Obama Refuses to Produce Proof He Is Natural Born Citizen

And for the first time, a US Senator, David Vitter, endorses legal action to smoke Obama out:

Quo Warranto in Arizona Canada Free Press Jim O’Neill

The movement to impeach or otherwise remove Obama from office is gaining momentum.

Links coming here soon.

Advertisements

11 Responses

  1. Obama has already produced proof that he is a Natural Born Citizen by publishing the official birth certificate of Hawaii, the facts on which were confirmed twice by the officials in Hawaii. Obama’s Kenyan grandmother never said that he was born in Kenya. she said repeatedly in the taped interview that he was born in Hawaii, and in another interview she said that the first that her family had heard of Obama’s birth was in a letter from Hawaii.

    Obama is the first and so far the only US president to have shown his birth certificate. The Certification of Live Birth is the official birth certificate of Hawaii, and it is the ONLY one that Hawaii has issued since 2001, and Hawaii no longer sends out copies of the original birth certificate.

    • Hi, ohioborn; thanks for your comment.

      The Obama camp argues that since Chester A. Arthur was ineligible, it’s OK that Obama is too.

      But the law states that both parents must also be American citizens.

      “Justice Gray reiterated the definition of natural born citizen as one born on United States soil to parents who are citizens” which does not include Obama.

      Further “If it was intended that anybody who was a citizen by birth should be eligible, it would only have been necessary to say, “no person, except a native-born citizen”; but the framers thought it wise, in view of the probable influx of European immigration, to provide that the president should at least be the child of citizens owing allegiance to the United States at the time of his birth. It may be observed in passing that the current phrase “native-born citizen” is well understood; but it is pleonasm and should be discarded; and the correct designation, “native citizen” should be substituted in all constitutional and statutory enactments, in judicial decisions and in legal discussions where accuracy and precise language are essential to intelligent discussion.”

      If Obama’s father was Frank Marshall Davis, then he is OK.

      If Obama’s father was Kenyan/British (dual) citizen Barack Sr. then Obama is ineligible.

      Maybe Obama hasn’t been able to correct the document yet.

      I don’t care why Obama is out; I only care that he is out, though.

  2. You said: “But the law states that both parents must also be American citizens. ”

    NO it doen’t. Who told you that it did? What gives him or her that absurd idea/ If that were true, do you think that Obamas’ election would have been confirmed UNANIMOUSLY by the US Congress?

    It is simply not true. Yes, a Swiss philosopher named Vattel said something about “two citizen parents,” but NO American leader at the time of the writing of the Constitution said any such thing. They all used the term Natural Born the way that it was used in common law, and that refers only to the place of birth.

    If Obama was born in the USA, and he was born in the USA, then he is a Natural Born Citizen. The only kind of a US citizen who is not Natural Born, and hence is not eligible to be president, is a naturalized US citizen. Obama was not naturalized because he was born in the USA.

    Obama’s father’s citizenship and for that matter a foreign citizenship law has no effect on Natural Born status. NONE. It is, by the way, a very anti-conservative philosophy that a foreign law can make a US-born child not eligible to be president.

    And foreign laws are crazy. Did you know that until recently Italy considered the children of its citizens to have Italian nationality even if the citizens were naturalized by another country before the child’s birth.

    Obviously such crazy laws have no effect in the USA. Our law, which Madison clearly stated, is that the ONE sole criterion for allegiance is the place of birth, birth in the USA. ONLY the place of birth.

    That is why such prominent conservative Senators who are also lawyers as Orren Hatch and Lindsay Graham say that a Natural Born Citizen is simply one who was born in the USA:

    Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC), said:

    “Every child born in the United States is a natural-born United States citizen except for the children of diplomats.” (December 11, 2008 letter to constituent)

    Senator Orrin G. Hatch (R-UT), said:

    “What is a natural born citizen? Clearly, someone born within the United States or one of its territories is a natural born citizen.” (Senate Judiciary Committee hearing hearing on OCTOBER 5, 2004)

    Re: ““no person, except a native-born citizen.”

    You need to do more historical research. At the time that the Constitution was written “native born’ was not a popular phrase. Natural Born was the popular phrase, and it was ALWAYS used to mean the same thing as Native Born does today. There is an example of a US Secretary of State in the 1840’s being asked whether two persons born in Connecticut and New York to foreign parents are citizens. And he replies right away that because they were Natural Born they are citizens.

    The obvious meaning of Natural Born is today’s native born.

    And dozens of quotations from John Adams, Hamilton, Jefferson and other US leaders show that they never used the phrase “Natural Born” to mean “two citizen parents.” They only used it to mean “born in the country.’

    • Hi, ohioborn,

      Thanks for the detailed response. Obviously you have a good awareness of the background.

      I oversimplified, of course. The authority is Leo Donofrio.

      Here is the link:
      http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=134881

      (Sorry the link does not reproduce cleanly).

      “The relevant Obama admission

      At the official Obama campaign website – Fightthesmears.com – just below the Certification of Live Birth (COLB) – the following admission was also published:

      When Barack Obama Jr. was born on Aug. 4,1961, in Honolulu, Kenya was a British colony, still part of the United Kingdom’s dwindling empire. As a Kenyan native, Barack Obama Sr. was a British subject whose citizenship status was governed by The British Nationality Act of 1948. That same act governed the status of Obama Sr.’s children.
      This was republished from a Factcheck.org, article which further stated:

      In other words, at the time of his birth, Barack Obama Jr. was both a U.S. citizen (by virtue of being born in Hawaii) and a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies (or the UKC) by virtue of being born to a father who was a citizen of the UKC.
      The constitutional question presented is whether a person born with citizenship in and allegiance to a foreign nation can be considered a “natural born citizen” of the United States as required by Article II, Section 1.

      The U.S. State Department’s Foreign Affairs Manual discusses problems associated with dual citizenship:

      7 FAM 081: U.S. Policy on Dual Nationality:
      (e)While recognizing the existence of dual nationality, the U.S. Government does not encourage it as a matter of policy because of the problems it may cause. Dual nationality may hamper efforts by the U.S. Government to provide diplomatic and consular protection to individuals overseas. When a U.S. citizen is in the other country of their dual nationality, that country has a predominant claim on the person.

      This helps explain why the definition of “natural born citizen” as one born in the nation to parents who are citizens makes perfect sense in that such a person will not be infected by dual-allegiance problems. If the parents are citizens, neither will confer allegiance to a foreign nation. Additionally, if one is born on soil foreign to the parents, that nation is likely to recognize the person as a citizen. Owing allegiance to more than one nation is an unnatural circumstance of citizenship.”

      But one must read the whole piece; there is valuable background therein.

      My personal argument, why I believe Obama is ineligible, is that Obama has proven one thing clearly: Producing a real birth certificate is clearly a disadvantage for Obama, and he will go to almost any cost to make sure it is not produced.

      Why is producing the real birth certificate such an anathema for Obama? For surely, it is that.

      Maybe Obama is not a Kenyan, as his wife has surely described him.

      Obama is a Gordian knot of lies. Which lie will be revealed by the true birth certificate?

      You don’t know; nor do I.

  3. Re: ““Justice Gray reiterated the definition of natural born citizen as one born on United States soil to parents who are citizens” which does not include Obama.’

    Who said this? It is exactly wrong. Justice Gray said that EVERY child born in the USA is Natural Born. And the said that every child born in the USA except for the children of foreign diplomats becomes a citizen at birth. When a person is both Natural Born and a citizen, she or he is a Natural Born Citizen.

    • Donofrio said (linked above):

      “Regardless, the holding in Wong Kim Ark did not state that such a citizen was “natural born.” In fact, Justice Gray reiterated the definition of natural born citizen as one born on United States soil to parents who are citizens when he favorably discussed Minor v. Happersett:

      That neither Mr. Justice Miller nor any of the justices who took part in the decision of The Slaughterhouse Cases understood the court to be committed to the view that all children born in the United States of citizens or subjects of foreign States were excluded from the operation of the first sentence of the Fourteenth Amendment is manifest from a unanimous judgment of the Court, delivered but two years later, while all those judges but Chief Justice Chase were still on the bench, in which Chief Justice Waite said: “Allegiance and protection are, in this connection (that is, in relation to citizenship), reciprocal obligations. The one is a compensation for the other: allegiance for protection, and protection for allegiance. … 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 who were its citizens, became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens. …”
      While the dissent feared the majority holding would make Wong Kim Ark eligible to be president, Justice Gray’s restatement of the Minor Court’s definition of a natural born citizen as one born in the United States to parents who are citizens stands in direct contrast to the dissent’s fear.”

  4. I Have debated with Leo Donofrio. (I haven’t heard anything from him lately.) I am very much in agreement with his position on just and unjust wars and on the strict construction of a Declaration of War. However, he is very wrong on the Natural Born issue.

    The meaning of Natural Born at the time that the Constitution was written was simply “born in the country.” It was, as I said, a synonym for Native Born, which was not a popular expression at the time. No American leader at the time of the Constitution ever used Natural Born in any way other than “born in the country.”

    That is why the US Congress confirmed Obama’s election UNANIMOUSLY, and that is why the Chief Justice of the United States swore him in.

    Re Dual Nationality affecting Natural Born status. There is an interesting decision by the Judge Advocate General’s office (JAG) around the time of WWI in which it showed that it was possible for someone to be a Natural Born Citizen of two countries simultaneously. In this case, the countries were Hawaii (before it became part of the USA) and Germany. The JAG of the Army ruled that the person was a Natural Born Citizen of Hawaii by virtue of Jus Soli (place of birth) and a Natural Born Citizen of Germany by virtue of his parents, and that neither affected the other.

    Which, of course, is true. No foreign law can affect the basic condition of a USA-born citizen. The notion that it could, as I said, is not a conservative principle. It isn’t even the normal practice of USA law. Our laws ignore the laws of other countries unless we have something like a dual taxation treaty or something in our legislation that makes them relevant–which is very rare.

    • Donofrio and you disagree, obviously.

      Of course, your point is excellent about foreign law. But is it not reasonable that the founders, having just fought a war of independence with Great Britain, should have been maximally concerned with preventing divided loyalties in the person of the president of the United States? What could make more sense?

      Why not test it?

      Besides, I would love to find out what Obama is so G’dawful Determined does not become public knowledge! Why does he demand privacy when he is not entitled to it?

  5. i have no problem with “testing it.’ Your side and Leo’s will lose big time; like nine to zero or eight to one. It is hard to imagine Scalia, who knows the original meaning of Natural Born, voting that it meant “two citizen parents.’

    Interestingly, both Scalia and Alito (two of the conservative justices on the Supreme Court) may themselves be dual nationals because of the crazy Italian citizenship laws. That is because until quite recently Italy’s law considered that the children of Italian citizens are considered Italian citizens even if their parents were naturalized in another country before they were born.

    Justices whose parents were born in another country and who themselves may be dual nationals (or who might have been if the Italian law was changed at a certain point) are unlikely to vote that Natural Born means either “two citizen parents’ or that it means that a foreign citizenship law applies.

    However, though both you and I think that it would be nice to have a ruling on the matter, the fact is that the supreme Court will not call a case unless four justices think that there is an issue, and in this case most likely they won’t.

    Some say that this is because the justices are afraid. Others, like me, say that there aren’t four justices who hold the silly view that two US parents are required.

    Either way, the case is extremely unlikely to be called. So, what should we believe in the absence of a decision?

    What the US Congress believed when it confirmed Obama UNANIMOUSLY, what the Electoral College believed when it elected Obama without a single member changing his or her vote from the result of the general election. What Black’s Law Dictionary believes:

    “Natural born citizen. Persons who are born within the jurisdiction of a national government, i.e. in its territorial limits, or those born of citizens temporarily residing abroad.” — Black’s Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition

    What Hatch and Graham believe. What the Wong Kim Ark case held when it ruled (six to two, one not voting) that every child born in the USA is Natural Born. These authorities all believe that the meaning of Natural Born is simply born in the USA (excepting the children of foreign diplomats), and as I said, historical research shows that Adams, and Jay, and Hamilton all used Natural Born the way that it is used in the common law, and never used it the way that Vattel is said to have used it (he actually said that an “indignes” has to have two citizen parents. He never said that a Natural Born Citizen has to have two citizen parents.)

  6. Re: “Justice Gray’s restatement of the Minor Court’s definition of a natural born citizen as one born in the United States to parents who are citizens stands in direct contrast to the dissent’s fear.”

    No, all he said, and all that was said in the Minor case ruling, was that at one time (When? Before the 14th Amendment) it was considered certain that with two citizen parents you were natural born. It is also considered by some that even without two citizen parents you were natural born.

    So what did the Wong ruling do after it cited the Minor case? It decided that EVERY child born in the USA is a Natural Born citizen, and it also said that that was the meaning of Natural Born at the time that the constitution was written. Then it said that Wong was a citizen because he was Natural Born, meaning born in the USA despite the fact that both of his parents were not citizens at the time.

    So the Wong Kim Ark ruling said that wong was both Natural Born and a citizen. What does that make? A Natural Born Citizen.

    In short, the Wong ruling overcame the “doubts” in the Minor ruling.

  7. Re: “Why does he demand privacy when he is not entitled to it?”

    What are you referring to? He has already posted his birth certificate, the official Certification of Live Birth of Hawaii. In doing this he was the first US president to show his birth certificate.

    As for his college records, mother’s marriage license, kindergarten records, high school records, college records and other stuff that birthers say is strange that Obama has not show; It’s not strange; no other candidate did either, and he doesn’t have to under law. In the next election, if some other candidate shows more background than Obama–which is highly unlikely–vote for her or him.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: