Why the POTUS Needs to Be a Natural-Born Citizen

[SlightlyCatholic]

The Founders and Framers were incredibly intelligent people. In fact, they operated, intellectually, at a grade 24 level, grade 12 equating to the senior year in high school. Therefore, it shouldn't come as any surprise that each Article and Amendment – each tenet – in The Charters of Freedom was painstakingly examined, debated, reviewed and, finally, included. Article II, Section 1 of the United States Constitution – the Article that clearly states the qualifications for holding the office of President of the United States – is no different.

To be clear, I have no decided position on whether or not President-Elect Barack Obama is a natural-born citizen or otherwise. I believe that we – as a people – need to base our understanding on any and every issue on the facts. But in the case of Mr. Obama’s status of natural-born citizenship there are too many unanswered questions and not enough transparency where the facts are concerned. For a candidate who ran his presidential campaign on the promise of transparency, Mr. Obama has proven in the earliest moments of his executive tenure that transparency is subjective.

The most troubling of the troublesome questions is why Mr. Obama didn’t immediately release his vaulted, original birth certificate for examination. This act would have not only eliminated a potential stumbling block for his campaign, but it would have certified his eligibility for the office of President of the United States and saved the taxpayers the cost of judicial intervention. Instead, under the pretext of visiting an ailing grandmother in Hawaii just days before the 2008 Presidential Election, Mr. Obama had his vaulted, original birth certificate sealed by Hawaii’s governor, Linda Lingle (R).

On Friday, December 5th, 2008, the full compliment of the United States Supreme Court will hold a Rule of Four Conference hearing on the issue of Donofrio v. Wells; a lawsuit alleging that New Jersey Secretary of State Nina Mitchell Wells was delinquent in disqualifying ineligible candidates for President of the United States from the November 4th, 2008 General Election Ballot. The US Supreme Court Rule of Four states that before a case is put on the docket, four out of the nine Supreme Court justices must agree in conference to hear the case. If four out of the nine Supreme Court Justices agree, Donofrio v. Wells will be heard by the full United States Supreme Court and our nation will stand on the brink of a Constitutional Crisis.

There are many reasons why someone running for the office of President of the United States should be a natural-born citizen but four come to mind as the most immediate: Allegiance, Sovereignty, Foreign Intervention and the Safeguarding of The Charters of Freedom.

Allegiance
It is important that anyone aspiring to the office of President of the United States have a steadfast allegiance to The Charters of Freedom and the country, without reserving any allegiance to any foreign power, entity or potentate.

Because the President of the United States serves as Commander-in-Chief of the United States Armed Forces it is essential that the person holding this position, and the authority to unleash the power of the US military, not be compromised of allegiance. And because the President is the Chief Executive -- the administrator to all Executive Branch authorities and departments -- it is paramount that this position be limited to those who would dedicate themselves to "country first."

A person holding dual allegiance – or dual citizenship – would be put in the position of having to choose between those allegiances and would, therefore, compromise his oath of preserving, protecting and defending the United States Constitution.

Sovereignty
In an age when there exists a substantial number of federally elected officials who believe the United States should take its seat as an equal in a one-world, globalist order, it becomes critical that the person elected to serve as President of the United States have an unwavering dedication to our nation’s sovereignty.

With the advent of organizations such as the “World Court” and an ever-advancing encroachment of United Nations authority upon our sovereignty, it is important that our national sovereignty be protected at all cost. Allowing someone who does not satisfy Article II, Section 1 of the US Constitution to ascend to the office of President facilitates an opportunity for globalist ideologues to position themselves to do harm to the Charters of Freedom at the hand of world opinion and at the expense of the Rights as enumerated in The Charters of Freedom.

When one takes into account many of the extreme laws governing free speech, property rights, taxation and personal and religious freedom that exist throughout the world it becomes clear that to bow to the will of the world community, to trade our sovereignty for universal national equality, serves to diminish the freedom and liberty mandated by The Charters of Freedom, liberties and freedoms paid for with the blood and treasure of patriots.

Foreign Intervention
In the youthful existence of the United States of America our nation has come up against many individuals, nations and organizations who would revel in our demise. To permit a non-natural-born citizen to rise to the office of President would be to invite nefarious forces to manufacture a Little Nikita in the hope of bringing about the actualization of Nikita Khrushchev’s declaration that the United States will fall with nary a shot being fired.

To believe that organizations like al Qaeda, ideologues like Hugo Chavez and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad or nation states like Russia or China wouldn’t embrace the chance to – through the legitimate means of our electoral process – install an operative in the Oval Office is to be naïve. Each of these entities devote resources to affect the demise of the United States of America including military, economic and ideological (read: propaganda) resources.

Because the President of the United States is entrusted with the execution of authority of all Executive Branch departments and the command of the US military, it is vital that anyone aspiring to the office have a complete appreciation and devotion for the American way of life. Failing to vet those who do not possess natural-born appreciation or our uniquely American philosophy is to invite an ideological siege upon our nation and to compromise the ability to bequeath Americanism to future generations.

Safeguarding of the Charters of Freedom
Chief among every American President’s duties is to safeguard the Charters of Freedom. The Oath of Office of the President of the United States reads:

“I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.”

Some add, “So help me God” to punctuate their commitment.

Without a solid, unwavering dedication to preserving The Charters of Freedom the President of the United States is ill-prepared to advance the freedoms and liberties mandated therein to future generations. Those who would usurp the genius of our Founders and Framers by diminishing the importance of natural born citizenship as a requirement for President do so at the expense of generational safeguards. Those who engage in this national apostasy should be thoroughly scrutinized for any ulterior motive.

Today, as we await the decision of the United States Supreme Court on the issue of President-Elect Obama’s requirement to satisfy Article II, Section 1, our nation stands at a crossroads that runs adjacent to the abyss. Today, there is no provision in the US Constitution for a mechanism to enforce Article II, Section 1 but for US Supreme Court action. On Friday, should the US Supreme Court abdicate its responsibility to the US Constitution, the full Charters of Freedom and the American People, we will stand smaller in the eyes of our Founders and Framers and in the eyes of all who died in pursuit of the preservation of our freedoms and liberty.

While it is true that many who have come to be naturalized American citizens exhibit a deeper love of our country than many who take citizenship for granted, one of the few ways to assure that Americanism and The Charters of Freedom survive for future generations is to stipulate that those aspiring to become President of the United States be American. When we “rationalize” that requirement to the ash heap of history we can all rest assured that our freedom and liberty will soon follow.

Article by Frank Salvato. Written on 4 December 2008.

Link: http://www.familysecuritymatters.org...pub_detail.asp

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

This is obviously a hot topic not only here but basically everywhere that American citizens care about their nation and who runs it. I agree with the author of the article that not enough transparency has been given. If Mr. Obama is going to be running our country, we need to get this one right. I watched Fox and Friends this morning and they talked about the fact that the Supreme Court won't touch this case because they don't want to usurp the will of 48 million people who voted for him. In my opinion, not checking this guy out thoroughly and making sure he's qualified usurps the will of the other Americans who didn't vote for him. If my candidate didn't win, I still have to live with the other one and he needs to meet standards or the whole country is being taken advantage of. What does everyone think? I know there's been a lot of discussion already, but I liked the article and I think it shows not only why the lawsuit is valid but why the relevant stipulation in the Constitution is there to begin with.

[03_SHOOTER]

Tim et al, the fact of the matter is that today, the Constitution is mere window dressing to keep the sheeple from realizing that our government has absolutely no interest in doing anything except what they want to do, and to Hell with us.

All one has to do is read the Constitution, and then look around to see all the evidence necessary to see the truth of this. As it relates to "the Messiah", regardless of any Certification of Birth, just because he has one doesn't mean that he was born in Hawaii. In 1961, there were only 2 hospitals on the island of Hawaii, and as a result many women simply gave birth at home, and then took their child to the hospital later in order to have them checked out by a doctor and to acquire the birth certificate. The simplest way to resolve this situation, since all hospitals retain all of their medical records, essentially forever, is to compel the hospital to present the medical records of his late mother, including her admittance to the hospitals maternity ward, the physicians notes on the birth, to include time, length, and weight of "the Messiah" at the time of his birth, and VOILÀ problem solved. Another way to resolve the problem would be to acquire the Airlines passenger manifests for the dates in question to confirm the dates that the parents of "the Messiah" departed for, and returned from Kenya. Again, if they indicate that they had in fact returned prior to the date of birth of "the Messiah", VOILÀ, problem solved.

On the other hand, there is the pesky testimony of his paternal grandmother who has stated quite clearly that she was at the birth of her grandson, in Kenya, which under Title 8 of the United States Code would mean that he is in fact not even a US citizen, at all, as he does not possess the appropriate State Department documentation. In 1961 Title 8 mandated that any child born overseas to parents that were not married (and as the father of "the Messiah" was already married to at least 2 other women in Kenya, their marriage was not valid), citizenship followed the father, not the mother, and as the elder Obama was a Kenyan citizen, then "the Messiah" is also a Kenyan citizen.

The fact that anyone would even speculate that SCOTUS would refuse to hear the case only serves to amplify the complete disregard and contempt for the Constitution that our government possesses. The usurpations, abrogations, and complete contempt for the Constitution that has become rampant in all 3 branches of government gives me no hope that we will ever see a "strict constructionist" revolution in my lifetime, if ever. Someone once posited the question "how do you eat an elephant?" and the answer is "one bite at a time", and people, we're down to the bones in places, and they've started gnawing on those, so unless or until We The People wake up and realize what's going on, and engage in a wholesale housecleaning of our government, we're doomed.

[SlightlyCatholic]

Update: Supreme Court declines to hear challenge to Obama's citizenship

By MICHAEL DOYLE
McClatchy Newspapers
WASHINGTON -- President-elect Barack Obama's January inauguration is still good to go, after the Supreme Court on Monday declined to hear a long-shot challenge to his electoral eligibility.

Without comment, the court brushed off a lawsuit claiming Obama didn't meet the Constitution's citizenship requirements. The move undercuts but doesn't end a legal campaign that's gotten far more traction on the Internet than in the courts.

Justices must still dispose of at least one other legal challenge to Obama's eligibility. Promoted on Web sites and in the conservative media, the various challenges differ somewhat in detail but build on common questions and insinuations about the circumstances of Obama's birth.

"Since candidate Obama was born to a Kenyan father, he is not eligible to the office of the President since he is not a natural born citizen," said retired attorney Leo C. Donofrio in his petition to the Supreme Court.

Obama was born in Hawaii. His mother was a U.S. citizen and his father, a native of Kenya, was a British subject.

While the Obama team has largely dismissed questions about his citizenship, the persistence of the questions drove the campaign in June to make public his birth certificate. It shows, among other things, that he was born in a Honolulu hospital at 7:42 p.m. on Aug. 4, 1961.

Anyone born on U.S. soil is a U.S. citizen, regardless of his or her parents' immigration status. Hawaii has been a state since 1959.

"Smears claiming Barack Obama doesn't have a birth certificate aren't actually about that piece of paper, they're about manipulating people into thinking Barack is not an American citizen," said an Obama Web site created during the campaign to counter misinformation about the candidate.

Some conservative activists haven't been convinced. They've been paying for ads, including a full-page missive that appeared Nov. 17 in the Washington Times' national weekly edition, and they've been filing multiple lawsuits.

Donofrio, who lives in East Brunswick, N.J., initially asked the high court for an emergency stay on Nov. 3. Justice David Souter denied the request three days later. Donofrio then resubmitted his request to Justice Clarence Thomas, who passed it along for consideration by the full court.

On Friday, meeting in their traditional closed-door conference, the nine justices gave some consideration to the case, Donofrio v. Wells.

It takes at least four Supreme Court justices to agree for a case to be put on the schedule for a complete hearing. On Monday at 10 a.m., the court issued its standard written list of orders identifying Donofrio v. Wells as one of about 300 cases that won't be heard any further.
Next up will be a separate lawsuit filed by Pennsylvania attorney Philip J. Berg. Berg, a former state deputy attorney general, also has filed several conspiracy lawsuits - including one alleging that President George W. Bush had a hand in the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks.

A federal judge in Eastern Pennsylvania threw out Berg's lawsuit in October, saying that he lacked legal standing to bring the challenge since he couldn't show he faced individual harm even if he could prove his claims about Obama's citizenship. The judge didn't get to the point of weighing the substantive merits of Berg's claim.

"If, through the political process, Congress determines that citizens, voters or party members should police the Constitution's eligibility requirements for the presidency, then it is free to pass laws conferring standing on individuals like (Berg)," U.S. District Judge R. Barclay Surrick wrote. "Until that time, voters do not have standing to bring the sort of challenge that (Berg) attempts to bring."

Surrick was appointed to the federal bench by former President Bill Clinton.

I guess we really have to put up with Obama for four years...

[HairyEyeball]

While the Obama team has largely dismissed questions about his citizenship, the persistence of the questions drove the campaign in June to make public his birth certificate. It shows, among other things, that he was born in a Honolulu hospital at 7:42 p.m. on Aug. 4, 1961.

No, they did not. What they produced was a 'certificate of live birth', obtainable by bringing an infant born anywhere to the hospital or doctor's office, as 03 has explained above. All the document produced 'proves' is that he was born, allegedly to the parents listed.

Apparently, SCOTUS had their feelings bruised by their actions in the 2000 election, and would rather not go through another cycle of vilification. If the charges are baseless, producing an actual birth certificate will silence them. The steadfast refusal to do so is 'suspicious' at best.

[Skylark]

"Of course Obama is british. He is handsome, popular and clever. Women love him. and men admire him. How could he be anything but British?"


A Britisher friend threw that one at me recently. Thought I'd share.

The Boston Globe (among others), Factcheck.org, and the State of Hawaii have said his papers are legit. But there really is no legal theory possible under which the Supreme Court could rule that Obama isn't a "natural born citizen" unless new facts come to light, such as if Obama wasn't born in the United States. But the Supreme Court doesn't argue facts. That's up to lower courts to decide. (They have Original Jurisdictions on disputes between States or States & Feds, but even then they don't do the factfinding)

We can imagine the Supreme Court ruling that anyone who was born outside the United States might be a citizen but not a "natural born" citizen. But they wouldn't then rule on whether Obama was or was not born outside the United States.

And anyway, this case couldn't even be a ruling on what a "natural born citizen" is, or whether Obama does or does not fit that definition. Rather (my understanding is) it would be to rule on who has standing to complain about whether a candidate is a natural born citizen or not. What makes McCain a US citizen is that both his parents were US citizens. What makes Obama a US citizen is the fact that he was born in the US. In order to demonstrate that Obama is not a US citizen or a "natural born" US citizen, you'd have to prove that fact wrong, and probably several other facts as well, like that Obama's mother was a US citizen. But the Supreme Court doesn't rule on facts.

The state of Hawaii has already confirmed that the certificate exists and the the certiicate of live birth is already a perfectly valid proof of natural born citizen. Being born on any inch of US soil, even if both your parents were border jumpers who made it across with moments to spare, makes you a citizen. Since a lot of this hinges on whether or not his Hawaii birth was legit --the State of Hawaii sez it was, his Certificate of Live Birth (same as a Birth Certificate) is valid, he was legitimately born in the state of Hawaii. Not that it matters --he could have been born in Osama bin Laden's Saudi beach cabin, and still been an American citizen. His mom was one. There's an email going around now that there's a citizenship law which sez Obama's Mama's (heh) citizenship wasn't good enough to transfer over to him, since for it to work she had to have lived in the US for at least ten years, five of which must be over the age 16. She was 18 when she had Obama, so it doesn't count, doesn't transfer to Baby Barack, and therefore he's an alien. The first part, he was born in the US, but the second part, about the citizenship law, is an oft-cited load of scuttlebutt.

The Law sez this. Born in Hawaii or Kenya, Obama is a US citizen.

[03_SHOOTER]

Skylark,

Nice piece, who did you steal it from...just kidding

You are correct about Title 8 Section 1401, but that's not the rub. Since PEBO's (President-Elect Barack Obama) father was already married to at least 2 other women (in Kenya) his marriage to PEBO's mother was not a legal marriage, which puts it under 1401(g), which, as it's written today would still make PEBO a "natural born" citizen. The rub comes in because in 1961 when PEBO was born, Title 8 only conveyed "natural born" citizenship to the illegitimate children of a citizen and an alien through the father, not either parent, and since PEBO's father was a Kenyan national, PEBO's citizenship would be Kenyan.

Now, since our government now has a nasty habit of doing an impersonation of Humpty Dumpty, and making words mean what they want them to mean, instead of what they really mean, like them proposing to use the "Saxbe fix" to allow the Hildabeast to serve as SecState, I'm sure they'd apply the modern incarnation of Title 8 to PEBO.

[HairyEyeball]

Since the grasp of fact you appear to possess roughly parallels that of your familiarity with the English language, little bird, perhaps you might not comprehend that a 'certificate of live birth' is not 'the same' as a 'birth certificate', else they would not have two different names. Perhaps the fact that not only were McCain's parents both citizens, but he was born on United States territory has some bearing on his citizenship?

Perhaps you would care to elucidate on your statement that 'the Supreme Court doesn't argue facts': Do they reach their decisions by consulting astrologers, or the combined weight of briefs submitted? Is there a mathematical formula dictating opinion? And while the Nine Black Robes may not constitute the court of original jurisdiction in suits brought by an individual against another State, in a rational world, how could a citizen of the United States not have 'standing' under the Constitution to challenge whether the chief executive of the United States is in accord with the clear and specific provisions of the Constitution (although that may be a wash, given the caveat of a 'rational' world)?

As to your 'scuttlebutt', the law in force at the time of Baraq Hussein's birth is the determining factor, not the later revision - you might check Article I, Section 9, paragraph 3: Just as you cannot be prosecuted today (with the perverted exception of the Lautenberg amendment) for a crime you committed in the past, when such action was legal, revising that law did not alter the status of those who were born during the time it was in force - during the time it was the law.

Not that your screeds aren't occasionally amusing, but should you choose to cite something as 'fact', it might behoove you to actually verify that it is, indeed, fact.

[wukong]

Originally Posted by HairyEyeball

Perhaps you would care to elucidate on your statement that 'the Supreme Court doesn't argue facts': Do they reach their decisions by consulting astrologers, or the combined weight of briefs submitted? Is there a mathematical formula dictating opinion? And while the Nine Black Robes may not constitute the court of original jurisdiction in suits brought by an individual against another State, in a rational world, how could a citizen of the United States not have 'standing' under the Constitution to challenge whether the chief executive of the United States is in accord with the clear and specific provisions of the Constitution (although that may be a wash, given the caveat of a 'rational' world)?

I'm not a legal scholar or practitioner, but, appellate courts do no argue facts. Appellate courts deal only in the application of law (ie did the trial judge apply the right law or did the judge correctly interpret the law). An appellate court court will not question or weigh facts, determining facts from evidence is the responsibility of a jury. If new evidence surfaces to question established facts, an appellate court will pass the case back to the originating court for a retrial.

In criminal cases a convicted defendant will be ordered a new trial. If deemed innocent (as in OJ) there will be no further action. The possibility of the Supreme Court deciding a fact on evidence is practically nil.

As to your 'scuttlebutt', the law in force at the time of Baraq Hussein's birth is the determining factor, not the later revision - you might check Article I, Section 9, paragraph 3: Just as you cannot be prosecuted today (with the perverted exception of the Lautenberg amendment) for a crime you committed in the past, when such action was legal, revising that law did not alter the status of those who were born during the time it was in force - during the time it was the law.

Not so, in civil statutes the law usually will include a "grandfather clause" for status changes whether it is a question of citizenship or tax due on a insurance policy. Without a "grandfather clause", what is; is.

[03_SHOOTER]

Originally Posted by wukong

I'm not a legal scholar or practitioner, but, appellate courts do no argue facts. Appellate courts deal only in the application of law (ie did the trial judge apply the right law or did the judge correctly interpret the law). An appellate court court will not question or weigh facts, determining facts from evidence is the responsibility of a jury. If new evidence surfaces to question established facts, an appellate court will pass the case back to the originating court for a retrial.

In criminal cases a convicted defendant will be ordered a new trial. If deemed innocent (as in OJ) there will be no further action. The possibility of the Supreme Court deciding a fact on evidence is practically nil.

They may not "argue" facts, or allow the introduction of new facts, but they will argue about whether the lower courts gave proper weight to the facts, or even improperly prevented the introduction of pertinent facts and if such is the case, then they will kick it back down for retrial with instructions to the lower court judge.

Originally Posted by wukong

Not so, in civil statutes the law usually will include a "grandfather clause" for status changes whether it is a question of citizenship or tax due on a insurance policy. Without a "grandfather clause", what is; is.

As it pertains to this case, IF "the Messiah" was in fact born in Kenya in 1961, then is not a "natural born" US citizen, due to the text of Title 8 at the time he was born, and unless his mother obtained and forwarded the proper applications for US citizenship, and such applications were approved prior to his 18th birthday in 1979, he's not even a US citizen at all!!

I want to be clear about this; my only concern in this is that the facts be brought out and the issue settled once and for all so as to obviate any further questions. The fact that at least 2 separate courts have refused to entertain citizens "petitions for redress of grievance", and told them that they don't have "standing" to hear the case only ensures that this issue will continue to be a distraction in some peoples minds from here on out. As there were only 2 hospitals on Hawaii in 1961, and as hospitals keep all of their patients medical records essentially forever, the simplest means of resolving this would be for the court to issue a Writ of Mandamus ordering the hospital to produce all of it's records on PEBO's mother, including her admissions forms, billing records, the doctor(s) and nurse(s) notes including time, length, weight at birth of PEBO, and the vault copy of his Birth Certificate (with the footprints on it). Once these records are produced, confirming that he was in fact born on Hawaii in 1961, the issue is resolved, and there would be no further question, problem solved.