IS NOT CONSTITUTIONALLY
QUALIFIED TO BE PRESIDENT
OF THE UNITED STATES
Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 of the U.S. Constitution reads:
"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."
Our Constitution was ratified on June 21, 1788. In a July 25, 1787 letter from John Jay (first U.S. Chief Justice) to George Washington, presiding officer of the Constitutional Convention, Jay wrote: "Permit me to hint whether it would not be wise and seasonable to provide a strong check to the admission of Foreigners into the administration of our national Government, and to declare expressly that the Command in Chief of the American army shall not be given to nor devolve on, any but a natural born Citizen." (Heard, Alexander and Nelson, Michael. Selection, page 123, Duke University Press 1987)
A 1758 document, The Law of Nations by Emer de Vattel, used by George Washington, John Jay, Thomas Jefferson, Ben Franklin, and other founders defined the term "natural born citizen." The framers of the Constitution understood it as defined therein:
"The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens." (Emer de Vattel, The Law of Nations and Principles of Natural Law, Vol. 1, Chap. 19, Sec. 212)
Note the words "in" and "parents" (plural) in Vattel's definition. There are two clear requirements: To qualify to be president one must be born "IN" the USA, and 2) Both PARANTS must be US Citizens. This was to preclude dual loyalties of the Commander-in-Chief.
The entirety of Section 212 of Vattel's The Law of Nations reads as follows:
"The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. As the society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights. The society is supposed to desire this, in consequence of what it owes to its own preservation; and it is presumed, as matter of course, that each citizen, on entering into society, reserves to his children the right of becoming members of it. The country of the fathers is therefore that of the children; and these become true citizens merely by their tacit consent. We shall soon see whether, on their coming to the years of discretion, they may renounce their right, and what they owe to the society in which they were born. I say, that, in order to be of the country, it is necessary that a person be born of a father who is a citizen; for, if he is born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country."
The framers of the Constitution included the pre-defined legal phrase "natural born Citizen" in an attempt to insure that a cantidate for the office of President of the United States would have solid loyalties to the United States of America, having not only been bore in America, but also born to parents who are both U.S. citizens. This is fully explained in the article below by Mario Apuzzo.
Even if Barack Hussein Obama was born in Hawaii, which he has never proven, he is still not Constitutionally qualified to be president of the Unitied States, because his father was a British Subject from Kenya. At birth, he acquired dual citizenship through his British father. Per the British Nationality Act of 1948, Obama when born in 1961 was a British Subject. Obama’s Father was an not a U.S. Citizen.
Our Founders excluded dual citizens from eligibility to the Presidency for national security reasons.
Every military order Barack Obama gives as Commander-in-Chief, every bill he signs into law,and every executive decision he makes while unconstitutionally seated in the Office of President, are unconstitutional, and hence illegal. Obama is NOT a "natural born Citizen" of the USA.
The Courts and Congress are sworn to uphold the Constitution of the United States of American. They MUST address this constitutional issue, and remove Barack Hussein Obama in order to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States as they took their oath to do.
Article II “Natural Born Citizen” Means
Unity of Citizenship and Sole Allegiance at Birth
By Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
Article II "natural born Citizen" status for a would-be President requires not only birth on U.S. soil but also birth to parents who are both U.S. citizens by birth or naturalization. This unity of jus soli (soil) and jus sanguinis (descent) at the time of birth assures that one is born with sole natural allegiance (obligation of fidelity and obedience to government in consideration for protection that government gives (U.S. v. Kuhn, 49 F. Supp. 407,414 [D.C.N.Y 1943]) and loyalty to the United States and that no other nation can lay claim to the person’s allegiance and loyalty. Indeed, under such birth circumstances, no other nation can legally or morally demand any military or political obligations from that person. The child, as he/she grows, will also have a better chance of not psychologically struggling with conflicted allegiance and loyalty to any other nation.
Unity of citizenship and sole natural allegiance is based on natural law and the law of nations, as confirmed by ancient Greek and Roman law; American, European, and English constitutions, common and civil law, and statutes; and Vattel’s, The Law of Nations, all of which the Founding Fathers read and understood. These sources have taught civilizations from time immemorial that a person gains allegiance and loyalty and therefore attachment for a nation from either being born on that nation’s soil or from being born to parents who were also born on that same soil or who were naturalized as though they were born on that soil. It is only by combining at birth in the child both means to inherit these two sources of citizenship that the child by nature and therefore also by law is born with only one allegiance and loyalty to and consequently attachment for only the United States.
