Justice Hugo Black in DUNCAN v LOUISIANA Indicates Obama Would Not Be Eligible: Ineligibility Echoed by Former Attorney General Jeremiah Black

United States Supreme Court Associate Justice Hugo Black, in a concurring opinion in Duncan v. Louisiana, 391 U.S. 145 (1968), emphasizes his reliance upon the statements made by Representative Bingham and Senator Howard in Congress which pertain to the drafting and adoption of the 14th Amendment.  Justice Black stated that “it is far wiser to rely on” the words of Bingham and Howard when analyzing the 14th Amendment.

This is crucial to understanding that Obama is not eligible to be President as it provides the strongest Supreme Court statement – post Wong Kim Ark – indicating that the current occupant of the White House is not in legal possession of the office of President.

Here is the relevant statement by Justice Black:

“Professor Fairman’s “history” relies very heavily on what was not said in the state legislatures that passed on the Fourteenth Amendment. Instead of relying on this kind of negative pregnant, my legislative experience has convinced me that it is far wiser to rely on what was said, and, most importantly, said by the men who actually sponsored the Amendment in the Congress. I know from my years in the United States Senate that it is to men like Congressman Bingham, who steered the Amendment through the House, and Senator Howard, who introduced it in the Senate, that members of Congress look when they seek the real meaning of what is being offered. And they vote for or against a bill based on what the sponsors of that bill and those who oppose it tell them it means.” (Emphasis added.)

A few weeks ago, I published a report entitled, “The House of Representatives Definition of “Natural Born Citizen” = Born of Citizen Parents in the US“.  (Please review that report now as I have directly re-posted from it below.)

During a debate (see pg. 2791) regarding a certain Dr. Houard, who had been incarcerated in Spain, the issue was raised on the floor of the House of Representatives as to whether the man was a US citizen.  Representative Bingham (of Ohio), stated on the floor:

“As to the question of citizenship I am willing to resolve all doubts in favor of a citizen of the United States.  That Dr. Houard is a natural-born citizen of the United States there is not room for the shadow of a doubt.  He was born of naturalized parents within the jurisdiction of the United States, and by the express words of the Constitution, as amended to-day, he is declared to all the world to be a citizen of the United States by birth.” (The term “to-day”, as used by Bingham, means “to date”.  Obviously, the Constitution had not been amended on April 25, 1872.)

Notice that Bingham declares Houard to be a “natural-born citizen” by citing two factors – born of citizen parents in the US.

John Bingham, aka “father of the 14th Amendment”, was an abolitionist congressman from Ohio who prosecuted Lincoln’s assassins.  Ten years earlier, he stated on the House floor:

“All from other lands, who by the terms of [congressional] laws and a compliance with their provisions become naturalized, are adopted citizens of the United States; all other persons born within the Republic, of parents owing allegiance to no other sovereignty, are natural born citizens. Gentleman can find no exception to this statement touching natural-born citizens except what is said in the Constitution relating to Indians.(Cong. Globe, 37th, 2nd Sess., 1639 (1862))

Then in 1866, Bingham also stated on the House floor:

Every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen.(Cong. Globe, 39th, 1st Sess., 1291 (1866))

According to Justice Black, Bingham’s words uttered on the floor of the House are the most reliable source.  Bingham made three statements, none of them challenged on the Floor, which indicate that a natural born citizen is a person born on US soil to parents who were US citizens.  Obama does not fit that description since, at the time of his birth, his father was a British subject.

Obama’s own web site, throughout the entire 2008 Presidential campaign, stated that his birth status was governed by the United Kingdom:

“As a Kenyan native, Barack Obama Sr. was a British subject whose citizenship status was governed by The British Nationality Act of 1948. That same act governed the status of Obama Sr.‘s children.”



QUESTION: How can a person whose birth status was governed by the United Kingdom be considered a natural born citizen of the United States?

ANSWER: It’s not possible.

Such a person is born with divided allegiance.  Such a person is born owing fealty to the monarchy of the United Kingdom.

ATTORNEY GENERAL JEREMIAH BLACK

According to a July 18, 1859 official proclamation by former Attorney General Black (as reported in the New York Times on July 20, 1859), only those who never owed fealty to another nation may be President:

“Here none but a native can be President…A native and a naturalized American may therefore go forth with equal security over every sea and through every land under Heaven…They are both of them American citizens, and their exclusive allegiance is due to the Government of the United States.  One of them never did owe fealty elsewhere, and the other, at the time of his naturalization…threw off, renounced and abjured forever all allegiance to every foreign prince, potentate, State and sovereignty whatever, and especially to that sovereign whose subject he had previously been. “

 

Here again we see a person in high office stating that to be President one must never have owed fealty to another nation.  We see the true legal requirement that the President never owed allegiance to any foreign sovereign.  This clean natural citizenship is one which can only be present at birth.  Since the naturalized citizen can’t be President because he once owed allegiance to a foreign nation, the same goes for any other citizen who owed allegiance to a foreign nation.

Obama admits to having owed fealty, aka allegiance, to the United Kingdom at the time of his birth.  Therefore, upon the authority of Representative Bingham, Justice Black and Attorney General Black, Obama is not eligible to the office of President.

SENATORS HOWARD AND TRUMBULL AND REPRESENTATIVE THAYER

But there’s even more authority to be heard from regarding Obama’s unconstitutional occupation of the White House.  Justice Black also told us that we must consult with Senator Howard since he was Bingham’s counterpart in the Senate relating to the 14th Amendment.  Bingham and Howard are the two that ushered the 14th Amendment into the Constitution.

As to the meaning of the term “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” in the 14th Amendment, Senator Howard stated:

“The first amendment is to section one, declaring that all “persons born in the United States and Subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the States wherein they reside. I do not propose to say anything on that subject except that the question of citizenship has been fully discussed in this body as not to need any further elucidation, in my opinion. This amendment which I have offered is simply declaratory of what I regard as the law of the land already, that every person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States. This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons. (Congressional Globe, 39th Congress pg. 2890 (1866))

Notice that Howard lists several classes of persons who are not citizens under the 14th Amendment:

- foreigners

- aliens

- families of ambassadors or ministers

The statement was clarified a few days earlier when Howard stated:

“That means ‘subject to the complete jurisdiction thereof.’ What do we mean by ‘complete jurisdiction thereof? Not owing allegiance to anybody else. That is what it means.” (Congressional Globe, 39th Congress pg. 2893 (1866))

Those who owed allegiance to “anybody else” are not natural born citizens of the United States. 

Examine the following statement by Representative Thayer from the same period:

“To accomplish this great purpose, the bill declares, in the first place, that all persons born in the United States, and not subject to any foreign Power, are citizens of the United States. Now, I do not regard that as the enunciation of any new principle. It is, in my judgment, but declaratory of the existing law. According to my apprehension, every man born in the United States, and not owing allegiance to a foreign Power, is a citizen of the United States.” – Rep. Thayer, March 2, 1866. (Congressional Globe, 39th Congress, 1st Session, p. 1152 (1866))

The same sentiments were also uttered by Senator Trumbull who stated that it meant “Not owing allegiance to anybody else.”

Obama supporters cling to a desperate argument.  They claim that another country’s nationality laws should not have any bearing in the US.  But this is clearly false.  In a previous article entitled, “The State Department Has “Always” Recognized And Abided By Foreign Laws Concerning US Citizens Born With Dual Nationality“, I highlighted an official letter from Secretary of State Lansing to Senator Dodge wherein Lansing educated the Senator regarding the requirement of citizen parents so that children born here not be subject to foreign military duty.

If a child is born in the US to a father who owes allegiance to a foreign power, that child also owes allegiance to that foreign power.  This was always our law.  It was US law at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, at the time Obama was born, and it is US law today.  Nothing has changed.

Obama admits his birth status was governed by the United Kingdom.  I think it’s very important to note that Obama himself gave preference to the United Kingdom in his statement at Fight The Smears.  Notice that he didn’t say his birth status was governed by both United Kingdom and the US.  Obama chose to give preference to his father’s nationality by stating that his birth status was directly tied to his father and not his mother.

Read the quote from his web site again:

“As a Kenyan native, Barack Obama Sr. was a British subject whose citizenship status was governed by The British Nationality Act of 1948. That same act governed the status of Obama Sr.‘s children.”

 

I will finish this report with a question:

Why did Obama feel compelled to state that his birth status was governed by the British Nationality Act of 1948 rather than the 14th Amendment?


Hat tip to reader Linda for Attorney General Black’s quote.
Hat tip to my infamous anonymous researcher for the Duncan v. Louisiana quote.

by Leo Donofrio, Esq.

About these ads

68 Responses to “Justice Hugo Black in DUNCAN v LOUISIANA Indicates Obama Would Not Be Eligible: Ineligibility Echoed by Former Attorney General Jeremiah Black”

  1. Leo,
    Another brilliant piece to the argument vs Obama’s usurpation of the presidency! And, a thank you for adding a screen shot of Obama’s compelling statement preferring British citizenship of his father rather than that of his mother’s U.S. birth. I have reserved that screen shot of FactCheck.org in my files and pull it out when presenting an argument to the “unbelievers.” You end your post with a very interesting question which will require some deep reflection!

  2. Title 8 Section 1401 of the US Code last published 2006 by the Office of the Law Revision Council of the US House of Representatives states that a natural borne citizen is:

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

    whereby “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” excludes children born to foreign diplomats et al.

    Translation: A person born in Hawaii to parents of ordinary citizenship of any other country makes that person a natural born citizen of the US. Being as Obama was born 2 years after Hawaii became a state, I believe that fits.

    Unless you intend to challenge the constitutionality of that provision of the US Code, I believe your entire argument is debunked. Current law is so fun isn’t it? Emphasis on current.

    ed. Your post contains a clear falsehood. Nowhere in the US Code is “natural born citizen” defined. The code does not include the words “natural born” in any section. It simply defines those who would be nationals and “citizens” of the US. There is no statute defining nbc. Furthermore, every other route to citizenship is defined in the US Code except nbc. For example, the US Code says nothing about persons born in the US to parents who are citizens because such persons do not need the code or the 14th Amendment to define their route to citizenship… it is natural born and therefore self evident. The Constitution makes a distinction between those eligible for Senator and Representative – citizens – and those eligible for President – natural born citizens. – Leo

  3. Leo, there is no doubt that Obama is not a NBC. We all know it and all of Congress know this. Only the ignorant will not know other wise. since those in power including the media want nothing done about this, what can you or others suggest the common citizen do about it?

    ed. I don’t know. It’s up to each person to do what their conscience allows within the law.- Leo

  4. Very good question. The Obama camp could have simply stated that Obama had a U.S. citizen mother, and that he was born on U.S. soil in the state of Hawaii—leaving an investigation of British or Kenyan citizenship law to the blogosphere as fodder for more “conspiracy theory.” In addition, the statement’s inclusion of the term “native citizen” versus “natural born citizen” surely was intentional.

    When Obama supporters offer statements such as “What right does another country have to impose their citizenship on citizens of the U.S.,” the Obama campaign openly admitted that both Great Britain and Kenya did indeed have the right, through the citizenship of the father of the child.

    My (non-legal) opinion on this admission is that Axelrod was aware that at various points in his life, Obama had alluded to, or perhaps actually used, foreign citizenship. The “Dreams” book had already been published, which admitted a Kenyan father. At various times in his life and perhaps to advance his public career, Obama may have found an advantage or a certain glamour in having dual citizenship. And a complete “scrubbing” in today’s information age is near impossible.

    The campaign statement was very effective–a lie contained in, and hidden by, the wrappings of truth.

    The lie: Obama is eligible under the Constitution.

    The truth: He was born in Hawaii with dual citizenship. (And this wrapping paper is decorated with today’s “politically correct” notion that everyone born in the US is automatically a US citizen.)

    When the long-form is finally released, it will simply become the bow on the beautifully packaged lie.

  5. An article like this aught to make democrats so nervous that they can barely function.

    It doesn’t even register on them, though.

    Such is the state of our country.

  6. witch_wyzwurd Says:

    Person 1: “Here is a door and on the other side of it is the inside of my house.”

    Person 2: “No. There’s no inside.”

    Person 1: “But I live in it everyday.”

    Person 2: “You can’t prove it.”

    Person 3: “That guys a whack-job. The inside of his house. Weirdo.”

    Person 1: “The inside of my house is on the other side of the door regardless if you say it is or not.”

    Person 2: “Isn’t this guy weird.”

    Person 3: “Get your head checked!”

    Person 1 walks passed the door and into his house, turns on the TV, and sees that the altercation he had with Persons 2 and 3 was filmed for a News broadcast….

    Anchorman 1: “What you are about to see is a crazy man saying that the inside of his home is on the other side of his front door…to his home.”

    Anchorman 2: “How proposterous. He’s not really saying that, is he?”

    Anchorman 1: “Watch and see…”

    (Scene of Persons 1–3 talking about front door plays on screen. Cut to Anchorman 2 shaking his head in deisbelief at Person 1′s claim.)

    Anchorman 1: “Pundit-man, what do you think of this?”

    Pundit-man: “Obviously, the guy is bonkers. He has a front door…to his home nonetheless, and he claims that if you walk through it you end up in his home.”

    Anchorman 2: “What do you make of all this?”

    Pundit-man: “It’s hard to make anything really of it. Any kind of sense that is. The guy obviously should seek professional care. (And I’m a really smart guy.).”

    Anchorman 1: “And there you have it. Guy is nuts!”

    THIS IS HOW I—PERSON 1—FEEL WHEN TALKING TO SOMEONE WHO ARGUES THAT OBAMA IS A CITIZEN, BUT AREN’T RESTING THEIR CLAIM ON ANY INFORMATION EXCEPT THE “HOPE” THAT “YES WE CAN” JUST MAKE THINGS UP IN OUR MIND AND WITH ENOUGH COLLABORATION OF UNFOUNDED OPINIONS MAKE THE MAKE-BELIEVE COME TRUE!

  7. witch_wyzwurd Says:

    NATURAL BORN CITIZEN, that is!

  8. I will finish this report with a question:

    Why did Obama feel compelled to state that his birth status was governed by the British Nationality Act of 1948 rather than the 14th Amendment?
    ____________________________________________
    British Nat 1948;

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

    Provided that if the father of such a person is a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies by descent only, that person shall not be a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies by virtue of this section unless—

    (a) that person is born or his father was born in a protectorate, protected state, mandated territory or trust territory or any place in a foreign country where by treaty, capitulation, grant, usage, sufferance, or other lawful means, His Majesty then has or had jurisdiction over British subjects;

    ______________________________________

    It would be helpful to know by which Treaty with Britain, or other lawful means, that “His Majesty then has or had jurisdiction over British subjects;..” while the Big 0 Sr was here……….would the ‘evidence’ of the Big 0′s ‘Student Visa’ be considered as difinitive…?

  9. The Big Boo Says:

    Bravo!!!!!!!

  10. constitutionallyspeaking Says:

    Leo,

    It would seem to me that the decision of this case also renders to the states constitutional authority to define “natural born”. Per the congressional records of those that authored the bills (Bingham & Trumbull), the new state election laws requiring proof of citizenship for presidential candidates would be deemed constitutional rather than in conflict with it. That the states are not usurping federal power or authirty in this matter.

    ed. I was thinking the same thing but haven’t really had the chance to go deep on it… will do in time. -Leo

  11. Chester Arthur had to have been aware of these remarks made in Congress in 1866 as he attended the 1880 RNC where he ended up accepting the VP slot to compromise Presidential candidate Garfield. He knew he had an NBC problem and developed a strategy to distract inquiries from the fatherhood issue to the birth location issue. He was successful. His deception was only discovered recently through efforts of this blog. Note Arthur was one of three Presidents repeating the oath taking ceremony: Coolidge and Obama did also.

    ed. It’s really spooky how similar the Obama and Arthur sagas really are. Too similar if you ask me. – Leo

  12. Leo;

    “An American Citizen” was the pseudonym of Tench Coxe, of Pennsylvania, a member of the Annapolis Convention and the Continental Congress, and author of a number of pamphlets on the finances and commerce of the United States. The four letters written over that signature were among the first to appear in favor of the Constitution, and were reprinted in many of the newspapers of the day.

    An Examination of the Constitution for the United States of America, Submitted to the People by the General Convention, At Philadelphia, the 17th Day of September, 1787, and since adopted and ratified by the Conventions of Eleven States, chosen for the purpose of considering it, being all that have yet decided on the subject. By an American Citizen. To which is added, A Speech of the Honorable James Wilson, Esquire, on the same subject. Philadelphia: Printed by Zachariah Poulson, Junr. in Fourth-Street, between Market and Arch-Street. M. DCC. LXXXVIII.

    The President of the upper-house (or the chancellor) in in England, is appointed by their king, while our Vice-President, who is chosen by the people, through the electors and the Senate, is not at all dependant on the President, but may exercise equal powers on some occasions. In all royal governments, an helpless infant or an inexperienced youth may wear the crown. Our President must be matured by the experience of years, and being born among us, his character at thirty-five must be fully understood. Wisdom, virtue and active [8] qualities of mind and body can alone make him the first servant of a free and enlightened people.

    Quote: ” being born among us”

    1. This was written in 1787, during the time that the United States Constitution was being discussed by the People. Just like the Federalist and Anti-Federalist Papers were written during this time.

    During this time, the United States was under the Articles of Confederation and under the Constitutions of the individual States and were no longer under British Law and as such were Americans and no longer British subjects.

    2. The people, were the citizens of the States. This did not include foreigners. Citizenship was a right for the decendants of citizen fathers, as stated in the Naturalization Act of 1790, and did not include indentured servants, slaves, free blacks, and later Asians. While women were included in the act, the right of citizenship did “not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in the United States….”
    Citizenship was inherited exclusively through the father. This was the only statute that ever purported to grant the status of natural born citizen.

    3. So being born of us, equates to being born of the citizens, of the body politic. Which ‘excluded’ foreigners and children born of foreigners [like Barack Abdullah Hussein Obama, spawn of a 'FOREIGN national].

    As again, per the Law of Nations; I say, that, in order to be of the country, it is necessary that a person be born of a father who is a citizen; for, if he is born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country.

    Not his country, not a citizen.

    Thank you Leo.

  13. I believe it is not just the Democrats that should be shaking in their boots. Is it not the responsibility of all elected officials to uphold the Constitution of the United States? Aren’t they all liable? Congress/Senate: If you ignore the issue, it will just go away… Put your fingers in your ears and say na-na-na-na-na. —– And we the people will make sure you get voted out of office!

  14. Leo,
    I have created a graphic using Bingham’s photo, two of his quotes which you cite above, and a link to your site. You will find the graphic at http://jeffersonsrebels.blogspot.com/2011/03/father-of-14th-amendment-defined.html. Cick on the image to enlarge it to full-page size.

    Feel free to use the image as you please.

  15. Am I Natural Born Citizen?

    Father=Born in Ireland, later naturalized in USA all before I was born
    Mother= born in USA
    Me=born in the USA

    Ireland offers children of one parent born in ireland, Irish citizenship. I say offer, because I had to apply for Irish citizenship which they did give me.

    Am I a Natural Born Citizen?

    ed. Yes, you are a natural born citizen. – Leo

  16. This ain’t 1884, and this issue is not going away. We have more potential usurpers on the Horizon. After this Soetero buisness is finished there will be more frauds to unmask. Great Article, Thanks Leo

  17. langoley Says:

    Why would Nobama leave it up on his own web site that he is a dual citizen when they have scrubbed almost evertyhing else? Don’t get me wrong he ig dirty,I am just confuzed. http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/does_barack_obama_have_kenyan_citizenship.html

    ed. It would draw more attention if he scrubbed it since it’s been saved a million times… – leo

  18. Donald Trump today released a copy of his original long-form birth certificate to ABC news. It shows his mother was born in Scotland and that she was resident in the U. S. 15 years before his birth. Perhaps he either is 1) stumbling into the natural born citizen issue unaware of the intent of the founding fathers, 2) certain that his mother became a naturalized citizen before his birth, or 3) certain his mother was not naturalized prior to his birth and he a] wants his own eligibility validated by the public in light of the natural born citizen requirement or b] wants to validate Obama’s eligibility by getting everyone to think, “Donald Trump is elgible. If Obama’s birth circumstances are similar, he must be eligible too.” (That is, assuming Obama can show a birth certificate showing he was born in the USA.)

    ed. Trump’s mother was naturalized four years before he was born. – Leo

  19. Philip N. Says:

    Leo,

    Any clue as to what Trump is up to?

  20. constitutionallyspeaking Says:

    Ireland offers children of one parent born in ireland, Irish citizenship. I say offer, because I had to apply for Irish citizenship which they did give me.

    Am I a Natural Born Citizen?

    ed. Yes, you are a natural born citizen. – Leo

    correction: Yes John, your natural born citizenship status is renewed “IF” you renounce the Irish citizenship & reestablish exclusive allegiance to the United States

    ed. He didn’t have Irish citizenship… he was eligible for it. He owed no allegiance to Ireland at the time of his birth. He is nbc. – leo

    UPDATED – see this – leo

  21. Follow up: Leo, I asked the question if I was a Natural Born Citizen; naturalized father from Ireland, American mother, I was born in USA yet I have Irish citizenship after applying for it.

    ed. This changes your fact pattern. Your original fact pattern did not mention you applied for it.- leo

    I went and looked up what Ireland had to say about my status. What I discovered is that I was an Irish citizen at birth even though I was not born in Ireland. When I applied for my citizenship it turns out I was actually applying to attaining a passport as I was already (unbeknownst to me) an Irish citizen.

    ed. The citizenship is not recognized by the State Department as one which causes you to owe allegiance to Ireland and you could not be forced into military duty. It is a form of honorary citizenship and it does not require any loyalty or duty or allegiance from you. Your parents were citizens when you were born on US soil… The State department would protect your rights as a US citizen not to be called for duty to Ireland. Therefore, this “honorary citizenship” is not fatal to nbc status. If such honorary citizenship status was fatal than the Obama supporters would have the North Korea argument. My belief is that if the State Department would defend you against foreign military duty being imposed – as they did in the case upon which Secretary Lansing educated Senator Dodge – than you are nbc under these facts. – Leo

    That means when i was born in the USA, Ireland claimed me at birth as a citizen of Ireland so I had, at birth, dual allegiance.

    Other than a father who became a naturalised citizen prior to my birth, how am I different than Obama because I had dual allegiance at birth just like Obama?

    Additionally,
    If a natural born citizen is “of parents” (I meet that requirement), and “allegiance to no other sovereignty” (I don’t meet because my dad had dual citizenship-Ireland and USA at the time of my birth). Ireland allows dual citizenship.

    While you said I was a Natural Born Citizen, how can that be? What am I missing?

    The only thing I can think of is that when you said I am a Natural Born Citizen was because 1) another country can’t just lay claim to someone outside their border and 2) the USA didn’t recognize my fathers Irish citizenship when he was naturalized. I think I might have just figured it out. But please confirm.

    Thanks in advance and for all your efforts!

    ed. One more thought — your father was required to renounce his allegiance to Ireland and it is that oath which is crucial to the analysis according to Secretary Lansing. Your father threw off his allegiance by swearing an oath to the US… if Ireland still considers you a citizen, there is nothing you can do about it, but under US law you owe no allegiance because you are nbc to the US. See below for how that changes of you take an oath of allegiance.- Leo

    ed. UPDATED 11:38 AM March 30, 2011 – I did not realize from your original post that you applied for Irish citizenship… If you took an oath of allegiance to Ireland, than you are not eligible as you would have voluntarily forfeited your NBC status. leo

  22. The Big Boo Says:

    To John:

    In applying for the Irish passport, did you take an oath or sign anything that said you were pledging allegiance to Ireland? I am assuming not, since most countries that allow dual citizenship wouldn’t do that.

    So the only pertinent inquiry is does the fact that you had passport from Ireland in any way affect your allegience to the United States.

    It is a legal entaglement and a bit messy but I would say not fatal to a claim of nbc.

    Just don’t try to run for President if you don’t want to be questioned about it. Or better yet, unlike Obummer, put it all up front to begin with.

    Pity the last guy who knew something about Obummer’s passports…

    The Big Boo

  23. To Langoly:

    Obama’s objective besides Usurping the Presidency himself, is to set the precedent of dual citizenry in the WH, which is why he made such a big deal about his Absent father during his campaign. He is a Globalist activist, and ideologue, beholden to the Criminal New Order Global debt masters, who’s main objective is to damage the US Constitution’s security, and therefore the sovereignty of We the People. They control him (notice not one criminal banker went to jail following the economic meltdown that they caused), and infiltrated the Democratic Party Caucus process in order to place him as the D candidate. McCain was never meant to win, and they crashed the economy just in time to make sure he didn’t. All of Congress is beholden to the Central Banks, who have indebted the World.

  24. thinkwell Says:

    john Says:
    March 29, 2011 at 8:33 PM

    Am I Natural Born Citizen?

    Father=Born in Ireland, later naturalized in USA all before I was born
    Mother= born in USA
    Me=born in the USA

    Ireland offers children of one parent born in Ireland, Irish citizenship. I say offer, because I had to apply for Irish citizenship which they did give me.

    Am I a Natural Born Citizen?

    ed. Yes, you are a natural born citizen. – Leo

    Leo,

    As subsequently noted, you overlooked John’s statement that he “had to apply for Irish citizenship”. This was a volitional act on John’s part to swear fealty to a foreign sovereign nation, not a unilateral assertion of derivative citizenship, unrecognized by either the U.S. citizen in question or his (our) government.

    ed. If John has taken an oath of allegiance to Ireland than he has thrown off his right to be President. He has de-naturalized his nbc status. I think that is logical. -Leo

    The man has voluntarily taken on equal citizenship in another country and has openly declared dual allegiance, both of equal weight. By all logic and the spirit of the law of nations, John has forever forfeited the natural born Citizenship status he was born with. I think you must carefully consider the contradictory implications of any other conclusion and agree that John has, by choice and action, irrevocably given up his former nbC status.

    Contrast John’s US/Irish citizenship situation to that of his father, who, upon naturalization (and prior to John’s birth), swore an oath of sole allegiance to the USA (which is why our country rightly did not recognize any claims upon the son). John, on the other hand, has now sworn an oath of dual allegiance, taking on the exact same nbC status as once (and probably still) dual allegiant Barack Obama. Once nbC status is gone, it stays gone and can never return.

    By the way, my apologies to John for the comparison to BHO. The implication was only meant to extend to a shared non-nbC status and not to wanton criminal fraud and premeditated usurpation.

  25. I recently became a dual citizen. I stood before the district court judge and said the following:”I (name) of (address) having applied to the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform for a certificate of naturalization, hereby solemnly declare my fidelity to the Irish nation and my loyalty to the State.” My understanding from item 8. (4) on my American passport, that I may lose my US citizenship if I accept employment with a foreign government. I no longer qualify to run for US President, since I chose to become an Irish National, however, according to the Irish constitution, I could run for any office in government here now. However, the Republic of Ireland is a very young nation. The constitution was established in 1937.

  26. BERNARD EKDAHL Says:

    OUR HATS ARE OFF TO LEO . . . . .

    THANK YOU!

  27. so hows this work…british common law…at the time of the constitutional convention…did they recognize citizens at all…or were british citzens all just subjects of the crown…

    now ive across arguements that claim the founding fathers used british common law…which in effect…would have made us subject…of the nation…and not citizens…but we the people…in order to ….all that…did ordain and establish…the constitution…therefor…the constitution is subject to us, the people…which is a huge difference from british common law…

  28. Leo,

    The authors of the Constitution did not consider even people born in the United States to two US citizen parents under the alien government of the Articles of Confederation to be a natural born Citizen. If they did consider these people to be natural born Citizens, they would never have linked the expiration of the grandfather clause to that then-uncertain future date of the adoption of the Constitution. Rather, they would have linked the expiration of the grandfather clause to the then-known earliest point in history when the conditions first existed for the birth of a natural born Citizen. But they intended that natural born Citizen meant birth in the exclusive fealty of the government of the Constitution, which did not exist until after the adoption of the Constitution.

    The Constitution might not tell us what a natural born Citizen is, but it tells us that those born in the fealty of an alien government – even the government of the Articles of Confederation – without regard for place of birth, are not natural born Citizens. Therefore, it is possible to be born in the United States, and be a US citizen from the moment of birth, and still not be a natural born Citizen, if your birth results in fealty to an alien government. (President Zachary Taylor is a flesh and blood illustration of this situation. President Taylor was a Citizen of the United States at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, and was exempt from the NBC requirement. President Obama does not enjoy the exemption.)

    Just as the Article II oath of office is exclusive to the government of the Constitution, so too is the standard of birth of a natural born Citizen.

    When in 1787 they wrote that the Executive officer must be a resident of the United States for 14 years, they could not have prescribed a more restrictive residency requirement. For, when Washington was inaugurated on April 30, 1789, the first shots at Lexington and Concord had been only 14 years and 2 weeks past. Just as the residency requirement was as rigid and restrictive as possible, so too is the natural born Citizen requirement.

  29. John Burns Says:

    During the past year I came across this quote by Franklin D. Roosevelt ( I do not remember where): Presidents are selected, not elected. I happen to believe he is correct, and that the power which selected Obama is considerable and quite capable of bending the law to their ends. In the fine book by Charlie Savage, TAKEOVER, we see just how many laws George W. Bush bent and even broke. Clearly we have entered a period of lawlessness in this society. As I recall I already understood that natural born citizen entailed what Leo outlines before finding this excellent site. It really hardly needs definition–however, it is a tactic of dishonest persons to trick the truth as much as possible to gain their ends. We have all been involved in arguments where someone finds a new definition for a word or a similar tactic. I am sure there are many fine jurists in America who know that Obama is not qualified and who for one reason or anther are remaining silent. Who can doubt that at the best law schools many professors immediately spotted a problem. So Obama is a de facto president one might say but not a de jure president. Perhaps pragmatically he is leader of the American Empire which has resorted to the German jurist’s Carl Schmitt: “Sovereign is he who decides on the exception.” The exception to step beyond the law. Simply put, until such time as the society returns to a more honest discourse we will have these spoil sports who will change the rules whenever it suits them. Thanks for all the helpful information and historical references.

  30. Thomas Morato Says:

    I served 22 years in the military holding a Top Secret security clearance…

    In order to obtain a US security clearance you are subject to a very rigorous background check regarding all aspects of your past and associations. In addition, you can NOT have dual citizenship. In order to be granted the clearance you MUST renounce your foreign citizenship(s) and turn in your foreign passport(s) if holding any.

    For obvious national security reasons, this makes perfect sense.

  31. One of my brothers was born in Nice, France. My mother was living there while my father was serving as a Marine officer with the Mediterranean fleet. So both parents US citizens and father in the military. In 1982 when my brother turned 18 he had to go to court and formally renounce his French citizenship because they were trying to draft him into the French army!

    You know how when you’re a kid an adults always say “You could grow up and be the President”? Whenever someone would say that we used to tease him saying “You can’t be the President frenchie, nyah,nyah,nyah!”. Kids are cruel.

  32. No body told me we were putting the band back together.

    One of my peeves was SR511. That was the non-binding resolution to grant McCain NBC status. The legal analysis of Theodore Olson and Laurence Tribe was printed in the record.

    “Historical practice confirms that birth on soil that is under the sovereignty of the United States, but not within a State, satisfies the Natural Born Citizen Clause. For example, Vice President Charles Curtis was born in the territory of Kansas on January 25, 1860–one year before Kansas became a State. Because the Twelfth Amendment requires that Vice Presidents possess the same qualifications as Presidents, the service of Vice President Curtis verifies that the phrase “natural born Citizen” includes birth outside of any State but within U.S. territory. Similarly, Senator Barry Goldwater was born in Arizona before its statehood, yet attained the Republican Party’s presidential nomination in 1964. And Senator Barack Obama was born in Hawaii on August 4, 1961–not long after its admission to the Union on August 21, 1959. We find it inconceivable that Senator Obama would have been ineligible for the Presidency had he been born two years earlier.

    I always felt this was the setup for the eventuality of people recognizing the defect in Obama’s status.

  33. Nobody.

  34. Philip N. Says:

    Congressional Globe, House of Representatives, 39th Congress, 1st Session. Page 1117

    http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llcg&fileName=071/llcg071.db&recNum=158

    March 1st, 1867

    ed. That is from 1866 not 1867. – Leo

    Rep Wilson says:

    It is in vain we look into the Constitution of the United States for a definition of the term “citizen.” It speaks of citizens, but in no express terms defines what it means by it. We must depend on the general law relating to subjects and citizens recognized by all nations for a definition, and that must lead us to the conclusion that every person born in the United States is a natural-born citizen of such States, except it may be that children born on our soil to temporary sojourners or representatives of foreign Governments, are native-born citizens of the United States. Thus it is expressed by a writer on the Constitution of the United States:

    “Every person born within the United States, its Territories, or districts, whether the parents are citizens or aliens, is a natural born citizen in the sense of the Constitution, and entitled to all the rights and privileges appertaining to the capacity.” -Rawle on the Constitution, p.80’

    ed. This further confirms exactly what I’ve been saying all along… that the House of Representatives definition of “natural born citizen” is born in the US of citizen parents. Here we see Represenative Wilson NOT agreeing with Rawle… Wilson states that we should rely on the law of nations for the definition of nbc… and we know that the law of nations definition was listed by Vattel as born on the soil to citizen parents. Wilson states that there is a distinction between “natural born” and “native born”. The “native born”, those born of temporary sojourners (like Obama’s father) are not eligible. Wilson points out that Rawle would find Obama eligible despite his father’s status. This shows clearly that the House of Representatives definition is exactly as I described it…. born in the US to citizen parents. Rawle is just wrong. Furthermore, Rawle was not a writer OF the Constitution… he simply wrote a book about it. – leo

  35. Hi Leo,
    While studying the 14th amendment, I have always read this:
    This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons.

    to mean:
    foreigners and
    aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States

    ed. That’s a convenient way to read it if you are an Obama supporter but it is clearly erroneous under any English analysis. The classes are distinct. Foreigners, aliens, children of ambassadors or ministers. Obviously, ministers are foreigners so there would be no need for such redundancy if this was only relating to one class of persons and not several. – leo

    this would mean that, who belong to the families, only applies to the aliens and not the foreigners. This would be important say when trying to figure out if the children of illegal aliens are citizens. Are the children of illegal aliens foreigners? They are not the children of ambassadors.

  36. borderraven Says:

    32CFR147– PART 147_ADJUDICATIVE GUIDELINES FOR DETERMINING ELIGIBILITY FOR ACCESS TO CLASSIFIED INFORMATION.pdf

    § 147.5 Guideline C—Foreign preference.

    (a) The concern. When an individual
    acts in such a way as to indicate a preference
    for a foreign country over the
    United States, then he or she may be
    prone to provide information or make
    decisions that are harmful to the interests
    of the United States.
    (b) Conditions that could raise a security
    concern and may be disqualifying
    include:
    (1) The exercise of dual citizenship;
    (2) Possession and/or use of a foreign
    passport;
    (3) Military service or a willingness
    to bear arms for a foreign country;
    (4) Accepting educational, medical,
    or other benefits, such as retirement
    and social welfare, from a foreign …

    § 147.5 Guideline C—Foreign preference.
    (c) Conditions that could mitigate security
    concerns include: (1) Dual citizenship
    is based solely on parents’ citizenship
    or birth in a foreign country;

    (4) Individual has expressed a willingness
    to renounce dual citizenship.

  37. borderraven Says:

    LURIA v. U S, 231 U.S. 9 (1913)

    Citizenship is membership in a political society, and implies a duty of allegiance on the part of the member and a duty of protection on the part of the society. These are reciprocal obligations, one being a compensation for the other. Under our Constitution, a naturalized citizen stands on an equal footing with the native citizen in all respects, save that of eligibility to the Presidency. Minor v. Happersett, 21 Wall. 162, 165, 22 L. ed. 627; Elk v. Wilkins, 112 U.S. 94, 101 , 28 S. L. ed. 643, 645, 5 Sup. Ct. Rep. 41; Osborn v. Bank of United States, 9 Wheat. 738, 827, 6 L. ed. 204, 225.
    Turning to the naturalization laws preceding the act of 1906, being [231 U.S. 9, 23] those under which Luria obtained his certificate, we find that they required, first, that the alien, after coming to this country, should declare on oath, before a court or its clerk, that it was bona fide his intention to become a citizen of the United States, and to renounce forever all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign sovereignty; second, that at least two years should elapse between the making of that declaration and his application for admission to citizenship; third, that as a condition to his admission the court should be satisfied, through the testimony of citizens, that he had resided within the United States five years at least, and that during that time he had behaved as a man of good moral character, attached to the principles of the Constitution of the United States, and well disposed to the good order and happiness of the same; and, fourth, that at the time of his admission he should declare on oath that he would support the Constitution of the United States, and that he absolutely and entirely renounced and abjured all allegiance and fidelity to every foreign sovereignty. These requirements plainly contemplated that the applicant, if admitted, should be a citizen in fact as well as in name,-that he should assume and bear the obligations and duties of that status as well as enjoy its rights and privileges. In other words, it was contemplated that his admission should be mutually beneficial to the government and himself, the proof in respect of his established residence, moral character, and attachment to the principles of the Constitution being exacted because of what they promised for the future, rather than for what they told of the past.

    http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=231&invol=9#22

  38. borderraven Says:

    Leo,

    FYI

    http://hotair.com/archives/2011/04/17/a-fresh-look-at-arizonas-birther-bill/

    Q- Doesn’t FF&C also require states reciprocate in honoring laws of other US states?

  39. I am a natural born citizen of the United States. I recently secured my Irish citizenship as it is offered to anyone with one grandparent who was an Irish citizen (all 4 of mine were from Ireland). I filled out a lot of paperwork and had to supply numerous documents supporting my application. All was done by mail, so no verbal oath, and there was no written oath required either. I am now eligible to apply for an Irish passport.

    I assume this will be an issue should I run for President, but I concur with Leo’s first assessment, that I would not be required to serve Ireland in any capacity, including paying taxes there. I do think John’s situation is different, as because he was borne of a parent born in Ireland he was automatically a dual citizen at birth. From Ireland’s website:

    “If either of your parents was an Irish citizen at the time of your birth, then you are automatically an Irish citizen, irrespective of your place of birth.

    So, if you were born outside Ireland to an Irish citizen who was himself or herself born in Ireland, then you are an Irish citizen.”

    My situation is that I have a Foreign Birth registration and consequently have Irish Citizenship. From Ireland’s website:

    “If one of your grandparents is an Irish citizen but none of your parents was born in Ireland, you may become an Irish citizen. You will need to have your birth registered in the Foreign Births Register.”

    Last year I had a discussion with my Dad about Obama’s eligibility and he got very offended when I pointed out to him that having been born in 1933, he was not an NBC, and therefore was never eligible to be President, because his father was an Irish Citizen until WWII when he became a US citizen through amnesty. He thought I was crazy…

  40. Oh and p.s…Ireland would not accept my Certificate of Live Birth that I received from NY. I had to provide my long form birth certificate.

  41. Leo,

    I have an article linking to this blog at http://govtricks.blogspot.com/2011/04/natural-born-citizen-issues-not-simply.html. I have read some but not all posts here and certainly not all comments, interesting as it is.

    I presume you have given serious thought to one or more legal challenges to Mr. Obama’s run for re-election, the form(s), standing, etc.

    Do you seen any reasonable chance of derailing re-election on the natural born citizen issue?

  42. “When Barack Obama Jr. was born on Aug. 4,1961, in Honolulu, Kenya was a British colony, still part of the United Kingdom’s dwindling empire. As a Kenyan native, Barack Obama Sr. was a British subject whose citizenship status was governed by The British Nationality Act of 1948. That same act governed the status of Obama Sr.‘s children.

    Since Sen. Obama has neither renounced his U.S. citizenship nor sworn an oath of allegiance to Kenya, his Kenyan citizenship automatically expired on Aug. 4,1982.”

    Interesting that you only showed the first paragraph of the FactCheck article and not the 2nd as listed above. It appears that regardless what anyone says, he is still a US citizen and therefore ELIGIBLE TO BE PREZ.

    ed. Not according to the Constitution… being a US citizen is not enough. It is to be Senator but not Pres. For that you must be nbc. – Leo

    Can you use your skills to help start a dialogue on the real issues affecting this country? Econony, fuel prices, unemployment, national debt, encroachment of government (repubs & dems) into our lives, etc. With your skills, u would be very helpful in assisting your readers in dealing with these real issues that affect them on a daily basis. Just my opinion.

  43. Leo,

    I saw this article today about Chester Arthur and thought of you.

    “Lessons from the birther controversy… of 1880″

    By John A. Tures
    Associate Professor of Political Science
    LaGrange College
    April 22, 2011 —

    http://www.southernpoliticalreport.com/storylink_422_1933.aspx

    Any comments on it’s accuracy?

  44. I am in a heated argument about this issue. I have explained until I am blue in the face that Mr. O. is not a NBO by using a lot of the same information provided here. My question is that is there an actual law that states that only a NBO can be president? I know the Constitution explains it, but can that be enforced?

  45. borderraven Says:

    Leo,

    Can you, being a lawyer, request the Attorney General of Hawa’i issue a public statement affirming that Barack Hussein Obama II, a native-born citizen of Hawa’i, cannot request and get a certified true copy of his long form birth certificate, which the government of Hawa’i publicly claims to possess?

  46. borderraven Says:

    Leo,

    More on
    Joshua Wisch Vice-chair, State Democratic Party Hawaii

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/off-the-bus-reporter/dnc-hawaii-superdelegates_b_88990.html

  47. Tom F Driscoll Says:

    Why is he still in there????????????????????????????????????

  48. BlackSunshine84 Says:

    Are Puerto Ricans eligible to be POTUS? I was reading OK SB91, one of the eligibility bills, and in it is stated that a person can submit a birth document from Puerto Rico as proof of eligibility.

  49. Leo, I listened to a conservative talk radio host today state that once Obama is elected it doesn’t matter this eligibility status (re: the birth certificate) because the only way to remove him is impeachment and removal by the Senate and that in our current legislative makeup that would never happen. He argued also that no court, including SCOTUS, would ever remove a sitting president. He is telling his listeners that there is no mechanism for which a usurper can be removed from office and that if the presidency is “stolen” we must simply live with it.

    This comes from a constitutional scholar and a radio personality I very much respect but I disagree with him vehemently on this issue mainly because you have already provided for the mechanism for which Obama can and should be removed. It is evident this issue is ready to divide the country and throw it into a national crisis from which it will take years to recover. Obama and his handlers have played this one very well since this is one of the results they desire.

  50. The Venus, 12 U.S. 8 Cranch 253 253 (1814)
    The first was decided in A.D. 1814, at the beginning of the republic, by men who were intimately associated with the American Revolution. In that year the following men sat on the Supreme Court:

    Bushrod Washington, (b. June 5, 1762 — d. Nov. 26, 1829), served Feb. 4, 1799 til Nov. 26, 1829.

    John Marshall (b. Sept. 24, 1755 — d. July 6, 1835), served Feb. 4, 1891 til July 6, 1835.

    William Johnson (b. Dec. 27, 1771 — d. Aug. 4, 1834), served May 7, 1804, til Aug. 4, 1834.

    Henry Brockholst Livingston (b. Nov. 25, 1757 — d. Mar. 18, 1823), served Jan. 20, 1807 til March 18, 1823

    Thomas Todd (b. Jan. 23, 1765 — d. Feb. 7, 1826), served May 4, 1807 til Feb. 7, 1826.

    Gabriel Duvall (b. Dec. 6, 1752 — d. Mar. 6, 1844), served Nov. 23, 1811 til Jany 14, 1835.

    Joseph Story (b. Sept. 18, 1779 — d. Sept. 10, 1845), served Feb. 3, 1812 til Sept. 10, 1845

    Nearly all these men either participated in the American Revolution, or their fathers did. Joseph Story’s father took part in the original Boston Tea Party. Thomas Todd served 6 months in the army against the British; and participated in 5 Constitutional Conventions from 1784-1792. During the Revolutionary War, Henry Brockholst Livingston was a Lieutenant Colonel in the New York Line and an aide-de-camp to General Benedict Arnold, before the latter’s defection to the British. William Johnson’s father, mother, and elder brother were revolutionaries, who served as statesman, rebel, or nurse/assistant to the line troops, respectively. John Marshall was First Lieutenant of the Culpeper Minutement of Virginia, and then Lieutenant in the Eleventh Virginian Continental Regiment, and a personal friend of General George Washington; and debated for ratification of the U.S. Constitution by the Virginian General Assembly. Bushrod Washington was George Washington’s nephew and heir.

    Being witnesses and heirs of the Revolution, they understood what the Framers of the Constitution had intended.

    The Venus case regarded the question whether the cargo of a merchantman, named the Venus, belonging to an American citizen, and being shipped from British territory to America during the War of 1812, could be seized and taken as a prize by an American privateer. But what the case said about citizenship, is what matters here.

    WHAT THE VENUS CASE SAYS ON CITIZENSHIP

    In the Venus Case, Justice Livingston, who wrote the unanimous decision, quoted the entire §212nd paragraph from the French edition, using his own English, on p. 12 of the ruling:

    Vattel, who, though not very full to this point, is more explicit and more satisfactory on it than any other whose work has fallen into my hands, says:

    “The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives or indigenes are those born in the country of parents who are citizens. Society not being able to subsist and to perpetuate itself but by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights.

    “The inhabitants, as distinguished from citizens, are strangers who are permitted to settle and stay in the country. Bound by their residence to the society, they are subject to the laws of the state while they reside there, and they are obliged to defend it…

    ( http://www.thepostemail.com/2009/10/18/4-supreme-court-cases-define-natural-born-citizen/ )

  51. Now that the birth certificate has been released, do you think there is a appetite for the real issue of NBC?

  52. Marilyn Stagg Says:

    Any way to find out if POTUS received financial aide as a foreign student for his college (s) tuition?

  53. Spew King Says:

    Leo,
    I’m curious why you think SCOTUS declined to hear your case?

    Would a child,born of a natural born American citizen mother but the result of a rape, who’s father is unknown, be a nbc and thus be eligible to POTUS?

  54. If a woman who is a US natural born citizen is raped on US soil, by a man who is not a US natural born citzen, and that child is born in the US, is the child a US natural born citizen?

    ed. Yes the child is nbc. The child owes no allegiance to the country of the father. – leo

  55. Being a naturalized citizen, I’m ferm convinsed, that this side is the best I ever read. Thanks to everybody for their professional knowledge of our Constitution, especially to Mr. Donofrio, for his priceless comments. Please, never stop to educate all of us about the laws of our land and the rules of our Constitution. The Constitution of the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, should be mandatory curriculum in our schools. OUr children, are finishing HS,College, but they have no idea of our Laws and the Constitution of our country.

  56. Leo,

    Have you noticed your link to “Obama’s own web site” has been redirected. I followed it about two weeks ago; about ten days ago it was redirected.

  57. borderraven Says:

    DeeBee asks, If a woman who is a US natural born citizen is raped on US soil, by a man who is not a US natural born citzen, and that child is born in the US, is the child a US natural born citizen?

    DeeBee, please clarify, is the father a citizen of the United States or an alien?

    See
    8USC1401
    8USC1409

    Marital status is not a requirement of citizenship, but paternity is.

    If an alien rapes or is the co-parent with a US (naturalized, native-born or natural-born) citizen, and the child is born in the US or territory, then the child is a US Citizen.

  58. Seizethecarp Says:

    It is established US and international law going back to The Law of Nations at the time of the founders (IIRC) that the illegitimate child of a single mother does NOT receive nationality from the father. This is explicitly written into the 1948 BNA.
    That is what Leo is finally affirming, IMO.

    Constitutionalists, IMO, will support this interpretation.

    The problem facing Constitutionalists is that Obama’s supposed declaration implying (while not stating) that he WAS a dual citizen of the UK and Kenya at birth creates the appearance of an unconstitutional legal precedent!

    This false precedent, that a dual citizen at birth is eligible to be president, must not be allowed to stand and must be contested to the bitter end, even if it means Barry must be declared to be a bastard at the end of the process.

  59. borderraven Says:

    Puerto Ricans an POTUS Eligibility?

    U.S. Department of State Foreign Affairs Manual Volume 7 – Consular Affairs
    7 FAM 1110 Page 1 of 13
    7 FAM 1100
    ACQUISITION AND RETENTION OF
    U.S. CITIZENSHIP AND NATIONALITY
    7 FAM 1110
    ACQUISITION OF U.S. CITIZENSHIP BY
    BIRTH IN THE UNITED STATES

    b. National vs. Citizen: While most people and countries use the terms
    “citizenship” and “nationality” interchangeably, U.S. law differentiates
    between the two. Under current law all U.S. citizens are also U.S.
    nationals, but not all U.S. nationals are U.S. citizens. The term “national
    of the United States”, as defined by statute (INA 101 (a)(22) (8 U.S.C.
    1101(a)(22)) includes all citizens of the United States, and other persons
    who owe allegiance to the United States but who have not been granted
    the privilege of citizenship.
    U.S. Department of State Foreign Affairs Manual Volume 7 – Consular Affairs
    7 FAM 1110 Page 2 of 13
    (1) Nationals of the United States who are not citizens owe allegiance
    to the United States and are entitled to the consular protection of
    the United States when abroad, and to U.S. documentation, such as
    U.S. passports with appropriate endorsements. They are not
    entitled to voting representation in Congress and, under most
    state laws, are not entitled to vote in Federal, state, or local
    elections except in their place of birth. (See 7 FAM 012; 7 FAM
    1300 Appendix B Endorsement 09.)

    (2) Historically, Congress, through statutes, granted U.S. non-citizen
    nationality to persons born or inhabiting territory acquired by the
    United States through conquest or treaty. At one time or other
    natives and certain other residents of Puerto Rico, the U.S. Virgin
    Islands, the Philippines, Guam, and the Panama Canal Zone were
    U.S. non-citizen nationals. (See 7 FAM 1120.)

    http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/86755.pdf

    http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/86756.pdf

    http://www.state.gov/m/a/dir/regs/fam/c22164.htm

  60. Natural vs Native

    There is at least one source of support for my preposterous contention…Obama’s own website. Obama Campaign described Barack Obama Sr. as, “a British subject whose citizenship status was governed by The British Nationality Act of 1948. That same act governed the status of Obama Sr.‘s children.

    “Hi everyone!

    People who are determined to keep us divided start these rumors about Barack’s birth certificate to manipulate us into thinking he is not an American citizen.

    ed. They have the divorce records… Leo

    The fact is Barack Obama was born in the state of Hawaii in 1961, a native citizen of the United States of America.

    Learn the facts and see the birth certificate for yourself:

    http://my.barackobama.com/birthcertificate <— they are still calling Obama's Certification of Live Birth document a "birth certificate" here

    Together we can make sure these negative and divisive attacks don't affect this election.

    Thanks for your help."

    But as I said, unless someone can find Stanley Ann Dunham's Hawaiian marriage license to Obama Sr. — good luck with that one — Barack Obama Jr. would be an Art.II natural born U.S. citizen bastard.

    If they do find it, Barack Obama Jr. would be only a native born U.S. citizen, as he evidently believes himself to be, and, as a consequence, ineligible to be President.

    ex animo

    davidfarrar

  61. @ED

    Yes, they do. I am not an attorney, but does that prove Obama’s mother was officially married to Obama’s Sr. even though one page was missing from the record?

    ex animo
    davidfarrar

  62. @Leo,

    Strangely enough, after examining Stanley Ann D. Dunham [sec] divorce decree, I find no marriage certificate as an exhibit.

    Moverover, Barack Jr., himself, states the circumstances of his mother’s marriage to Obama Sr., were sketchy at best. Not to mention the twice repeated statements by Michelle Obama that Barack’s mother was very young and very single when he was born.

    ex animo
    davidfarrar

  63. @Leo,

    Plus the fact that when Stanely Ann Durham “married” Barack Obama Sr, he was already married with two children back in Kenya.

    Plus the fact that Durham/Obama marriage index could have been created as part of Durham’s later divorce proceedings.

    ex animo
    davidfarrar

  64. Old Bill Says:

    The answer to your question regarding the BNA 1948 is that according to that act and his father’s INS file Barack Obama II was probably not CUKC at the time of his birth. The same file makes it unlikely that he was a Kenyan citizen. On the other hand, according to Indonesian law 62/1958 and the 1940 and 1952 US statutes he may not be a citizen of the USA under the 14th Amendment. Also, the FTS advertisement refers to Barack Obama, Jr, a person not identified on either “Birth Certificate” since both refer to Barack Hussein Obama II.

  65. Old Bill Says:

    Under Colonial British and Kenyan law bigamy is a criminal offence. Tribal polygamy, Islamic polygamy and statutory monogamy are all legal. However, you aren’t allowed to mix and match. Since Barack Obama, Sr, married Ruth Nidesand in Kenya and wasn’t prosecuted for bigamy he wasn’t legally married at the time. If he wasn’t married to Kezia in 1965 he was probably telling the truth when he told his university he was divorced when he marriaed Ann Dunham. Bigamy isn’t an issue.

  66. Old Bill Says:

    Would a lawyer make a statement against interest if he couldn’t demolish it in court? I don’t know one who would. I’d say you don’t have a case you can prove. Certainly not based on the known facts., at least not against President Obama.

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: