Thursday, February 12, 2015


Obama Litigant's Epic Response To News Publication 
Over Obama Article II Constitutional Eligibility Report


Note: The following is Tracy Fair's response to an editorial published Tuesday by the Reading Eagle Company titled:

Reading Eagle Editorial: Law clear for 62 years as to who can run for presidency
[.]

YOUR NEWSPAPER IS WRONG AND I HAVE THE EVIDENCE BELOW TO PROVE IT.

If there is ANYONE in this email that has one ounce of integrity, I suggest you look through my evidence below and inform the person who wrote this article that they are DEAD WRONG and the evidence makes them look like a fool!

REMOVE MY NAME FROM YOUR SLANDERING ARTICLE OR TELL THE TRUTH!
BRIAN WILLIAMS JUST GOT SUSPENDED FOR LYING, DID YOU NOT SEE THE NEWS. YOU ARE LYING TOO AND YOU SHOULD BE SUSPENDED AS WELL!

THIS EVIDENCE PROVES YOU WRONG!

Article 2, Section 1, Clause 5 of the Constitution 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;”

So the issue with Obama, Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio and Bobby Jindal is not “where” they were born, but whether or not they are Article 2 natural born Citizens, as is required by the US Constitution. Instinctively, for any investigative reporter the first step would be to confirm the definition of the term “natural born Citizen” that the Founder’s used when incorporating the term into the presidential qualifications clause (which I have meticulously done below). Many of us have done the research, now millions of Americans are learning the truth. More and more people are waking up, because they have finally taken the time to LOOK at the evidence.

The earliest mention of “Natural Born Citizen”, by two of the most instrumental Founders, is in the Constitutional Drafts. The original draft contained different qualifications for the President (shown below) than the final copy that we know today. This change came about after correspondence between General George Washington and John Jay (President of the Continental Congress, who later became the first Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court), in which they were worried about foreign influence being admitted into the administration and national government. These letters and events are dated and read as follows:

June 18th, 1787 – The “Original” Draft of the Constitution suggests in Article IX, Section 1 that: “No person shall be eligible to the office of President of the United States unless he be now a Citizen of one of the States, or hereafter be born a Citizen of the United States.” (Works of Alexander Hamilton: Miscellanies, 1774-1789, page 407).



July 25, 1787 (5 weeks later) – John Jay writes a letter to General Washington saying: “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.” [the word born is underlined in Jay’s letter which signifies the importance of allegiance from birth.] (Records of the Federal Convention of 1787 [Farrand’s Records, Volume 3] LXVIII, page 61. John Jay to George Washington)


September 2nd, 1787 (5 weeks later) George Washington pens a letter to John Jay. The last line reads: “I thank you for the hints contained in your letter”. (Records of the Federal Convention of 1787 [Farrand’s Records, Volume 3] page 76.)


September 4th, 1787 (6 weeks after Jay’s letter and just 2 days after Washington wrote back to Jay) – The “Natural Born Citizen” requirement is now found in their drafts. The proposal passed unanimously without debate. (Madison’s notes of the Convention – September 4th, 1787)


A Natural Born Citizen is a “citizen by nature” or a citizen “according to Natural Law”, hence the word “natural” and that is where the Founders/Framers got their definition, which I establish below.

Natural Law defines a natural born citizen as someone who is born in a country of citizen parents and is described in Book I, Section 212, of Vattel’s Law of Nations.

The full definition is below: 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.”

There is indisputable evidence that Vattel’s treatise, THE LAW OF NATIONS OR PRINCIPLES OF THE LAW OF NATURE APPLIED TO THE CONDUCT AND AFFAIRS OF NATIONS AND SOVEREIGNS, was used in writing our founding documents (Constitution & the Declaration of Independence). The initial piece of evidence that confirms America adopted Natural Law, also known as the “Laws of Nature”, is the first line of The Declaration of Independence where it states:

“When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.”.

