This is in no way a counter to the popular eligibility issue discussion, only a strong supplement to the topic to clearly illustrate why the constitutional eligibility issue for POTUS is so critical.
There seems to be a major disconnect across the entire national spectrum as to why this issue is being pursued, many saying it’s only because some don’t like Obama out of racial prejudice or sociological bigotry. Nothing could be further from the truth!
No matter what race, creed or gender, when properly understood the constitutional eligibility clause must be equally applied to all.
As it stands, not historically understanding the critical nature of this issue, it’s altogether possible there have been others elected as POTUS that were not thoroughly vetted on the eligibility mandate which has contributed to various policies and practices over history that have eroded our strict adherence to constitutional principles. But that doesn’t mean we should continue on that path once we understand.
Please let us examine why the constitutional eligibility issue for the POTUS is so critical.
Evidently in the study of Constitutional Law, the question as to why the Clause; “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;” was written the way it was in Article II by the framers, is not considered as a critical constitutional issue and is never prudently examined. Our Congressional Constitutional lawyers are afraid to pursue the substantiation of Obama’s citizenship status because they were never taught that lesson and therefore do not understand. But they must be made to know!
Please allow me to offer that lost lesson in constitutional law. The answer is critically analytical. For clarity, redundancy and ambiguity are avoided in legalese, therefore the sub clause “No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States,” must imply a difference between the two terms, and at the time of the framing that difference must have been clearly understood.
To start with, the sub clause terminology, “Or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution,” was to allow for the eligibility of those many who at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution were not natural born Citizens, but were here as immigrants and otherwise eligible, having resided in the United States for a minimum of fourteen years and having attained the age of thirty-five years.
These requirements were an attempt to allay concerns that foreign aristocrats might immigrate to the new nation and use their wealth and influence to impose a monarchy, but further to provide for a broader base of eligible persons at a time when the number of otherwise eligible candidates was limited due to the short duration of time the United States had been an independent sovereign nation.
But for all future generations and therefore, as of today, the applicable sub clause is; “no person except a natural born Citizen.” For the definition of the term natural born Citizen, other than the framers understanding, I find only one reference. In the U.S. Supreme Court case of; Minor v. Happersett (1874) 21 Wall. 162, 166-168, it was affirmed:
“At common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country, of parents (plural) who were its citizens (plural) became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives or natural born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further, and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction, without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case, it is not necessary to solve these doubts. It is sufficient, for everything we have now to consider, that all children, born of citizen parents (plural), within the jurisdiction, are themselves citizens.” Minor v. Happersett (1874) 21 Wall. 162, 166-168
Although the relief sought in that case was not to validate the citizenship eligibility for POTUS, (in fact the findings for relief of the claim in that case were overridden by the 19th Amendment) it was necessary to stipulate the birthing aspects required to be legally defined as an entitled United States citizen in arbitrating the case, and this definitive clause is still on record as precedent for defining a native or natural born citizen. As defined, to be a native or natural born citizen, one must be born within the jurisdiction of a country and of parents (plural) who are its citizens (plural).
This is why it’s mandatory that all those seeking the Office of POTUS including Barack Hussein Obama II s’ eligibility be thoroughly vetted. It’s imperative that they be natural born citizens as defined because that is our only guarantee that the person does not have a foreign socio/political philosophical ideology that’s counter to the principles of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness as guaranteed in the lawfully written Articles and Amendments of the United States Constitution.
As the father of Barack Hussein Obama II was never a United States citizen, naturalized or otherwise, Barack Hussein Obama II did not have two parents who are citizens of the United States at the time of his birth, and with no substantiated proof that he was born within the jurisdiction of the United States, and in fact substantial evidence that his Hawaiian birth certificate is a forgery, he is not a “natural born citizen” of the United States as defined in the foregoing U.S. Supreme Court case, and therefore does not qualify as eligible to the Office of POTUS.
Knowing that Barack Hussein Obama II is not a natural born citizen, in the formative years of his life in Jakarta, Indonesia and in following years with those close to him having similar ideologies he was indoctrinated in the dogmas of Sharia Law of the Muslim religion mixed with Marxist Communism, which are totally counter to the fundamental principles of our Constitution.
With that we can readily understand why he has the ideological mind-set that he expressly demonstrates in his policies and practices, and why he announced in his inaugural address, that under his administration, America was going to be fundamentally transformed.
And that’s exactly what he meant; to transform us from a Constitutional Republic, the most powerful and successful form of government the world has ever known, with life, liberty and prosperity for all, to a Marxist Socialist regime having a Sharia Law justice system, with power and gain for only a few.
This is why Barack Hussein Obama II must be removed from the Office of President of the United States!
Tags: Constitution, President, conservative, eligibility, voting
Permalink Reply by Royce Latham on James
This is a great presentation of the elemental facts of the issue. With the rules of naturalization at the founding Obama would not have even been a citizen. Since the meaning of natural born citizen is not permitted to evolve, except by Amendment to the Constitution and a natural born citizen being a subset of citizen, as found in Minor v. Happersett, Obama can never be a natural born citizen.
The disinformation promulgated by opponents of the Constitution has been intense and organized and vigorously supported mostly by omission, but sometimes with ridicule and misinformation by the New York Times. One of the most heinous acts by an organization funded by George Soros was Justiagate, where during the 2008 campaign multiple references to Minor v. Happersett and other significant cases were removed from Justia.com, the most used public site for legal precedent research. This permitted a phalanx of Obama sponsored lawyers to permeate the blogosphere disseminated false and misleading information about the nature of citizenship and conflating natural born citizen with citizen at birth. Rarely did they identify themselves as lawyers.
Most of the discussion on the issue is geared towards the dearth of evidence that Obama was born in Hawaii. This discussion is the source of the derogatory term birther. Whereas the reason Obama is not a natural born citizen is two fold, one he was not born in Hawaii and two he is not a natural born citizen whether born in Hawaii or not, it is much simpler to understand that both parents must be citizens for him to be a natural born citizen. The Obama proponents and their useful idiots on the conservative side can more easily deflect the 'not born in America' narrative, by saying Obama said he was born in Hawaii and I believe him. This is way too much credence to offer to a serial liar and a mystery man, when the stakes are so high.
This week we see more anecdotal evidence that from 1991 through April 3, 2008 a publication and website existed declaring Obama to be Kenyan born. When you add this to the mountain of evidence that already exists, it is no wonder the issue of his eligibility will never go away. In reverence to the founders understanding the reason why no one not a natural born citizen should ever hold the highest office, we see Obama flouting the Constitution on a regular basis, accruing power to the office, bypassing Congress and the Courts, surrendering US sovereignty, destroying the economy, involved in every form of corruption and denying basic American rights through the use of Executive Orders.
© 2013 Created by Judson Phillips.
