Obama not natural born citizen, Obama ineligible, Chief Justice Roberts, US Supreme Court must review, December 8, 2008, Obama’s father British, Act of Congress, British Nationality Act of 1948, US Constitution, When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside

From time to time I publish a comment placed on this blog. This comment is substantive and well presented
by commenter Bob.

“Comments on FactCheck.org: “Clarifies Barack Obama’s Citizenship”

They should have said: “Barack Obama: Born a ‘Brit.’”

———————————–

Barack Obama’s Citizenship? This is the syllogism:

A. If your citizenship is governed by an Act of Congress to establish a Uniform Rule of Naturalization, then you are disqualified for the office of president and vice president of the United States.

B. Barack Obama’s citizenship is governed by the Secretary of State’s codified regulation: 7 FAM 1111.4 “Dual or Multiple Nationality.”

Why?

Barack Obama’s Hawaiian birth certificate posted by The Obama Campaign on the InterNet discloses it, and FactCheck.org confirms that on the DAY Barack Obama WAS BORN, his father, Barack Obama, Senior, was a British subject (his Kenyan citizenship is irrelevant).

They wrote: ‘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 …’

Please read that last line again: “That same act governed the status of Obama Sr.‘s children …”

C. Therefore, Barack Obama is disqualified from the office of president.

Barack Obama graduated from Harvard Law School magnum cum laude, and was also a lecturer at the prestigious University of Chicago Law School: So, he knows this.

———————————–

This issue is no more complicated than this simple line of reasoning: Everything else is no more than “smoke and mirrors.”

———————————–

British Nationality Act of 1948 (Part II, Section 5): “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.”

———————————–

Since the First Wednesday of March 1789 (March 4), the Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and all Treaties made under the Authority of the United States, have been the supreme Law of the Land.

This is what President George Washington said on that day:

“Fellow Citizens:

“I am again called upon by the voice of my country to execute the functions of its Chief Magistrate. When the occasion proper for it shall arrive, I shall endeavor to express the high sense I entertain of this distinguished honor, and of the confidence which has been reposed in me by the people of united America.

“Previous to the execution of any official act of the President the Constitution requires an oath of office. This oath I am now about to take, and in your presence: That if it shall be found during my administration of the Government I have in any instance violated willingly or knowingly the injunctions thereof, I may (besides incurring constitutional punishment) be subject to the upbraidings of all who are now witnesses of the present solemn ceremony.”

———————————–

Justice Rehnquist (later Chief Justice) noted that in the Constitution, “a political document noted for its brevity,” that there are 11 instances addressing the “citizen-alien” distinction: Art. 1, S 2, C 2; S 3, C , S 8, C 4; Art. 2, S 1, C 5, Art. 3, S 2, C 1; Art. 4, S 2, C 1, and in the 11th, 15th, 19th, 24th and 26th Amendments.

———————————–

So why would the law of any foreign State such as the British Nationality Act of 1948 have any effect in any State under the jurisdiction of the United States?

Did the President made a Treaty with Great Britain surrendering sovereignty to a foreign State to secure some right? The answer is, “No!”

Did Congress act to establish an Uniform Rule of Naturalization? The answer is, “Yes!”

———————————–

Congress passed the McCarran-Walter Act called “The Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952.” The Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 (before Obama was born), as amended through 1994 (before Obama ran for office), is our current law.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_and_Nationality_Act_of_1952

President Truman actually vetoed the bill, and argued for more liberalized provisions that would effectively end the restrictive quota system: “In no other realm of our national life are we so hampered and stultified by the dead hand of the past, as we are in this field of immigration.” But Congress overrode his veto, and the 1952 Act was implemented.

Why the McCarran-Walter Act? It was the product of the most extensive Congressional study in the nation’s history of the subject of Immigration and Nationality. The Act codified and brought together for the first time all the nation’s laws and all the court’s decisions on immigration and naturalization. Although it has since been extensively amended through 1994, it remains the basis of all immigration and nationality law today.

