The Dangerous Precedent Set by Obama being President.

precdent

Obama’s father was never a US citizen, nor was he ever permanently domiciled in the US.  At birth, Obama was a British citizen. [He's also been a Kenyan citizen and perhaps a citizen of Indonesia as well.]  Obama admits his birth status was governed by Great Britain.

The question presented then is whether the US is willing to allow persons who were born without sole allegiance to the US to be Commander in Chief of our military.

For it is this specific fear that prompted our first Supreme Court Chief Justice – John Jay – to suggest to George Washington the following:

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.

This letter was written on July 25, 1787.  It is in direct response to Alexander Hamilton’s suggested Presidential requirement appearing in the first draft of the Constitution wherein Hamilton – five weeks earlier – on June 18, 1787 submitted the following:

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.

There you have the crux of the issue now before the nation.  Hamilton’s original drafted presidential requirement was rejected by the framers.  Instead of allowing any person born a citizen to be President, the framers chose to adopt the more stringent requirement from John Jay, that the President be a natural born citizen.

Contrary to media lies, you will find not one single statute in current US law which uses the words “natural born citizen” in code provisions which grant citizenship.  For no statute can make one a natural born citizen.  It’s a status, not a right.  And that status is necessary for only one purpose under the sun – to be Commander In Chief of the US armed forces.

Any citizen can hold any office in the entire Government of the United States except for Commander In Chief.  And for good reason, as John Jay made clear all those years ago.  This doesn’t mean that immigrants from all nations can’t one day be President.  They can.  But they need to have two generations of US citizenship to do that – not one.

If we decide to ignore the natural born citizen provision, we open the door to the possibility of a person with strong ties to foreign nations – possibly stronger than to our own – to be the sole commander of our military men and women who protect us.  And they also deserve our protection – AT ALL COSTS – from such a treasonous scenario.

We shouldn’t let our Constitutional guard down for the sake of allowing one very popular man to endanger all future generations.  Is it not possible that persons such as Kim Jong Il or Osama Bin Laden might imgregnate a US citizen woman?  And if this woman gives birth on US soil the precedent set by Obama would allow that child to be Commander In Chief.

I’m not worried about Obama as President.  I’m worried about who comes next because of the precedent he sets.  The same fear caused me to challenge McCain on the ballot as well.

This is the issue before the nation –  and it’s right from the mouth of John Jay’s more restrictive requirement that it was “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 framers wisely provided us with that check.

By weakening the natural born citizen check, we dangerously enlarge the pool of candidates who can be Commander In Chief or our armed forces.

About these ads

163 Responses to “The Dangerous Precedent Set by Obama being President.”

  1. Great article. I have another example. Former Peruvian President/Dictator Alberto Fujimoro. Remember he was able to flee to Japan because his grandparents were Japanese expats. He still qualified for Japanese citizenship through his blood/race, and Japan refused to extradite a “citizen” to face justice.

  2. Right on, Leo. This is not some frivilous technicality or “fine print.” This is nuts-and-bolts rule of law versus rule of (evil) men. Here is what I just emailed to my senator:

    Senator _____, Harry Reid is either uninformed to the point of negligence or he is a boldfaced liar engaged in a cover-up of B. Obama’s illegal status in office. Sen. Reid said yesterday, I believe, and this should be in the Congressional Record, that Obama was undeniably born in the U.S., which has never been established as a fact.

    According to the news report I saw, “Reid said the dispute “is getting far too much attention lately, one that ignores the undeniable and proven fact that President Obama was born in the United States.” Ironically, during the 2008 campaign, Reid called for “total transparency” in regard to Republican presidential candidate John McCain.

    A highly relevant evidentiary document has been filed in a California court: “Certified Copy of Registration of Birth,” which shows that Obama was born in Kenya. Regardless of where Obama was born, he cannot be a “natural born citizen” in the constitutional meaning of that term because Obama held divided allegiance at birth through his father, who was a British citizen, and so was Obama II. So Obama should be disqualified whether or not he was born in Kenya.

    If there is even a remote possibility that Obama was born in Kenya, you should immediately halt any further consideration of other Senate business until it is established as a fact that Barack Obama is a natural born citizen, as required by the Constitution. If you will examine the very lax rules for obtaining a Hawaiian birth certificate, you will find that even people born elsewhere are given one. In Obama’s case, having a relative such as his maternal grandmother assert he was born in Hawaii would have satisfied the lax HI rules.

    But Obama has another (paternal) grandmother, who is recorded on tape (supported by an affidavit) saying that she witnessed Obama’s birth IN KENYA. Tell Harry Reid to stop the cover-up and come clean about Obama’s subversion of our Constitution.

  3. So that is why Obama MUST be removed and our constitutional provisions respected. Period!

  4. Leo,
    I do worry about Obama as POTUS. He certainly has shown a lack of allegiance to this country, and an attitude of socialist tendencies that are anathema to our founder’s intent. His policies of government control of our people, and business will NOT be tolerated by many (if they have any brains). He has aligned himself with Communists in Central America and has turned his back on our ally Israel. A self proclaimed “citizen of the world” such as he is exactly the kind of POTUS that the founders wanted to guard against.

  5. That’s a good article, Leo. My husband and I were talking about this a couple of days ago. We decided that this is a great evil that’s been done to our nation. It’s a huge deception with a lot of players.

  6. Thank you Leo,

    I started using this scenerio when Obama nominated Sotomayor and while I have been able to make some headway, we have a long way to go in getting the truth out.

    My 1st of a few select questions to my elected officials when the townhalls begin:

    “Do we have a Constititution anymore?”

  7. Leo, today the citizen grand jury folk are in D.C. serving documents to Congress. Regardless of the legitimacy of ‘citizen grand juries,’ it does seem that Senator Robert Bennet of Utah — http://bennett.senate.gov/public/ — is willing to have his legal team research the natural born citizen issue. See:

    http://twitter.com/CrystalChalice/status/3127177780

    http://twitter.com/CrystalChalice/status/3127248806

    http://twitter.com/CrystalChalice/status/3127249031

    Over the last few days I’ve faxed most every Republican member of Congress, as well as a number of supposedly conservative Democrats, primarily discussing the historical definition of natural born citizenship and the Supreme Court precedent we have on the issue (i.e., Venus, Minor, Wong Kim Ark). Hopefully it makes a difference. But just to pitch an idea to you (and I’m going to say the same thing to Mario Apuzzo), because this particular senator has indicated that he is willing to have his team do legal research on natural born citizenship, perhaps it would be advantageous if you faxed or called his office to offer your legal insight. As a lawyer, your commentary would be much more valuable in their sight than someone else’s.

  8. i'mnaturalborntoo Says:

    Love this website! I had a thought. IF BO is declared ineligble and has to go, is there any way Pelosi could become president?

  9. Leo,

    Yet another excellent post, plus it raises the ante! Oh boy does it ever!

    I do think an explicit subheading may be useful. One that states some-thing like, “any of these three could now father a U.S. President.” I’m also thinking many viewers will not recognize all three men; it even took me a few minutes to realize the middle one is of the ruler of China, or is he?

    I am continually amazed & embarrassed by the phenomenal ignorance of Americans as Jay Leno highlights via his “Jay Walkers” series, not that ‘they’ are likely to visit your site any time soon.

    Respectfully,
    Robare

    [Ed. It's Kim Jong Il in the middle as well as the left.]

  10. MissTickly Says:

    Please post for me Leo. Thank you.

    “Dear Orly:

    PER YOUR CURRENT KENYAN BC: Are working FOR Obama, Orly? I am on to you.

    THIS IS A SHAM. You knew the following BEFORE you filed your recent debacle in court. I know, I wrote and told you so did another poster:

    This is not a good pursuit of things as it could result in placing The President’s VITAL RECORDS under court seal, keeping, We, the People, who have Oversight of the agency, who has the Oversight of the records from legally viewing them per UIPA Provisions (§92F-12) (3) (15).

    This is a legal and responsible route to pursue the documents. I have done so and asked that ’significant privacy information’ per exceptions found in (§92F-13(1) be omitted from the records. As lawyer, Orly knows this is true.

    The ’significant privacy information’ per Obama’s Vital Records are these: DOB & Ethnicity

    Place of birth, hospital, address at the time of birth, weight, etc.. ARE NOT considered ’significant privacy information’ per by the UIPA open records law in Hawaii and most states in America as far as I can tell.

    These provisions in context of Fukino’s TWO public statements and the current political climate MANDATE that disclosure of his VITAL RECORDS serves the Public. (§92F-12) (3) (15)

    UIPA STATUTE Part II: “To balance the individual privacy interest and the public interest, allowing access unless disclosure would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    Given this direction that the UIPA be interpreted to promote open government, any doubt regarding disclosure of a record should likely be resolved IN FAVOR OF ACCESS.”

    DEAR ALL:

    Orly, I believe, is working for OBAMA. Please urge her to step off, she’s not helping the cause for truth. I suspect it is entirely intentional, too. She’s a lawyer and knows about the Hawaiian OPEN RECORDS LAW. Yet, she hasn’t tried to pursue it? There are TWO provisions that call for the public disclosure–she KNOWS THIS.

    Think about it–where has she found all the resources to keep pursuing this when others have not? Has she ever helped this cause so far–in terms of GETTING ANSWERS?

    WELL, I HAVE. This is MY story, that happened, Monday, July, 27:

    On a whim I decided to try my hand at a question for Janice Okubo, Communications Director for the Department of Health that holds the President’s vital records. Believe me when i say I have not sought an answer to the ‘birther’ question in any formal way ever before this day. I emailed her and I asked her about AMENDED original birth certificates, something which by sheer existence alone, usually (not always) indicates a person was ADOPTED:

    In a nutshell, this is what I asked her:

    “Ms. Okubo–

    Director Fukino made this statement (Oct 2008): ““Therefore, I as Director of Health for the State of Hawai‘i, along with the Registrar of Vital Statistics who has statutory authority to oversee and maintain these type of vital records, have personally seen and verified that the Hawai‘i State Department of Health has Sen. Obama’s original birth certificate on record in accordance with state policies and procedures… ” Therefore, she has the statutory authority to answer this question:

    “Is the Director of Health for the State of Hawai’i, along with the Registrar of Vital Statistics who has statutory authority to oversee and maintain these type of vital records, able to state they have verified that the Hawai’i State Department of Health has President Barack Obama’s AMENDED original birth certificate on record in accordance with state policies and procedures?” Please reply with her answer.”

    You see, they have the same statutory authority over an Amended Original Birth Certificate that they have over an (unamended) Original Birth Certificate. No one has to attest to an Amended Original Birth Certificate’s existence or have ‘tangible interest’ in the record. By virtue of STATUTORY AUTHORITY alone she can answer my question, AND she clearly says so.

    But, to my surprise, at 11:47 p.m. on Monday, July 27, 2009 I got an electronic press release with a new statement, the first in EIGHT months with the ‘natural born citizen’ stuff people have been talking about all week:

    “I, Dr. Chiyome Fukino, Director of the Hawaii State Department of Health, have seen the original vital records maintained on file by the Hawai‘i State Department of Health verifying Barack Hussein Obama was born in Hawai‘i and is a natural-born American citizen. I have nothing further to add to this statement or my original statement issued in October 2008 over eight months ago.”

    I had this sent directly to me by Janice Okubo, herself, in response to my emailed question. And I suspect I had it hours before the press had it. I searched Google for any reference to this statement. None. Not even FactCheck.org had it.

    Of course, since they are able to drive the story through the media they needlessly added the stuff about being ‘natural born’ and ‘born in Hawaii’ to the answer to my question and to detract from the affirmative answer to my question and to fit their agenda. It was the headline on Yahoo! by the following morning.

    But the answer to my carefully crafted question was there none-the-less:

    “original birth certificate on record in accordance with state policies and procedures…”

    BECAME “original vital records [plural] maintained on file”

    This was too vague for my taste, so I asked for clarity. So, I asked specifically if the Director would make a statement that she has the STATUTORY AUTHORITY TO MAKE: “As Director of Health for the State of Hawai‘i, along with the Registrar of Vital Statistics who has statutory authority to oversee and maintain these type of vital records, I have personally seen and verified that the Hawai‘i State Department of Health has President Barack Obama’s AMENDED original birth certificate on record in accordance with state policies and procedures.” But I got this in return: “The director has nothing further to add to her statements.”

    I let Ms. Okubo know that I fear something is preventing Dr. Fukino from making statements she does have the authority to make. Duress? And told her I was compelled to tell someone. I did, I sent an email to two major networks.

    ANYWAY: Knowing in my heart why they made that statement on Monday, I pressed on. I looked at the UIPA Open Records Act in Hawaii and found ANYONE can make a request–not just Hawaiians. So using the question I’d already asked, I filed a UIPA Information Request.

    Then I thought about it some more. The way I worded it felt wrong and it seemed like an inappropriate way to use the UIP Act and I withdrew it immediately and telling them I didn’t have the stomach for it.

    Then I went back and read the UIPA Guidelines thoroughly and found the provision(s) that require the RESPONSIBLE disclosure of ALL OBAMA’S VITAL RECORDS citing not one, but TWO provisions. I want you to read my formal request and the follow up statements I sent. Read them in the order I have listed them, which is backward in chronological order beginning with today’s follow up. I think they read better that way. They have 10 days to respond, and I have recourse beyond The Dept. of Health noncompliance if that’s the case. I can re-file with the Hawaii Office of Information Practices for thier ruling.

    None of this LEGITIMATE EFFORT will make a difference if Orly pursues this. She is a lawyer, she knows I have followed UIPA Guidelines per Hawaii’s Open Records Law and that I have made a case for disclosure.

    I feel I must expose this, and I am sorry if anyone disagrees, but this has become apparent to me.

    Thanks for listening with an open ear!

  11. Leo,

    I was a little confused in my first reading from the above post, “… law which uses the words ‘natural born citizen’ in code provisions which grant citizenship.”

    At first I read “code provisions” as something secretive, and only because I know & trust you did I later surmise it probably means “statutory code provisions” namely The Law. Given I was confused others may be also.

    Just a non-lawyer displaying his ignorance of such matters.

    Sincerely,
    Robare

  12. Wise and seasonable–I love the way our old guys used the language.

  13. Jerry Christenson Says:

    Thanks Leo,

    I just sent your latest article to my Senators along with a request for Action. I’ll let you know if I hear anything, which I doubt.
    Jerry

  14. Thank you so much, Leo!

    I posted this article on the blog responding to the same man I was dealing with concerning the False Swearing issue. His latest response to me in relation to the 14th Amendment and US Code 1401 is, as follows:

    “I believe that there are two types of citizens, natural born and naturalized.

    And I think that it is crystal clear that any child born on US soil, of whatever parentage, meets the first type. Without question and without exception (well, except diplomats, etc.- the clear exceptions that Gray makes, by the way).”

    His position will allow foreign armies cover to run through the breach of the natural born citizen status.

    Proverbs 25:11 “Like apples of gold in settings of silver is a word spoken in right circumstances.” How timely!

  15. kittycat Says:

    Why the Media Blackout?

    Leo, I found this at Citizen Wells’ blog, which there’s a long article over on the Northeast Intelligence Network and Canada Free Press. Hope it’s okay if I put this here. If true, this is important and explains why talk show hosts cannot talk about the eligibility issue because of being threatened.

    “Media Blackout on Obama eligibility dates back to November

    The Northeast Intelligence Network and Canada Free Press are in possession of extremely sensitive investigative documents

    Do you remember Watergate? Thirty-five years ago this Sunday, U.S. President Richard M. Nixon submitted his letter of resignation for his role in the scandal. There was the crime – the break-in, and then there was the cover-up by the Nixon administration. There were threats, media manipulation and disinformation. It was the cover-up more than the crime itself in the aftermath of the Watergate break-in that led to the downfall of the Nixon administration. It was a politically critical time for our country, but we survived because of the strength of the U.S. constitution.

    Now, we potentially face a new constitutional crisis stemming from the refusal of Barack Hussein Obama to produce a one-page document that would confirm his eligibility to hold the highest office in the land. Eligibility to hold office is not a “fringe” matter, but a core constitutional issue that lies at the very heart of a growing controversy.

    Although we do not have the birth certificate or proof of ineligibility, the Northeast Intelligence Network and Canada Free Press have documentation of a cover-up relating to the issue of Obama’s eligibility to hold office. The proof we possess not only exposes a well orchestrated cover-up, but also provides critical insight into why the topic of Obama’s eligibility has failed to gain traction in the corporate media.

    The Northeast Intelligence Network and Canada Free Press are in possession of extremely sensitive investigative documents, including a stunning written admission by a nationally known talk show host stating that he was threatened with his career – or worse – should he talk about the issue of Barack Hussein Obama’s birth records to a national audience. This document was obtained on December 10, 2008, and provides explicit detail of a “gag order” imposed on this host before and immediately following the national election last November.

    After receiving and authenticating the document, US based veteran private investigator Douglas J. Hagmann opened a full scale investigation into the media blackout, with specific emphasis on tracing the blackout origins to those issuing them. This investigation was conducted in conjunction with Judi McLeod, founding editor of Canada Free Press and Brian Thompson, CFP Information Technology chief following a meeting near Toronto, Ontario last December. At that meeting, it was decided to keep the existence of the document secret until additional evidence could be obtained.

    Continued:

    http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/13373

  16. I think Miss Tickly may be confusing inference with fact, and I disagree with her damning judgment on Orly Taitz, to whom we all should be grateful for bringing the Kenyan birth registration out at this time so we can use it to prick the thick hides of our public officials.

    The courts are useful in this case, but we the people don’t have to depend solely on agonizingly slow judicial processes to move the eligibility question forward toward resolution.

    Whether or not the pro-Obama communists of Kenya will permit verification of the birth registration, it has evidentiary relevance and face validity, and we should use it, unless someone disproves it, as another reason–not an absolute proof, admittedly–to push for Senate action NOW.

    The burden for disproving the Kenyan birth registration is on ObamAxelrod, Inc. Let them disprove it if they can. Don’t forfeit its usefulness without a contest.

    The Senate has a duty to support and defend the Constitution, and that august body should be persuaded to do its duty TODAY by establishing as a fact, or not, that the Commander-in-Chief holds authority legally.

    [Ed. Orly should have done much more due dilligence before releasing this. At the very least she should have anticipated the "Republic of Kenya" being written on the document. The she could have easily verified by using a Private Investigator whether this kind of form was used at that time in Feb 1964. That and other things should have been done before this document came forward. It's shoddy work to not do your own research and subject your evidence to these attacks. And the attacks are correct. People ought to attack anything about which seems odd and to which she has no ready explanation. It's bush league and this is supposed to be the major leagues. No major law firm would ever allow their attorneys to release something like this. You're letting you emotions get the best of judgment.]

  17. “I’m not worried about Obama as President. ”

    Well, I am. Seems to me that the Obama situation is exactly what the Founders were trying to prevent. I’d like to think I’d be saying the same thing if he (Obama) were conservative, but the fact that he’s a totalitarian liberal only makes it worse. There’s no way this man qualifies to be “natural born,” and therefore he has no business holding the office of the POTUS.

    This is indeed a very dangerous precedent. But it is also a very dangerous present-day reality.

  18. LD wrote, “By weakening the natural born citizen check, we dangerously enlarge the pool of candidates who can be Commander In Chief or our armed forces.”

    He’s reiterating the exact caution expressed during the constitutional debates of 1787. In a book we reviewed, out of Harvard no less, this was confirmed back then, in 1787, before the Constitution was even written, not just on this blog in 2009. Therefore, it’s not just an opinion, it’s fact.

    “Gouverneur Morris closed the debate urging that they should govern themselves by reason and not by feelings, and not be polite at the expense of prudence. Foreigners would enjoy great privileges without office. He would not trust philosophical citizens of the world. The men who could shake off attachments to their own country could never love another. They had no means of knowing what legislatures would do.”

    Here we see only one example, among the numerous found, that set limits and constraints upon citizens who could be eligible as governing officials. First, yes, you had to be a citizen. There we only three types:

    1. Those who pledged their lives and sacred honor during the declaration of indepdence. On that day, July 4, 1776, millions of former British subjects became citizens of America; having been thrown out of British protection by the king and established their own independent sovereignty. It didn’t matter if you were a native of this country. You had to prove allegiance to only America or you weren’t a citizen, period.

    2. The children, their heirs, are those born of those pledged citizens, who were the first natural-born citizens of the new nation once the Constitution was ratified, pulling all the individual states into one union of people. This distinction of people was the first to be created out of a concept of united ideas and principles. That Hawaiian health director is an idiot and so is that moron, Tarantino. Neither have studied U.S. history. It’s LIES.

    3. Foreigners were to be naturalized before sanctioning their admittance into the union. They not only had to swear an oath to the republic ideas and principles, but disavow allegiance to any other. Even then, they were disenfranchised from ever holding office of the presidency. Some of the delegates didn’t want foreigners of any kind entering their councils. If you were legitimately born of a foreign father, that was it, partus sequitur patrem reigned (a child follows the nationality of the father) and you were deemed the nationality of your father. End of story. Get in the naturalization line if you wanted citizenship and THAT is what the framers held and was set in law.

    A “citizen of the world”, if you read the early history, was defined as a person who looked upon favoring one nationality over another with DISDAIN. A “citizen of the world” looks at all nations equally, and has no attachment or preference for one over the other. This is what Obama says he is, a “citizen of the world”. It’s an oxymoron to say this and take a solemn oath to put this country’s interests above all others. The two sentiments don’t equate with each other.

    But it is the ultimate oxymoron to call yourself a “natural-born citizen” when you clearly admit that you were born with dual-loyalties and then leave absolutely no doubt in anyone’s mind, when you call yourself an American citizen, however, you’re also a citizen of the world. Which is it Obama? You CANNOT be both!

    This is the New World Order think, people. Get used to it, because even Obama no longer calls it that – he calls it THE World Order. It’s not even new think anymore, it’s here. This “order” wants to do away with national identities and create a world identity and it’s not based on the sovereign concept of liberty and freedom. It’s based on rulers where only the elite have power and you are just a pawn in the scheme of everything else.

    This is what you stand to lose in the warning quoted above. You are in the midst of standing in the face of people who are counting on the fact that you are ignorant of your history that gives you the right to question who and where he came from and the bag of socialist crap they are trying to ram down your throat. If you don’t question it now, you will either lose your liberty by rolling over in favor of these foreign agendas, or possibly die fighting for your freedom all over again if you don’t question the election process now and get involved in the next election to come.

    We are one united people. We aren’t born out of aristocracy, oligarchy or ruled by monarchs. We are each a sovereign entity who inherited the freedom of a nation born upon the principles of a republic, not socialism.

    Remember something, socialists weren’t even allowed to become citizens in our early history. Considering that, ask yourself how Roger Calero even got on the 2008 ballot. Foreign-born, foreign-bred AND a self-proclaimed socialist. They were barred as being unfriendly to republican principles. That was a matter of law, not opinion. Obama gets into office and within less than a year, he has put the auto industry, the banks and now wants your own health care, under government control. Next WILL be your guns. Then they will take your children and force them into involuntary servitude to police THIS country (The National Civil Service program). This isn’t a scare tactic. These are his policies! That’s tyranny. That’s socialism. He should be impeached based on pre-existing law handed down from the edicts found in the constitutional debates. Obama is not friendly to republican principles, neither is his entire administration. They may call themselves democrats, but that’s a lie. They are socialists with foreign ideas intent on taking down this republic.

    Wake up America. You still have the power to remain free, but you have to take an interest in your freedom first. Don’t cry later if you did nothing and lose it. That is what is at stake here. Stop allowing idiots to lie to your face when the facts are easily confirmed right in a good history book.

    [Ed. Well said as usual, Kamira.]

  19. Leo, are you familiar with Andrew McCarthy at NRO (National Review Online)? He’s a former prosecutor himself. He wrote an op-ed back in July 30th (http://article.nationalreview.com/print/?q=ZmJhMzlmZWFhOTQ3YjUxMDE2YWY4ZDMzZjZlYTVmZmU=). I believe he might be far more receptive of your ideas than say a Beck, Dobbs “et al.” When I use your:

    “I’ve told you a million times that the BC does not matter at all. If Obama were born on the mall in DC in a manger rocked by Ronald Reagan sipping a Martini while reading a masonic Bible with a million man march full of witnesses, Obama would still not be eligible to be President,”

    people’s heads spin on both the “right” and “left.” Amazing to the amount of ignorance that is prevalent in today’s society on basic civics matters…

  20. Some people doubt that removing Obama would be worth it because of the societal upset it could entail. But as I see it, the longer this drags on the worse it will be everyone, including the Democrats (who should be covering their tails right now).

    Here’s one happy–at least not terrible–scenario, which should even please Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi:

    The Joint Chiefs of Staff tell the White House that serious questions have arisen about Obama’s authority and that it is their duty to ensure their orders are legal. They therefore respectfully request that Obama establish as a fact that he is a natural born citizen, as required by the Constitution.

    Obama’s attorneys meet secretly with the Joint Chiefs, Chief Justice Roberts, and the tip-top leaders of Congress. If it becomes clear that Obama cannot establish the requisite fact, he is persuaded to resign and to be deported–for the good of the nation–to Indonesia (where he apparently is still a citizen).

    Biden’s tenure is voided because it depended on Obama’s. Nancy Pelosi becomes President and comforts the nation before widespread unrest occurs. She declares martial law if needed.

    This way the Democrat Party can claim two wonderful prizes in a single year: first black prez and first woman prez. Now is that a great party or what?

  21. QUITE NAIVE!!

    Your point is made and well versed.

    However, let’s not ALL be naive.

    How many on the SCOTUS are “natural born” and have given allegiance to a foreigner?

    How many State Attorneys are “natural born” and have supported a foreigner?

    How many in Congress are “natural born” and have opened the doors for a foreigner?

    Etc…..

    John Jay and the Framers intent are clear but the reality of TRUE allegiance is NOT in one’s blood but in one’s HEART!

    Do you seriously believe that all previous Presidents (“natural born”) did NOT commit ANY crimes against this Nation because of what was in their blood or what they may have lacked in their heart?

    It’s a law that has been broken – don’t act like it’s one of the 10 Commandments.

    It’s a LEGAL matter and not a matter of morality.

    A “natural born” President can be just as guilty of crimes against this Nation as any NON “natural born”.

    [Ed. Excuse me but we were discussing the policy of the Constitutional requirement. This seems to bother you. Your reasoning above provides all the more reason to keep the nbc check in tact.]

  22. Great comment by Kamira. Lets all think about what kind of man (a Constitutional scholar no less) Knowingly Usurps the office of POTUS, and puts his hand on the Bible swearing to protect the Constitution that he is violating, in front of G_d and the world. This is a man that is more than Power hungry or ambitious. This is a man who is Dangerous.

  23. Here’s a question I would like answered. Obama was born a British subject and a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies through his father. In ’63 Obama sr. became a Kenyan and so did Obama jr.. In order to retain his citizenship he had to renounce all other citizenships and take an oath of allegiance before he was 21. Obama did not become a citizen of Kenya (allegedly). That means he never renounced his British citizenship. As I understand it British citizenship is forever unless you renounce it. Since Kenyan law has no authority over British law does that mean that Obama is right now a British citizen?

    [Ed. That's a good question. Im still trying to answer it.]

  24. NBC RULES!!

    No, Leo, I agree with “natural born”.

    However, my point is “natural born” – itself ALONE does NOT make a man or woman.

    The ideal President should not only be “natural born” but also an American ‘at heart’.

    The only thing that bothers me are those that are “natural born” but NOT Americans ‘at heart’.

    You are the former and far too many (in power) are the latter.

  25. kittycat Says:

    Leo, in reply to IceTrey’s question, doesn’t it have to do with the word “born,” meaning at the time of his birth and not later on regardless of what country did what? I’m just curious, that’s all.

    [Ed. You are correct.]

  26. Curi0us0nefromthe60s Says:

    In response to Kal. You cannot legislate one’s heart. The NBC clause is an attempt to err by excluding some of those who would bear allegiance to our country (at least in their hearts) than including all of those whom without a doubt bear allegiance elsewhere regardless of whether or not that allegiance is in their heart, mind or simply in their blood. If there is a fallacy in the argument that NBC’s will always hold loyalty and allegiance in their hearts and minds to America than that is fine. The Constitution cannot ensure loyalty and allegiance in the NBC clause it can only make its best attempt at this. The result of the NBC clause being more importantly an attempt to err by excluding those who would bear allegiance to our country than including those whom without a doubt bear allegiance elsewhere regardless of whether or not the allegiance is in their heart and mind or simply in their blood.

  27. Whistleblower Says:

    Two things:

    1. I don’t think most of those who voted for Barck Obama would want him removed -even if it turns out that he was born in Kenya. They are “in love”, and as we all know; “love is blind”.

    2. If it is determined that Obama is not a “natural born citizen” (as most of us agree that he is not), I tend to think the Twentieth Amendment would be controlling. Therefore Joe Biden would become the 44th President.

    –You would believe how many of the people that voted for Obama get fear in their eyes when I suggest that Biden would become President. Yet, none of them said a word when he was chosen as the V.P. candidate. -They were too busy trashing Sarah Palin to bother to look in their own backyard. (Not that I consider Sarah to be the greatest choice on earth. -She has her flaws, but, then again, don’t we all?)

  28. thank u again Leo. succinct and right on target. with permission, may i paste/link this “Dangerous Precedent” post of yours today?

    i’ve yet had anybody answer me convincingly when i ask them:
    “why a naturalized citizen can NOT be President?” that they don’t come back to this very same and fundamental argument that you have illuminated so brilliantly today.

  29. So, Leo, you are not worried about Obama as President.

    What would it take? Is there some part of the Constitution which he hasn’t yet stressed, fractured, or bypassed that he’d have to violate?

    [Ed. I'm not happy with his actions, but I also wasn't happy at all with Bush or Clinton. This isn't about Obama's policies. It's about his eligibility.]

  30. re: “Harry H” above posted at August 4, 2009 at 4:10 pm

    interesting scenario, but that isn’t what is according to the succession articles. they state that Biden will become the POTUS – when Obama “fails to qualify”. it is then that Biden can appoint our current Sec State and de-facto VP, Hillary Clinton. then since Joe Biden has always done exactly what his handlers have told him to do, he could easily resign. fwiw, i have been saying since last year, that Obama will be replaced by Hillary, although i thought it would be in the primaries, then before the election, then (thanks to Leo and Cort) by the Electoral College. by-the-way, the Electoral College could’ve refused to give their votes to Obama because of the NBC, and given them to the runner-up of the primaries instead… meaning Hillary. but it didn’t happen and we are now left with a British citizen as POTUS.

    in fact, i still believe that the Clintons are up to something. their recent posturing and grasping at headlines may soon be seen as “coming to the rescue” of the nation. i do believe that was the plan all along, that if she couldn’t get it outright, then they would backdoor themselves in via Obama’s coat tails. i know that is sheer conspiracy, but look at just how long Obama’s British-citizenship-presidency has been allowed to remain!

    all of that scenario MUST come from the NBC issue only. and the one person our nation would most need to thank for researching and reminding us of this constitutional concept, is Leo Donofrio.

  31. Leo

    Savage is on a roll, this time Berg – we need to get you on to cover NBC.

    Savage interviews Phillip Berg on the issue of where Barack Obama was born. Berg was a lifetime Democrat, but believes something is wrong here.
    Michael Savage radio show
    08/04/09 H2, Tuesday, August 04, 2009
    hour 2, Birth cert and the press starts at 11:20 (in this part Savage sounds like Leo), Berg starts at time 18:15. May continue in hour 3, don’t know yet.

    http://910knew.com/podcast/michaelsavage.xml

    Michael Savage – 1.800.449.8255 (3p-6p)
    Talk910 KNEW
    340 Townsend Street
    San Francisco, CA 94107
    Business Line: 415.356.5500
    Fax Line: 415.975.5471

  32. Leo, we ceased being a Constitutional Republic on 1/20/09. The rest is chatter.

  33. @ Kal

    Kal it’s like you saying ” we don’t need speed limits on our highways because someone will not respect them” .

    Let’s have them and we will deal with each case as the laws are broken no?!

  34. Leo, Thank you for your continued interest and resolute focus on the NBC requirement of our Constitution. The original BC may be useful in documenting BHO’s parentage and their citizenship, it is still the NBC clause that controls. As with Nixon, it is not the break in at Watergate, but coverup, that led to his resignation. We are on a similar path with BHO. When the economy tanks and the independents lose faith in BHO, the focus may shift to the coverup and obstruction of justice, and the walls will come tumbling down. I want to thank you for your wisdom and persistence in this matter. I continue to believe that the Truth will set us free. And that one nation, conceived in Liberty and dedicated to Freedom will not perish from the earth. I for one, consider you to be a Patriot and someone who will live in history as a person who would dedicate his life and reputation to preserve our Constitution and democracy. Keep up the good work. All of us who hold America dear will be forever in your debt. Kind regards, a fellow patriot and natural born citizen, Bill Graham

  35. I can’t think of anything else a person trying to destroy a country would do that Obama hasn’t done…
    He’s…
    Bankrupted us
    Looted us blind
    Shamed us
    Blamed us
    Dissed us
    Lied about us
    Said we are not a Christian nation any longer
    Said we are the world’s largest muslim nation
    Unemployed us
    Disarmed us
    Freed and Funded terrorists bent on destroying us
    Divulged state secrets
    Demoralized the military and CIA
    Censored and controlled all press
    Overtaxed us
    Wants to impose euthanasia Obamacare “reaper is cheaper” to kill off older white voters and to give free healthcare to illegals, then amnesty, to get their vote for his dictatorship, destroying the best health care system in the world
    Wants to carbon tax us an extra $3,000 per family per year
    Wants to remove all gun rights, he’s already started with ammunition
    He’s helped other dictators and marxists such as genocidal al Qaeda backed Odinga, and drug mule Zelayah
    He’s lied pathologicall
    He’s defrauded us with regards to his eligibility
    He’s intimidated and defrauded the vote
    He’s money laundered,extorted, tax cheated and gotten away with it
    He’s purged whistleblowers like Walpin and others
    He’s removed persons who could scrutinize or reveal him such as Patrick Fitzgerald, Lt. Quarles Harris, Mr. Bland, Mr. Young
    He’s terrorized NYers with AF-1 buzzing them
    He’s made us pay for his luxuries, entourages, excesses, dates, while demanding we tighten our belts
    He does not read nor care the content of legislation he pushes
    He’s tried to start a race war
    He’s been charged with being behind the swine-avian flu, and the probably contaminated Baxter vaccine they will push (more euthanasia?)
    He’s deprived our Afghanistan soldiers of permission to fight, or to win, and told them not to touch the poppies (to protect the opium trade)
    He seeks to give up US sovereignty
    Really, the largest tree falls chip by chip…Obama is bent on destroying us.

  36. IceTrey wrote, “In order to retain his citizenship he had to renounce all other citizenships and take an oath of allegiance before he was 21.”

    What you’re speaking of is born out of the naturalization process only. This is why what Obama and his campaign put on Fight The Smears so blatantly proves he’s not a natural-born citizen. He’s actually not only admitting that he’s a dual-citizen, but he’s admitting that if he were to abide by the laws post-Constitution with regard to the presidency, he’d be looking at standing in a naturalization line. These aren’t requirements that natural-born citizens were ever mandated to take. If you were a natural-born citizen, there was no choice between two nationalities that one had to make at age 21. A natural-born citizen didn’t have to choose between anything. He wasn’t born with anything else besides his American nationality. There was nothing to choose between.

    A foreigner on the other hand, had to make a declaration of intent to become a citizen, then reside here for five years, have someone sponsor them in a court of law and before that court, take an oath of sole allegiance before even being considered of being allowed into the union of the new republic.

    If you had children before you were naturalized, they followed the patrus sequitur patrem rule, which meant you followed the nationality of your father as a free person. Yes, Vattel is often credited with equivalent language you see in the Constitution, but that came from the Committee of Style when they wrote it because language and words were important. But as Leo points out, Vattel is not the Constitution. But we know who did point out the Constitution in law and it was Justice Joseph Story in Conflict of Laws. He explains exactly what doctrine this country followed and it was the patrem rule when it came to all free persons. Read this book and it become immensely clear. See particularly sections 43, 44 and 46:

    http://books.google.com/books?id=DW8DAAAAQAAJ&dq=joseph+story+commentaries+on+the+conflict+of+laws&printsec=frontcover&source=bl&ots=S-z8yO8_-E&sig=iE7mBK27XZAlns9Xt7ic7ILJbIY&hl=en&ei=XL9rSqL2CYX0MbHo_fgG&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1

    What’s more, the application of the law is exactly as Justice Story defines and is in complete unison with the founder’s writings. We see it right here in BARRY V. MERCEIN, 46 U. S. 103 (1847), where there’s no doubt and if you notice, no allowances for double-allegiances whatsoever. It was unheard of:

    “The plaintiff in error being of legeance to the crown of England, his child, though born in the United States during his father’s temporary residence therein – twenty-two months and twenty days – not withstanding its mother be an American citizen, is not a citizen of the United States. It is incapacitate by its infancy from making any present election, follows the legeance of its father, partus sequitur patrem, and is a British subject. The father being domiciled and resident within the dominions of Her Britannic Majesty, such is also the proper and rightful domicil of his wife and child, and he has a legal right to remove them thither. The child being detained from the father, its natural guardian and protector, without authority of law, and writ of habeas corpus ad subjiciendum is his appropriate legal remedy for its restoration to him from its present illegal detention and restraint. Constitution United States, art. 3, sec. 2; Judiciary Act, 1789, sec. 11; Inglis v. Trustees Sailor’s Snug Harbor, 3 Peters, 99; 7 Anne, cap. 5; 4 Geo. III. cap. 21; Warrender v. Warrender, 2 Clar. & Fin. Ap. Ca. 523; Story’s Confl. Laws, 30, 36, 43, 74, 160; Shelford on Marriage, Ferg. Rep. 397, 398.”