Secondly, we have the 1775 letter from Benjamin Franklin himself (below), thanking Charles Dumas for the 3 copies of Vattel that he had recently sent to America. Ben Franklin’s Actual letter from the Congressional Records. The letter below proves beyond doubt that the Founders consulted Vattel’s Law of Nations, while writing the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution.


We also have Congressional records from March 10, 1794 confirming that Congress again ordered more copies of Vattel’s Law of Nations. This order states:


Furthermore, the 28th Congress (which met from 1843 to 1845), recorded in the Index of the Appendix of the Congressional Debates, that we are to look to “Vattel” for the definition of “natural Allegiance”, as shown below:


The next instance of “natural born citizen” is in 1862 and is also from the Congressional Record. This definition of natural born citizen confirms Vattel’s definition and is given by Rep. John Bingham, who would later author the 14th Amendment. Bingham’s recorded definition reads as:

“All from other lands, who by the terms of [congressional] laws and a compliance with their provisions become naturalized, are adopted citizens of the United States; all other persons born within the Republic, of parents owing allegiance to no other sovereignty, are natural born citizens. Gentleman can find no exception to this statement touching natural-born citizens except what is said in the Constitution relating to Indians.” (Congressional Globe, House of Representatives 37th Congress, 2nd Session, pg 1639)


Section 1 of the Civil Rights Act of 1866 clearly defines “who are citizens” and it validates Vattel’s definition. The “citizenship clause” shown below, was not in the original bill and was added in as an amendment to help in its passage and it states:

”all persons born in the United States and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed, are hereby declared to be citizens of the United States”.


When the Civil Rights Act went over to the House, Rep. John Bingham of Ohio, Father of the future 14th amendment, is on record (shown below) in the House and confirms the understanding and construction the framers used in regards to birthright and jurisdiction, while speaking on civil rights of citizens in the House on March 9, 1866 and addressing Trumbull’s citizenship clause amendment to the Civil Rights bill:

“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” (1866 Congressional Globe, House of Representatives, 39th Congress, 1st Session, pg 1291)

After the Civil Rights Act of 1866 had been enacted into law over President Andrew Johnson’s veto, some members of Congress voted for the 14th amendment in order to eliminate doubts about the constitutionality of the Civil Rights Act of 1866, or to ensure that no subsequent Congress could later repeal or alter the main provisions of that Act. Thus, the Citizenship Clause in the 14th Amendment parallels citizenship language in the Civil Rights Act of 1866, and likewise the Equal Protection Clause parallels non discrimination language in the 1866 Act.

Some people think that the 14th Amendment changed the Civil Rights Act definition of a citizen, however the author of the citizenship clause to the 14th Amendment, Jacob Howard clearly states in the 14th Amendment Debates that the citizenship clause addition to the 14th Amendment was only “declaratory of existing law” (Civil Rights Act) and is on record stating:

“This amendment which I have offered is simply declaratory of what I regard as the law of the land already, that every person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States.”  (Congressional Globe, Senate, 39th Congress, 1st Session, pg 2890)

During the 14th Amendment debates, several Senators questioned as to the meaning of the phrase “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” and Lyman Trumbull, author of the Civil Rights Act and the one who inserted the citizenship clause into the 14th amendment along with it’s author Jacob Howard, states on the record:

“The provision is, that ‘all persons born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens. ‘ That means ‘subject to the complete jurisdiction thereof. ‘What do we mean by ‘complete jurisdiction thereof?’ Not owing allegiance to anybody else. That is what it means.” (Congressional Globe, Senate, 39th Congress, 1st Session, pg 2893).

Trumbull’s words prove without any doubt, that “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” means the exact same thing as “not owing allegiance to any foreign power” and that the 14th Amendment changed nothing regarding the definition of a citizen. Moreover, 5 years after the enactment of the 14th Amendment, the Civil Rights Act definition of citizen is enacted into the 1873 Revised Statutes, confirming again that the 14th Amendment made no such change! Sec. 1992 of the United States Revised statutes of 1873.


The Annotated Statutes of Wisconsin (1889) enacted a full 20+ years after the 14th amendment clearly agrees, as it states “Who are Citizens” and uses the same exact phrase from the 1992 statute of the 1873 Revised Statutes listed above, which cites the Civil Rights Act as its source for the definition.


The West Virginia Supreme Court tells us to “Look to Vattel on Citizenship” (pg 191) as shown below:


The cite by Vattel from the screenshot above lists “page 101, section 212 of his “Law of Nations, Or, Principles of the Law of Nature, Applied to the Conduct and Affairs of Nations and Sovereigns”, which is the same text that I referred to above from Vattel and precisely reflects the Civil Rights Act & Rep. Bingham’s definition.

SUPREME COURT PRECEDENT RELATING TO NATURAL BORN CITIZEN AND NATURAL LAW

The Venus, 12 U.S. 8 Cranch 253 (1814)
Chief Justice Marshall (partial concur partial dissent)
“The whole system of decisions applicable to this subject rests on the law of nations as its base. It is therefore of some importance to inquire how far the writers on that law consider the subjects of one power residing within the territory of another, as retaining their original character or partaking of the character of the nation in which they reside.
Vattel, who, though not very full to this point, is more explicit and more satisfactory on it than any other whose work has fallen into my hands, says:”
“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 indigenes are those born in the country of parents who are citizens. Society not being able to subsist and to perpetuate itself but by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights.”

As you can see, Justice Marshall is citing Vattel, author of THE LAW OF NATIONS, OR PRINCIPLES OF THE LAW OF NATURE for his definition of natural born citizen, which is exactly where our Founder’s & the 14th Amendment Framer’s got their definition.

In Re Slaughter-House Cases. 83 U.S. 36 (1872)
“To remove this difficulty primarily, and to establish a clear and comprehensive definition of citizenship which should declare what should constitute citizenship of the United States, and also citizenship of a State, the first clause of the first section was framed.
'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.'
The first observation we have to make on this clause is, that it puts at rest both the questions which we stated to have been the subject of differences of opinion. It declares that persons may be citizens of the United States without regard to their citizenship of a particular State, and it overturns the Dred Scott decision by making all persons born within the United States and subject to its jurisdiction citizens of the United States. That its main purpose was to establish the citizenship of the negro can admit of no doubt. The phrase, 'subject to its jurisdiction' was intended to exclude from its operation children of ministers, consuls, and citizens or subjects of foreign States born within the United States. “

Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162 (1874)
“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 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.”

Elk v. Wilkins 112 U.S. 94 (1884)
“The distinction between citizenship by birth and citizenship by naturalization is clearly marked in the provisions of the constitution, by which ‘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;’ and ‘the congress shall have power to establish an uniform rule of naturalization.’ Const. art. 2, 1; art. 1, 8. By the thirteenth amendment of the constitution slavery was prohibited. The main object of the opening sentence of the fourteenth amendment was to settle the question, upon which there had been a difference of opinion throughout the country and in this court, as to the citizenship of free negroes, Scott v. Sandford, 19 How. 393 and to put it beyond doubt that all persons, white or black, and whether formerly slaves or not, born or naturalized in the United States, and owing no allegiance to any alien power, should be citizens of the United States and of the state in which they reside. Slaughter-House Cases, 16 Wall. 36, 73; Strauder v. West Virginia 100 U.S. 303 , 306 This section contemplates two sources of citizenship, and two sources only: birth and naturalization. The persons declared to be citizens are ‘all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof.’ The evident meaning of these last words is, not merely subject in some respect or degree to the jurisdiction of the United States, but completely subject to their political jurisdiction, and owing them direct and immediate allegiance.”

SUPREME COURT PRECEDENT CONFIRMING NATURAL 
LAW AKA THE “LAW OF NATIONS” IS THE LAW OF THE LAND

The Nereide – 13 U.S. 388 (1815)
“It is not for us to depart from the beaten track prescribed for us, and to tread the devious and intricate path of politics. Even in the case of salvage, a case peculiarly within the discretion of courts because no fixed rule is prescribed by the law of nations, Congress has not left it to this department to say whether the rule of foreign nations shall be applied to them, but has by law applied that rule. If it be the will of the government to apply to Spain any rule respecting captures which Spain is supposed to apply to us, the government will manifest that will by passing an act for the purpose. Till such an act be passed, the Court is bound by the law of nations which is a part of the law of the land.”

