Unlike the more sensational conspiracy theory regarding Obama’s birth certificate and place of birth (I believe he was born in Hawaii… but I certainly do not believe he’s provided any legal document which passes forensic scrutiny which proves so), I am recognized for the legal argument that Obama is not eligible to be President because he was a dual citizen at the time of his birth.
Article 2 Section 1 of the US Constitution lists the requirements for President:
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.
The key phrase here is “born”. Either – at the time of your birth – you were born as a US citizen, and you are eligible, or you are not. It can’t be cured at a later stage. The word “born” is unequivocal. You must be a US citizen at the time of your birth… the moment you enter the world determines eligibility.
Obama fully admits that his birth “status” was governed by the United Kingdom. I have always wondered how it is possible a person whose birth status was governed by the United Kingdom can be considered a natural born citizen of the United States? I feel that is a very rational question to ask. The contradiction is self evident.
Obama eligibility supporters seek to redefine the Constitutional requirement listed in Article 2 Section 1 – “natural born” – to mean “native born”. And Obama supporters would argue that all native born are natural born. “No exceptions”. Their argument rests on a very simple claim:
If – at the time of your birth – you are born on US soil, then you are a US citizen at the time of your birth and therefore you are eligible to be President.
But President Obama does not agree with that simple definition.
Obama is on record as denying that all native born on US soil are – at the time of their birth – US citizens. Perhaps you missed it, but Obama announced a new Constitutional requirement for President that is not contained in the actual Constitution. According to President Obama, his supporters are wrong and it is not enough just to be born on US soil. Obama requires more.
I am referring to Obama’s stand against the Born Alive Infant Protection Act (BAIPA) back in March 2001 when he was a Senator in Illinois. That act sought to grant equal protection under the law to all those born alive after an abortion attempt failed and the child was delivered into the world alive. The BAIPA sought to recognize that such persons were US citizens deserving of equal protection under the law so that these infants could not be murdered after they were born.
Obama fought against those born alive from being recognized as US citizens. He fought against them having equal protection under the law. And in doing so, he therefore added a more stringent requirement to POTUS eligibility than is listed in the US Constitution. According to Obama, if one is born into the world (“native born” on US soil) prior to being viable, then one is not a US citizen. If one is not, at the time they are born, a US citizen, then one is not eligible to be President.
I know that both Obama and his supporters have sought to revise history regarding Obama’s statements on the Illinois Senate floor as to this issue. And as much as I (and any rational person should) believe that he was advocating infanticide, I’ll give him the benefit of the doubt for the purposes of this report and will limit my discussion and analysis of his statement to the ramifications of his testimony on Presidential eligibility.
OBAMA’S MARCH 28, 2001 ILLINOIS SENATE TESTIMONY
This bill was fairly extensively debated in the Judiciary Committee, and so I won’t belabor the issue. I do want to just make sure that everybody in the Senate knows what this bill is about, as I understand it. Senator O’Malley, the testimony during the committee indicated that one of the key concerns was — is that there was a method of abortion, an induced abortion, where the — the fetus or child, as — as some might describe it, is still temporarily alive outside the womb. And one of the concerns that came out in the testimony was the fact that they were not being properly cared for during that brief period of time that they were still living. Is that correct? Is that an accurate sort of description of one of the key concerns in the bill?
PRESIDING OFFICER: (SENATOR KARPIEL)
Senator Obama, it is certainly a key concern that the — the way children are treated following their birth under these circumstances has been reported to be, without question, in my opinion, less than humane, and so this bill suggests that appropriate steps be taken to treat that baby as a — a citizen of the United States and afforded all the rights and protections it deserves under the Constitution of the United States.
PRESIDING OFFICER: (SENATOR KARPIEL)
Well, it turned out — that during the testimony a number of members who are typically in favor of a woman’s right to choose an abortion were actually sympathetic to some of the concerns that your — you raised and that were raised by witnesses in the testimony. And there was some suggestion that we might be able to craft something that might meet constitutional muster with respect to caring for fetuses or children who were delivered in this fashion. Unfortunately, this bill goes a little bit further, and so I just want to suggest, not that I think it’ll make too much difference with respect to how we vote, that this is probably not going to survive constitutional scrutiny. Number one, whenever we define a previable fetus as a person that is protected by the equal protection clause or the other elements in the Constitution, what we’re really saying is, in fact, that they are persons that are entitled to the kinds of protections that would be provided to a — a child, a nine-month-old — child that was delivered to term. That determination then, essentially, if it was accepted by a court, would forbid abortions to take place. I mean, it — it would essentially bar abortions, because the equal protection clause does not allow somebody to kill a child, and if this is a child, then this would be an antiabortion statute...
Obama makes these statements with regard to abortion, and partial birth abortion (which is an abortion that takes place when part of the child has already entered the world – a gruesome practice I firmly stand against with every fiber of my being).
Therefore, according to Obama, only those who are born AFTER full viability may be considered US citizens with equal protection under the law. His exact quote above is “… a person that is protected by the equal protection clause or the other elements in the Constitution“. Of course, this would include Article 2 Section 1. Therefore, Obama has crafted a completely heretofore unknown POTUS requirement which states that not all of those who are “native born” in the USA are eligible.
To be President, one must be – at the time of their birth – a US citizen.
According to Obama, one is not “born” a US citizen unless they are able to survive on their own after being born. Since Article 2 Section 1 requires the President to be a natural born citizen, only those who are delivered after a full term, are – at the time of their birth – US citizens. Hence, it is not enough to be native born in the US to be President. According to Obama, one must be native born after an appropriate time in the womb. If one is born prior to that time period, one is not a US citizen according to Obama.
It may be the case that the federal BAIPA law and the various State BAIPA laws grant various human rights and protections to those born prior to a nine month term, but Obama has never renounced his statements on the Illinois Senate Floor from March 2001. And, as far as I can tell, Obama – to this day – does not believe a person born before a full nine month term in the womb is a US citizen.
CAN OBAMA PROVE HE SPENT NINE MONTHS IN HIS MOTHER’S WOMB?
I ask this rhetorically because I know damn well that any child that comes into this world is a human being, not a “previable fetus”. Notice how Obama says, “…where the — the fetus or child, as — as some might describe it…” Count me in as one who describes it as a child. (It’s hard to believe that these quotes are real and not part of some horror film.)
Please don’t go around making this argument as if it really would determine eligibility. I’m not trying to make this a genuine issue. There is a ton of sarcasm present. Yet, these are the President’s own words, not mine. The POTUS said this crap… freaks me out, people.
NO LEGAL DIFFERENCE TO OBAMA BETWEEN THOSE BORN EARLY WHO WERE WANTED AND THOSE WHO WERE ATTEMPTED TO BE ABORTED.
Now let’s look at this from one more angle. Obama’s statements above from the Illinois Senate Floor, besides just being gruesome and insane… fail to take into consideration that the rights and protections being denied to those children are equally denied to children born prematurely to parents who desperately want them. Obama and those who would deny US citizenship and equal protection to these, the most fragile among us, because they were born prematurely, make no distinction in their application of the law between those who were almost aborted and those who were miraculously saved via incubation.
If they did make such a distinction, then that too, according to Obama’s logic above, would lead to a restriction on abortion. If you are trying to bring a child into this world and there are complications… the child is born much too early, placed into incubation and given no chance to live… according to this psychotic logic, the child has no equal protection under the law. Has anyone thoroughly discussed the horror which the law would condone if the prematurely born had no rights?
Either you are a native born US citizen when you enter this world, despite your chances of survival or this world is hell and Satan’s angels are running the place. Kick them out next November. I digress (sort of…)
Meanwhile, Obama needs to prove he was in the womb for nine months. If he’s not going to prove his nine months in the womb, then he ought to retract his ghoulish creepy testimony. He claims to have been protecting the rights of women, right? Well, what about those little baby girls delivered alive despite a failed abortion attempt? Women’s rights don’t mean anything for them?
You can’t make make this crap up, people. It’s dark out there.
Leo Donofrio, Esq.