizen.” We have seen that the three elements of being a “natural born Citizen” are birth time, birth country, and birth parents. Minor; Wong Kim Ark. If Obama was born in Hawaii, he satisfies the birth country requirement. But while Obama was born to a U.S. “citizen” mother, his father never became nor did he strive to become a U.S. “citizen.” Rather, his father was born in the English colony of Kenya, was born a British citizen, and remained such until his death. Hence, Obama was not born to a U.S. “citizen” father. He therefore fails to satisfy the elements of being born to citizen parents at the moment of birth. This means that he can be a “born citizen” under the Fourteenth Amendment or Congressional Act, which provide a more relaxed allegiance standard , but he cannot be a “natural born Citizen” under Article II, which provides a more exacting allegiance standard for would-be Presidents and Commanders of the Military. This also means that because he is neither “a natural born Citizen” nor “a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution,” he is not eligible to be President.

On January 20, 2013, Barack Obama was again sworn in as the President of the United States. But because he is not an Article II “natural born Citizen,” he is at best a de facto President of the United States, not a constitutionally legitimate one.

Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
January 21, 2013
http://puzo1.blogspot.com
Comments . . .

Note: 
It is the position of The Obama File that a "natural born" citizen is a person born in the mainland USA (includes Hawaii and Alaska after statehood) of two American citizen parents.  This position is not open to discussion or debate here, so if you believe otherwise, you can save your time and effort by not posting arguments to the contrary.  They will be deleted.
***  
 

©  Copyright  Beckwith  2008 - 2011
All right reserved