Wednesday, July 28, 2010

Wow, it only took a year for WND to report Obama's real eligibility problem [note: WND is doing a fantastic job, I'm speaking of an in-depth report on it aside from the piece by Atty Donofrio].  Many of us have been reporting this for over a year now.  Great to see WND finally report the true nature of Obama's eligibility problem.  The fact is that it doesn't matter where the usurper was born.  The very fact that Obama's father was never a U.S. Citizen disqualifies Obama from being a "natural born Citizen" as required by Article II of the Constitution.  The irrefutable proof is located here and here. [Image source]

Via WND; - Hawaiian birth? Still ineligible - Best-selling book cites Founders, numerous Supreme Court rulings -

President Obama may not fit the constitutional eligibility requirement that stipulates only "natural born" citizens can serve as U.S. president, conclude the authors of a recently released 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 WND senior reporter Aaron Klein and researcher Brenda J. Elliott.

The authors concluded Obama may not be eligible regardless of his place of birth. The book recommends 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."

Obama was born Aug. 4, 1961, to Stanley Ann Dunham and Barack Obama Sr. Dunham was an American of predominantly English descent from Wichita, Kan., and was 18 years old at the time of Obama's birth. Obama Sr. was a member of the Luo tribe from Nyang'oma Kogelo, Nyanza Province, Kenya, which at the time was still a British colony.

Article 2, Section 1, Clause 5 of the U.S. Constitution stipulates presidential eligibility, requiring the nation's elected chief to be a "natural born citizen."

The clause states: "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."

The Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution specifically defines "citizen" but not "natural born citizen"

A "citizen" is defined as: "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are Citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside."

However, no definition of "natural born citizen" – which is only used in the presidential requirement clause – was provided anywhere in the Constitution, and to this day the precise meaning of the term is still being debated.

There are no records of any definitive discussion on the matter during the Constitutional Convention. That – coupled with the absence of definitive Supreme Court rulings and a wide array of opinions throughout the centuries – has only further confused the question of what "natural born" actually means.

Still, the authors found that according to the framers of the Constitution as well as Supreme Court rulings, Obama does not fit the eligibility requirements.

'Natural born' defined

The first U.S. Congress passed a law that began to define "natural born." The Naturalization Act of 1790 rejected the condition of being born on U.S. soil and referred only to parentage: "The children of citizens of the United States, that may be born beyond sea, or out of the limits of the United States," the Act states, "shall be considered as natural born citizens: Provided, that the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in the United States.

Five years later, however, Congress repealed the act.

"Still, it was clear that the intention of the Constitution's 'natural born citizen' qualification was to ensure the country would not be led by an individual with dual loyalties," wrote Klein in "The Manchurian President."

On July 25, 1787, John Jay, one of the three authors of the Federalist Papers, wrote to George Washington, who was at the time presiding over the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia.

Jay discussed the dual loyalty concern, writing: "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."

Jay, however, also did not define "natural born."

Representative John Bingham of Ohio, a principal framer of the Fourteenth Amendment, offered some definition for presidential qualifications in a discussion in the House on March 9, 1866: "[I] find no fault with the introductory clause [S 61 Bill], which is simply declaratory of what is written in the Constitution, that every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen."

"So according to Bingham, as well, Obama would not be eligible to serve as president," wrote Klein.

To try to understand what the Founding Fathers meant by "natural born," the authors wrote in "The Manchurian President" that some have turned to prominent legal tomes of the day.

The Law of Nations, a 1758 work by Swiss legal philosopher Emmerich de Vattel, was read by many of the American Founders and informed their understanding of the principles of law, which became established in the Constitution of 1787.

De Vattel writes in Book 1, Chapter 19, of his treatise, "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. … 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.

"So by de Vattel's standards, Obama arguably would not be eligible to serve as president," wrote Klein.

Supreme Court casts doubt

Numerous Supreme Court decisions have yielded conflicting views of citizenship and what it means to be a "natural born citizen." ...continue reading here; http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=184453
- FIVE ATTEMPTS TO RE-DEFINE NATURAL BORN CITIZEN SINCE 2001 -
Citizen v natural born Citizen-It's Don't Ask Don't Tell-20100301 Issue Wash Times Natl Wkly - pg 5



5 comments:

  1. Obama not qualified. GUILTY!

    ReplyDelete
  2. Birther/Doubter/Dualer from CaliforniaJuly 28, 2010 at 12:20 PM

    To be fair, I have followed WND's reporting on this issue and do recall it having pointed out time and again the British citizenship of Obama's father that alone should disqualify him from being constitutionally eligible to serve as president. WND's founder, Joseph Farah, in particular had brought this up in his commentaries.

    ReplyDelete
  3. As have I, but WND never pointed out the SCOTUS cases and the historical writings regarding natural born Citizenship. Which have been known about for a long time. WND never reported that Obama's father's citizenship would disqualify Obama. They only say some say that.

    If it wasn't for the fact that Aaron Klein wrote about it in his new book, WND would not have reported it. How long have they been sitting on this important info!?

    Here is the exact paragraph that WND publishes regarding the British citizenship at birth;

    Other challenges have focused on Obama's citizenship through his father, a Kenyan subject to the jurisdiction of the United Kingdom at the time of his birth, thus making him a dual citizen. The cases contend the framers of the Constitution excluded dual citizens from qualifying as natural born citizens.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Yes, WND was late in coming to the Natural Born Citizen (NBC) point, but they have reported on it before. On April 1, 2010 WND published Leo D'Onofrio's analysis of 0's ineligibility due to NBC:

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

    The reason D'Onofrio wrote it, he explains on his website:

    "Today, World Net Daily published my commentary, entitled “Why Obama is ineligible – regardless of his birthplace”. WND has been stepping up their coverage of Obama’s dual nationality at birth issue, and I’ve been more and more impressed with that coverage so I offered to write an essay summarizing the relevant Supreme Court decisions and law review articles. They took me up on the offer and published it verbatim. You may read the article at the link provided above."
    (http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/2010/04/01/world-net-daily-exclusive-why-obama-is-ineligible-%E2%80%93-regardless-of-his-birthplace/)

    He notes WND also had been covering NBC recently before his article.

    Thanks for all your work, too, at ORYR!

    ReplyDelete
  5. Thanks!

    Ahh, yes, I forgot about Donofrio's piece they published.

    ReplyDelete

“As long as I am an American citizen and American blood runs in these veins I shall hold myself at liberty to speak, to write, and to publish whatever I please on any subject.” - Elijah Parish Lovejoy(1802-1837)

Comments posted here do not necessarily reflect the views of BirtherReport.com. Readers are solely responsible for the content of the comments they post on this web site.