Wrotnowski Application to SCOTUS Denied by Ginsburg

Supreme Court of The United States ^ | November 26, 2008 | Supreme Court of The United States

[wndawmn666]

No Amendment or legislation in history has ever changed Article II.

Just because one is born on US soil does not make them a NATURAL BORN citizen, eligible to serve as President. That is just silly.

That would mean that all children born on US soil, regardless of their parents citizenships, are eligible to serve as President providing they meet the other requirements.

They are citizens, not Natural Born citizens. There is a difference. If there was not a difference then the words would not appear in the Constitution. The words are not meant to be redundant.

This is about interpreting the Constitution as ORIGINALLY INTENDED by the Framers. I think there is little doubt as to what they meant and I believe the SCOTUS will agree IF they decide to hear the case.

This is about UNDIVIDED LOYALTY to the United States. In order to achieve undivided loyalty, one must be born subjected only to the jurisdiction of the United States.

The Framers did not want someone with divided loyalties, either past or present, serving as President. In particular, serving as Commander in Chief of the military.

If a naturalized citizen cannot serve as President because of divided loyalties in the past, why on Earth could someone BORN WITH DIVIDED LOYALTIES serve as President?

Under British Nationality Act 1948, Barack Obama Jr. was born a citizen of the United Kingdom by DESCENT because his father was a citizen of the United Kingdom.

Read: It does not matter WHERE he was born, he was born a citizen of the United Kingdom by DESCENT.

Until 1982 he was subject the the jurisdiction of more than one nation. That means he is not naturally born.

[Fithal the Wise]

"That said; please explain to me if your argument is true, why is it that BHO continues to obfuscate, and hide his actual Certificate of Birth, issues by the State of Hawaii? If you are correct, this would all go away, if he was actually born in Hawaii."

The recent issues concerning Obama's citizenship are certainly promising but let's not forget one of the issues from Berg's case:

If, in fact, Defendant Obama was born in Kenya, under the laws of the United States, in effect at the time of his birth, if a child was born abroad, and one parent was a U.S.citizen (which here, of course, would be Obama’s mother, Stanley Ann Dunham), Obama’s mother would have had to have lived ten (10) years in the U.S., five (5) of which were after she reached the age of fourteen (14).

At the time of Obama’s birth, his mother was only eighteen (18), and therefore did not meet the residency requirements under the law to give her son (Obama) U.S. Citizenship.

The laws in effect at the time of Obama’s birth did not recognize U.S. Citizenship at birth of children born abroad to a U.S. Citizen parent and a non-citizen parent, if the citizen parent was under the age of nineteen (19) at the time of the birth of the child.

Obama’s mother did not qualify under the law on the books to register Obama as a “natural born” citizen. Section 301(a)(7) of the Immigration and Nationality Act of June 27, 1952, 66 Stat. 163, 235, 8 U.S.C. §1401(b), Matter of S-F- and G-, 2 I & N Dec.182 (B.I.A.) approved (Att’y Gen. 1944).

Obama could only have become a U.S. citizen if naturalized, and a naturalized citizen is not qualified and/or eligible to run for the office of President of the United States. U.S. Constitution, Article II, Section I.

Furthermore, if Obama was born in Kenya, his birth father Barack Obama, Sr. was a citizen of Kenya; therefore, Obama would necessarily have become a citizen of Kenya. Furthermore, if Obama had been born in Kenya, his birth father Barack Obama,Sr. was a citizen of Kenya; therefore, Obama would have automatically become a citizen of Kenya.