The McCarran-Walter Act, and all subsequent legislation, address the issues raised by the laws of other nations and their effect upon the laws of the United States.

Congress decided that the Secretary of State and the Attorney General were authorized, in their discretion and on a basis of reciprocity, to severally prescribe regulations implementing the Immigration and Nationality Act.

The Secretary of State codified regulations in the 7 Foreign Affairs Manual (Consular Affairs) to advise U.S. nationals about citizenship: 7 FAM 1100 deals with the Acquisition and Retension of U.S. Citizenship and Nationality; 7 FAM 1110 deals with Acquisition of U.S. Citizenship by Birth in the United States, including specifically “Dual or Multiple Nationality” (7 FAM 1111.4).

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

The Attorney General codified regulations for children through the Department of Justice, Immigration and Naturalization Service, under Section 101 of the Immigration and Nationality Act. However, the INS is now part of the Department of Homeland Security, U. S. Citizenship and Immigration Services [and so these regulations are now found at (8 CFR), Immigration and Naturalization].

http://www.uscis.gov/propub/ProPubVAP.jsp?dockey=7b2ad4e82f00315ac8e70cab6366e0da

Both sets of codified regulations govern all decisions made by all departments of the Federal government, including the Department of the Treasury, Internal Revenue Service, Department of Health and Human Services, as well as the Department of Education.

———————————–

As noted above, the Constitution gives Congress authority to establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization.

The Code of Federal Regulations is huge, but it can all be summarized with this sentence: Naturalized citizens legally are equal in almost all respects to persons who have been Americans from birth.

The only constitutional disqualification of naturalized citizens is for the offices of president and vice president of the United States.

Why? Because the Constitution says this: “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 words “no person except” also means “no exceptions.”

———————————–

No person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President can take the following Oath or Affirmation:–”I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.”

Why? Because, since 1974 the Committee on the Judiciary has considered a violation of the constitutional oath to be a high crime and misdemeanor, warranting impeachment, trial and removal from office.

Why? Because the Constitution states that the President of the United States shall take care are that the laws be faithfully executed.

———————————–

Why must the Supreme Court review this matter?

Because, “The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority.”

And specifically cases that involve: “foreign States, Citizens, and Subjects:” Barack Obama, Senior, was a British Subject.

Why must the Chief Justice have a special role in this matter?

Because, “When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside.”

Comments on FactCheck.org: “Clarifies Barack Obama’s Citizenship”

They should have said: “Barack Obama: Born a ‘Brit.'”

———————————–

Barack Obama’s Citizenship? This is the syllogism:

A. If your citizenship is governed by an Act of Congress to establish a Uniform Rule of Naturalization, then you are disqualified for the office of president and vice president of the United States.

B. Barack Obama’s citizenship is governed by the Secretary of State’s codified regulation: 7 FAM 1111.4 “Dual or Multiple Nationality.”

Why?

Barack Obama’s Hawaiian birth certificate posted by The Obama Campaign on the InterNet discloses it, and FactCheck.org confirms that on the DAY Barack Obama WAS BORN, his father, Barack Obama, Senior, was a British subject (his Kenyan citizenship is irrelevant).

They wrote: ‘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 …’

Please read that last line again: “That same act governed the status of Obama Sr.‘s children …”

C. Therefore, Barack Obama is disqualified from the office of president.

Barack Obama graduated from Harvard Law School magnum cum laude, and was also a lecturer at the prestigious University of Chicago Law School: So, he knows this.

———————————–

This issue is no more complicated than this simple line of reasoning: Everything else is no more than “smoke and mirrors.”

———————————–

British Nationality Act of 1948 (Part II, Section 5): “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.”

———————————–

Since the First Wednesday of March 1789 (March 4), the Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and all Treaties made under the Authority of the United States, have been the supreme Law of the Land.

This is what President George Washington said on that day:

“Fellow Citizens:

“I am again called upon by the voice of my country to execute the functions of its Chief Magistrate. When the occasion proper for it shall arrive, I shall endeavor to express the high sense I entertain of this distinguished honor, and of the confidence which has been reposed in me by the people of united America.

“Previous to the execution of any official act of the President the Constitution requires an oath of office. This oath I am now about to take, and in your presence: That if it shall be found during my administration of the Government I have in any instance violated willingly or knowingly the injunctions thereof, I may (besides incurring constitutional punishment) be subject to the upbraidings of all who are now witnesses of the present solemn ceremony.”

———————————–

Justice Rehnquist (later Chief Justice) noted that in the Constitution, “a political document noted for its brevity,” that there are 11 instances addressing the “citizen-alien” distinction: Art. 1, S 2, C 2; S 3, C , S 8, C 4; Art. 2, S 1, C 5, Art. 3, S 2, C 1; Art. 4, S 2, C 1, and in the 11th, 15th, 19th, 24th and 26th Amendments.

———————————–

So why would the law of any foreign State such as the British Nationality Act of 1948 have any effect in any State under the jurisdiction of the United States?

Did the President made a Treaty with Great Britain surrendering sovereignty to a foreign State to secure some right? The answer is, “No!”

Did Congress act to establish an Uniform Rule of Naturalization? The answer is, “Yes!”

———————————–

Congress passed the McCarran-Walter Act called “The Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952.” The Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 (before Obama was born), as amended through 1994 (before Obama ran for office), is our current law.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_and_Nationality_Act_of_1952

President Truman actually vetoed the bill, and argued for more liberalized provisions that would effectively end the restrictive quota system: “In no other realm of our national life are we so hampered and stultified by the dead hand of the past, as we are in this field of immigration.” But Congress overrode his veto, and the 1952 Act was implemented.

Why the McCarran-Walter Act? It was the product of the most extensive Congressional study in the nation’s history of the subject of Immigration and Nationality. The Act codified and brought together for the first time all the nation’s laws and all the court’s decisions on immigration and naturalization. Although it has since been extensively amended through 1994, it remains the basis of all immigration and nationality law today.

The McCarran-Walter Act, and all subsequent legislation, address the issues raised by the laws of other nations and their effect upon the laws of the United States.

Congress decided that the Secretary of State and the Attorney General were authorized, in their discretion and on a basis of reciprocity, to severally prescribe regulations implementing the Immigration and Nationality Act.

The Secretary of State codified regulations in the 7 Foreign Affairs Manual (Consular Affairs) to advise U.S. nationals about citizenship: 7 FAM 1100 deals with the Acquisition and Retension of U.S. Citizenship and Nationality; 7 FAM 1110 deals with Acquisition of U.S. Citizenship by Birth in the United States, including specifically “Dual or Multiple Nationality” (7 FAM 1111.4).

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

The Attorney General codified regulations for children through the Department of Justice, Immigration and Naturalization Service, under Section 101 of the Immigration and Nationality Act. However, the INS is now part of the Department of Homeland Security, U. S. Citizenship and Immigration Services [and so these regulations are now found at (8 CFR), Immigration and Naturalization].

http://www.uscis.gov/propub/ProPubVAP.jsp?dockey=7b2ad4e82f00315ac8e70cab6366e0da

Both sets of codified regulations govern all decisions made by all departments of the Federal government, including the Department of the Treasury, Internal Revenue Service, Department of Health and Human Services, as well as the Department of Education.

———————————–

As noted above, the Constitution gives Congress authority to establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization.

The Code of Federal Regulations is huge, but it can all be summarized with this sentence: Naturalized citizens legally are equal in almost all respects to persons who have been Americans from birth.

The only constitutional disqualification of naturalized citizens is for the offices of president and vice president of the United States.

Why? Because the Constitution says this: “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 words “no person except” also means “no exceptions.”

———————————–

No person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President can  take the following Oath or Affirmation:–“I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.”

Why? Because, since 1974 the Committee on the Judiciary has considered a violation of the constitutional oath to be a high crime and misdemeanor, warranting impeachment, trial and removal from office.

Why? Because the Constitution states that the President of the United States shall take care are that the laws be faithfully executed.

———————————–

Why must the Supreme Court review this matter?

Because, “The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority.”

And specifically cases that involve: “foreign States, Citizens, and Subjects:” Barack Obama, Senior, was a British Subject.

Why must the Chief Justice have a special role in this matter?

Because, “When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside.””

31 responses to “Obama not natural born citizen, Obama ineligible, Chief Justice Roberts, US Supreme Court must review, December 8, 2008, Obama’s father British, Act of Congress, British Nationality Act of 1948, US Constitution, When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside

  1. An impressive comment and worthy of a post. Perhaps the Supremes will get a peek at this.

  2. This is the most thoughtful and coherent comment I have read on this issue. I wish I had written this comment. This writer goes to he heart of the issue and does it in a very unbiased way.

    Really? (#129849)
    by Hank Rand on December 6, 2008 at 9:44 PM
    “What difference does it make to the future of this country whether Obama was born on US soil? Advocates of this destructive campaign will argue that the Constitutional principle regarding the qualifications for President trumps all others. But how viable will our Constitution be if 5 Supreme Court justices should decide to void 64 million ballots?”

    A proponent of the reality that there is an outstanding question that exists relating to Barack Obama’s natural born citizenship (not that I have an answer, but rather simply that no answer has been given), my personal opinion is that this has less to do with the merit of this particular Constitutional law…and more to do with the character and integrity of a man who may have gone to such great lengths to, knowingly, break it. And in that course of action, our entire country (not just those who didn’t vote for him) and our most coveted process of Democracy (our vote), were defrauded.

    If he’s found to be ineligible per the Constitution, proving he knowingly and willfully defrauded our people and process, it won’t be the Justices who will have disenfranchised 64 million voters. It’s Barack Obama. How many times are you prepared to claim “you fell down the stairs” for this man? I was an initial supporter. I started seeing very real and very questionable issues raised about the nature of his past associations, and the laughable explanations he would give…and I was sure it would hurt him in the press and among supporters. But what did I see? The press and most supporters to engrossed in their partisanship to care. In fact, the more reasonable questions came up about him…the harder the press and the 64 million that same press brainwashed, drove to the hoop for him. As I stood back watching this, again, as an initial supporter of his, even making phone calls on his behalf…I realized what I was seeing, was nothing short of WEIRD. Just, plain, weird.

    And I thought this birth certificate issue (check that, “Certificate of Live Birth” issue…as opposed to “Certification of Live Birth”) was cleared up a long time ago. I thought there was no way the DNC would have been capable of such a gross oversight. Then the court cases came up, and nothing was done to quell the question. What finally landed me understanding that something is not right, is when Chiyome Fukino, Director of Health for Hawaii, released the statement about his birth. That statement actually did more harm than good, and it only demonstrated further how moronic far too many public officials and people in the media and governing bodies, think Americans are.

    Sure, America has it’s slew of idiots. And sure, the aisle that questions Barack Obama’s natural born and/or properly maintained citizenship statuses has it’s smattering of fringe wingnuts. But just because one contingent of people happen to be on board, doesn’t nullify the fact that the question is still outstanding. I hear the same 5 refutations over, and over, and over. “He posted his birth certificate on his website”, “Factcheck proved it”, “The state of Hawaii released a statement saying he was born there”, “There was a birth announcement in a Hawaiian newspaper”, “Judges meritoriously threw it out as ‘frivolous'”; and while each of those statements hold an element of truth, they’re also easily debunked. And “truth” is objective. There is no debunking it. We should be able to move past this on to more subjective and productive lines of communication…with all the dissent we’re accustomed to…forging, like competition, improvement. But here we are. And one man can answer this objective question. And sure, not everyone will get on board if he were to release his college records and actual Certificate of Live Birth (as opposed to the factually less credible, more easily attained and more easily forged “Certification” – which bears no corroborating evidence like the hospital or doctor’s name)…but many would get on board. Coming off a platform of transparency, directly in to a promised pursuit for unity…why leave so many of us divided on what is a simple and objectively debunked question? If the Certification is authentic, the it’s more credible parent – the Certificate, exists. But rather than produce it, he has fought those requests so fiercely that he’s allowed the same requests to land in court rooms…where he continues to fight them. Why? So rather than quell the reasonable, objective and easily answered outstanding question…he opts non disclosure. I wrote somewhere else that the production of Certificate of Live Birth is a very small price t pay for unity. And yet, here we are. And Barack Obama, and Barack Obama only, is responsible for that. I am certain of that beyond any reasonable doubt, because Barack Obama, and Barack Obama only, can quell it…with an actual Certificate of Live Birth, and he has watched requests transition to court cases, and still refuses. So as a first order of business, in a promised pursuit for unity, he leaves us divided, on what should be a very simple, very objective, very basic matter. Who among us can applaud that? “I do, Hank. Because you’re all just whackjobs.” That’s all well and good if that’s your opinion. My brother said to me, “Yeah but if we pull him out, we’re going to look corrupt to the rest of the world.” I replied, “I’d rather look corrupt and not be it, than be corrupt and not look it.” So goes my position on being called a whackjob, for maintaining through nothing more than logic and fact, that there is a still outstanding question regarding Barack Obama’s natural born and properly maintained citizenship statuses. I’d rather be called a whackjob and stand by truth, than submit to mistruths and be called sound.

    I didn’t hear any of the 5 standard press talking points in your piece, which leads me to believe the transition I anticipated is occurring. That is, virtually all of supporters (and I don’t know if you were one prior to November 4th or not), will go from, “He didn’t commit fraud. He is a natural born citizen”, to “So what if he committed fraud. So what if he isn’t a natural born citizen.” I’ve challenged others, staunch supporters in fact, as to whether or not they’d concede a gross misstep in character and judgement, and support his being held accountable for that, if he did commit this fraud. They’ve uniformly claimed they would. This article, blog, whatever it is…demonstrates the first piece I’ve actually seen that goes out of it’s way to say, “No. I wouldn’t. Barack Obama can lie, cheat and steal all he wants. And if he gets held accountable for it, it’s the fault of the Justices…because Barack Obama himself, is simply incapable of wrongdoing.”

    Running that red light you sit at, day after day, when no one is looking, is pretty harmless too. But you know it’s wrong. This man, if not a natural born and properly maintained citizen of the United States, will have knowingly and willfully cheated our entire country, and more critical than that – our absolutely, inherently, unquestionably most coveted process of democracy – in what can only be articulated as a relentless pursuit for unapologetic, integrity-free, and division-inducing pursuit for power.Link.

    The Intellectual Redneck

  3. The choice facing the Supreme Court boils down to civil unrest to protect the Constitution or civil war to proceed to ‘inaugurate’ a non-”natural born citizen”.

  4. Thanks for the great comment.
    This is the the bottom line where I come from:
    The patriot, John McCain, presented a vault version of his birth certificate
    when challenged.
    The “me” candidate, Barack Obama, has spent hundreds of thousands of dollars
    and employed multiple legal firms to weasel out of complying with the US Constitution.
    Case closed.

  5. CW: I was at NQ the other day and there was this post that said that Mo filed some papers for INA.Do you of this,I guess my question is ,why?

  6. Still not convincing

    IF he was born in the U.S., is he not constitutionally natural born citizen, regardless of whether or not any other country claims jurisdiction over him?

  7. Do you know of this? Sorry I don’t recall the subject.

  8. The oligarchs want Obama because he gives them more political mileage.

    Obama, because of who he is, will be able to sell you on THEIR agenda including more wars, economic austerity, and greater limitations on your hard won civil liberties.

    McCain, Obama, Bush, Clinton, Clinton, Bush, ARE ALL PUPPETS.

    They’re fallible albeit talented people.

    Buying into the left right political theater is what empowers political corruption and ensures your indebtedness and servitude to crooks.

  9. Hawaii was admitted to the Union of the United States of America in 1959. Mr Obama was born into this state in 1961 and recieved a U.S. Passport (not a Kenyan or U.K. passport!) as a natural born citizen of the United States. He was admitted to High School and College (Occidental, Columbia and Harvard) as a natural born United States Citizen. He ran for the Senate of the U.S. as a resident of Illinois and a U.S. Citizen. He was elected to the Presidency by the largest vote ever for a non-incumbent for that office, AS a natural U.S. citizen. No valid affidavits have been filed in any U.S. court to refute this claim. No courts have adjudicated that Mr. Obama’s passport and his birth in Hawaii and Birth certificate are invalid or that he has given up his citizenship for Kenyan or UK citizenship.

    This article is filled with omissions, confused facts, non-sequitors which require the reader to become a “true believer” a stretch the facts to support hisi nvalid, illogical, confusing and specious conclusions. In short: How big a bat is required to pound into your head that this is a non issue promulgated by a seemingly racist cabal of people who refuse to believe that we, as a nation could elect an AMERICAN of African descent to be the 44th President of the United States. Give it a rest!

  10. The question that still hasn’t been answered is how Obama could have gone to Pakistan with a US passport?

  11. Since you like technicalities.
    Obama has not been elected to the presidency.
    The only group constantly referring to skin color and ethic origin (quite
    inaccurately) are the Obama supporters.

  12. Hi,

    Love your blog. I have a question Obama’s mother was a U.S.A. citizen does that come into play in all of this or is it just based on the father?

  13. There is nothing in the law that states that a American citizen born with dual nationality is not a naturalized citizen.

    In fact I believe the courts have decided just the opposite.

    It is a big mistake to admit that Obama was born in Hawaii when in fact he was born in Kenya.

    That is the only basis for disqualifying Obama.

    Donofrio’s lawsuit is a waste of time

  14. P.S. I don’t know why some people think this is about race……..it clearly is not.

  15. Bottlecaps:

    The issue has never come up before.

    ———————————

    Please read these sentences — It will help you understand why this problem has only come up NOW!

    “Naturalized citizens legally are equal in almost all respects to persons who have been Americans from birth.

    “The only constitutional disqualification of naturalized citizens is for the offices of president and vice president of the United States.”

    ———————————

    Here are further problems with Obama’s candidacy:

    Obama has FIVE Constitutional obstacles:

    1. “Natural born clause” applies to ONLY ONE DAY — the DAY Obama was BORN (his Kenyan and his Indonesian dual citizenship are probably NOT relevant);

    2. However, and “dual citizenship” IS addressed by an Act of Congress to establish an Uniform Rule of Naturalized Citizen (The Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952);

    3. The 14th Amendment clause “subject to the jurisdiction” is usually understood to mean “subject to the laws” of the United States” (meaning the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952);

    4. His particular form of “dual citizenship” (British) was specifically precluded by the Constitution (neither by Congress, nor by Treaty, but by the Constitution);

    5. The duties of the President are to take care that the LAWS of the United Stated be faithfully executed.

    ———————————

    Add to this the Congressional obstacle, the CRUNCH hanging over Congress that (if they certify Obama’s election on January 6), they will be violating one of their OWN LAWS (Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952), and you have the recipe for a full-blown CONSTITUTIONAL CRISIS.

    ———————————

    Please read that CAREFULLY —

    Each member of Congress ALSO has an oath of office!

    Tell me, please, how can 535 members of Congress MUST violate their oath and certify Barack Obama, if (by doing so) they will violate a law that Congress itself adopted, passing it AFTER a Presidential veto?

    They must have wanted very badly to adopt this law, so I fully expect them to live up to it!

  16. @ Bottlecaps

    My God, what are you smoking. Almost nothing you say is true. For a specific instance – in which your theory seems to hinge – There is NO EVIDENCE anywhere that Obama has or ever had a US Passport. Why do you so flippantly just assume this as a fact?

  17. It’s all going to come down to what happens tomorrow. The SCOTUS could just outright deny the application but with all of the attention, the letters and the petitions, not to mention the four other cases coming in, they are almost obligated to say something. Which means they would have to give good grounds for not just denying the case but ignoring the whole controversy and the concern of thousands of Americans. Can they do that? Can they just say denied and walk away? I hope not. If they deny the case then they will need to explain why otherwise it will not be put to rest. Will they go as the states have and say that there is no standing? Or will they try to explain how Obama is eligible to be POTUS under the constitution? I don’t know but I think if it we’re up to me I would just agree to hear all of the cases as one and let the process work itself out. That would give the People and the media time to approach the concept without as much shock to the system. Of course I’m just hoping.

  18. Hank Rand, from the great state of Kentucky I believe?? Nothing further needed………………

    A proponent of the reality that there is an outstanding question that exists relating to Barack Obama’s natural born citizenship (not that I have an answer, but rather simply that no answer has been given), my personal opinion is that this has less to do with the merit of this particular Constitutional law…and more to do with the character and integrity of a man who may have gone to such great lengths to, knowingly, break it. And in that course of action, our entire country (not just those who didn’t vote for him) and our most coveted process of Democracy (our vote), were defrauded.

    Someone finally said it, thank you.

  19. Hey bottlcaps, you may want to ease up on the crack pipe….Your marble, I mean your brain, doesn’t seem to work anymore.

  20. John Galt —

    The very definition of “natural born citizen” is an American who DID NOT become an American under Article I, Section 8, Clause 4, or the “Uniform Rule of Naturalization Clause.”

    The “natural born citizen” clause is very, very important to AFRICAN-AMERICANS.

    Why? Because, before the Civil War, slaves were persons held as property, so they were persons born under the laws of the United States, but never citizens!

    Congress could not use its authority to establish “uniform rules for naturalization,” in order to emancipate the slaves, because the slaves were NOT FOREIGNERS. either.

    So, Congress used the qualifications for president and vice president of the United States to emancipate the slaves — employing this logic, If “natural born,” then a “citizen.”
    It was a brilliant move!

    The logic of this approach was upheld in U. S. vs. Rhodes (1866), which discusses “natual born citizen” at length.

    However, African-Americans such as Jesse Jackson, Reverand Manning, and Alan Keyes, have always tried to draw the distinction between blacks (like they), who were are descendants of former slaves, and African-Americans who were not descendants of former slaves, like Barack Obama. This is the distinction they are talking about!

    Barack Obama’s citizenship came through Article 1, Section 8, Clause 4; their citizenship came through Article 2, Section 1, Clause 5.

    Read these sentences carefully:

    “Naturalized citizens legally are equal in almost all respects to persons who have been Americans from birth.

    “The only constitutional disqualification of naturalized citizens is for the offices of president and vice president of the United States.”

    What this means is this: Jesse Jackson and Alan Keyes ARE INDEED constitutionally qualified for the office of president of the United States. Barack Obama is NOT!

  21. The biggest flaw in Leo Donofrio’s analysis is that the Framers did not say that they were not natural born Citizens because they were “subject to British jurisdiction at the time of (their) birth.
    http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/263171

  22. lookingforamerica

    “this has less to do with the merit of this particular Constitutional law…and more to do with the character and integrity of a man who may have gone to such great lengths to, knowingly, break it. ”

    that’s my take, too, Judy Frank…it’s the content of Obama’s character that so disturbing and why I will work to see that he is not re-elected for a second term should he be confirmed to the first.

  23. Hargrove —

    They did not have to — because, before the American Revolution, all Colonists were subjects of the British crown.

    Please read the Declaration of Independence to find an itemized list of what it meant to them to be a Colonist, and subject to the British Crown.

    On the other hand, in Chisholm v Georgia (1793), Chief Justice John Jay writes a long essay on what it means to be an American Citizen — a sovereign without subjects.

    To quote another person in a different context, — it will cause “a tingle to run up your leg!”

    I guess you could say that they did not want to have anymore “Subjects of the Crown” running things for them ever again! They had just put their lives on the line to free themselves from that form of sovereignty!

    However, it was the 82nd Congress that passed the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 (over the veto of President Truman). And, in that legislation, the 82nd Congress gave the Secretary of State and the Attorney General authority, in their discretion and on a basis of reciprocity, to severally prescribe regulations implementing the Immigration and Nationality Act.

    And the Secretary of State did. And the Attorney General did. And their rules and regulations are now codified in the Code of Federal Regulations.

    I do not know how to make this any simpler!

    If your citizenship is addressed in the Code of Federal Regulations, then you are NOT a “natural born citizen!”

    Because, the ONLY citizenship that is NEVER addressed in the Code of Federal Regulations is “natural born citizen.”

    Barack Obama’s citizenship IS addressed in the Code of Federal Regulations, therefore, he is cannot be a “natural born citizen.”

    How much simpler can it be said? That is our law — and it was passed by Congress, and NEVER REPEALED! It applies equally to 300 million of us!

    In summary: If your citizenship is based on an Act of Congress, then your citizenship is based on Article 1, Section 8, Clause 4.

    Welcome to America!

  24. Sorry, bottlcaps, but your words were just words, only words. Opinion, really. You did not provide one iota of proof that Obama is a “natural born citizen”. And you’re complaining that others are saying he is not?

    YOU do not need to provide the proof, bottlcaps.
    All you need is for Obama to provide the proof so that what you are saying will no longer be just statements without factual basis.

    He could easily put all the rumors to rest, but he won’t …. because he can’t. So instead he has paid over $700,000 to lawyers in trying not to.

  25. To those who think being born in the US despite having one or both parents with foreign citizenship is sufficient to be declared a natural born citizen of the US, consider this. If Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez was born in the US while his parents were visiting as tourists, what is to stop him from claiming natural born US citizenship and running for POTUS once he gets tired of running Venezuela and moving to the US? How about if Tony Blair was born in the US and what if his mother was an American citizen and his father remained a British citizen? How would people feel if the former Prime Minister of the UK decided to run for US President, claiming he was a natural born citizen of both the USA and the UK on the basis of being born in the US to a father who is a UK citizen and an American mother?

  26. Anyone who has not read it recently, the following is the Congressional Oath of Office. Every U.S. Senator and Representative must swear this oath before they may take their office :

    “I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter: So help me God.”

    It so happens that this is the same oath every military officer must swear before they may be given their commission.

  27. Really, if Obama, had told every voter the truth that his qualification to take the office of President were in question, so how many people would vote, for the man who would lose, anyway, 10%,?
    So did Obama Truthfully win the election?

    So many Americans are angry at being lied to.

    the Avelanch , of Law Suits, are only just beginning,
    Lawsuits, to stop funding, the Presidential Office of an Usurper, obama.

    How Many Cities will burn when the Courts finally rule, against Him?

    Do you really believe that Justice Roberts, would risk his reputation, and possible impeachment, if he were to swear in unqualified Obama?

  28. The basic flaw in the syllogism is that point A is not true.

    To Paul: Obama had a copy of the FactCheck.org comment about his dual British citizenship on his own web site. One can hardly say he hid it. Obama published a book 14 years ago saying his father was a Kenyan citizen. Lots of folks are being lied to, but not by Barack Obama.

  29. Carlyle said: “There is NO EVIDENCE anywhere that Obama has or ever had a US Passport.”

    There’s no evidence he ever had an Indonesian passport either, but he’s traveling on SOME kind of passport. I would think it would raise some eyebrows for a US Senator to flash an Indonesian passport, you know? While the following isn’t evidence I find it interesting. Obama wrote 14 years ago in his book Dreams From My Father about returning to the United States from Indonesia at age 10:

    …the customs official finally tapped me on the shoulder and asked me if I was an American. I nodded and handed him my passport. [Page 54]

    It’s not that Barack Obama could have known he’d be elected president when he wrote that.

  30. Obama is one of the biggest liars I have ever known about.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s