Wednesday, August 12, 2015


Hawaii Reporter: Professor Skidmore Sets Record 
Straight; Citizen And Natural Born Citizen Not Same


Professor RD Skidmore of Pierce College tackles the Article II constitutional eligibility scandal. Professor Skidmore confirms what most paying attention know; a natural born Citizen is born on U.S. soil to two U.S. citizen parents.

Excerpt via Professor Skidmore @ Hawaii Reporter:

BY PROFESSOR RD SKIDMORE - Texas Gov. Rick Perry raised the legitimacy question on Mr. Obama’s birth certificates and location, only to recant. A media inquisition whereby one will be labeled a birther is intimidating, but it is standard fair for anyone who is serious about the Constitution and its requirements for the office of President. 
The Constitution in Article II defines the duties and qualifications for President of the United States; Section 1, paragraph 5 declares: 
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. 
Thinking persons have to ask why the founders differentiated between “Citizen” and “natural born Citizen.” We know that George Washington, the first President of the United States fit the qualifications for President as a “Citizen…at the time of the Adoption of [the] Constitution” and not a ‘natural born Citizen.’ In fact the first seven Presidents, from Washington to Andrew Jackson, met the Constitution qualification of President as a ‘Citizen’ under Article II and not as a ‘natural born Citizen.’ 
Martin Van Buren was the first ‘natural born Citizen’ meeting the qualifications for President of the United States as well as the next 35 office holders. 
The talking heads, in their ignorance have equated ‘citizen’ with ‘natural born citizen’ and insisted that ‘natural born citizen’ has never been defined—which is not true. 
The U.S. Supreme Court in 1874 defined “Natural Born Citizen” in Minor v. Happersett as children born of two parents who are United States citizens. Without regard to the location of the child’s birth the court unanimously declared: 
"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." 
The findings of the Supreme Court in 1874 was unanimous; there was no dissention or opposition among the Justices as to the findings, and the definition has not changed. 
The issue and question is not where Obama was born, rather “Were both of his parents U.S. citizens when he was born?[...] Continued @ Hawaii Reporter.

The excellence award goes to Professor Skidmore;