Banco Nacional de Cuba v. Sabbatino 376 U.S. 398 (1964)
As early as 1793, Chief Justice Jay stated in Chisholm v. Georgia that, “Prior . . . to that period [the date of the Constitution], the United States had, by taking a place among the nations of the earth, become amenable to the law of nations.” 2 U. S. 2 Dall. 419 at 2 U. S. 474.

And, in 1796, Justice Wilson stated in Ware v. Hylton:

When the United States declared their independence, they were bound to receive the law of nations, in its modern state of purity and refinement.” 3 U. S. 3 Dall. 199 at 3 U. S. 281.

Chief Justice Marshall was even more explicit in The Nereide when he said:

“If it be the will of the Government to apply to Spain any rule respecting captures which Spain is supposed to apply to us, the Government will manifest that will by passing an act for the purpose.Till such an act be passed, the Court is bound by the law of nations, which is a part of the law of the land” 13 US 9 Cranch 388 at 13 US 423

As to the effect such an Act of Congress would have on international law, the Court has ruled that an Act of Congress ought never to be construed to violate the law of nations if any other possible construction remains. MacLeod v. US, 229 U. S. 416, 229 U. S. 434 (1913)

In 1765, ironically citing Vattel, John Adams wrote in his diary that we must look to the author’s intent of an act and interpret it as the author would have, thereby telling us to follow Trumbull’s intent from the debates. Adams also noted: “This Rule is of great Use to Judges”.

See the full text below and here: John Adams, when he stated in his diary on Dec. 27, 1765 (citing Vattel)

“In unforeseen Cases, i.e. when the State of things is found such as the Author of the Disposition has not foreseen, and could not have thought of, we should rather follow his Intention than his Words, and interpret the Act as he himself would have interpreted it, had he been present, or conformably to what he would have done if he had foreseen the Things that happened. This Rule is of great Use to Judges. Vattel. Page 230. B. 2. C. 17. §. 297. If a Case be presented, in which one cannot absolutely apply the well known Reason of a Law or a Promise, this Case ought to be excepted. B. 2. C. 17. §. 292. Every Interpretation that leads to an Absurdity, ought to be rejected. Page 222 B. 2. C. 17. §. 282. Every Impossibility, physical and moral is an Absurdity.”

“By nature” or according to natural law, Obama was a British Subject at birth, because his father was a British subject (which is well documented), at the time of Obama’s birth. This means that Obama was “subject to a foreign power” and was ”by law” not eligible to be a US citizen at birth, per Federal Law (Title XXV, Section 1992 of the 1873 Revised Statutes).

Validating that is the fact that Obama Sr. was governed under the British Nationality Act of 1948 when Obama was born, which also confirmed/made Obama a British Subject at birth and one cannot become a natural born citizen, after the fact: British Nationality Act of 1948

Part II ~ Citizenship by birth or descent:
5.(1) Subject to the provisions of this section, a person born after the commencement of this Act shall be a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies by descent if his father is a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies at the time of the birth.

Further supporting my claims is the Naturalization Oath of Allegiance to the United States of America which states: “I hereby declare, on oath, that I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state or sovereignty, of whom or which I have heretofore been a subject or citizen; that I will support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic;” 8 USC § 1448 – Oath of renunciation and allegiance.

Why would immigrants not born here and becoming citizens, be required to renounce all allegiance to any foreign sovereignty, but people born here to immigrants are not held to that same allegiance requirement? That makes no sense whatsoever. Full allegiance is required for citizenship and the Naturalization Oath and Civil Rights Act prove that the Founders did not recognize dual citizenship and required full allegiance in return for citizenship.

- Tracy Fair, Unslave America


RELATED: