Skip to comments.Obama's "natural born" problem
Posted on 12/12/2008 9:18:49 PM PST by ckilmer
December 12, 2008
The Plaintiff in one of the filed suits put it this way.
One more quick question, president elect Obama's birthplace over in Kenya is that going to be a national spot to go visit where he was born?
It is already an attraction. His paternal grandmother is still alive.
But his birth place, they will put up a marker there?
It will depend on the government. It is already well known.
The sound clip can be found at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zH4GX3Otf14.
The second is that soon to be Secretary of Commerce and current New Mexico governor Bill Richardson is on record as stating that Obama is "an immigrant." An odd thing to say if it were not true, and an outright lie otherwise. You can view the video clip at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s5OUdj_YIpo&eurl=http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=83114&feature=player_embedded.
Perhaps the strongest anecdotal evidence is that Obama's own paternal grandmother has said on multiple occasions that she was there when Barack was born in Kenya. Obama's Kenyan half brother and half sister have also stated that Obama was born in Kenya. None of this anecdotal evidence is conclusive but combined with Obama's steadfast refusal to release his long form birth certificate it plants the seeds of suspicion and makes you really want to ask a simple question. What is he hiding? And why?
The real fun to be had with this story is not that Obama for any reason would be somehow decreed ineligible as the next President of the United States (it won't happen) but that there apparently is no oversight at all to the election process and a candidates eligibiliy for that office. Wouldn't it, and shouldn't it, be common sense and standard practice that some official or semi-official body like the Federal Election Commission or the respective major political parties require that all candidates for President of the United States provide proof that they meet the requirements for the office as stated in the Constitution? Is that really too much to ask?
Barack Obama has held elected office on the federal level, won his parties nomination for President, and then was elected President of the United States, all without providing proof that he is in compliance with the provisions laid down very plainly in the Constitution. One should be able to declare such a scenario as inconceivable, yet it appears to be all too true.
And for those of you who have studied history in any detail, the truth is far more often stranger than fiction. Obama may fall, and in many ways he already does, into that category. Who would have thought that an "I vote present" product of the incredibly corrupt Chicago political machine with a Leftist ideology, a Muslim stepfather, a socialistic economic policy, a radical spiritual mentor, and who is beholden to a domestic terrorist for the launching of his political career could so easily be elected to the Presidency of the United States of America? If I had pitched that scenario to you two years ago you would have called me crazy yet that is exactly the situation we find ourselves in.
I do believe this will probably not be little more than an interesting political sideshow that will end up as just another bizarre footnote in annals of history. It is somewhat disturbing though that we are apparently willing to just wave constitutional requirements for the highest office of the land whenever we see fit. One has to believe that altering and tampering with basic constitutional provisions is probably not very wise and not healthy for our form of government.
The glaring disgrace here is that Obama should have been forced to prove his eligibility for office (they all should) before the first primary election or caucus was held and that the Democratic Party failed miserably in its duty to make sure that they were offering up a legitimate and eligible candidate as their presidential nominee.
If indeed Barack Obama is constitutionally ineligible for the highest office in the land, and could theoretically be an unconstitutional president, it is not the child who dared mention that "The Emperor has no clothes!" who is being "embarrassing and destructive" by bringing this up, but the Democratic party and the electoral system as a whole which allowed an unqualified candidate with unproven, dubious credentials to be allowed to appear on the ballot in a national election.
In the worse case scenario we will have taken just another baby step towards losing our Republic and the rule of law when that dusty and irritating Constitution becomes something to just be ignored or set aside whenever it might be inconvenient, or upset some people, or just be impractical for this particular "situation."
Maybe we have reached the point where we just set aside parts of the Constitution if they are inconvenient and that might potentially be a problem for He Who Will Slow the Rising of the Seas and the fainting, ecstatic, potentially angry mob who propelled him to power. We have already journeyed a ways down the road once traveled by ancient Rome where the elites began to worry about the mood and reactions of the masses who openly threatened disorder and mayhem if they were unhappy, while those who held the reigns of power increasingly ignored the once revered rules that had held their political system together.
At the time of the publication of this article, Barack Obama still had not proved his eligibility to serve as President of the United States as defined by Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution of the United States of America. And he probably remains unable to do so.
© David Huntwork
Born? I think he was hatched.
ping for later
Not to worry, Resko and Blagojevich will rid us of this imposter, leaving Barry free to run again in some other local Marlboro marathon.
Are you referring to the scandal-plagued Obama administration-elect?...
Remember when Bill Clinton was first elected? His buddy was president of the cable network CNN, and forbid CNN employees from mentioning the word “scandal” when referring to the so-called president Clinton.
We’re obviously seeing the same sort of self-censorship happening in the media yet again.
Hatched? Only birds, insects and reptiles are hatched....A bird he ain’t....
Perhaps he did.
Lets see what happens come monday.
Lets see if the laws of the Constitution start to be tossed aside for sake of convenience.
Something to consider in the discussion on 'natural born citizen':
The term natural born citizen has NEVER been defined in the U.S. Constitution or in codified U.S. law.
The OPERATIVE phrase of the 14th Amendment expressly states:
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 ...
It says citizens NOT natural born citizens.
In situations like this, SCOTUS has USUALLY devolved to ascertain what the original intent of the framers was ... What does the 14th Amendment mean and what is its intended scope, as introduced the United States Senate in 1866?
Sen. Jacob M. Howard (MI), who introduced it in the Senate, tells us (as it was being debated):
The first amendment is to section one, declaring that all persons born in the United States and Subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the States wherein they reside. I do not propose to say anything on that subject except that the question of citizenship has been fully discussed in this body as not to need any further elucidation, in my opinion. This amendment which I have offered is simply declaratory of what I regard as the law of the land already, that every person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States. This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons. It settles the great question of citizenship and removes all doubt as to what persons are or are not citizens of the United States. This has long been a great desideratum in the jurisprudence and legislation of this country ... I concur entirely with the honorable Senator from Illinois [Senator Trumbull], in holding that the word jurisdiction, as here employed, ought to be construed so as to imply a full and complete jurisdiction on the part of the United States, whether exercised by Congress, by the executive, or by the judicial department; that is to say, the same jurisdiction in extent and quality as applies to every citizen of the United States now ...
Sen. Lyman Trumbull, Chairman of the Judiciary Committee, author of the Thirteenth Amendment, inserted the phrase:
... All persons born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens. That means subject to the complete jurisdiction thereof. What do we mean by complete jurisdiction thereof? Not owing allegiance to anybody else. That is what it means ... Can you sue a Navajo Indian in court? Are they in any sense subject to the complete jurisdiction of the United States? By no means. We make treaties with them, and therefore they are not subject to our jurisdiction. If they were, we wouldnt make treaties with them...It is only those persons who come completely within our jurisdiction, who are subject to our laws, that we think of making citizens; and there can be no objection to the proposition that such persons should be citizens ...
Senator W. Williams further stated:
... In one sense, all persons born within the geographical limits of the United States are subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, but they are not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States in every sense. Take the child of an ambassador. In one sense, that child born in the United States is subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, because if that child commits the crime of murder, or commits any other crime against the laws of the country, to a certain extent he is subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, but not in every respect; and so with these Indians. All persons living within a judicial district may be said, in one sense, to be subject to the jurisdiction of the court in that district, but they are not in every sense subject to the jurisdiction of the court until they are brought, by proper process, within the reach of the power of the court. I understand the words here, subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, to mean fully and completely subject to the jurisdiction of the United States ...
Rep. John Bingham of Ohio, considered the father of the Fourteenth Amendment, confirms the understanding and 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 [plural, meaning two] not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen...
Barry Soetoro, aka Barack Hussein Obama, aka Barry Obama, admits on his own website that he held British citizenship at birth due to his Father being a British subject and in no way an American. Thus Barry is precisely whom Bingham was implying is not a 'natural born citizen' regardless of where he was born, for purposes of Constitutional eligibility.
There is no doubt he is hiding something.
You should not have to write that letter. All that the American people should have to say is that they have the right to know who is being installed in the WH instead of playing a guessing game, because the security of every citizen (inclusive that of the SCOTUS) is at stake in this time of war.
Logical, clear, and concise. This reading would be a lost on many (most?) of our Senators. But I still have high hopes for the SCOTUS.
This is the first i’ve heard of this. I’m sure this story will have great legs and that people aren’t working themselves up over something that will never happen.
Sure he is & if he would just show the darn thing all of this would stop. I still say it should be required that when you run you produce the correct info & documents or else you can’t run for office. Make it a law!!!
Then maybe the better scenario is that he is found to be ineligible during the first term, becomes totally ineffective, can't run for a second term and we get all that America is a racist nation nonsense out of the way.
and just how many sheep who voted for him, knew any of this?
Fred, he’s not even the first ‘black president elect’ because he was spawned from a white woman’s womb, not a black woman’s womb! The entire image is a scam, foisting an affirmative action poseur.
Thanks for posting—very well written, laid outpiece.
This chart clearly demonstrates US citizen, native born US citizen and natural born US citizen requirements.
if you mean ALL of it, you need to read
Im sure this story will have great legs
it's all over the Net - but nothing in the MSM.
and that people arent working themselves up over something that will never happen.
just what is that you think will never happen?
and that's only IF his father was who he claims him to have been. We STILL do not know if that's true.
I have repeatedly explained this, exactly as you have here, to a great many people at FR. Always the rejoinder is: show us where it is stated, in the Constitution or in statutes, that a “natural born Citizen” must be born in the United States to parents who are both U.S. Citizens.
And always I am stumped - “natural born Citizen” is never defined, either in the U.S.Constitution, nor in other Federal statutes. It has been quite frustrating.
Obviously the Supreme Court must get off their backsides and do this NOW!
Thus Barry is precisely whom Bingham was implying is not a 'natural born citizen' regardless of where he was born, for purposes of Constitutional eligibility.
Thanks, Fred Nerks and MHGinTN.
Pinging to "The Heart of the Matter".
Your intended sarcasm expresses exactly the sort of so-called "pragmatism" that has allowed incrementalists such as Obama the opportunity to usurp the presidency. It's been building for decades, and it's no coincidence that so many aspects of "citizenship" are being sorely tested of late.
Screw the laws!
"If in fact Obama was born in Kenya then 0bama should be tossed out on his ass for forging government documents (his COLB), Lying to the nation, concealing his true identity, applying for a job that he knew full well he was unqualified for.
Nixon was canned for less.
It's the cover up, stupid!
Currently, Title 8 of the U.S. Code fills in those gaps. Section 1401 defines the following as people who are “citizens of the United States at birth:”
Anyone born inside the United States
Any Indian or Eskimo born in the United States, provided being a citizen of the U.S. does not impair the person’s status as a citizen of the tribe
Any one born outside the United States, both of whose parents are citizens of the U.S., as long as one parent has lived in the U.S.
Any one born outside the United States, if one parent is a citizen and lived in the U.S. for at least one year and the other parent is a U.S. national
Any one born in a U.S. possession, if one parent is a citizen and lived in the U.S. for at least one year
Any one found in the U.S. under the age of five, whose parentage cannot be determined, as long as proof of non-citizenship is not provided by age 21
Any one born outside the United States, if one parent is an alien and as long as the other parent is a citizen of the U.S. who lived in the U.S. for at least five years (with military and diplomatic service included in this time)
A final, historical condition: a person born before 5/24/1934 of an alien father and a U.S. citizen mother who has lived in the U.S.
Anyone falling into these categories is considered natural-born, and is eligible to run for President or Vice President. These provisions allow the children of military families to be considered natural-born, for example.
At first I thought the bc issue was silly, people grasping at straws, however after reading everything I could find on this subject, indeed it appears he is hiding something. I want to see that sealed bc in Hawaii and why would he keep fighting and hiring attorneys instead of just showing it? I don’t think he can, there is something to this, the question is what?
Post #27 Ping.
By US law (United States Code), Obama had six months after his 18th birthday to reapply for his American citizenship. That period was at the heighth of his drugging. I strongly suspect he didn't comply. Further, two years later, he traveled to Pakistan, unquestionably on his Indonesian passport, since Americans weren't welcome there and Paky was off limits to Americans per the State Department.
His father not being a US citizen automatically makes him ineligible.
Definition of Natural Born:
Law of Nations
The birth certificate is a moot issue. Natural born is defined as both parents being US citizens. Obama Senior was not a US citizen. Obama should never have been allowed this far.
Definition of Natural Born:
Law of Nations
Definition of Natural Born:
Law of Nations
That is an extremely good point. We are all subject to the mind-sets of our upbringing. An immigrant such as your friend would not, naturally, have the same care or concern the Framers (and Freepers) do in protecting the inviolability of our new government. Their children, on the other hand, raised by naturalized parents on U.S. soil under our government rule, more likely would.
Thank you ... that’s what I get for posting late at night :-)
Where is the actual relevant passage that shows that a “citizen at birth” is somehow not a “natural born citizen”?
I have three questions for you and would appreciate hearing your opinion. Actually I would like anyone to weigh in if they can answer my questions or give their opinions.
Do you think it is possible that the SC Justices will consider joining the cases together and hear them AFTER the Electoral College vote due to the fact that Obama will not actually BE President-Elect until AFTER the vote on Monday?
I understand that a Judge in the Washington State SC has decided to hear a case. (I hope what I heard is correct.)
Is it possible for the Washington Supreme Court Judge to issue a stay in that State’s Electoral College vote on Monday?
The Electoral College meet at each state capital to cast their votes on Monday. If one or more Electoral College members of a particular state raise the question of constitutional qualifications, does that state Electoral College group have to resolve the issue before casting their votes?
Yo no speako legalo. But, IMO, I think it would be a very dangerous precedent to set to allow the electors meet and vote at all.
To date, we have found dead and non registered voter electors and have challenged them with no procedure in place to have these electors removed.
To date, NONE of the California electors have been certified.
If the electors are allowed to meet, this election will have a precedent in place by allowing an ineligible candidate voted in by POPULAR vote and not by a working, certified, vetted electoral college.
It is a false assertion that stumps you. Since we have—as posted—the words of the men who actually authored aspects of the Constitution, such as Bingham, we have the meaning they intended for the term ‘natural born citizen’. The negative naybobs are always playing semantic games to try and destroy hope and spread their negative perspective coloring everything they touch or address. Don’t ya know it must be hell living with such insulting little pricks (little nettles, nothing more). They must tear down hope and spit on peace in order to feel alive!
“The constitution cannot overrule the vote.” In some other nation, perhaps, but here in America—at least up until the affirmative action fraud raised his wicked inger to usurp the office of presdient—the process is followed or the Constitutional Republic is no longer valid. We have a way to vote for change to the Constitution. The recent election was not that 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.