Barack Hussein Obama's Ineligibility To Hold The Office Of POTUS–Redux

I fully realize this issue of whether Barack Hussein Obama is qualified to be President of the United States based on the natural born citizen clause of the U.S Constitution causes much confusion among the hope and change fingers-in-their-ears-while-loudly-singing-LA-LA-LA nitwits in this country and in fact all over the globe. Could it be due to the frustrating inability of millions of people to apply any critical thinking to damn near anything let alone something as important as the office of our president? Sure, why not?

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; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.

I don’t understand why so many folks just don’t get it. Few if any people I know of are disputing the fact that Barack Hussein Obama is in fact a citizen of the United States. Fine, so stipulated.

What many people seem to have a remarkably difficult time understanding is that in order to qualify to hold the office of President of the United States one must be a natural born citizen. There lies the big difference, citizen versus natural born citizen.

It was not specifically laid out by the framers of the Constitution exactly what a natural born citizen was so years ago SCOTUS justices had to refer to other means, in order to settle cases, such as common law that was widely accepted around the time our Constitution was conceived. Common law such as the preeminent treatise on international law “The Law of Nations” written by Emerich de Vattel, a treatise which in fact was known to have influenced the drafters of the original Constitution.

Sponsors... article continues below...

Another probable source of the natural born citizen clause in our Constitution can be directly attributable to a missive written by John Jay, the eventual very first Chief Justice of the United States, to George Washington in July 1787. In this letter Jay wrote: “Permit me to hint, whether it would be wise and seasonable to provide a strong check to the admission of Foreigners into the administration of our national Government; and to declare expressly that the Commander in Chief of the American army shall not be given to nor devolve on, any but a natural born Citizen.” There was complete agreement with this suggestion by Jay and this specific qualification for the office of the Presidency was thusly added to the Constitution.

Allow me to direct those so inclined to Book One , chapter 19 paragraph 212 of the Law of Nations.

§ 212. Citizens and natives.

The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. As the society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights. The society is supposed to desire this, in consequence of what it owes to its own preservation; and it is presumed, as matter of course, that each citizen, on entering into society, reserves to his children the right of becoming members of it. The country of the fathers is therefore that of the children; and these become true citizens merely by their tacit consent. We shall soon see whether, on their coming to the years of discretion, they may renounce their right, and what they owe to the society in which they were born. I say, that, in order to be of the country, it is necessary that a person be born of a father who is a citizen; for, if he is born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country.

For some reason many people want to cite United States v. Wong Kim Ark when it comes to this natural born citizen situation with Obama but the issue at hand with Ark did NOT revolve around whether he was a natural born citizen. The issue was simply, is he a citizen period because even though he was born on U.S. soil it was to two Chinese natives who were non citizen immigrants to this country. While the ruling came down in his favor this particular case has nothing to do with Obama’s situation. Justice Gray, who wrote the summary, while deliberately sidestepping the natural born citizen issue because it was irrelevant in this case, relied on an earlier case, Minor v. Happersett, and the previously mentioned “Law of Nations” to come to his conclusions.

“The constitution nowhere defines the meaning of these words, either by way of inclusion or of exclusion, except in so far as this is done by the affirmative declaration that ‘all persons born r naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States.’ Amend. art. 14. In this, as in other respects, it must be interpreted in the light of the common law, the principles and history of which were familiarly known to the framers of the constitution. Minor v. Happersett, 21 Wall. 162; Ex parte Wilson, 114 U.S. 417, 422 , 5 S. Sup. Ct. 935; Boyd v. U. S., 116 U.S. 616, 624 , 625 S., 6 Sup. Ct. 524; Smith v. Alabama, 124 U.S. 465 , 8 Sup. Ct. 564. The language of the constitution, as has been well said, could not be understood without reference to the common law. 1 Kent, Comm. 336; Bradley, J., in Moore v. U. S., 91 U.S. 270 , 274. [169 U.S. 649, 655] In Minor v. Happersett, Chief Justice Waite, when construing, in behalf of the court, the very provision of the fourteenth amendment now in question, said: ‘The constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that.’ And he proceeded to resort to the common law as an aid in the construction of this provision. 21 Wall. 167.”

Minor v. Happersett

The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. 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, 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 [p168] 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 within the jurisdiction are themselves citizens. The words “all children” are certainly as comprehensive, when used in this connection, as “all persons,” and if females are included in the last they must be in the first. That they are included in the last is not denied. In fact the whole argument of the plaintiffs proceeds upon that idea.

Under the power to adopt a uniform system of naturalization Congress, as early as 1790, provided “that any alien, being a free white person,” might be admitted as a citizen of the United States, and that the children of such persons so naturalized, dwelling within the United States, being under twenty-one years of age at the time of such naturalization, should also be considered citizens of the United States, and that the children of citizens of the United States that might be born beyond the sea, or out of the limits of the United States, should be considered as natural-born citizens. [n8] These provisions thus enacted have, in substance, been retained in all the naturalization laws adopted since. In 1855, however, the last provision was somewhat extended, and all persons theretofore born or thereafter to be born out of the limits of the jurisdiction of the United States, whose fathers were, or should be at the time of their birth, citizens of the United States, were declared to be citizens also.

So as anyone can clearly see a natural born citizen refers to a child born of two U.S. citizens on the soil or within the territories of the Unites States for sure, and in Minor v. Happersett the justices went a step further declaring:

“and that the children of citizens (PLURAL) of the United States that might be born beyond the sea, or out of the limits of the United States, should be considered as natural-born citizens.”

One important thing Justice Gray wrote in his summary in United States v. Wong Kim Ark was amazingly prophetic,

….”British subject’ means any person who owes permanent allegiance to the crown. ‘Permanent’ allegiance is used to distinguish the allegiance of a British subject from the allegiance of an alien, who, because he is within the British dominions, owes ‘temporary’ allegiance to the crown. ‘Natural- born British subject’ means a British subject who has become a British subject at the moment of his birth.’ ‘Subject to the exceptions hereinafter mentioned, any person who (whatever the nationality of his parents) is born within the British dominions is a natural-born British subject.

In fact this “natural born citizen” issue was so important to the U.S. Senate prior to our last election that they felt the need to pass a resolution to establish John McCain was eligible to run for president since he was born in Panama, the country his father happened to be deployed to by the U.S. military, when the junior McCain was born.

Recognizing that John Sidney McCain, III, is a natural born citizen.

Whereas the Constitution of the United States requires that, to be eligible for the Office of the President, a person must be a `natural born Citizen’ of the United States;

Whereas the term `natural born Citizen’, as that term appears in Article II, Section 1, is not defined in the Constitution of the United States;

Whereas there is no evidence of the intention of the Framers or any Congress to limit the constitutional rights of children born to Americans serving in the military nor to prevent those children from serving as their country’s President;

Whereas such limitations would be inconsistent with the purpose and intent of the `natural born Citizen’ clause of the Constitution of the United States, as evidenced by the First Congress’s own statute defining the term `natural born Citizen’;

Whereas the well-being of all citizens of the United States is preserved and enhanced by the men and women who are assigned to serve our country outside of our national borders;

Whereas previous presidential candidates were born outside of the United States of America and were understood to be eligible to be President; and

Whereas John Sidney McCain, III, was born to American citizens on an American military base in the Panama Canal Zone in 1936: Now, therefore, be it

Resolved, That John Sidney McCain, III, is a `natural born Citizen’ under Article II, Section 1, of the Constitution of the United States.

“Whereas John Sidney McCain, III, was born to “American ‘citizens'”… not “an American citizen” but plural, BOTH parents are American citizens something Barack Obama can never lay claim to since his father was NOT an American citizen.

Since Obama’s father was a natural born Kenyan he was considered a British subject or citizen because Kenya was a British colony in 1961 and his allegiance was covered under the British Nationality Act of 1948. Obama Sr. was never an American citizen. While his mother was indisputably a natural born citizen of the U.S because both of her parents were U.S. citizens, the natural born citizen qualification does not apply to her son, Barack Hussein Obama, due to his father’s British and Kenyan citizenship and the fact that he never became nor ever was a U.S. citizen.

From Obama’s own authorized fightthesmears.com website:

“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.

Since Sen. Obama has neither renounced his U.S. citizenship nor sworn an oath of allegiance to Kenya, his Kenyan citizenship automatically expired on Aug. 4,1982.”

Clearly if Obama Jr. was indeed born in Kenya as many have speculated and suspect (it’s impossible to get to the truth because Obama refuses to allow access to his birth or any other records and the Kenyan government has also sealed all records concerning him and his family) there is absolutely no question British citizenship was passed onto him through his father as prescribed by law in effect at the time. If he was born in Hawaii as he claims he is equally ineligible because he was born to only ONE U.S. citizen which previous U.S Supreme Court rulings have clearly said do not qualify him to be a natural born citizen.

Why rehash this issue since nobody seemed to care when for the last 18 months half this country was screaming at the top of their lungs this guy cannot become president according to the Constitution?

Well for one because he is doing exactly what the founders of our country were worried would happen if someone gained access to the power the office gives to one person and this person did not have absolute allegiance to this country by virtue of their natural born citizenship. Hey, it was a different world way back then when stuff like this actually mattered!

The stock market has dropped nearly 3000 points since he was elected and many feel Obama is deliberately destroying our economy just as fast as he can to further the socialist (now quickly crossing the line into fascist) agenda he, quite frankly, said he was going to bring when he was placed into the Oval Office. Every time he or one of his minions opens their mouths the Dow Jones Industrial Average (DIJA) drops like a rock and this crap has been going on for months! Meanwhile Obama’s water carriers and nut garglers in the media keep doing everything they can to cover his ass, completely oblivious as their 401k accounts quickly become 40k accounts.

Waiting in the wings is Democrat sponsored legislation designed to curtail our rights under the First (the rebirth of the so called Fairness Doctrine) and Second Amendments (the so called “assault” weapon bans and draconian gun registration) and word is floating around that the Tenth Amendment may be under some pressure from the Obama administration hence the recent flurry of activity among many states to pass legislation reaffirming their sovereignty due to the increasingly overbearing demands of the federal dictatorship government.

The truth of the matter is this is the first step of the George Soros led coalition to destroy this country’s Constitution and standard of living. If some no name unaccomplished secretive bozo like Obama can manage to sidestep every built in measure we have available to ensure only natural born citizens are eligible to hold the office of President then the rest of the document will simply fold up and cave in like some cheap K-Mart lawn chair and 230 years of liberty, 230 years of blood sweat and tears, 230 years of the greatest most accomplished nation in the history of mankind will simply fold up with it. The founding fathers knew this could happen and alas the evil forces of globalism and socialism that have been chipping away at our Constitution and standard of living for decades are nigh upon us.

Apparently the fruit of their labor has finally arrived and is paying off handsomely in the name of this ineligible, unqualified buffoon….this Barack Hussein Obama.

While many Obama-bots will yell and scream how nobody cares about this issue and their guy won the election yada yada yada keep in mind these are the very same tools that cried their eyes out about how George W. Bush was massacring the Constitution via the Patriot Act and the so called “harsh treatment” of the savages locked up in Guantanamo Bay. Their selective concern about their rights and our Constitution is laughable at best and woefully dangerous at worst.

This entry was posted in Obama And His Administration.

2 Responses to Barack Hussein Obama's Ineligibility To Hold The Office Of POTUS–Redux

  1. Pingback: Watch Barack Hussein Obama’s Nonchalant Response To Fort Hood Massacre By Muslim Whackjob

  2. Pingback: Democrat Senator: Those Opposed To Obama’s Agenda Are Racist Militia Fanatics

Leave a Reply