Posted on 04/27/2011 10:18:57 AM PDT by RobinMasters
Although President Obama released a purported long-form birth certificate today indicating he was born in Hawaii, he still might not fit the constitutional eligibility requirement that stipulates only "natural born" citizens can serve as U.S. president, according to a recent bestselling book.
An investigation by the authors found that according to correspondence from the original framers of the Constitution as well as multiple Supreme Court rulings and the legal writings that helped establish the principles of the Constitution, Obama is not eligible to serve as president since his father was not a U.S. citizen.
With nearly 900 endnotes, the book, "The Manchurian President: Barack Obama's Ties to Communists, Socialists and Other Anti-American Extremists," was written by WABC Radio host and WND senior reporter Aaron Klein with researcher Brenda J. Elliott.
While the book was released last May, the work takes on renewed relevance today with Obama's release of his purported long-form birth certificate. In a chapter investigating eligibility issues, the book concluded Obama may not be eligible regardless of his place of birth. The authors recommend further legislative and judicial debate.
"It is undisputed that Obama's father was not a U.S. citizen," wrote Klein, "a fact that should have led to congressional debate about whether Obama is eligible under the United States Constitution to serve as president."
(Excerpt) Read more at wnd.com ...
PDF Report : Obama Eligibility Primer (32 pages)
Download the PDF Report here
Sign the Barack Obama Birth Certificate Petition
The Jerome Corsi's forthcoming book “Where's the Birth Certificate ?" : WheresTheBirthCertificate.com
Video (Oct 10, 2008) : Obama Citizenship - October Surprise
I posted this earlier so will do so again:
Sorry to disappoint you folks, but you’re wasting your time. The citizenship question is not the first in US history.
Subsequent law has dealt with insufficiencies of the constitution on this issue:
http://www.usconstitution.net/consttop_citi.html
Currently, Title 8 of the U.S. Code fills in the gaps left by the Constitution. 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.
* There is an exception in the law — the person must be “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States. This would exempt the child of a diplomat, for example, from this provision.
This is the first thing that I have seen posted today (from the birther side) on this subject that wasn’t nuttier than a squirrel turd. Thank you for that. If his father being a non citizen of the U.S. makes him ineleigible AND there is stare decisis on this in multiple Supreme court cases, then he has no choice but to step down and he just did it to himself by releasing the long form.
Chances of the USSC having the collective balls to remove him? About as good as a pizza at a weight watchers convention.
And so it continues. Birthers could be right or could be aholes. Obama says he’s running again.
You are probably right.
I think someone should run for president, who is a native born citizen, and has both parents that are illegals. Then someone like an elector should challenge that person. If that person doesn't have standing then I don't think anyone in the universe would have standing in this case.
Although that just proves Obama may be a citizen, it still doesn’t answer the ‘eligibility’ question for the office of President.
A person born of two ‘citizen’ parents.
Natural born is the subject, noone disputes he is a citizen.
Besides his daddy wasn’t an American, that alone disqualifies zero.
Vatell spells it out along with letters from Ben Franklin, Et al.
While I appreciate the opinions of politicians, pundits, authors, bloggers and posters, the only opinion that matters is that of the current Supreme Court, if they could be reached for comment...
“...his father being a non citizen of the U.S. makes him ineligible...”
Except it doesn’t.
The point that is lost in discussing those cases is that the language quoted is merely “dicta” is is not the holding of the cases. “Stare decisis” applies to the holdings of a case not to the dicta..
“Natural born is the subject, no one disputes he is a citizen.”
Really, you have got to be shitting me...
“Besides his daddy wasn’t an American, that alone disqualifies zero.”
Just flat wrong...
“Vatell spells it out along with letters from Ben Franklin, Et al.”
Huh - I never knew letters could be substituted for law in the United States.
Who thought that it wouldn't? Overall, birthers are a very obsessed group, although the fringes of the fringe are never going to give up. The Chief Justice of the USSC could stand on the steps of the Courthouse and declare that Obama is eligible, and there are those who will want to know "who got to him?"
At this point, I expect the birther threads to double instead of slack off. Vanities will abound. Oh, yippee.
I’m wondering if the “attending physician,” David Sinclair is any relation to zero’s butt buddy Larry Sinclair.
You newcomers to this issue are so far behind the curve.
Since 2008, the question has always been the nationality of the baby's father and the mothers age at time of birth.
This issue has never been a reaction to Obamas (sic) election or his policies while being the presumed president. It has NEVER been an issue of his birth LOCATION
Only the uninformed and the misdirection specialists insist on framing the debate over birth LOCATION.
According to the Constitution, the requirement is ‘Natural Born Citizen’.
I’ll try to explain this so that everyone can understand it.
When one is born, his citizenship is determined by one of two factors:
1. Where he was born (the ‘Native’ claim) AND;
2. Of what country was the citizenship of his parents.
If both factors result in the citizenship of the same country, then there are no conflicting loyalties, and the newborn is ‘naturally’ a citizen of where he was born.
Thus the term ‘Natural Born Citizen’ is applied.
Get it?
None are so blind as those who refuse to see!
Both parents so as not to have divided loyalties.
Makes perfect sense to the founders and me too!
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.