    As you can see, there’s no allowance for double-allegiances. The U.S. refused to endorse it and they still don’t endorse it to this day. The intent of the framers was certainly not to endorse it, hence the patrem rule and framer Rufus King’s words at the constitutional convention:

    “Framer Rufus King said allegiance to the United States depended on whether a person is a “member of the body politic.” King says no nation should adopt or naturalize a person of another society without the consent of that person. The reason? Because “he ought not silently to be embarrassed with a double allegiance.”

    There was none of this citizen at birth of aliens when they constructed the words “natural-born citizen”. Justice Gray wasn’t even born yet. Therefore, no one can expect the Founders to have addressed an issue that wasn’t even allowed.

    You were either;

    a. a citizen having pledged to the declaration of independence.
    b. a citizen through inheritance of being born of citizen parents; or
    c. a citizen through naturalization

    If it’s not obvious, natural-born is B and the earliest laws on the books prove it. Nothing else matters except what the framers meant when they wrote Article II. Everything else is irrelevant. The fourteenth amendment doesn’t change what a natural born citizen is. It added to the list by saying that those included in the Civil Rights Act of 1866 were citizens so that the legislation couldn’t be reversed. They made a constitutional amendment out of that Act so they couldn’t revert back to slavery ever again.

    Wong Kim Ark adds to the list again, and even though that decision is cut from invisible cloth and should be thrown out, even Justice Gray doesn’t say that Wong Kim Ark is a natural-born citizen and he knew he couldn’t because he would have been impeached, if not laughed off the bench! Look at the dissenting opinion in that case and what is Justice Fuller saying? He’s saying, uh guys… I thought we followed the rule of partus sequitur patrem. You know? That little rule that says a child follows the nationality of his father?

    What you are seeing are anti-Americans trying to endoctrinate you into believing that this country never held the patrem rule, that we were based on English common law and jus soli. It’s garbage. It’s LIES. We followed partus sequitur patrem from Roman civil law and Justice Story confirmed that fact that other Justices followed.

    Look at the law and the history and it proves them wrong and Leo Donofrio right. It’s just going to take some time before guys like Bill O’Reilly read enough to get up to speed. The rest of them are doing it on purpose. They don’t want you looking at the early case law because that will show you the true Founder’s intent and they hate that. They want you to believe you’re helpless in this fight and there’s nothing you can do about it. You have to stay close to the period of the Constitution and study that. The Framers won’t steer you wrong. Neither will Joseph Story, David Ramsay, The Federalist, The Papers of George Washington, John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, etc.

    Leo Donofrio is 100% correct. The birth certificate makes not one iota worth of difference, although Obama should have never been allowed to hide it. That’s BS and everyone knows it. The real point is, Obama is not constitutionally qualified to be in that oval office. One thing I will agree with Bill O’Reilly about is that the Obama administration is going to make SURE it’s about his birth certificate, but not to only make the “fringe” look stupid, but because God forbid America goes digging into what’s behind Article II. There will be hell to pay and they know it. You may even demand your individual sovereignty and right to be heard in a court of law. How’s it feel to know you lost that right given to you by the Framers? And the socialists responded how? They laughed in your face.

    This is about a government take-over and letting Obama and that administration in based on lies to the American people and that’s the truth. It’s not about race. That’s another lie. Most of his administration and his congress are WHITE, including Obama. WHITE socialists who want to enslave you again.

    [Ed. A natural born citizen doesn't have to choose to renounce any other citizenship. He doesn't have to renounce anything. Exactly. Well said.]

  37. Leio, as always, thank you for the education you’re providing for us. I despair of the people failing to understand, or even CARE about, what a (1) natural (2) born (3) citizen is and why the status was considered important to the crafters of the Constitution. And I’m horrified by the attorney-talking-heads in the MSM who (intentionally, I suspect) misstate the issue as being one of birth registration alone.

    I’m afraid that Obama will, some day, present a birth certificate (real or fraudulent) to end the discussion, when we readers of your site know that that won’t end anything.

    The ONLY thing that we can do is pressure the legal system in any way possible to address the complications of this unusual status AND get legislation passed before the next election that would require all candidates for President to satisfy proof of natural born citizenship. Period.

    That would be our best hope for finding getting this issue legitimized and prevent this kind of ambiguity from ever happening again.

    How can we get this done?

  38. It appears to me that bashing Dr. Orly Taitz is unfounded. She has in her possession a document that shows Obama was born in Kenya. She is asking the court to authenticate the document. How do you authenticate a document unless you compare it to the original?

    [Ed. There's MANY ways to authenticate the document without comparing it to the original. First and foremost is a simply analysis of whether Coast Province was using paper that said "Republic of Kenya" in Feb 1964. That can be verified without any reference at all to the original. She couldhave determined that without even letting on that she had something. This is VERY bad tactics to open your document to a question that important without first verifying that the actual form shown is of a form regularly used in Kenya. That question could have and should have been answered before this document came out. I just call them like I see them.]

    Here is what she said on her site about the Obots and their dirty work.

    From Dr. Orly Taitz Blog

    Debunking Obama’s thugs in the media

    “Recently Obama’s thugs in main stream media came up with this Bomford report in order to stop my efforts in exposing and prosecuting Obama. Though typically I don’t have time to waste on each and every dumb obot, since it got to National TV and my children”s friends called my children, I’ll spend a few minutes to debunk the obots:

      1. Kenya became an independent country in 1963, not 1964. The seal of Kenya was correct.

      2. More then one person had certified copies of this document.

      3. the document was not issued at birth, but rather was a certified copy obtained in 1964, when Kenya became independent.

      4. The documents from that time would not show Zanzibar, but rather Kenya.

      5. Bomford report was created to try to discredit my efforts.

      6.Lastly, I am not supposed to waste my time and money on this issue, Obama us the one who is supposed to provide evidence of legitimacy.

      7. Kenyan BC provides more info than the piece of garbage Obama posted on the net, which doesn’t have the name of the hospital, name of the doctor or signatures.”

    AND ……………………………….

    On her blog.

    Kitau says: “I happen to be Kenyan. I was born 1 month before Obama at Mombasa medical center. I am a teacher here at the MM Shaw Primary School in Kenya. I compared my birth certificate to the one that has been put on by Taitz and mine is exactly the same. I even have the same registrar and format. The type is identical. I am by nature a skeptical person. I teach science here and challenge most things that cannot be proven. So I went to an official registrar today and pulled up the picture on the web. They magnified it and determined it to be authentic. There is even a plaque with Registrar Lavenders name on it as he was a Brit and was in charge of the Registrar office from 1959 until January of 1964. The reason the date on the certificate says republic of Kenya is that we were a republic when the  “copy” of the original was ordered. I stress the word “copy.” My copy also has republic of Kenya.” August 3, 9:04 PM”

    [Ed. The let's see the copy Kittau is talking about. Surely, if Kenya was issuing this type of document at that time, then there are thousands of others to compare this one with. Where are they? I don't just believe something 'cause I read it from an anonymous source online. Where is your sense of journalistic integrity. If the main stream media is going to drop all sense of true ethics, does that mean we are going to follow that lead?]

  39. @Kamira

    That line was concerning his Kenyan citizenship. In order to retain his Kenyan citizenship,which he held as a minor when his father became a Kenyan citizen, he would have had to renounce and pledge by 21. That is renounce his US citizenship and his British citizenship. Sorry that wasn’t clear. If you think US citizenship laws are confusing look up the British ones it makes my head hurt!

  40. As a follow-up to my comment at http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/2009/08/04/the-dangerous-precedent-set-by-obama-being-president/#comment-8061

    It looks like Senator Orrin Hatch is also willing to investigate the legal definition of a natural born citizen.

    http://twitter.com/CrystalChalice/status/3128748601

    http://twitter.com/CrystalChalice/status/3128748746

    It seems that he, too, would benefit from some correspondence explaining the definition to him.

  41. Leo,
    Can a lawsuit be brought against Dr. Fukino for making a false statement (“Barack Hussein Obama … is a natural-born American citizen”) in her July 27, 2009 Press Release?

    [Ed. I dont believe so. She will just say that it was her opinion. She's not a Constitutional lawyer as Obama is. And she took no oath when she made that statement. Forget about that. No way.]

  42. This dangerous precedent appears to fall under the logical fallacy of appeal to consequence. The constitutional legality of the situation doesn’t depend on what might happen as a result of the legality or lack thereof.

    And beyond that, I’m willing to accept that some loyal family member of Osama Bin Laden might be technically eligible to the presidency. I would certainly expect that such a person wouldn’t actually get elected.

    [Ed. That depends on whether we knew his heritage. People lie about their heritage and then get into office. Just look at Chester Arthur who lied to the Brooklyn Eagle about his father's heritage when Chester was being vetted for the VP slot. It's not like people don't have clever ways of lying. And with the failure to properly vet Obama - (What do we really know about him ?) the future looks bright for further usurpation. Just because you are allegedly comfortable (I dont believe you though) allowing the sons of Kim Jong Il and Osama Bin Laden to be the Commander In Chief of our military does not mean the framers would agree with you. They wouldn't. I trust them a hell of alot more than I trust you, dude. Don't post here again. If you are comfortable with allowing Kim Jong Il's children access to the White House, you're not welcome at my blog.]

  43. ElmerFudd Says:

    You might be right about Obama having been ELIGIBLE for British citizenship due to his father. That is a perfectly normal provision in the citizenship laws of most countries.
    However:
    a) being eligible for citizenship is not the same as taking up that citizenship
    b) especially back in 1961, the prohibitions on dual citizenship (which are now pretty tight for most combinations of countries, based on a web of bilateral agreements) were much more relaxed – i don’t see why it would have been a big deal for him to hold both citizenships
    c) the constitution doesn’t say anything at all about someone ever having held a different cizizenship, it just says the person must be a natural born citizen of the USA. it’s obvious why, too: because all the funders had themselves started out as british (in some cases, maybe even other) subjects.
    d) citizenship is a pretty poor indicator of loyalty, if you ask me.

    [Ed. Sorry, but your eligibility argument fails to Obama's own admission that he was "governed" by Great Britain at birth. I suspect there's a passport from Great Britain with Obama's name on it as well.]

  44. Please keep pushing this issue. I think it would be great if the shamefully conservative Obama were impeached and replaced with the much more liberal and plainspoken Joe Biden.

  45. @ RESPONSES….

    YES, folks, I AGREE with you 100%.

    Sometimes, it’s difficult to explain one’s point of view in a blog format.

    Simply put, the laws (“natural born” specifically) are GREAT and I fully support them all.

    However, let’s not be naive thinking that because someone may adhere to or satisfy one (or more), that they will necessarily adhere to or satisfy ALL.

    “We” still need to keep an eye on them and have them “vetted” (unlike Obama – NEVER vetted)!

    Hope I explained it properly (or I’m sure I’ll hear from you guys – lol)…

  46. Civis Naturaliter Natus Says:

    Lisa,

    If you are trying to get legislation passed, under the present Administration which has no legal right to govern, then you are imagining that you could hold a continental congress after the November Palace Revolution of 1918: a historical anachronism.

    The reality is that the ruling powers of our country, the wealth, the media, the corporatoins and the 2 major partites, the courts, the AGs and the state officials, have pretty much decided that politicl force is the Law, and the Constitution is a dead, hierloom to be discarded first of all, payed lip service to for the sake of apperances, and a stick only to cajole the citizenry into accepting all of the above..

  47. Leo –

    While you’re looking for that cite on Hamilton’s draft, can you expound a little on this quote from Luria v. US:

    “Under the Constitution of the United States, a naturalized citizen stands on an equal footing with the native citizen in all respects save that of eligibility to the Presidency.” – 231 US 9

    http://supreme.justia.com/us/231/9/

    [Ed. All citizens have the same rights. Natural Born Citizens have no more rights than other citizens. Being eligible to be President isn't a right. For example, you must be 35. That would appear to discriminate against 25 year old citizens. If being President were a "right" of citizenship then the 35 year age requirement would not be enforceable.]

  48. So, Leo, you are not worried about Obama as President.

    What would it take? Is there some part of the Constitution which he hasn’t yet stressed, fractured, or bypassed that he’d have to violate?

    [Ed. I'm not happy with his actions, but I also wasn't happy at all with Bush or Clinton. This isn't about Obama's policies. It's about his eligibility.]

    His breach of the eligibility clauses of the Constitution are of a piece, IMO, with his willingness and intention to breach and devalue other of its safeguards against abuse of power. To pretend they are in different boxes is to wink at and turn aside from the obvious.

    [Ed. No. I'm staying on point with my issue. He;s not eligible. To argue against his policies is political. If he gets things passed by our legislators by properly enacted signed bills then that's political action in progress. If you don't like those actions you can vote the people out of office. They are doing the will of their constituents. And they can rely on that argument. But constituents have no say in who is eligible. That is a legal question and it's a question I'm concerned with. I don't have faith in any politician or party so it really doesn't matter to me who is President in that regard. But dodgy eligibility has a direct effect on the military and that's the problem now for me. Our military may be confused as to chain of command and their oath to uphold the Constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic.]

  49. Hm; fair enough as far as it goes, but there is no thick black line between eligibility, the Constitution, law, and politics … in this case, especially (the CIC/POTUS’ eligibility). Once you compromise eligibility, all the rest is devalued, almost reduced to cynical manipulations.

    I think the politics especially comes into play because it is highly implausible that either Obama or the DNC were in the slightest doubt when he was nominated that he was ineligible, and decided to push through regardless. It is even, on balance, plausible to suspect that he may have been preferred because he was in breach of the Constitution.

    Once you see the Constitution is first and foremost a restraint and constraint on the power(s) of government, it is pretty clear why those whose ultimate goal is to sit at the controls of a near-omnipotent state would challenge and try to devalue and break those shackles.

  50. ElmerFudd Says:

    a) I know of no such admission –

    [Ed. snipped - when you decide to be honest and find the admission then you can post here. But lies won't do. You know very well he made an admission that his birth status was governed by Great Britainat his own web site Fight The Smears.]

  51. billvanallen Says:

    this chicago trib analysis / op-ed really shows where the entire rationale of the NBC clause of US Constitution is being attacked.

    http://blogs.chicagotribune.com/news_columnists_ezorn/2009/08/natural-.html

    Originally posted: August 4, 2009

    `Natural-born’ — The most un-American section of the Constitution

  52. Leo really nice work on the intent of the dead white guys….but (playing devils advocate – if you will indulge me), you do know this game is pretty much up, right?

    1) A state official has “certified” that Obama is a citizen and is natural born. That is all that is required and nothing need be released.

    [Ed. A state official has no authority to define natural born citizen. That's a complete joke, my friend. The courts make judicial interpretations of the Constitution, not persons in state Government.]

    2) The internet is full of hoxes (thanks Orly) and there is no reason to respond to them.

    if you have any other question whatsoever about eligibilty please see No. 1 above. No further comment.

    The WH keeps to this script and they win.

    [Ed. Winning is not the only thing. Educating people as to what has happened here is what's important to me. And that game will never be up. Just the fact that you are here at my blog tells me that the game is not up.]

    As for the “legality”, it only took a little over 200 hundred years before SCOTUS settled the militia versus individual right to bear arms in Heller. As incomplete as that decision was in many respects, it still followed from a long articulated understanding by many citizens as to what the argument was about.

    NBC status flies in the face of the common cultural belief that “anybody can grow up to be President” (i.e. if they are a citizen).

    [Ed. Not just anybody can grow up to be president. It's a lie. Just because people are taught a lie doesn't mean we have to honor that lie.]

    Your’re the Grouch that is stealing this “motivation” from the children. And there is hardly any “common” understanding of the argument being made.

    [Ed. I'd rather be the grouch than the person admiring the emperor's new clothes, which is what you are. The law isn't about common understanding. It's difficult and technical and you obviously have legal training. Bar exams are hard. It doesn't surprise me that most people are clueless on this issue. It's not like most people would know how to do heart surgery either.]

    So, now (politically) practically speaking, is the time estimate you would place on the common education needed and on any controlling legal determination ever being made at lease equal to the time it took to reach Heller?

    Gary G

  53. Superbirfer Says:

    I am confused. Are you saying that an active duty military member, married to a foreign national would have their children automatically disqualified from being categorized as “natural born” if they were born overseas? Most of the overseas posts I was assigned to actually belonged to the host nation, and in many cases the spouses of my fellow servicemembers gave birth in local hospitals.

    [Ed. That's right. The Constitution does say being President is a right. The framers sought to exclude people with these requirements - just in case. Just in case.]

  54. First off, I appreciate your allowing the quote from Luria ~ that speaks to your having integrity.

    But I must disagree with your conclusion. The Court makes no mention of “rights” in that statement, it quite clearly states that the naturalized citizen stands on “equal footing” with the native citizen with the exception of eligibility for President. That would be in all Constitutional aspects.

    Thus, there is USSC precedent equating “natural born” and “native born,” and explicitly doing so in the context of eligibility to be President.

    As I have continually stated, the current Court WILL NOT declare the President to be ineligible (and have already declined the opportunity to do so). The language in Luria would make that decision much easier to write…

    Can anybody show me where I am wrong?

    [Ed. What statement? Please, be specific. Quote directly from the case you are relying upon with a citation thereto and a quote. That's how it's done. Do that and I'll be happy to correct you.]

  55. Wonderful article Leo, I have learned a great deal from your site. I really learned about the issue from a very good friend of mine that happens to be a lawyer. He followed your cases and believes you to be spot on. I am reminded of what he said to me many months ago. he stated that he truly believed that Orly would become the face of this thing and the real issues would be abandoned. He truly felt the legitimate questions you have fought for and denied by the supreme court would be lost and the concentration would be on her, hence losing the true issue of importance.

    Keep up the good fight.

  56. TheBurren Says:

    Leo-
    THANK YOU!
    FINALLY!
    I have been using this argument since first following your case (except I use Castro and Putin as examples, but I suppose in theory Kim Jong ILL could find a girl to sleep with him..)
    and NO ONE will even comment on it, all they blab about is this birth cert. crap..
    What a sham.
    I can only help our military commanders are awake, patriots, and have a plan..

  57. Superbirfer Says:

    “Our military may be confused as to chain of command and their oath to uphold the Constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic.” I am also confused about this aspect of the natural born citizen question.

    I was on active duty from 1989 to 2002. In 2001, I did not believe Bush won the election. Should I have been able to force the state of Florida to provide a copy of all ballots so that I could verify for myself that Bush won?

    [Ed. The difference there is that the Supreme Court made a ruling. They haven't done that yet here. We shall see what happens, but I do not believe we shall get a ruling from them. regardless, this is a legal blog discussing a legal issue.]

    Should the military be allowed to call into question the eligibility of every elected official and withhold support until their questions are answered?

    As a military member you are constantly reminded of your duty to obey lawful orders while refusing to obey unlawful orders. You are starting down a slippery slope when you allow military members to question the legitimacy of their leaders and refusing to follow orders based on that premise. Our current SecDef was appointed by the current president (yes, I know he served in that position for the previous administration), so if you are claiming that Obama was not eligible to be president, then he was not eligible to appoint a SecDef. Are all orders from the SecDef then subject to question from everyone from the CJCS to the newest E-1 in the military?

    [Ed. The questioning of the chain of command is already part of various litigation. It's notlike we are making believe something might happen here - it is happening. I don't like it and I am not encouraging it, and I have no cases as such. But I have been approached and others are doing these cases. The rot is spreading faster than you may know.]

  58. Interesting…media blackout in Canada going back to last year? This story gets stinkier and stinkier…

    http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/13373

  59. Mitchell Staff Says:

    Leo,

    I have watched a few of the interviews Orly did with MSM. Whenever she gives your argument they immediately cut her off. They are scared! Why do you think they are rolling out a hysterical Orly when they could have you calmly and legally lay this out. It’s obvious they want to keep this all about the BC and the ‘crazy people’.

  60. ElmerFudd Says:
    “especially back in 1961, the prohibitions on dual citizenship (which are now pretty tight for most combinations of countries, based on a web of bilateral agreements) were much more relaxed”

    How old are you, Elmer?

    In 1961, an adult was either a United States Citizen or a non-United States Citizen. Dual citizen children were expected to declare one citizenship at majority.

    Today the rules on dual citizenship have become relaxed. In 1961, the rules weren’t needed because the US did not recognize dual citizenship for its own citizens.

  61. Leo, you are right in so many ways and I respect you so much that I fear to cross you, but there are present, real, ongoing negative consequences to having an unlawful President, and you sometimes are so focused on the long view–as is the matter of precedence which you treat in this article–that you seem pretty casual about the harm being done right now by permitting the Obama fraud to stand until, until . . . . what, the cows come home?

    You are right about Obama’s ineligibility on NBC grounds, but you seem somewhat unreceptive to other evidence that I consider corroborative. And as a concerned citizen, I want more than just the quiet satisfaction of being legally correct; I want corrective action now, justice now, lawful governance now.

  62. nice article LEO, I have been saying this all along. What if Hitler, or Chavez, or ahmamidgeman(sic) of Iran, or Kim Pak of North Korea, or Putin impregnated an American. That American then can become president of USA? I SAY NO.

    All these spin offs on other subject matter, like Orly, are diversions. BTW WND has other documents with Republic of Kenya on them from same 1964 time frame. BTW I have a love-hate affair with Orly, but I am not going to discuss that here as it is not pertinent to the topic matter at hand.

    The Ms. Twilly topic post also is spinning out, Andy Martin has sued in Hawaii for the very same reason that Ms. T states, open laws. And his suits have been shot down. So should Orly, or anyone else for that matter, go the same route? Someone else is already taking that path.

  63. Joss Brown Says:

    Don’t know what to think of this:

    http://homelandsecurityus.com/?p=2966

    Hagmann writes about a finished investigation, but there is no report to download, just this short summary. (??)

  64. Leo, somebody should develop a “future action” plan at this point.

    i believe the blueprint is in the Presidential Succession Act, to wit, the exact phrase(s) “failure to qualify” (or “fails”) i believe is used 6 times pertaining to the POTUS or VP. plz note that this verbage is used for a sitting President failing to qualify! not a President-elect. not a candidate. not a nominee… but a sitting, sworn-in, functioning President.

    it also does not make any allowances for when in the President’s administration he may be found to have failed to qualify. these articles as amended and in the original 1792 Act, do not prohibit a sitting President’s “failure to qualify” up to or even on his last day of office. in fact, there is no mention of time frame whatsoever, except when addressing the line of succession itself, for example:

    (2) An individual acting as President under this subsection shall continue so to do until the expiration of the then current Presidential term, but not after a qualified and prior-entitled individual is able to act, except that the removal of the disability of an individual higher on the list contained in paragraph (1) of this subsection or the ability to qualify on the part of an individual higher on such list shall not terminate his service.

    plz note the “ability to qualify” in the above provision. (waiting to turn 35 for example?)

    as u have stated before, being a qualified President is not a right, it is a requirement. but the succession act and articles suggest that a President may be found to have failed to qualify – at any time – during his presidency. but it doesn’t say HOW this is brought about, nor does it say by WHOM. at this point, i can only assume it has nothing to do with impeachment. (i’m assuming impeachment is solely a legislative role? for high crimes and misdemeanors?) therefore, are the courts the only way to invoke “failure to qualify” of a sitting President? if not the courts, who?your thoughts plz?

  65. That comment about “all enemies foreign and domestic” is salient for one reason. If Obama has lied and misled about his past, and we can assume that he has because of his secrecy, should or could not American soldiers deem him reasonably a domestic enemy?
    Just curious what the editor thinks about the military withdrawing the orders to Afghanistan for U.S. Army Maj. Stefan Frederick Cook, the soldier represented by Orly Taitz. Why would they do this? It seems it may be because of their questions as to the validity of his case.

  66. bho boo, thanks for your post…

    I would like to forward your comments (he’s….) to some of my friends vial email if you don’t mind.

  67. I’ll be anxiously anticipating your reply to Taranto’s propaganda factory press release of today:

    http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204908604574331160720685106.html

  68. Whistleblower Says:

    Leo,

    My research indicates that Hamilton’s First Draft of a constitution was never presented, nor debate, at the Constitutional Convention.

    “Hamilton constructed a draft for the Constitution during the convention, on the basis of the convention debates, but these drafts were never presented.”

    Source: http://www.thefamouspeople.com/profiles/alexander-hamilton-108.php

    I’ve read the same in other places.

    I try to stay away from Hamilton. Even the reliance on the Federalist Papers lies on, what I consider to be shaky ground.

    Everyone likes to look at Federalist 78 for Judicial Review. Only problem, it wasn’t even published until after 8 of the 9 required had already ratified.

  69. Leo,
    Can a lawsuit be brought against Dr. Fukino for making a false statement (”Barack Hussein Obama … is a natural-born American citizen”) in her July 27, 2009 Press Release?

    [Ed. I dont believe so. She will just say that it was her opinion. She's not a Constitutional lawyer as Obama is. And she took no oath when she made that statement. Forget about that. No way.]

    Thank you for your reply, Leo. As a follow-up question…

    Can a lawsuit be brought against the Chair of the Democratic National Convention, Nancy Pelosi, for making a false statement under oath:

    ”…the following cadidates for President and Vice-President of the United States are legally qualified to serve under the provisions of the United States Constitution: For President of the United States
    Barack Obama”

    in her notarized August 28, 2008 Official Certification of Nomination?

    OK, Speaker Pelosi, How Did the DNC Certify Obama’s Eligibility?

    [Ed. It would be much harder since she's not a lawyer herself.]

  70. ElmerFudd wrote, ” i don’t see why it would have been a big deal for him to hold both citizenships
    c) the constitution doesn’t say anything at all about someone ever having held a different cizizenship,”

    It’s YOUR opinion that it’s not a big deal. The constitutional debates forbid dual allegiances. I put the quote up from Rufus King already. You didn’t read the thread. I’ve got a lot more proof if you want to challenge me, but I suggest some of you guys who throw opinion out, do some research of your own. What you said doesn’t reflect anything we found in the writings from that era. Find me ONE quote from one Framer that endorses dual allegiances. You won’t find it.

    The system was set up where it would have been impossible. You weren’t allowed, period. There were 3 types of citizens and 3 only at the time of the Constitution. That’s the only time period relevant to prove intent of the Founders. Anything in the distant future doesn’t matter because a) they don’t revise Article II and b) those events can’t prove intent of the Framers because they were dead already.

    Truth is, you are wrong. Read the constitutional debates if you want proof of what they intended. That’s the only thing that matters here.

    “A discussion thereupon ensued in which Mr. Pinkney said, “As the Senate is to have the power of making treaties, and managing our foreign affairs, there is peculiar danger and impropriety in opening its doors to those who have foreign attachments”. He quoted the jealousy of the Athenians on this subject, who made it death for any stranger to intrude his voice into their legislative proceedings.” – The Constitutional Debates

    Source – The Political Textbook – pg. 295

    “It is the same time agreeable to observe that the public mind is adopting more and more sentiments truly American, and free from foreign tincture.” – Alexander Hamilton to Washington, New York, August 28, 1797

    “The information, which the address of the Constitution contains, ought to serve as an instructive lesson to the people of this Country. It ought to teach us not to overrate foreign friendships… to be upon our guard against foreign attachments. The former will generally be found hollow and delusive; the latter have a natural tendency to lead us aside from our true interest and to make us the dupe of foreign influence.” – Alexander Hamilton

    I could go on, but it’s already clear what they thought about it. There was nothing ambiguous about it.

  71. Reference IceTrey comment, August 4 2009 at 4:52pm

    I have lived in the UK for most of my life and I have not heard this through any British source. Obama was not the only person in this situation in former colonies, so if this is indeed the case there would be millions who would claim British Citizenship. Let me assure you there would have been a large minority who would not have renounced their UK citizenship. These islands would have sunk under the sea long ago as these people would have had a case for entry into the UK. It is not just America who has an illegal immigration problem, the UK has as well. Daily there are scores of people trying to hide on trucks etc. coming from France to the UK. Among these would be people from the former colonies.

    The 1981 British Nationality Act allowed non-citizens resident in the UK to gain citizenship. Most of these people came from former colonies so if the above supposition was true they would not have needed to go through the procedure to gain citizenship. I mentioned in a comment on an earlier thread that, under the 1948 Act, people in the former colonies had to register and prove their paternal blood link to the UK to retain British Citizenship

    [Ed. Key word is to "retain" which means they had it at birth and if they chose to retain it then they had to go through these hurdles at maturity - apparently. WE just don't know if Obama is still a UK citizen or if he has now or ever had a US passport because we're not allowed to know...]

    , it was not the other way round. My own family and friends were subject to the Act, we were not a special case. Those of my relations (an uncle included) born in India prior to Independence in 1947, who could prove paternal blood links to the UK but did not register lost their British citizenship. Subsequently their children who emigrated to the UK (Indian passport) applied and gained citizenship under the 1981 Act. There was a scrabble around that time of the 1948 Act to find proof of blood links to the UK. Our close neighbours never could track down the necessary documentation to claim citizenship and later had to have an Indian passport to come to the UK.

    Obama is currently not a UK citizen

    [Ed. You don't know that. That's a question we are trying to answer.]

    and I am sure if it could be proved otherwise it would be a source of great joy to millions who would love to come and reside in the UK. Whether he is a Kenyan or Indonesian citizen at the moment depends entirely on the constitutions/laws of those countries.

  72. This just in from the RedState website:

    Call For Informants: If You Oppose Obamacare, Even in ‘Casual Conversation,’ the White House Wants to Know About It

    If you see anybody publicly opposing President Obama’s plan to implement a government-centric overhaul of the health care system, the White House wants you to report that person (or persons) ASAP.

    From the White House website:

    Quote:
    There is a lot of disinformation about health insurance reform out there, spanning from control of personal finances to end of life care. These rumors often travel just below the surface via chain emails or through casual conversation. Since we can’t keep track of all of them here at the White House, we’re asking for your help. If you get an email or see something on the web about health insurance reform that seems fishy, send it to flag@whitehouse.gov.

    Emphasis added. Of course, as we’ve seen in the health care debate to date, the term “disinformation” is used by the Obama White House as a catchall to describe any opposition to the President’s push for single-payer, government-run health care — meaning the White House wants to be informed of any forwarded emails or blog posts or any “casual conversations” that could be taken as opposition to their health care overhaul plan.

    The White House has, as yet, offered no explanation of what it is they plan to do with the tips on policy opposition they hope to receive from citizen informers.

    Interestingly, as Jake Tapper pointed out on Twitter this morning, the title of that post on the White House is a quote from John Adams’ 1770 “Argument in Defense of the Soldiers in the Boston Massacre Trials.”

    (h/t Jon Henke)

    UPDATE: As Erick, one of RedState’s resident lawyers, points out here, this program may go beyond sinister and actually be a violation of current U.S. law.

    http://www.redstate.com/jeff_emanuel/2009/08/04/call-for-informants-if-you-oppose-obamacare-the-white-house-wants-to-know-about-it/

    You call this free speech? Fast-moving despotism is what I see.

  73. A bot tried to “shame me” saying I owed an apology because Zachary Taylor’s parents were both British. I told them that ZT was born 4 years before ratification, thus he was alive during ratification, and though only a US citizen was qualified to run as POTUS per Article II s.1. I think I was right, he thinks not…

    [Ed. Anybody who was a citizen at the time of the adoption of the COnstitution did not have to be natural born.]

  74. itooktheredpill Says:
    August 5, 2009 at 12:35 am

    Leo,
    Can a lawsuit be brought against Dr. Fukino for making a false statement (”Barack Hussein Obama … is a natural-born American citizen”) in her July 27, 2009 Press Release?

    [Ed. I dont believe so. She will just say that it was her opinion. She's not a Constitutional lawyer as Obama is. And she took no oath when she made that statement. Forget about that. No way.]

    Leo,
    I agree that Dr. Fukino couldn’t be held responsible for stating her opinion. But, since it was released as an official statement from her office, is it possible that perhaps someone could contact the legal department at the Hawaii Dept. of Health (or perhaps the top legal office in the State of Hawaii) and ask for legal clarification as to the legality of her statement; that is, in the legal department’s opinion, is what she stated a legal truth that Hawaiian citizens can take as true, perhaps even applying it to their own birth situation? Can a Hawaiian citizen take this statement from this official and rest assured that no matter what the circumstances of their birth, as long as they were born in Hawaii, they are a natural born citizen?

    It’s not like she is just giving her opinion on a situation concerning the Dept. of Motor Vehicles or the Division of Elections; she is making an official statement that, I think, most reasonable people would take as a legal truth at face value based upon her position as head of the Department of Health.

  75. Leo,

    Can you help me? I found this from the site usconstitution.net:

    The 14th Amendment defines citizenship this way: “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.” But even this does not get specific enough. As usual, the Constitution provides the framework for the law, but it is the law that fills in the gaps.

    Currently, Title 8 of the U.S. Code fills in those gaps. Section 1401 defines the following as people who are “citizens of the United States at birth:”

    1. Anyone born inside the United States *
    2. Any Indian or Eskimo born in the United States, provided being a citizen of the U.S. does not impair the person’s status as a citizen of the tribe
    3. Any one born outside the United States, both of whose parents are citizens of the U.S., as long as one parent has lived in the U.S.
    4. Any one born outside the United States, if one parent is a citizen and lived in the U.S. for at least one year and the other parent is a U.S. national
    5. Any one born in a U.S. possession, if one parent is a citizen and lived in the U.S. for at least one year
    6. Any one found in the U.S. under the age of five, whose parentage cannot be determined, as long as proof of non-citizenship is not provided by age 21
    7. Any one born outside the United States, if one parent is an alien and as long as the other parent is a citizen of the U.S. who lived in the U.S. for at least five years (with military and diplomatic service included in this time)

    A final, historical condition: a person born before 5/24/1934 of an alien father and a U.S. citizen mother who has lived in the U.S.

    If all of the above circumstances would render one a “natural born citizen”

    [Ed. where did you read the words "natural born" in any of the above? Maybe I need glasses, but I don't see those words there.]

    , why is it Mr. Obama isn’t qualified, based on your analysis? Even if he were born in Kenya, according to #7, it appears that if only 1 parent is a US citizen, then the child is natural born? But then it says if the parent has lived in the US for five years. Can you explain the 5-year wording, and is that the key to this case? I am debating the nbc issue with someone and I don’t want to be ignorant. Thanks much.

  76. kittycat Says:

    Leo,

    I am learning so much from this place. Also, Kamira’s writings are so excellent and make such sense. Kamira, please keep up the good work!

  77. Hi Leo,Edit as need be, but here is ssome of the testimony of 2000 before the House Judiciary, sub-committee of the Constitution July 24, 2000

    http://commdocs.house.gov/committees/judiciary/hju67306.000/hju67306_0.HTM

    Vazsonyi, Balint, director, Center for the American Founding: Prepared statement

    STATEMENT OF BALINT VAZSONYI, DIRECTOR, CENTER FOR THE AMERICAN FOUNDING

    Mr. VAZSONYI. Good afternoon. Thank you, distinguished members of the committee. Thank you for giving me this opportunity.

    Perhaps I will be forgiven if I start with a musical analogy, since I am a musician by profession. The Constitution of the United States, indeed the entire founding of the United States of America, is one of those solitary miracles of human history, not unlike the operas of Mozart or the symphonies of Beethoven. Thousands of volumes have been written trying to understand how such a thing can happen. Nobody has even come close. There is no way to explain how a group of men can sit down and do something no human beings had ever done before them, and certainly none have since.

    The Constitution, which created a country unlike any other, also brought forth a Nation populated by people who are unlike any other. It is as if an umbrella had been erected over this country inviting all the people of the world to come here and become something else than they were in the moment of arrival.

    Indeed, Americans are different. I noticed this soon after I had arrived in this country 41 years ago. I daresay, I have spent a great deal of my life trying to understand, first of all, in what way Americans are different and why, but the fact remains that they are.

    So when the framers of the Constitution made this provision, perhaps they were already aware of the fact, as indeed perhaps instinctively or through inspiration they were aware of so many other things, that already then Americans were different because they did something nobody else had done before them.

    If we look at their reasoning, which we can only guess at, because, as you mentioned, Mr. Chairman, there is insufficient evidence, we really do not know what was on their minds, but I think the reading of the Constitution certainly offers us some very good reasons.

    Our Government consists of three independent branches. In the legislative branch with its two Chambers, one of them has hundreds of Members, so a few foreigners among them really do not make that much difference. The Senate only consists of 100 Members, so 1 or 2 out of 100 again is something else. Even the Supreme Court has nine members.

    Alone, the executive branch of this Government is vested in a single person. I don’t think that it is an excessive requirement of the office for that person to have grown from the American soil.

    I come back to my statement, which is not particularly palatable in today’s political climate, that Americans are different. We like to believe that all people are the same. In my experience, they are not.

    One of the best examples of that is precisely Congressman Frank’s resolution. It is unthinkable, ladies and gentlemen, that a legislator in another land would actually spend time proposing that some foreigner could become the first citizen of that land. So, Congressman Frank, you are as good an example as I have met to show that Americans pour their hearts out and want to share everything, even the Presidency.

    I would say respectfully that describing this provision of the Constitution, as I said, and I will say once again, one of the solitary miracles of human history, as victimizing immigrants or being unjust—to be able to run for President is not a right. It is very important not to confuse the system of government with rights. Where would such a right come from? It is a well-thought-out provision of our Constitution.

    I am here to tell you, after 41 years of making the most strenuous efforts of becoming American, not just legally but in every sense of the word, and having spent 40 of those 41 years living with a native-born American, that I still have not been able to even approach the temperament, the natural tolerance, the unfailing good will toward the world that Americans are famous for.

    Foreigners come here and have to learn it. It is a miracle that within one generation they can do so. I think it would be expecting something even more than the impossible that they can do it within the same lifetime, and that they can forget everything they had grown up with.

    I would like to spend just a moment on the proposition that I believe will be brought before you of adopted children having the same right. The question is, at what age? How do you write a law that is going to be applicable and fair, to use that term?

    The question of foreign influence has already been discussed. I would just like to add that having grown up in Hungary, I would find it very difficult to make decisions—not so much affecting Hungarians, but those toward whom Hungarians hold an animus. What if somebody of a certain birth would have to just express an opinion about immigration quotas from a country with which the native land had been at odds? This is just a tiny example. Of course, the matter of being Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces is much more important.

    To say that the world is a more peaceful place today is a very temporary condition. It can turn into something else tomorrow or the day after. The constitutional provisions are not there to serve this week or next week. They have served this country for over 200 years, and I hope and we all hope that they will continue to do so.

    So I would like to conclude with a general comment on constitutional amendments. I believe they are rarely necessary, hardly ever justified, and perhaps entirely untimely right now, when Americans seem to be considering even the very nature of this country, whether it is a Republic or a democracy. Therefore, with due respect to the proposal, I would like to cast a vote for rejecting it.

    Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

    Mr. CANADY. Thank you, Dr. Vazsonyi.

    [The prepared statement of Mr. Vazsonyi follows:]

    PREPARED STATEMENT OF BALINT VAZSONYI, DIRECTOR, CENTER FOR THE AMERICAN FOUNDING
    _______________________________________________

    I found it quite interesting that Mr Vazsonyi, an immigrant held such high respect and regard for our founding fathers that he felt so compelled to submit testimony in favor of leaving the Constitution in tact. The guy really gets it, too bad SCOTUS & all our elected officials don’t.

  78. Jimmy yes by all means spread the word
    People have been too delayed to embrace the nefarious quality of Obama for wanting to give him a chance, when he is actively destructive.
    But he is evil in action, he deliberately nuked the US economy, he’s after energy and healthcare and total control.
    He has no intention of ever leaving the White House, Obamacare is all about his dictatorship (read Dick Morris’ article) for life.
    I will indeed take my medical skills elsewhere, I will NOT be dictated to.

  79. It would seem helpful to the cause and highly appropriate for someone to bring suit against Nancy Pelosi because she, functioning as Chairman of the Democrat Party, officially certifed under notary that the party’s nominee Barack Obama, was “legally qualified to serve under the provisions of the United States Constitution.”

    Could that be fraud, perjury, and suborning of Obama’s sedition? (Thanks to itooktheredpill for pointing out Pelosi’s despicable lie.)

  80. [Ed. I'd rather be the grouch than the person admiring the emperor's new clothes, which is what you are. The law isn't about common understanding. It's difficult and technical and you obviously have legal training....]

    Leo:

    It was Devils advocate? remember. I don’t admire the emperor’s latest clothes. If there is anything to admire it would be more along the lines of a student of Machiavelli. But that’s a different book.

    You get an A in ConLaw for nailing original intent, but like it or not you’ll also have to take Contemporary American Politics to graduate.

    Consider a possible new definition:

    Nullification: 1) the theory that the states may invalidate any statute of Congress; 2) In a Jury trial, where a jury returns a verdict of “not guilty” even though it believes the defendent is guilty of the stated crime; and (now) 3) a vote by the people that renders a constitutional or statutory provision sterile.

    A “citizen” of the world, multi-cultural, multi-ethnic and very different in upbringing and outlook from the dead white guys is what was presented and whole heartedly approved of by a clear majority of the electorate. In a political and practical sense, they have nullified nbc.

    It is only at the intersection of law and politics that traffic can really begin to move.

    Unless the politics change, I am afraid, that what is there now will easily keep the law in check for a long time to come.

    I think you probably agree with that though you have the occassional twang of anger that keeps you going.

    my best regards,
    Gary G

  81. Leo,

    Sorry, here’s the entire section under “Natural Born Citizen” (usconstitution.net): I added the numbers (earlier) for easier reading-

    Natural-born citizen

    Who is a natural-born citizen? Who, in other words, is a citizen at birth, such that that person can be a President someday?

    The 14th Amendment defines citizenship this way: “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.” But even this does not get specific enough. As usual, the Constitution provides the framework for the law, but it is the law that fills in the gaps.

    Currently, Title 8 of the U.S. Code fills in those gaps. Section 1401 defines the following as people who are “citizens of the United States at birth:”

    Anyone born inside the United States *
    Any Indian or Eskimo born in the United States, provided being a citizen of the U.S. does not impair the person’s status as a citizen of the tribe
    Any one born outside the United States, both of whose parents are citizens of the U.S., as long as one parent has lived in the U.S.
    Any one born outside the United States, if one parent is a citizen and lived in the U.S. for at least one year and the other parent is a U.S. national
    Any one born in a U.S. possession, if one parent is a citizen and lived in the U.S. for at least one year
    Any one found in the U.S. under the age of five, whose parentage cannot be determined, as long as proof of non-citizenship is not provided by age 21
    Any one born outside the United States, if one parent is an alien and as long as the other parent is a citizen of the U.S. who lived in the U.S. for at least five years (with military and diplomatic service included in this time)
    A final, historical condition: a person born before 5/24/1934 of an alien father and a U.S. citizen mother who has lived in the U.S.
    * There is an exception in the law — the person must be “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States. This would exempt the child of a diplomat, for example, from this provision.

  82. After all of the discussion here about Obama’s lack of eligibility due to his not being a *natural born* citizen… I wonder why people are not grasping the difference between citizen and *natural born* citizen. Is it because the adjective *natural born* sounds like an irrelevant qualifier, because all of us are born naturally after all? That can’t be it, can it? What will it take to educate the public about the significance of the qualifier *natural born*? The qualifier *natural born* was intended to distinguish a citizen with no foreign allegiances from a citizen who potentially does have foreign allegiances. Leo has gone over the details of this distinction, and its importance, over and over again on this blog. But for some reason, this is a difficult distinction to convey. How can this difficulty be overcome?

    [Ed. The people who are confusing the issue in the media know exactly what it means and they are hell bent on making sure the people don't.]

  83. When Obama was still a Muslim boy–don’t know precisely when he went apostate and became a Christian–I persuaded a misguided President to resign by marching around the White House with a lot of other irate citizens . The country and Richard Nixon finally got the message: Nixon had to go.

    Now it’s beginning to look like marching time is coming around again. I’m not too old for it, and I’m just about ready to pack my bags and head out. Maybe September 12 would be a good day for a D.C. stroll.

  84. Frederick Says:

    Article 1, Section 7 speaks of when US Laws are approved, specifically “Every Bill which shall have passed the House of Representatives and the Senate, shall, before it bocme a Law, be present tothe President of the United States; If he approve he shall sign it but if not he shall return it, with his Objections to that House in which it shall originated, who shall enter the Objections at large ontheir Journal, and proceed to recondier it… If any bill shall not be returned by the President within ten Days (Sundays excepted)after it shall have been presented to him the Same shall be a law, in like manner as if he had signed it, unless the Congress by their adjournment prevent its Return, in which Case it shall be a law.”
    Seems to me that if Obama should be found not to be President, then any laws passed by this Congress during Obamas tenure still automatically become law within ten days after being given to him. In short, Obama the Presidents’ problem is argueably, still not Congresses problem. This is why you always need to have a President, because when Congress passes laws, they become law in 10 days unless vetoed.

  85. The pathetic mealy mouth arguments offered here by Obama apologists are the symptom of a cultuere that rewards mediocrity and allows cheating if it gets one ahead. I am thoroughly disgusted. This guy is violating the constitution knowingly that he is sworn to uphold (that is why it is Certainly about him Leo). Where is the outrage? I feel like I need a shower after some of these comments.

  86. naturalborncitizen Says:

    Chris Ruddy at Newsmax weighing in on the issue of where we put Obama’s plaque commemorating his birth. No hat tip to this blog though.

    http://www.newsmax.com/ruddy/Obama_birth_certificate/2009/08/05/244380.html

  87. Nonpartisan publishers start demanding conclusive proof of Obama’s elibgibility to be POTUS.

    http://nebraska.statepaper.com/vnews/display.v/ART/2009/08/05/4a79c4716da39

  88. Nick Says August 5, 2009 at 12:18 am

    “It looks like Senator Orrin Hatch is also willing to investigate the legal definition of a natural born citizen.”

    Do you want to know why Orrin would like this answered???

    “Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, a political ally of (Arnold)Schwarzenegger, introduced the Equal Right to Govern Amendment in July 2003,…” “If Hatch’s amendment is adopted, an immigrant who has been a naturalized citizen for 20 years could run for president or vice president.”

    “The restriction on the foreign-born “has become an anachronism that is decidedly un-American,” Hatch said during the hearing in October.

    http://www.usatoday.com/news/politicselections/2004-12-02-schwarzenegger-amendment_x.htm

    If this doesn’t get solved Orrin will use it to allow “an immigrant who has been a naturalized citizen for 20 years could run for president or vice president.” Because we are acting “un-American”

  89. Leo,

    I was wondering if you had a chance to check the list from usconstitution.net on nbc possibilities (from my earlier posting). It would appear BO would be either #1 or #7. If facts show he was born outside US, then with regard to #7, does anyone claim that his mother did not meet the requirements of the 5 years? Thanks.

    [Ed. His mother would not have met the five years requirement if he was born our of the uS - even the propaganda of the Wall STreet Journal admits that although they are spinning it as a "technicality".]

  90. GaryG wrote, ” 3) a vote by the people that renders a constitutional or statutory provision sterile.”

    Not quite. Even Bill Clinton stated in 2008, when asked about the qualifications for the presidency, said,

    “The Constitution sets the qualifications for the presidency and then the people decide who they want to be president.”

    The people don’t decide if they can bypass the Constitution through an election. Mob rule doesn’t fly. This is a republic and it’s about time we started acting like one.

  91. Onfire, Orrin Hatch is one of the Senators who refused to post our research on his blog. It doesn’t surprise me that he’d pull a stunt like this. But the problem with his stunt is that it requires a constitutional amendment. He can’t do it without it. What’s telling about him is that he censors the truth of history. He’s obviously unfriendly to the constitution and doesn’t like it. Your post pretty much sums up what he thinks of Article II. It’s guys like him that need to be voted OUT. He’s the one who is acting un-American. This is our Constitution. Don’t like it? Apply for an amendment but don’t bully your way into changing it because you know that no one will endorse your amendment via the proper channels.

  92. To help reach members of Congress with the historical/legal definition of a natural born citizen, we can contact some of them via Twitter and send them links to some of your blog commentaries. The good thing about contacting them this way is that I think a number of them maintain their own accounts, meaning that the message goes directly to them and is not filtered thru some staffer.

    At http://www.barackobama.com/twitter/tweetyoursenator/ Obama is encouraging people to send Tweets to their senators in favor of his socialist health care plan, so it seems that Twitter has become a legitimate and acceptable way to contact Congress. For anyone who doesn’t know how to direct a message to a certain account on Twitter, see http://help.twitter.com/forums/10711/entries/14023

    At http://tweetcongress.org/list are links where you can get to the Twitter accounts of quite a few members of Congress. People can go to http://bit.ly/ and use the URL shortener, plug in the URLs to your blog commentaries and turn them into smaller re-directing URLs more convenient for sending Tweets.

  93. bvallen;
    That Trib editorial contains the following: “That fear is long gone.” referring to a foreign monarch setting a relative up to rule a weaker country.

    But the threat is not “gone”, just morphed somewhat. Obama is a poster-child for the contemporary danger: that someone with far stronger loyalties to anti-freedom and anti-American forces and groupings in the world than to the US would be given the reins of American military and executive power.

    What do you suppose his answer would be to the following questions: “Do you favor maximizing American influence and power in world affairs?” “Do you favor minimizing American influence and power in world affairs?”

    Predictions: “No way!” and “Absolutely!”, respectively.

  94. Kay Dee;
    Sorry, all irrelevant. A citzen at birth is perhaps native born, but is not necessarily “natural born”.

  95. countrysidevillas Says:

    Folks, we got a monster in the white house.

    Make that TWO.

  96. Drudge FLASH: Senate will vote to confirm Sotomayor at 3:00 PM ET

    Please call your Senators and tell them that they cannot vote to confirm Sotomayor until they Support and Defend the Constitution of the United States and put to rest the doubts that the Supreme Court itself acknowledged exist regarding Obama’s Constitutional eligibility to hold the office of President!

  97. randyedye Says:

    Excellent article from Randy’s Right. Keep up the great work!

  98. Unbamboozleus Says:

    FYI, the article linked to here by Linda was not in my hard/print copy of the Opinions section of the 8/5/09 WSJ. Perhaps only in the online version?

    Linda Says:
    August 5, 2009 at 1:12 pm

    I’ll be anxiously anticipating your reply to Taranto’s propaganda factory press release of today:

    http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204908604574331160720685106.html

  99. Come on guys, do you really want BIDEN to be President?

  100. Unbamboozleus Says:

    May I have permission to cross-post this from http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2009/08/constitutional-radio-blogtalkradio-900.html?

    [Ed. No permission necessary. All of my writing is available for cross posting anywhere.]

    Nick said…

    To help reach members of Congress with the historical/legal definition of a natural born citizen, your supporters can contact some of them via Twitter and send them links to some of your and/or Leo Donofrio’s blog commentaries. The good thing about contacting them this way is that I think a number of them maintain their own accounts, meaning that the message goes directly to them and is not filtered thru some staffer.

    At http://www.barackobama.com/twitter/tweetyoursenator/ Obama is encouraging people to send Tweets to their senators in favor of his socialist health care plan, so it seems that Twitter has become a legitimate and acceptable way to contact Congress. For anyone who doesn’t know how to direct a message to a certain account on Twitter, see http://help.twitter.com/forums/10711/entries/14023

    At http://tweetcongress.org/list are links where people can get to the Twitter accounts of quite a few members of Congress. People can go to http://bit.ly/ and use the URL shortener, plug in the URLs to the relevant blog commentaries and turn them into smaller re-directing URLs more convenient for sending Tweets.

  101. billvanallen Says:

    more WSJ NBC “stuff”

    http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204908604574331160720685106.html?mod=googlenews_wsj

    “Anchors Away? No Way. Why children of illegal aliens are natural-born citizens.”

  102. Kamira said: “The people don’t decide if they can bypass the Constitution through an election. Mob rule doesn’t fly. This is a republic and it’s about time we started acting like one.”

    Kamira,

    Please don’t misunderstand me. I don’t support lying, hiding records or even the incumbent. I am making a political point, while Leo has chosen to stick to the “law” as it can best be determined. That is necessary but insufficient.

    1. It is not “mob” rule when a national election, rather carefully conducted, is held and the electoral college meets. Your characterization of that is way overboard and one only really needs to eperience true “mob” rule once to understand the vast difference.

    2. While a great deal of “federalization” has occurred over the last 60 years, we remain a republic. This isn’t an argurment over the stucture of government but the qualifications (i.e. “credentials”) of an elected president.

    So to get to the points that you need to address.

    A) A state official, essentially acting for the state, has “certified” that Obama is a citizen and avers that he is natural born. It doesn’t matter if she may have been duped by Grandma filing birth documents to protect her grandson or what she thought best for him. The state has spoken and there really is no power that can or will cause it to reverse itself. And in the way of a republic we look to state officials for exactly this kind of responsiblity.

    [Ed. That's a load of crap right there. Had we thought like this back during the revolution we'd still be kissing the Queen's ass. If the Government is involved with tyranny and deception than we ought to find a way to correct that whether through the courts or other necessary means. The imagination of a patriot is not limited. In my own mind, art is my chosen weapon of revolution as well as law. For others it is something else. But don't come here and try to tell my readership they are powerless to change a false reading of law by government officials. ]

    B) Obama may have been born in Hawaii, he may have been born in Kenya. Claiming he is not American enough will not fly. The electorate knew enough of this (citizen of the “world”)when they voted. Yes the makeup and beliefs of the populace has changed. That is why the NBC issue will gain no traction. (please see my earlier post on the time it took to define the right to bear arms in Heller). Sometimes life is not fair.

    [Ed. And when it's not fair people need to stand up and be heard not sit back and whimper in a corner as you would have them do.]

    C) Obama may be lying. He is a politician, duh. We would all should have an attack of apoplexy if we didn’t expect that from a politican. Clinton lied in office, he was not impeached. Bush most likely lied in office, he was not impeached. Lying is not a crime.

    [Ed. It is if you're under oath when you do it. And Obama was under oath when he sent in his signed and sworn affirmation of qualification to Arizona.]

    And with the State of Hawaii backing him, Obama has plausible deniability that he lied on any qualification document or oath.

    [Ed. He does not. He knew he could never swear he wasigible even if he was born in Hawaii.]

    I think even Leo admits the chance of the SCOTUS throwing out an incumbent president (on this issue) is slim to none despite all the “original intent” and conflicts with the records, tangled trails, etc. The research is good, great even, and some day (a bit into the future), may even make it into the historical rendition of the issue.

    So what is the real “present-time” value of all of the chatter and hard work here and elsewhere?

    [Ed. It's very important because people need to be aware of this crap should Obama attempt anything treasonous. Quo Warranto is ALWAYS ALWAYS on the table.]

    1) Somehow created an impact for 2012. Bear in mind that the proposed bill on presidential qualifications will never be submitted to committee. It is DBA (dead before arrival).

    [Ed. The prophet hat spoken.]

    2) Somehow direct the controversy to where it starts to impact on current politicians, policies and proposals. Perhaps in House and Senate races. Also going to be very difficult. Remember it is not just Obama. Equal to him (in fortitude) is Pelosi (more frightening in some ways!!!) and the fact that the people (or mob as you called them) also have created a bicameral rmajority that is in the lead on these policies and proposals (a majority that has no effective opposition).

    Your hard wok is interesting as is that of all the other “truth” seekers. I defend that. I just think taking a reality chill pill now and then can perhaps help focus energy where it might have most effect.

    My best regards

    Gary G

  103. ahhh…in a fighting mood today eh Leo…good, I wouldn’t want you to be anything other than your usual sharp and direct self.

    Politics is a game I know well and at the level this rises to, definitely a game for fighters.

    Pray tell, which agent do you specifically have in mind that will reverse the judgement of Hawaii?

    My best regards

    Gary G

  104. To All: Let us understand no matter what happens, the greatest underlying principle at work here is God’s sovereign will. If we are to honor our Constitution, we will do so by acknowledging that it is God who ordains the nations’ leaders, puts them in power, takes them out. Our founders clearly understood and had faith in this. How insurmountable were the odds then? Quite. They knew from whence their victory came. (As an aside, how many people know that Rev. John Witherspoon, a brilliant mind, was the only clergy to sign the Declaration of Independence from Gr. Britain. He was President of Princeton and had mentored no fewer than 50 statesmen in his day, not the least of which was Alexander Hamilton.) Let us then humbly pray for His righteousness to prevail in the truth, and then give him the glory due Him for his mercy. Nothing works apart from God. Pray for their repentance! Thanks Leo for your steadfast love for truth.

  105. Gary G:

    Perhaps you are the one who should be taking the “reality chill pill”. Breaking the law of the land as Obama has most likely done is, indeed, against the law. The problem now is getting the 3rd branch to have sufficient spine to say so and take the next step since we know the other 2 branches are rife with corruption.

    We’ll see … the jury is out (literally).

  106. Miss Tickly, Leo and others who agree that it is okay to denounce all efforts to bring about the truth. I think Harry H is right on. At this point, we should not be shooting a messenger who brings a message. Orly has done more with her lack of legal expertise to bring this issue front and center than anyone else. Yes, we give kudos to Mario and Leo who have done an outstanding job in bringing the Constitutional issue to light. However, we are in guerrilla warfare here and we need all lawful means to force this issue out in the open. Publicity on this issue is needed until a judge will hear the case on its merits, not dry legalese that unfortunately cannot be appreciated by the masses. When this issue finally does get adjudicated, then the legal arguments will shine forth in all their brilliance. Right now we need to get America’s attention! Go Orly.

    And Miss Tickly, keep going to the Hawaiian officials, but please leave off bashing and casting nasty aspersions on an American who is doing everything in her power. It just really makes you look bad.

  107. Here’s my letter to my Congressman. It also went to our two Senators.

    Congressman Lamborn,

    For too long you have been giving a deaf ear to the tumult that is going on in this country and in your district. We need your immediate attention right now, Congressman.

    This country is heading for a Constitutional crisis over the very LEGITIMATE issue of Obama’s eligibility to serve as POTUS. It isn’t his BC issue; it’s Obama’s British nationality. His father, as Kenyan, was born a British subject and he conferred that allegiance and citizenship to his son, Obama, Jr. That right there makes Obama unqualified and ineligible to hold the office of POTUS.

    Please read and familiarize yourself with this legal explanation–

    http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/2009/08/04/the-dangerous-precedent-set-by-obama-being-president/#comments

    America will NEVER forgive or forget what our Congressmen did or failed to do on this most serious matter. All other congressional issues need to be shelved until Obama’s eligibility is investigated. How a man who has NEVER been vetted got to the WH in the first place is highly suspicious. We need a Congressional investigation NOW!
    There is no other issue that has the criticality of this issue of Obama occupying the WH as a usurper, because no matter how you might want to characterize this, that is what has happened and right under your collective congressional noses! This country is in extreme danger and you need to get your head out of the sand, see it for what it is, and DO SOMETHING. If it takes a quorum for Congress to come into session, then when you convene, walk out until this Constitutional issue is thoroughly investigatged in a bi-partisan endeavor. The health care bill, as disgusting and deplorable as that is, really pales in comparison to having a usurper in the WH, who is determined to ruin this country. He’s well on his way, until and unless our ELECTED REPRESENTATIVES do what it takes to vet and expose him and do it now! If Obama remains successful in obfuscating, stonewalling, and using mafia-style tactics in keeping the lid on this crisis, we will hold all 535 of you responsible!

  108. Dear JTX

    “The problem now is getting the 3rd branch to have sufficient spine to say so and take the next step since we know the other 2 branches are rife with corruption.”

    It ain’t gonna happen. At least at the federal level. In fact that door has already been closed. (Yes I know there are cases pending in lower courts).

    Where you have to go with this is to use the legal reasoning, politically. Take it to the state legislatures controlled by Republicans. Use the legal reasoning to convine them to draft firm vetting procedures for Electoral Boards for 2012. A presidential candidate cannot afford to be embroiled in a ballot qualification squabble in even one state. If kept off several state ballots it’s over for him or her. You use the legal reasoning to convince state legislators to act. They are often much brighter and far less corrupted than any elected you’ll find inside the Beltway.

    This can even start at the county central committee level. Map it out. Unifiy the birthers, start to play practical politics and cover every precinct. Make sure republicans back candidates that support the vetting. The national media may be cowed, but even the WH can’t contol the opposition’s local committees.

    If you think the federal courts are going to unseat an incumbent president for the sake of original intent, well then, you probably shouldn’t be the one to try practical politics either.

    Now that is just one idea, there are lots more. Combine the legal reasoning with practical political strategy. It’s going to take alot more than Orly PR shows, and court filings. Those may be necessary, but they are insuffficient.

    And stay cool, I think summer is finally here…

    my regards

    Gary G

  109. I’m only surprised that garyg hasn’t called us nazis and racists yet. Notice i said yet.

  110. Mitchell Staff Says:

    Gary.

    You might understand politics but you don’t understand the American people. They didn’t vote for him because he was multi-cultural or any of your other analogies but rather as a backlash to Bush. Now that they are realizing that he is continuing the foriegn policies of Bush and pushing an Orwellian domestic agenda, his poll numbers are dropping like a rock. He’s already below 50% and projecting it out he’ll be in the teens by December.

  111. RJJohnson Says:

    GaryG – “Clinton lied in office, he was not impeached.”

    Clinton was impeached.

    GaryG – “It is not “mob” rule when a national election, rather carefully conducted, is held and the electoral college meets.”

    It was not carefully conducted. It was very sloppy. No government agency ever required proof of Obama’s eligibility. Even a socialist citizen of Nicaragua was on the ballot in some states.

    GaryG – “The electorate knew enough of this (citizen of the “world”)when they voted.”

    The will of the electorate does not override the constitution. By being a citizen of a state of the United States, you implicitly agree to abide by the constitution and laws of the state and of the United States.

    GaryG – “I think even Leo admits the chance of the SCOTUS throwing out an incumbent president (on this issue) is slim to none”

    If the Supreme Court finds that Obama does not meet the “natural born citizen” eligibility requirement, then he will not be the “incumbent president.” The court will have determined that he was never President at all.

    GaryG – “I just think taking a reality chill pill now and then can perhaps help focus energy where it might have most effect.”

    That’s the liberal’s answer whenever they get caught doing something wrong. If a woman was being raped, you’d probably to tell her to stop screaming and just lay back and enjoy it – take a chill pill.

  112. Leo,

    The answer here is where you started, it is quo warranto all the way. Since Holder won’t take action and Taylor is gone it falls to somebody willing to bring suit as an interested party. You’ve heard this before but I believe Walpin is the person to bring this to DC. His firing not only gives him stature under quo warranto but his firing was illegal from the start.

    [Ed. I read in comments somewhere that people contacted him about quo warranto and he was not interested.]

    This must be brought forth as quo warranto, no other way is going to work. Have you heard of anyone willing to move in that direction? Appuzo, in my opinion is the best one working out there now, but he’s not using qw as far as I know.

  113. Leo:

    Please check this link in association with the Canadian Free Press. The article is entitled “Threats, Media Manipulation on Obama Eligibility–We Have Proof”.

    http://theneinblog.blogspot.com/

  114. To Unbamboozleus regarding http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/2009/08/04/the-dangerous-precedent-set-by-obama-being-president/#comment-8197

    Thanks for taking notice of this idea. I also already posted it here on Leo’s blog at http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/2009/08/04/the-dangerous-precedent-set-by-obama-being-president/#comment-8182

    When I find something I think will be useful to the issue (e.g., the Twitter idea), I tend to post basically the same thing in several places, including both Leo and Mario’s blogs. Hopefully this Twitter idea will help to educate at least some members of Congress on the historical/legal issue at hand.

  115. I believe that this elegibility issue can be used as a “get out of jail free” card for the congressmen that are being “bullied” by the current administration. They just need to be “nudged” a bit – some just need to know that they have their constituents behind them. I have been e-mailing and mailing ALL congressmen, even those outside of my state. We can’t sit around an wait for someone else to do the work for us. It will take all of US collectively to make a difference.

    Even though the “birth certificate” of “birther issue” isn’t necessarily Article II elegibility it helps to cause people to question. Blogs like this one are great to educate – but it is places like WND, Limbaugh, Hannity, Cunningham that help to create the curiosity and an uneasy “there is something more to this” (just like it did with me). Then the research begins.

    Charles Kerchner made it onto the Bill Cunningham show on Sunday night (August 2) – and converted him into a birther

    http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2009/08/charles-kerchner-lead-plaintiff.html.

    He explained how a birth announcment worked in Hawaii and that he believes that Obama has a birth record in HI. He also explained that US citizenship was a sought after thing in the 60’s, and more than likely Obama’s grandmother forged a “Certification of Live Birth”, for that reason. Not because she expected him to be president one day.

    One more person that questions Obama’s elegibility that can get the message out!

  116. Whistleblower Says:

    Leo,

    I just came across this and thought it might help. It was published in 1912, and clearly points out that there is a difference between those born of parents who are citizens and those who are not.

    The essentials of international public law by Amos Shartle Hershey.

    Look at page 237. Page 241 demonstrates the importance of the fathers citizenship. (I also think the footnotes of page 241 are worth taking a look at.)

    Per the current Wiki:
    Amos Shartle Hershey (1867 – 1933) was an American professor of political science, born at Hockersville, Pa. He was educated at Harvard College and Law School (A. B., 1892), and studied also at the University of Heidelberg (Ph.D., 1894) and at Paris (1894-95). On the faculty of Indiana University he served as assistant professor of political science (1895-1900), as associate professor of European history and politics (1900-05), and as professor of political science after 1905. He was a member of the staff of the American Commission to Negotiate Peace.

    [Ed. Good find. I'll have a look. Sounds interesting.]

  117. In response to Todd:
    August 6, 2009 at 6:45 am

    Come on guys, do you really want BIDEN to be President?

    Here’s a salient point for me. If Obama were to be thrown out of office, Biden would likely not be able to sway or push Congress the way Obama has. Remember, he’s the “One”! I want Obama to come clean on his records so that he can’t use his personal “god-like” status (even though it is fading somewhat) to continue to ram things through Congress and on to socialism. I doubt he will be kicked out, chances of that happening are slim, but it’s more likely we can pressure him to release his records so people can see what a fraud he is.

  118. To KayDee – thank you for the post (well said):
    KayDee Says:

    August 6, 2009 at 9:44 am
    To All: Let us understand no matter what happens, the greatest underlying principle at work here is God’s sovereign will. If we are to honor our Constitution, we will do so by acknowledging that it is God who ordains the nations’ leaders, puts them in power, takes them out. Our founders clearly understood and had faith in this. How insurmountable were the odds then? Quite. They knew from whence their victory came. (As an aside, how many people know that Rev. John Witherspoon, a brilliant mind, was the only clergy to sign the Declaration of Independence from Gr. Britain. He was President of Princeton and had mentored no fewer than 50 statesmen in his day, not the least of which was Alexander Hamilton.) Let us then humbly pray for His righteousness to prevail in the truth, and then give him the glory due Him for his mercy. Nothing works apart from God. Pray for their repentance! Thanks Leo for your steadfast love for truth.

  119. Whistleblower Says:

    Leo,

    Have you noticed the concurring opinion of Justice Daniel in Scott v. Sanford?

    “Thus Vattel, in the preliminary chapter to his Treatise on the Law of Nations, says: ‘Nations or States are bodies politic; societies of men united together for the purpose of promoting their mutual safety and advantage, by the joint efforts of their mutual strength. Such a society has her affairs and her interests; she deliberates and takes resolutions in common; thus becoming a moral person, who possesses an understanding and a will peculiar to herself.’ Again, in the first chapter of the first book of the Treatise just quoted, the same writer, after repeating his definition of a State, proceeds to remark, that, ‘from the very design that induces a number of men to form a society, which has its common interests and which is to act in concert, it is necessary that there should be established a public authority, to order and direct what is to be done by each, in relation to the end of the association. This political authority is the sovereignty.’ Again this writer remarks: ‘The authority of all over each member essentially belongs to the body politic or the State.’

    By this same writer it is also said: ‘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 society [60 U.S. 393, 477] cannot perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their parents, and succeed to all their rights.’ Again: ‘I say, to be of the country, it is necessary to be born of a person who is a citizen; for if he be born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country. The inhabitants, as distinguished from citizens, are foreigners who are permitted to settle and stay in the country.’ (Vattel, Book 1, cap. 19, p. 101.)”

  120. You must be making inroads again, the Obots have formulated a response about Barack being a British citizen:

    “1) Under the British Nationality Act (BNA) of 1948, Pres.Obama’s father became a United Kingdom and Colonies (UKC) citizen because he was born in Kenya, a British colony.
    2) When he was born on Aug.4, 1961, Pres.Obama became a UKC citizen through his father, as stated in the BNA. This meant he held dual citizenship; American and UKC.
    3) On Dec.12, 1963, Kenya became independent of the UK. Consequently, under Article 87 of the Kenyan Constitution, people who were UKC citizens ceased being UKC citizens and became Kenyan citizens. This meant that Obama now held American and Kenyan citizenship.
    4) According to Article 97 of the Kenyan Constitution, dual citizenship cannot continue after the age of 21. Consequently, at the age of 21, Obama would “cease to be a citizen of Kenya upon the specified date unless he has renounced his citizenship of that other country, taken the oath of allegiance and, in the case of a person who was born outside Kenya. made and registered such declaration of his intentions concerning residence as may be prescribed by or under an Act of Parliament.”
    5) Since he didn’t renounce his American citizenship, take the Kenyan oath of allegiance, and register his intentions for a Kenyan residence, Obama’s Kenyan citizenship expired on Aug. 4, 1982.
    6) On that date, Obama held only American citizenship.”

    So this maroon is saying Obama lost both British and Kenyan citizenship. What an idiot, so everyone who did not declare Kenyan citizenship suddenly had zero citizenship? How stupid.

    http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=Ano8NAWK1KRCOzhmKdpN8T_sy6IX;_ylv=3?qid=20090806103606AAnKF99

    [Ed. None of that makes any difference to the nbc issue since the status of being nbc only happens at birth. You can't cure it later by renouncing citizenship. Either you are nbc at birth or you're not. That's why the requirement is "natural born citizen" - it happens when you're born and only when you are born. If you lose your other citizenship later, that doesn't change your status at birth. The requiremtn isn't that you are a citizen and the requirement isn't that you are not a dual citizen. The requirement is that you are a natural BORN citizen. What part of "born" do these people not understand?]

  121. Thanks, Leo, for rebutting GaryG so well. Since he is so willing to abandon law and principle and so gung-ho on politics, I hope he likes it if this comes down to marches, rallies at the Washington Monument, and–God forbid–street battles between blacks and whites.

    Much better to settle our legal differences openly in the courts or Congress than to be forced to stand with Jefferson on the right to have our grievances addressed by our government or, alternatively, to reconstitute that government by force.

  122. Starbeau Says:

    Leo,

    Several months ago I spent one Sunday arguing with the Webmaster at usconstitution.net, about what he was publishing on line which was in error. The site purports to be somewhat of an official site, but his changing the wording of the 14th Amendment to suit his opinion could be the cause of much misinformation.

    We went back and forth, and he finally stated that what he put there was his opinion and he could go on ad infinitum. So I have not corresponded with him since, however I find his work on your blog twice and I want to call it to your attention.

    His precise words have been quoted on your blog twice.

    First by KayDee (August 5, 2009 at 6:19 pm
    Second by KayDee (August 5, 2009 at 8:08 pm

    KayDee states:

    “Can you help me?

    I found this from the site usconstitution.net:

    The 14th Amendment defines citizenship this way: “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.” But even this does not get specific enough. As usual, the Constitution provides the framework for the law, but it is the law that fills in the gaps.

    Currently, Title 8 of the U.S. Code fills in those gaps. Section 1401 defines the following as people who are “citizens of the United States at birth:”

    1. Anyone born inside the United States *

    This is a blatant falsehood:

    Here is the code taken from the Cornell Site:

    TITLE 8 > CHAPTER 12 > SUBCHAPTER III > Part I > § 1401
    Nationals and citizens of United States at birth

    The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth:

    (a) a person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof;

    They have left out the most significant words of Section I of the 14th Amendment, “and subject to the jurisdiction thereof”;

    The precise wording of the 14th Amendment!

    KayDee puts an asterik at the end of the sentence “at birth*. It does not belong there.

    US Constitution Online places the asterik at the end and it reads:

    * There is an exception in the law — the person must be “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States.

    The site then proclaims that “Anyone falling into these categories is considered natural-born, and is eligible to run for President or Vice President” a deliberate misrepresentation of the 14th Amendment.

    You did pick up on the natural born wording not being in the 14th Amendment, but I believe that the website is intending to misrepresent by removing the words, “and subject to the jurisdiction thereof” from the US Statute and placing it below in very small print and them proclaiming that everyone in the list is a natural born citizen.

    [Ed. That's the new propaganda device - they add the words "natural born" where they don't exist in the laws and cases being cited. It's a concerted effort to dumb down the people. It's not really working out for them.]

  123. jtx;
    Uh, um, yeah … breaking the law is, indeed, against the law. Kind of by definition, doncha think? :D

  124. TexomaEd Says:

    Great post, Leo. In addition to the natural born citizen “strong check” against foreign influence in our nation’s leader, would you agree that the Framers emphasized that point by also requiring that the President be a resident of the US for 14 years? Seems that way to me, and it makes sense. They knew that living in a foreign country exposes one to foreign ideas and influences.

  125. good point TexomaEd! the 14 yr residency does provide another check against foreign influence.

    here’s somethings else: Obama Jr, has the exact same citizenship as all of the dead old white guys in Philadelphia 1787 had. they were all born of non-US citizens, and were merely “citizens” at the time of the adoption of the Constitution. (if we assume) Obama is a citizen also, but wasn’t around then, so in order to be President, he has to be what the framers were NOT: natural born of both US citizen parents.

  126. Starbeau- Just caught your post wherein you referenced “my asterisk”. fyi- I copied and pasted right from the link (usconstitution.net). I suspected the material might not be totally trustworthy, as another blogger who was challenging me on the nbc issue had sent it as his defense. Although I had sent it with a specific question, I was hoping any discrepancies might be pointed out, for the very reasons Leo explains. All part of the plan to blow smoke and keep us running.

  127. Can anyone say circle jerk? Until the supremes definitively explain the natural in natural born citizen, that is what this discussion amounts to.

    The constitution mentions three classes of citizens: those grandfathered in, those who are naturalized, and those who are natural born. Let’s see. Not naturalized. Not grandfathered in. What’s left?

    [Ed. No, the Constitution mentions four classes

    1. natural born
    2. native born
    3. naturalized
    4. those grandfathered in ]

  128. To Kelly: For what it’s worth, I should have said John Witherspoon was from Scotland specifically (for any of you Scottish out there who would never admit being “British”!) Anyway, for all of you who might be interested in this gifted theologian and scholar, I HIGHLY recommend his biography: “John Witherspoon and the Founding of the American Republic”. Read the reviews on amazon- better than I can do it justice!- When you consider what we are witnessing right now, you will be brought to tears when you realize what giants these men were compared to our ignorance. Not to get too philosophical or religious here, but I believe God is chastising His children in giving us Barack Obama. Read this book and you’ll see why.

    [Ed. Not just Obama. The chastising has been happening before Obama, with BUsh and even Clinton and Bush 41 as well. "We only get what we will settle for." (From "Fade Away" by Oasis.)]

  129. While you’re all sleeping out on the east coast, another correction. Earlier I referenced Witherspoon as having mentored Alexander Hamilton at Princeton (then called College of New Jersey). Incorrect. It was James Madison.

  130. JP-research Says:

    Dave Daubenmire at News With Views writes a thought-provoking article and poses the following questions:

    “What if the pressure builds so powerfully that the geyser must blow? …What if the only documentation he can produce turns out to be a clunker?”

    http://www.newswithviews.com/Daubenmire/dave164.htm

  131. Responding to the Anchors Away column at WSJ online:

    Mr. Taranto,

    LETS COMBINE LESSONS TODAY SHALL WE, …Let’s call it Law, Civics, English Language and your Health…

    First PLEASE stop combining and confusing NATURAL BORN CITIZEN and NATURALIZED CITIZEN and CITZEN as they were one and the same…they ARE NOT. ………….

    [ If I thought you were stupid, rode the short bus, or just plain incompetent I would not even bother, BUT What I believe is that you are deliberately taking a non-sensical position so that more of the rest of the country will take the time to "review their civic duty and refresh their education of the meaning of the Constittion...so that when this iissue is finally decided , and the BC issue is really insignificant to the solution...many more will understand what the rule of law means...rather than the rule of arrogant men.]

    Back to your lesson, in the first two choices the word CITIZEN is preceded by the adjectives Natural and naturalized…this difference CANNOT BE INGNORED…NOW go read Marbury vs.Madison…the most often cited Supreme Court case regarding the “interpretation” of the Constitution. THe main item for you to LEARN is that nothing in the CONSTITUTION is superflourous or repetitive, UNLESS it specifically says it is…each word must be given its meaning and then its context with the whole….IN OTHER WORDS you dont get to make Citizen equal to Natural BORN CITIZEN or Naturalized CITIZEN….

    NOW …watch how Barrack Obama himself has proven that he knows the difference EVEN IF YOU DONT…GO READ Senate Resolution 511…SPONSORED by Barrack Obama (and other dems) that says McCain is a natural born citizen BECAUSE HIS PARENTS [plural, as in both] were US CITIZENS even though he (McCain) was born outside the borders of the US…this NON BINDING resolution…because they could not get the proposed binding one passed…demonstrated BY BARRACKS own signature and vote for SR 511, that HE KNOWS THAT at a minimum YOU NEED TWO US CITIZEN PARENTS TO BE A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN at least, and Barrack admits even on his own “fightthesmears” web site that his father was BRITISH…SO HE IS A USURPER…and when you next address this issue you might DEAL WITH THESE FACTS rather than continuing with your misguided conjectures and deliberate confusion and leave the red herring BC out of it…because this American is not amused by your propaganda efforts…and while your at it….

    Lets finish your education…the reason that we PROVIDE HEALTH CARE to illegal aliens (as it were) is because in this country our policy is that we will not leave any “person” laying in the street, we will get them the necessary medical help they need because we are….. according to OUR constitution…..cause thats the supreme law of the land…that we will NOT treat visitors any different than we would our own citizens…BUT that does not mean that we… as other have showed you …….that we HAVE COMPLETE jurisdiction over illegals or visitors to “force them into our military” for example…BUT we do provide them with “due process of law” ……just like the rest of us………

    AND LIKE the previous poster WONG KIM ARK was not a NATURAL BORN CITIZEN…and the Court NEVER SAID HE WAS……and IF you actually READ the case YOU would know this instead of repeatedly making assertions that are flat out WRONG, which means that your not stupid or otherwise less endowed than what might be called normal, but rather deliberately seeking to promote propaganda destructive of the very country to which you owe the freedom to Speak and the freedom of the press that you abuse like a three dollar whore…FREEDOM …yours especially comes with ethical responsibility…get some!

    [Ed. Nice one.]

  132. as i am not a lawyer some of the above is above me, but as I am a veteran of ww2 u.s. marine corps. female, i do find the joint chiefs should be very interested in this that his father a British citizen which makes him also British. Sir: one question, can he be removed, he is doing so much harm, I can’t do any more than post and send letters, emails, phone calls, but you are so talented, maybe if you could say, but if not ok. I am so worried, I realize this might not be very serious, but in my gut I am quite fearful for my country and the Constitution I took my oath of enlistment on. Thank you. goldie

    [Ed. He can be removed, but it's not really going to happen. Thank you for serving.]

  133. Mitchell said: “You might understand politics but you don’t understand the American people. They didn’t vote for him because he was multi-cultural or any of your other analogies but rather as a backlash to Bush”

    I didn’t say why people voted for him. I posited the argurment that his cultural status was well known. The “common” feeling would be as Orin Hatch has said, that NBC is an anachronism. I am not saying this is “right” or trumps Constitutional requirements. I am saying that is what is out there culturally and politically.

    As for Bush, I agree 1000%. Bush was absolutely the biggest support Barry had. You can’t fail the country so badly as Bush did (losing two wars, complete degradation of the true purposes of the armed forces, installing puppet generals who can’t fight, attacking our soldiers in the field, wasting completely our treasure and wealth). Yeah Bush elected Obama, but given Bush’s low intellect and Republican stupidity in general that was a given. All water under the bridge my fiend we are in a completely different (Democratic, liberal and socialist) house now.

    Don’t confuse my efforts here as obstruction. I am trying to get people to see the limits of chatter and legal reasoning, and the need to do “something” practical and effective with it. Endless chatter on “truth” seeking boards is fun and games but of little consequence.

    One example, as different elements of the population are angered by one
    policy or another, they will also then say to themselves “and he isn’t even American”. This is the value of the Orly show and inroads into national media (even if done clownishly). Local opposition politicians will sense weakness on Obama’s part, some blood in the water, and will be willing to act on that.

    The question that all of you are not answering, is what is it that they should “DO” ? Filing amicus briefs on original intent to courts that will not hear the case is a waste of energy.

    Politics in America is a bottoms up process. I find it somewhat ironic, “conservatives” will ignore this and seek some “Federal” santa claus or court to come “fix” their problem for them.

    Ain’t gonna happen. So now your turn, what practical, political effective measure can you propose that will eventually change the playing field? That’s where this has to go.

    My regards,
    Gary G

  134. Harry H said: “Tanks, Leo, for rebutting GaryG so well. Since he is so willing to abandon law and principle”.

    hmmm, I checked and found out that I am not a federal judge and certainily not assigned to hear any presidential qualification case. So I don’t think I am the one abandoning law and principle.

    Your faith that the courts will toss out an incumbent president on original intent is highly misplaced, politically speaking.

    I am also not advocating Rebellion (it’s only Revolution if you win).

    My regards
    Gary G

  135. What do you think about this?

    US Supreme Court – Natural Born Citizen – Schneider v. Rusk, 377 U.S. 163 (1964)

    While the rights of citizenship of the native born derive from § 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment and the rights of the naturalized citizen derive from satisfying, free of fraud, the requirements set by Congress, the latter, apart from the exception noted,

    The court in Schneider v. Rusk, 377 U.S. 163 (1964) found that

    We start from the premise that the rights of citizenship of the native born and of the naturalized person are of the same dignity, and are coextensive. The only difference drawn by the Constitution is that only the “natural born” citizen is eligible to be President. Art. II, § 1. becomes a member of the society, possessing all the rights of a native citizen, and standing, in the view of the constitution, on the footing of a native. The constitution does not authorize Congress to enlarge or abridge those rights. The simple power of the national Legislature is to prescribe a uniform rule of naturalization, and the exercise of this power exhausts it so far as respects the individual.”

    Suggesting that natural born and native born are equivalent concepts

    [Ed. Why doesn't this suggest that natural born and native born are unique concepts? The rights of native born are coextensive with naturalized citizens (so are the rights of statutory citizens born abroad). But the "only difference drawn by the Constitution" makes natural born citizens eligible to be President. It does NOT say the only difference drawn by the Constitution is that native born citizens can be President. Why do you assume that the person writing it mean to say "native born" but instead wrote "natural born". You are taking a leap of faith that the writer meant something he didn't write.]

  136. Whistleblower Says:

    Leo,

    The book “The essentials of international public law” of which I directed you to above, has some strange “online” anomalies.

    The book is “supposedly” searchable. However, if you search the book for “law of nations”, the result is “No results found in this book for law of nations”.

    I knew that wasn’t correct because I spotted the reference on more than one occasion while browsing the book.

    So I downloaded the book in pdf format, and performed Optical Character Recognition on the entire book. (over 600 pages)

    Now (post OCR) a search of the book for “law of nations” results in 109 instances.

    This paragraph (located on page 5 of the book) may explain why law schools don’t teach lawyers much about the law of nations.

    ““The objections to considering International Law as a branch of true law fall under three main heads. It is maintained that the Law of Nations lacks: (1) the quality of positive authority or command. It does not conform to Austin’s definition of law as “a rule laid down for the guidance of an intelligent being by an intelligent being having power over him.” In other words, it is not the general command of a determinate legislator or legislative body with power to enforce its decisions. (2) There is no legal duty or obligation of obedience on the part of those to whom it is addressed, for there are no courts or judicial tribunals to interpret and enforce this so-called law. (3) There is no penalty prescribed for disobedience. Consequently, it lacks sanction or physical power to enforce obedience. The so-called Law of Nations is, it is claimed, a branch of ethics rather than of jurisprudence.”

    Law without sanctions or a court isn’t likely to result in “billable hours”. Can you imagine law based on a handshake? Law that is dependent on the honor and integrity of those to which it applies? -That may have worked 200 years ago, but too many today (especially in the political world) lack honor and integrity.

    [Ed. Nice research. Well done.]

  137. Re: Kelly at 3:10 pm

    I published that interview at youtube:

    “Charles Kerchner, Lead Plaintiff in the Kerchner v Obama & Congress Lawsuit, converts Talk Show Radio Host Bill Cunningham of 700 WLW of Cincinnati, Ohio into a Birther.”

  138. Unbamboozleus Says:

    There is a new and very good blog on NBC at Mario Apuzzo’s site.

    http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2009/08/why-natural-born-citizen-clause-is.html

    [Ed. An excellent article.]

  139. TruePatriotHrt Says:

    Is there a possibility that Obama has committed treason already?
    Judge Napolitano was mentioning that he has broken 2 laws already.
    Thanks for the great blog. It’s very interesting.

  140. Gary G belittles the exchange of ideas here by saying “chatter and legal reasoning” are “fun and games” but of little consequence. But rational action arises from conceptual thought, which is based on language. I am discussing constitutional language here not because I like to chatter but because I am thinking about a serious matter of governance.

    The Constitution was meant to ensure that our President had allegiance ONLY to this country. Hence the constitutional meaning of “natural born” = naturally, automatically (no debate possible) belonging to this country and no other. That thought is the basis for political action, like persuading others, including our representatives in Congress, that something should be done.

    Gary asks “what practical, political effective measure can you propose that will eventually change the playing field?” I propose letter-writing campaigns to newspapers, magazines, and public officials. I propose
    active participation in online forums such as this one that relate to the issue of Obama’s illegitimacy so as to form the base of opinion from which effective political action can arise.

    I propose organizing peaceful demonstrations, including protest marches, against the contining refusal of our government to give fair hearing to our legitimate grievance that Obama’s tenure is illegal and inimical to our republic. I propose sit-ins at strategic locations to protest Obama’s fraudulent election. And I propose public demonstrations against Nancy Pelosi for fraudulently certifying Obama as a constitutionally legal nominee.

  141. Fred Frick Says:

    I have noticed that a number of Obama supporters are starting to use the argument that Obama was not a British citizen because he was illegitimate — [Ed. snip - this isn't a tabloid. I do not entertain comments in regards to am illegitimate marriage or that Obama was somebody else's son. This is a legal blog, not a gossip column. If Obama ever claims Obama Sr isn't his father or that his parents' marriage was illegitimate, than you you have my permission to raise this issue here. Because it will only matter if Obama raises any of this BS as a defense. And if it should ever come to that... I'll be shocked.]

  142. To All:

    The political possibilities are endless as to what may happen.

    God is sovereign. Our Constitution was forged out of human blood and brains, but the power source was of God. Like the outnumbered Israelites of the Old Testament, the colonists were delivered ultimately by the hand of God. We would be the greatest fools to believe otherwise, as it is this same Constitution that we now call upon to defend our freedoms. They called upon Him as their power. He answered.

    God will not be mocked. All of the kings horses and all the kings men won’t be able to put the United States back together again unless we cry out to God to have mercy upon us, repent as a nation, and follow His ways. We cannot have it our way if it is not His way. That best shot is not just holding to that one article that will prove ineligibility, but to the whole, going forward by going backward.

    Yes, we got Barack Obama, and George Bush, and Bill Clinton, as Leo points out, one step at a time.

    We are not a theocracy or “Christian” nation, but we are (were) a nation of moral godly laws, deriving our nature of law from the very understanding of the Word of God.

    As a Christian, I would be hard-pressed to take up arms to defend my faith, but I would do as my forefathers and defend to the death, after the first shot by the enemy, to protect our Constitution. It is the only earthly thing given to man to establish truth, justice, and peace while sojourning in this life.

    I am not a legal scholar, but what I am getting from all I read and hear is that this WILL be a “we the people” battle, whether fought now or later. Our government has forsaken us; our laws barely speak to us; and now, we must return to history not just to understand the correct interpretation of the law, but to breathe in the essence and spirit of that law, or we are doomed. And we have that right. What are we waiting for?

    We are already in this battle to save our country. The enemy fired the first shot years ago. We are already bloody and dying. Our children are being massacred by the institutions of public education. Are we to use the weapons of pragmatism and expediency to fight back, such as allowing a liberal judge into the lifetime office of Associate Justice of the Supreme Court, because we’re going to counterattack later with something better? We are afraid to fight. And we are afraid because we don’t understand our inheritance- the Constitution. We can’t blame our leaders or the pundits- we only have ourselves to blame for letting them get away with speaking lies to our laws and to our hearts and minds.

    I pray that all who read this will turn to God, cry out for His mercy for themselves and for this land and do His will. And as we do these things and glorify Him, He will deliver us from the hands of the enemy. Revival. There is no other way. Our fathers knew this, lived it, died it. True peace.

    2 Chronicles 7:14 “…if my people who are called by My name will humble themselves, and pray and seek My face, and turn from their wicked ways, then I will hear from heaven, and will forgive their sin and heal their land.”

  143. Leo, this really should go viral. I posted this at CW’s.

    And here we have the hypocrite, article from WND:

    ” Question: What do you think the relevance of John McCain’s cancer is on this election?

    Schumer: I don’t know the relevance but I will say this. When you’re running for President everything should be public including your full medical records. I believe in the right to privacy but when you’re running for President which is such an important job the need of the public to know supercedes it.”

    http://www.openleft.com/diary/8280/

    [Ed. Nice one. Let's see if Chucky does that thing where he talks out of both sides of his mouth.]

  144. Unbamboozleus Says:

    Is this how it will come to pass that Obama will be forced to reveal his “birth documents” and thereby completely escape the real core issue of NBC?

    The recent events, and now this, look so choreographed and just plain phony.

    http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=106137

    [Ed. Good question.]

  145. When concerned WWII veteran Goldie asked above whether Obama could be removed, she was told by the editor [Leo I presume], “He can be removed, but it’s not really going to happen.” Leo, you presume too far, and you trust your negative intuition–fear?–too much.

    The Joint Chiefs could remove Obama quickly and relatively easily.

    [Ed. I disagree. There is no provision for military removal in the Constitution.]

    All they have to do is request that he establish that he is a natural born citizen, as required by the Constitution. Then Obama might well be persuaded, for the good of the country, himself, and his family, to resign and be deported.

    Who would have thought old hard-ball Richard Nixon would resign? It is entirely possible and plausible that if a sufficient number of citizens become aroused, their public demonstrations can so pressurize public life that Obama resigns just as Nixon finally did or that either Congress or the courts finally take up the issue of eligibiltiy and address the issue seriously and fairly, the end result being impeachment or resignation.

    Geez, Leo, don’t tell us there is no hope for justice on this issue. This pot hasn’t even come to a boil yet.

  146. Leo,

    If, as you say, there is no chance a court will hear this case, then the best plan now is to do what Joseph Farah advocates which is to raise public awareness through a marketing campaign aimed at rallying the public to apply pressure to Obama. Its obvious our judicial system serves the government establishment and not the people. It is a sad day when the law takes a back seat to media marketing.

  147. Maybe the easiest way to get the issues in this case before the public via a jury is to pursue legal action against Pelosi, who certified Obama as qualified. She is not protected from prosecution as the President is, I think. If she were convicted of fraud, it would be a proxy for conviction of Obama, and impeachment could follow.

    [Ed. And who is going to prosecute Pelosi. She has a viable defense whereas Obama does not. He knows the state of Constitutional law since he was a lawyer and professor. The law gives her a legal out as to swearing he was eligible.]

  148. Re Pelosi, not being a lawyer (I assume she isn’t) is no excuse for swearing falsely. If that were so, nobody but lawyers could be held accountable for swearing/certifying anything. Even if she had a theoretical immunity from prosecution, why not put that theory to the test of truth? Maybe that would be the best way to get a hearing of relevant evidence in this case.

    Why forfeit the ground without a contest?

    In her official capacity as Chair of the Democratic National Convention, Pelosi signed a notarized statement that Obama was “legally qualified to serve under the provisions of the United States Constitution.” That was the legal basis for Obama to be a candidate of the Democrat Party. My goodness, does an opening have to be served up on a silver platter before it suits your taste?

    [Ed. I'm not saying she was ignorant to the issue, but legally as to a burden of proof - she could testify and produce enough evidence to show that she believed in good faith that Obama was eligible. Obama could not do the same.]

  149. Anyone with a possible blood link to the Dunhams or Obamas can, I gather, make a valid application to see the original records for personal geneological research. That would directly establish both parentage and location/time.

  150. Starbeau Says:

    Leo,

    I don’t know of any story that indicates our citizenship problems better than the story of two individuals named John Walker Lindh and Yaser Esam Hamdi. You might remember them, but most folks won’t. They were both treated as citizens, however Hamdi was not and represents disregard of our constitution to declare him a citizen.

    John Walker Lindh was born in Washington, D.C., on February 9, 1981 to parents Marilyn Walker and Frank Lindh, citizens of the United States at the time of John’s birth. By any standard, Lindh meets the requirements to be a natural born citizen as both parents were citizens at the time of Lindh’s birth. You can read about John Lindh in an article in Time magazine (http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,187564-1,00.html) titled “The Taliban Next Door”.
    Yaser Esam Hamdi was born in Baton Rouge, LA. on September 26, 1980 to parents Esam and Nadiah Hamdi, both born in Saudi, Arabia. The parents were working in Baton Rouge temporarily and returned to Saudi Arabia with Yaser when he was an infant. Yaser Hamdi never returned to the United States until 2002.

    Lindh’s and Hamdi’s life’s came together when they were captured on the battlefield in Afghanistan. Hamdi and Lindh were captured by Afghan Northern Alliance forces in Konduz, Afghanistan, along with hundreds of surrendering Taliban fighters who were then sent to the Qala-e-Jangi prison complex near Mazari Sharif.

    Both survived the riot and ensuing battle at the prison, were subsequently identified as American citizens and returned to the United States, though not at the same time.

    Hamdi was named by the Bush administration as an “illegal enemy combatant”, and initially detained at Camp X-Ray at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. In April 2002, upon learning that Hamdi was an American citizen, authorities transferred him to a naval brig in Norfolk, Virginia, where he remained until transferred to a brig in Charleston, South Carolina.

    A fundamental question is, “who declared Hamdi an American citizen and what was their legal basis for that declaration”?

    Hamdi’s Certificate of Live Birth may be found at: http://fl1.findlaw.com/news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/hamdi/hamdi92680birthc.pdf

    In the lower right hand corner of the Certificate of Live Birth is this statement:
    THE ABOVE IS A TRUE CERTIFICATION OF NAME AND BIRTH FACTS ON FILE IN THE VITAL RECORDS REGISTRY OF THE STATE OF LOUISIANA, PURSUANT TO LSA-R.S.40.32, ET SEQ.
    This document shows “name and birth facts on file in the vital records registry…….”
    This is a “Certificate of Live Birth” issued by the State of Louisiana, but it is not the original birth certificate (sometimes called the long form) which is obviously filed somewhere, however it does contain enough significant factual information to determine the “at birth” citizenship of Yaser Hamdi. But, who makes the call and when and where is it shown? Where on the “Certificate of Live Birth” does it declare, “This child is/is not a citizen of the United States” with a signature of the official who is qualified to make such a decision. It does not of course. Hamdi’s parents were born in Saudi Arabia per the BC. Specifically in the case of Hamdi, does it require a Supreme Court review to determine his citizenship?

    Download and print this document for comparison to Obama’s offering of his “Certification of Live Birth” which you may download from:

    http://www.fightthesmears.com.php5-9.websitetestlink.com/articles/5/birthcertificate.

    Obama’s “Certification of Live Birth” is probably a true and factual certification of the facts shown. However, if you need to determine Obama’s citizenship status “at birth”, it is insufficient. You could declare that he was a natural born citizen based on the review of that document only, because there is no information on that document to refute that claim.

    Even Hamdi’s Certificate of Live Birth does not provide sufficient information to determine his citizenship status, because the citizenship status of his parents is not shown. Who then made the determination that Hamdi was a citizen, when did they make it and what was their legal basis?

    The DOJ obviously did and assumed that existing law allowing Hamdi to be defined as an enemy combatant, even though he was a “citizen”, would prevail in court. Hamdi’s and his father sued Rumsfeld based on the “due process” clause and the case ended up in the Supreme Court.

    What would the outcome have been if the Government had taken the position that Hamdi was not a citizen, and left him in Gitmo. It was a great time to re-visit that issue. It would appear that someone did not want to test the water. If the Supreme Court ruled on the law applying the meaning of jurisdiction expressed by the framers of the 14th Amendment, Hambi would certainly not have been declared a citizen and the now entrenched awarding of citizen status to the children of illegal aliens would be declared to be unconstitutional as they are one step lower than Hamdi on the citizenship ladder.

    That matter was brought up by the Center For American Unity by the submission of an Amicus brief with this question:(http://www.cfau.org/hamdi/amicusmerits.html#_ftnref2)

    “Whether a person, born in the United States of alien parents in this country on a temporary work visa, who leaves the United States as an infant, never returns, declares himself a citizen of another country, and takes up arms in a conflict against forces of the United States, and otherwise demonstrates no allegiance to the United States and demonstrates allegiance to foreign powers, was ever “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States under the Fourteenth Amendment’s Citizenship Clause.”

    Unfortunately, the case was not about citizenship, but about “due process” of an assumed citizen and it is not known if it was considered at all.

    The natural born citizen, John Walker Lindh is now serving a 20 year sentence without parole. Yaser Esam Hamdi, agreed to renounce his U.S. citizenship, accepted some other conditions and was returned to Saudi Arabia.

    Did Lindh and Hamdi get equal treatment under the law?

    Think about this. If Yaser Hamdi returns to the United States and claims he was coerced into renouncing his citizenship, has his citizenship restored, seals all his records, establishes his residency requirements and then runs for and is elected President, we will then have our first genuine Taliban President and Commander in Chief of the American Army!

    As William Ayers stated, “What a great country”.

  151. Starbeau, that’s a really, really, confused and irrelevant post.

    Lindh may well be a “natural born citizen”, but all that’s relevant is that he’s a citizen.

    Hamdi is a “native born citizen”, unless he renounced his citizenship.

    What’s the problem? The “natural born” issue has nothing to do with their cases. Zero. Nada.

    [Ed. I thought she raised an excellent point.]

  152. [...] mean when he was born, Hawaii was a territory and so in this bizarre scenario that would make him a natural born citizen.   [...]

  153. Didn’t know where to put this, but I thought it important enough to put SOMEWHERE here!

    545 vs 300,000,000
    EVERY CITIZEN NEEDS TO READ THIS AND THINK ABOUT WHAT THIS JOURNALIST HAS SCRIPTED IN THIS MESSAGE. READ IT AND THEN REALLY THINK ABOUT OUR CURRENT POLITICAL DEBACLE.

    Charley Reese has been a journalist for 49 years.

    545 PEOPLE
    By Charlie Reese

    Politicians are the only people in the world who create problems and then campaign against them.

    Have you ever wondered, if both the Democrats and the Republicans are against deficits, WHY do we have deficits?

    Have you ever wondered, if all the politicians are against inflation and high taxes, WHY do we have inflation and high taxes?

    You and I don’t propose a federal budget. The president does.

    You and I don’t have the Constitutional authority to vote on appropriations. The House of Representatives does.

    You and I don’t write the tax code, Congress does.

    You and I don’t set fiscal policy, Congress does.

    You and I don’t control monetary policy, the Federal Reserve Bank does.

    One hundred senators, 435 congressmen, one president, and nine Supreme Court justices equates to 545 human beings out of the 300 million are directly, legally, morally, and individually responsible for the domestic problems that plague this country.

    I excluded the members of the Federal Reserve Board because that problem was created by the Congress. In 1913, Congress delegated its Constitutional duty to provide a sound currency to a federally chartered, but private, central bank.

    I excluded all the special interests and lobbyists for a sound reason.. They have no legal authority. They have no ability to coerce a senator, a congressman, or a president to do one cotton-picking thing. I don’t care if they offer a politician $1 million dollars in cash. The politician has the power to accept or reject it. No matter what the lobbyist promises, it is the legislator’s responsibility to determine how he votes.

    Those 545 human beings spend much of their energy convincing you that what they did is not their fault. They cooperate in this common con regardless of party.

    What separates a politician from a normal human being is an excessive amount of gall. No normal human being would have the gall of a Speaker, who stood up and criticized the President for creating deficits.. The president can only propose a budget. He cannot force the Congress to accept it.

    The Constitution, which is the supreme law of the land, gives sole responsibility to the House of Representatives for originating and approving appropriations and taxes. Who is the speaker of the House? Nancy Pelosi. She is the leader of the majority party. She and fellow House members, not the president, can approve any budget they want. If the president vetoes it, they can pass it over his veto if they agree to.

    It seems inconceivable to me that a nation of 300 million can not replace 545 people who stand convicted — by present facts — of incompetence and irresponsibility. I can’t think of a single domestic problem that is not traceable directly to those 545 people. When you fully grasp the plain truth that 545 people exercise the power of the federal government, then it must follow that what exists is what they want to exist.

    If the tax code is unfair, it’s because they want it unfair.

    If the budget is in the red, it’s because they want it in the red ..

    If the Army &Marines are in IRAQ , it’s because they want them in IRAQ

    If they do not receive social security but are on an elite retirement plan not available to the people, it’s because they want it that way.

    There are no insoluble government problems.

    Do not let these 545 people shift the blame to bureaucrats, whom they hire and whose jobs they can abolish; to lobbyists, whose gifts and advice they can reject; to regulators, to whom they give the power to regulate and from whom they can take this power. Above all, do not let them con you into the belief that there exists disembodied mystical forces like “the economy,” “inflation,” or “politics” that prevent them from doing what they take an oath to do.

    Those 545 people, and they alone, are responsible.

    They, and they alone, have the power.

    They, and they alone, should be held accountable by the people who are their bosses.

    Provided the voters have the gumption to manage their own employees.

    We should vote all of them out of office and clean up their mess!

    Charlie Reese is a former columnist of the Orlando Sentinel Newspaper.

    What you do with this article now that you have read it………. Is up to you.

    This might be funny if it weren’t so darned true.
    Be sure to read all the way to the end:

    Tax his land,
    Tax his bed,
    Tax the table
    At which he’s fed.

    Tax his tractor,
    Tax his mule,
    Teach him taxes
    Are the rule.

    Tax his work,
    Tax his pay,
    He works for peanuts
    Anyway!
    Tax his cow,
    Tax his goat,
    Tax his pants,
    Tax his coat.
    Tax his ties,
    Tax his shirt,
    Tax his work,
    Tax his dirt.

    Tax his tobacco,
    Tax his drink,
    Tax him if he
    Tries to think.

    Tax his cigars,
    Tax his beers,
    If he cries
    Tax his tears.

    Tax his car,
    Tax his gas,
    Find other ways
    To tax his ass.

    Tax all he has
    Then let him know
    That you won’t be done
    Till he has no dough.

    When he screams and hollers;
    Then tax him some more,
    Tax him till
    He’s good and sore.
    Then tax his coffin,
    Tax his grave,
    Tax the sod in
    Which he’s laid.

    Put these words
    Upon his tomb,
    Taxes drove me
    to my doom…’

    When he’s gone,
    Do not relax,
    Its time to apply
    The inheritance tax.
    Accounts Receivable Tax
    Building Permit Tax
    CDL license Tax
    Cigarette Tax
    Corporate Income Tax
    Dog License Tax
    Excise Taxes
    Federal Income Tax
    Federal Unemployment Tax (FUTA)
    Fishing License Tax
    Food License Tax
    Fuel Permit Tax
    Gasoline Tax (currently 44.75 cents per gallon)
    Gross Receipts Tax
    Hunting License Tax
    Inheritance Tax
    Inventory Tax
    IRS Interest Charges IRS Penalties (tax on top of tax)
    Liquor Tax
    Luxury Taxes
    Marriage License Tax
    Medicare Tax
    Personal Property Tax
    Property Tax
    Real Estate Tax
    Service Charge T ax
    Social Security Tax
    Road Usage Tax
    Sales Tax
    Recreational Vehicle Tax
    School Tax
    State Income Tax
    State Unemployment Tax (SUTA)
    Telephone Federal Excise Tax
    Telephone Federal Universal Ser vice FeeTax
    Telephone Federal, State and Local Surcharge Taxes
    Telephone Minimum Usage Surcharge=2 0Tax
    Telephone Recurring and Non-recurring Charges Tax
    Telephone State and Local Tax
    Telephone Usage Charge Tax
    Utility Taxes
    Vehicle License Registration Tax
    Vehicle Sales Tax
    Watercraft Registration Tax
    Well Permit Tax
    Workers Compensation Tax

    STILL THINK THIS IS FUNNY? Not one of these taxes existed 100 years ago, and our nation was the most prosperous in the world. We had absolutely no national debt, had the largest middle class in the world, and Mom stayed home to raise the kids.

    What in the hell happened? Can you spell ‘politicians?’

    And I still have to ‘press 1′ for English!?

    I hope this goes around THE USA at least 100 times!!! YOU can help it get there!!!

    GO AHEAD – – – BE AN AMERICAN!!!

    [Ed. Excellent stuff.]

  154. i am only asking one question, the betrayal site just said somebody has proved USA was set up as a Corporation, therefore Constitution does not apply??????????????????

  155. R.I.P. NBCs Says:

    Legal pilpulling aside,the dangerous precedent by a usuper ruling a nation was set by Arthur and fulfilled in Obama[dear readers,please see my comment under the Arthur flag articel].A non-nbc hiding their ineligibility,whether know and contested or not,is done for a nefarious reason.And the rotten fruit can be examined in past history with Arthur and current history unfolding with Obama.The end is not near————– it is here! The “legal precedent” postion could be argued on either side,but that misses the point,that the “historical precedent” was set and now being fulfilled.Missing that point puts people off guard to what is unfolding at an alarming rate.The “legal precedent” on the one hand was not set for it was unknown to the public at large,but even then the information that there was a legal question and controversy with Arthur was known or the information never would’ve been there to find and reprot by this blog last year.The “legal precedent” was set,on the other hand,because the law was broken,whether it was brought into a court of law or not.Much,much more could be said on this side of the argument.But in the final analysis,the thrust of the article misses the actual events of history that is now known to us,both past and present,and further looks towards an uncertain future when a hypothetical scenario could unfold leading to the son of a Jong or Bin Laden ruling over us.That is utter nonsense.We have that dictator here and now in Chaiman Maobama.

  156. R.I.P. NBCs Says:

    goldie says : “Am only asking one question, the betrayal site just said somebody has proved USA was set up as a Corporation, therefore Constitution does not apply??????????????????” Reply : No.People are waking up.This has been known by thousands of people for decades,and written about as well.But that doesn’t mean Obama is eligible.Our Reps took an oath to the oragaind Constitution and betrayed it.Furthermore,the corporation was not done constiutionaly and was not known or approved by the people.This is being challenged in DC right now,and more lawsuits will follow.But not in the corporate courts.It is being challenged in the Superior Court in DC that upholds the original constitution.That doesn’t mean the judge there will do so.But alot is happening behind the scenes.The fight isn’t over.Obama isn’t eligible for POTUS,or rather he hasn’t proved he is.It’s a complex subject and involves going over our entire history.If you want a brief overview,look at some comments in the “About” section of this blog where it was touched upon last December,and alot of this is over in the open thread at IO Blog — http://investigatingobama.blogspot.com/ The fight is for our survival and goes beyond this eligbility issue.But we can’t drop everything and stop exposing Barry’s lies.The citizenship issues are still being put together in forthcoming reports by Leo.But he can address your concerns if he so choose regarding all this.

  157. The only precedent set now is that it is being litigated in the courts.It wasn’t with Arthur.The legal and historical precedence was set by Arthur even though the public didn’t know it.Obama is the hypothetical son of Kim il Jong and Osama Bin Laden that you forsee as a possibility if he is allowed to remain in office.That time is here The first non-nbc POTUS didn’t destroy the nation,but this one is..

    [Ed. Chester Arthur appointed Justice Horace Gray who wrote the opinion in Wong Kim Ark. One thing leads to another. He also made the US military salute the British flag while our allies, France, did not get the same salute. Just something to think about.]

    Both were non-nbcs.Both were not prevented from taking office.Arthur kept his secret for over a century,but Obama didn’t.Now if you drop the precedent word and say it is dangerous to allow an nbc to remain in office,that’s correct.If you say we missed catching the precedence legally and historically until now and we can’t allow knowing Obama is a non-nbc to stay in office that too is correct.

  158. The federal executive branch (law enforcement) is no longer operating under the U.S. system of law and order. Neither is the Congress, nor are the U.S. courts. The U.S. Constitution and U.S. Code have lost their authority wherever they thwart the will of the federal government.

    Lex Rex is suspended for the duration. For now, the law of the jungle prevails. He who has the gold makes the rules, and he who commands the firepower rules. Unmentionable terror paralyzes authorities, who fear for their careers, their personal safety, and the lives of their grandchildren.

    Parsing the fine points of the Constitution is nonsense when free America has a gun to her head. The same people who shot Quarles Harris in Washington and Donald Young and friends in Chicago will not hesitate to murder U.S. District Judge David O. Carter, Dr. Orly Taitz, Esq., and Dr. Alan Keyes in Los Angeles.

    The enemies of America, of Christianity, of freedom, and of law and order, are the very pirates who have hijacked the ship of state and who are commandeering it for their own profit and for that of their overlords in the boardrooms of Europe and in the house of Is|am. When the pirates have run the ship aground, they will either kill the slaves or sell them to whoever has a use for them.

    This is a totalitarian state. This is Is|am.

  159. Mark Rhoads Says:

    United States Constitution
    Article II: The Presidency
    Section 1: Election, Installation, Removal
    “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.”

  160. [...] be taken in this matter and as a result, or possibly another unintended consequence would be that a dangerous precedence is set as to who is eligible to be President of the United States. It is deplorable that the quo [...]

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: