Replies

Be aware that whomever Tom Crawford is, he asked a question which could be a smokescreen. A “native born American Citizen” is not a sufficient to meet the constitutional requirement for the presidency. The president must be a ‘natural born citizen’ of the U.S., a term of art defined in many, and used in many more cases by the U.S. Supreme Court, using the definition repeated by Joseph Story, James Madison, Chief Justice John Marshall “born on the soil of parents who are its citizens.” The court has never accepted another definition, though many efforts to amend Article II Sect 1, Clause 5 have been initiated.

Because Obama's father was a British subject - owes his allegiance to the British government - so does his son. Obama admitted that he was born a British subject. Our legislators and courts failed us. The term has been so seldom used that few attorneys have a clear understanding of the requirement. But Obama used de Vattel's Law of Nations in a course he taught at U of Chicago. Every Senator signed Senate Res 511 in which the requirement for citizen parents clearly stated. The Constitution, as Obama said in 2001, "prevents me from doing some of the things I'd like to do." At the time he may have realized that his Marxist 5th column could not make him a president because he is not a nature born citizen. The have, thus far, overcome the 'limitation' imposed by the Constitution. Don't be fooled by a Hawaiian birth certificate. Born of the soil is not sufficient. Both of his parents need to have been U.S. citizens.