Our Constitution requires unity of U.S.citizenship and sole natural allegiance from birth only for the President and Commander in Chief of the Military, given the unique nature of the position, a position that empowers one person to make decisions for our national survival. It is required of the President because such a status gives the American people the best chance that a would-be President will not have any foreign influences which because of conflict of conscience can most certainly taint his/her critical decisions made when leading the nation. Hence, the special status is a Constitutional eligibility requirement to be President and thereby to be vested with the sole power to decide the fate and survival of the American people.
Of course, the status, being a minimum Constitutional requirement, does not guarantee that a would-be President will have love and fealty only for the United States. Therefore, the final informed and intelligent decision on who the President will be is left to the voters, the Electors, and Congress at the Joint Session, to whom hopefully responsible media and political institutions will have provided all the necessary vetting information concerning the candidate’s character and qualifications to be President.
Unity of citizenship and sole allegiance at birth is not required to be eligible to be a Representative or Senator or a "citizen of the United States" under the 14th Amendment as currently interpreted or any Congressional Act. In contradiction and which confirms the Founding Fathers’ meaning of what a "natural born Citizen" is, naturalized citizens, since 1795, before becoming such must swear an oath that they renounce all other allegiances to other nations. Today, we require that an alien upon being naturalized must give an oath that he/she renounces all former allegiances and that he/she will "support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic." Hence, allegiance is not simply a thing of the past but very much with us today. It is important to also understand that naturalization takes an alien back to the moment of birth and by law changes that alien’s birth status. In other words, naturalization, which by legal definition requires sole allegiance tothe United States, recreates the individual as though he were a born Citizen but only does it by law and not by nature. This is the reason that the 14th Amendment considers a naturalized person to be a "citizen of the United States," but not a “natural born Citizen” of the United States. Naturalized citizens stand on an equal footing with born citizens (who are so recognized and confirmed by the 14th Amendment or by an Act of Congress and who can be but not necessarily are also "natural born Citizens") except that they cannot be President or Vice President, for they were born with an allegiance not owing to the United States and acquire that sole allegiance to the United States only after birth.
The Founding Fathers emphasized that, for the sake of the survival of the Constitutional Republic, the Office of President and Commander in Chief of the Military be free of foreign influence and intrigue. It is the "natural born Citizen" clause that gives the American people the best chance to keep it that way. American people do not have the Constitutional right to have any certain person be President. But for the reasons stated above, minimally they do have a Constitutional right to protect their life, liberty, property, safety, security, and tranquility by knowing and assuring that their President and Commander in Chief of the Military is constitutionally eligible and qualified to hold those critical offices.
By Monte Kuligowski
March 08, 2011
© 2011
What we are seeing with the way journalists are treating "birthers" and those who doubt the Obama narratives sort of resembles the medieval inquisitions. The faithful have their articles of faith that all must accept. To avoid the punishment of ridicule one must denounce his heretical beliefs and affirm the truth.
The inquisition question asked of Rep. Michele Bachmann was succinctly framed by George Stephanopoulos: "Can you just state very clearly that President Obama is a Christian and he is a citizen of the United States?"
Rather than considering, much less investigating, why some may doubt Obama's birth story and/or Christian faith, the press demands political purity from Obama's subjects. Our brave journalists refuse to look into the question of why the One who promised "unprecedented transparency" is guarding his basic records – hospital, medical, school, college, travel, etc. – with unprecedented secrecy. Apparently it's easier for so-called journalists to read from the same page and disparage the unbelievers.
When asked by David Gregory if he has a "responsibility" to "stand up to" the "ignorance" of those who doubt the Obama narratives, John Boehner responded: "It's not my job to tell the American people what to think." That response wasn't good enough – Gregory demanded uniform orthodoxy.
What's fascinating about all of this is that even if the heretics were to suddenly fall in line, Obama would still have the same eligibility problem. Somehow the news media have ill-advisedly come to focus on the question of Obama's native born citizen status even though the U.S. Constitution requires "natural born citizen" status for presidential eligibility.
Even if Obama were suddenly to become transparent and release records showing a Hawaii birth hospital and a physician of record, that would not clear up the eligibility question. The well-kept secret is that the question of native birth is secondary to the question of whether an individual was born to U.S. citizen parents.
Perhaps the reason for Obama's secrecy is to distract from the chief eligibility issue.
Some of the new eligibility bills of the states require presidential candidates to "prove" their natural born citizen status to be placed on the respective 2012 ballots. But in Obama's case, regardless of proof of birthplace, we have a legal question that must be determined by the legislature and reviewed by the judiciary (or must go directly to the courts).
We have a legal question, but the relevant fact is not in dispute: Obama was born with dual citizenship. Obama's own "Fight the Smears" website carefully avoids the question of whether the president is a natural born citizen. It reads:
Smears claiming Barack Obama doesn't have a birth certificate aren't actually about that piece of paper – they're about manipulating people into thinking Barack is not an American citizen.
The truth is, Barack Obama was born in the state of Hawaii in 1961, a native citizen of the United States of America.
The Obama website goes on to say that even though Obama was born with conflicting loyalties, "his Kenyan citizenship automatically expired on Aug. 4, 1982." That automatic expiration claim is questionable, and, more importantly, it's a diversion. The pre-eminent question is whether the Constitution requires presidential candidates to have been "born" into full U.S. allegiance. The natural "born" clause does not state that allegiance to a foreign sovereignty is fine so long as the unacceptable liability "expires" at some point.
The status of undivided allegiance from birth onward requires U.S. citizen parents at the time of the candidate's birth. Hence, we see the distinction between native born and natural born. Natural born citizen status is a higher standard than native born citizen status. A natural born citizen is one who has never been encumbered by foreign allegiance.
At least that's what the founders who inserted the requirement into the Constitution expected. The "natural law" view of the phrase "natural born Citizen" at the time of America's founding – going back to Emmerich de Vattel's 1758 classic, "Law of Nations" – requires citizen parents at the time of the individual's native birth. The historic view is not in doubt; but interpretation of the 14th Amendment and the U.S. Code's variations for "citizenship" have clouded the "natural born" definition for some.
The ultimate question is whether the Supreme Court would define the natural born clause as requiring an unbroken chain of allegiance to the United States. That question remains unanswered because remarkably not one congressional or judicial hearing has been held on the substance of Obama's constitutional eligibility. The states would do well to define the clause in their eligibility codes; which would ensure judicial review.
The natural born clause is no triviality; it is a substantive requirement to prevent a person with subversive ambitions, if not a foreign ideology, from assuming the presidency. Ironically, the situation of Barack Hussein Obama Jr. is precisely what the founders wished to prevent.
We don't have to wonder if the president was influenced by his neo-Marxist, anti-colonialist Muslim father – Obama Jr. has a book out titled, "Dreams From My Father."
Did Obama Sr. pass on a patriotic love of the United States and her federalism system of liberty to Junior? Of course not – dreams from an alien from a Third World country committed to redistributive justice were transmitted. Sound familiar?
Someone might argue, "Obama's election is no big deal because there are many native born hardcore leftists in the country born to natural citizen parents." True enough. But none of them could win a national ticket for the presidency. That's why we never had a President Teddy Kennedy. Obama won only because he was a "blank screen" whom the left-wing media cleverly ushered in. If Obama had been properly vetted, complete with hearings on his dual citizenship birth and his status in Indonesia, I don't believe he would have been deemed eligible. And even if deemed eligible, I don't believe he would have gone on to win.
After the election, Americans have been hit with one earthshaking offense after the other on what seems like an almost weekly basis. Many of the unexplainable anomalies of President Obama point to the significance of the Constitution's natural born clause and of the wisdom of the founders.
Of the myriad statements and actions to choose from, from his treatment of our allies to Obama's apologies overseas for the greatest country in the world, let's look at just one example for now.
During his infamous Cairo speech, Obama made the following statement to his Muslim audience:
I have known Islam on three continents before coming to the region where it was first revealed. That experience guides my conviction that partnership between America and Islam must be based on what Islam is, not what it isn't. And I consider it part of my responsibility as president of the United States to fight against negative stereotypes of Islam wherever they appear.
Rather than having a president who fights for America's standing in the world, we have a man who believes part of the responsibility of a U.S. president is to fight for Islam's image.
Constitutional eligibility is not a technicality; it really does matter.
Emer de Vattel's The Law of Nations and Principles of Natural Law
Protect Our Liberty
No comments:
Post a Comment