Skip to comments.The Dangerous Precedent Set by Obama being President
Posted on 08/04/2009 1:26:49 PM PDT by RobinMasters
Obamas father was never a US citizen, nor was he ever permanently domiciled in the US. At birth, Obama was a British citizen. [He's also been a Kenyan citizen and perhaps a citizen of Indonesia as well.] Obama admits his birth status was governed by Great Britain. The question presented then is whether the US is willing to allow persons who were born without a single allegiance to the US to be Commander in Chief of our military.
For it is this specific fear that prompted our first Supreme Court Chief Justice John Jay to suggest to George Washington the following:
Permit me to hint, whether it would 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 Commander in Chief of the American army shall not be given to nor devolve on, any but a natural born Citizen.
This letter was written on July 25, 1787. It is in direct response to Alexander Hamiltons suggested Presidential requirement appearing in the first draft of the Constitution wherein Hamilton five weeks earlier on June 18, 1787 submitted the following:
No person shall be eligible to the office of President of the United States unless he be now a Citizen of one of the States, or hereafter be born a Citizen of the United States.
There you have the crux of the issue now before the nation. Hamiltons original drafted presidential requirement was rejected by the framers. Instead of allowing any person born a citizen to be President, the framers chose to adopt the more stringent requirement from John Jay, that the President be a natural born citizen.
(Excerpt) Read more at naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com ...
If The One (or anyone) cannot prove that he is a natural born Citizen of the United States, then he simply is NOT the President of the United States, but an usurper, and a foreign tyrant. It really is that simple.
Perhaps you can explain to me how you could possibly believe that Obama was, in fact, a UK citizen if born on US soil.
Chester A. Arthur was born to an Irish Father.
Charles Curtis was born in Kansas territory before it was a State.
There is an example of both
a President who was born of a non-American parent
a Vice-President who was born outside of the United States proper
The phrase “natural born citizen” did not prohibit either gentleman from holding office.
I wholeheartedly agree. But damned if this isn’t one confusing issue to many here that equate citizenship and U.S. born with natural born. I’ve turned gray just reading this confusion.
“..then he simply is NOT the President of the United States, but an usurper..”
Congress and SCOTUS seem to be perfectly happy with such an arrangement.
Were Obama's mother and father not married at the time of his birth? I only ask because the link you posted primarily details children born to unwed mothers who are British nationals, or are "illegitimate" in some other way.
No person shall be eligible to the office of President of the United States unless he be now a Citizen of one of the States, or hereafter be born a Citizen of the United States”
Well according to Hamilton's first draft Obama qualifies as he was “born a Citizen of the United States”, and this seems to confirm my and many others view of the law that a “natural born citizen” is the same as being “born a Citizen of the United States”.
Don’t take out word for it. Obama is making this claim himself. Check it out. http://www.fightthesmears.com.php5-9.websitetestlink.com/articles/5/birthcertificate
While that word, "anchor baby" isn't found in US law, Obama is that presuming that I understand the context that you are using that word. Obama, like tens of millions of other babies, qualifies for US citizenship primarily because of US Supreme Court case US v. Ark.
Ark grants citizenship to all children who are born "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" (when speaking of US jurisdiction), even if their parents were foreign nationals - so long as the child's parents were "subject to the jurisdiction thereof".
Kansas was US territory, and it has never been positively proven that Chester’s father was a non citizen at the time of his birth, it is only an unproven accusation (thanks in part to Arthur destruction of his own records).
Why then would the founders feel the need to qualify the clause with the natural born modifier several weeks later if all they meant was citizen. I could see your point if the clause went from specific to general but not general to specific.
Contemporaneous definitions (Vattel-The Law Of Nations, Blackstone-Commentaries on the Laws of England) at the time of the founding would indicate that in order to qualify as natural born a child must have two citizen parents as well as being born on U.S. soil. The founder’s reason for creating this special class of citizenship stemmed from a fear of the U.S. coming under the sway of a foreign power. The founder’s wanted to insure that anyone who assumed the presidency had one and only one allegiance. The founders affirmed this definition by excluding themselves (most of whom where British subjects, born on foreign soil, or had Britsh citizens for parents and thus not natural born) from this provision and allowing them to assume the presidency for a short period after the founding of the Republic.
Section 1 of Article Two of the United States Constitution sets forth the eligibility requirements for serving as President of the United States: No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.” The term “natural born citizen” is not defined in the Constitution so we must look elsewhere to confirm its meaning.
Arthur’s Father was a non-citizen at the time, the confusion arises about whether Arthur was born in Canada or the U.S. as his family moved from Canada a few months before he was born. Arthur “changed” his date of birth by a year when he was a young man to appear older.
And being a U.S. Territory doesn’t matter to the
‘natural born citizen’ doesn’t mean ‘citizen at birth’
Congress and the courts are perfectly happy with a great many things that are simply wrong.
The law of nations.
I believe that the rules were different back at that time, and you were not automatically a US citizen just by sake of being born on US soil.
U.S. law recognizes two types of citizens. “Natural born”, i.e. those who were born a citizen; and “Naturalized” who went through a legal process to become a citizen.
US vs Ark not only grants citizenship to those born under the jurisdiction of the USA; the decision specifically says “natural born subject”.
“Perhaps you can explain to me how you could possibly believe that Obama was, in fact, a UK citizen if born on US soil.”
Were Obama’s mother and father not married at the time of his birth? I only ask because the link you posted primarily details children born to unwed mothers who are British nationals, or are “illegitimate” in some other way.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.