Congressman Paul Broun, Obama eligibility, US Constitution, Broun response, Broun Paul Boehner no more status quo
“Why has Obama, for over 2 years, employed numerous private and government attorneys to avoid presenting a legitimate birth certificate and college records?”…Citizen Wells and millions of concerned Americans
We have come to expect anti American unconstitutional positions from the Democrats. The following actions and attitudes from Republicans are unacceptable.
When asked about challenging Obama’s eligibility during the certification of Electoral College votes in 2009.
“If I did that, I would be laughed out of Congress.”…Ron Paul, December 2008
The day of the reading of the US Constitution in the House of Representatives, Speaker Boehner allowed “citizen” to be used interchangeably with “natural born citizen.”
Speaker of the House John Boehner was interviewed by Brian Williams last friday after the reading of the US Constitution in the House Chambers and the shout of “Except Obama, except Obama” when the Natural Born Citizen clause was read. Williams continues the Orwellian tradition of the mainstream media of obfuscating the Obama eligibility issues by using citizen instead of Natural Born Citizen. Boehner, as Speaker of the House, should know better and should have corrected Williams. Otherwise, we have just another Pelosi look alike.
From The Post & Email February 2, 2011.
“I sent the following email to my U.S. congressman, Rep. Paul Broun:
Dear Rep. Broun,
I saw your interview following the SOTU with CBS.
I think it is imperative that just ONE elected Representative in D.C. stand up for the Constitution. I am PRAYING you are that hero. Barack claims that his father is Barack Sr., a British/Kenyan subject/citizen. It makes no difference where he was born, by our Constitution, he is not eligible as a dual citizen. He has admitted his dual citizenship on his own website, and in his own writings.”
“Rep. Broun’s response:
Thank you for recently contacting me with your kind remarks regarding the strong stances I have taken in Congress. Your words were very encouraging, and I am excited to hear that you are engaged in the political process.
In these tough times we must all work together to make America better for future generations. For my part, I will continue to fight for life, fiscal responsibility, and transparency in government. I hope that you will join this fight and encourage your friends and family to be as engaged as you are.”
The response from Congressman Paul Broun’s office appears to be a form letter, standard response. We need to contact Paul Broun and educate him. Once again, when you are discussing Obama’s eligibility issues with congressmen or those around you, keep it simple. While I agree that Obama is not a natural born citizen due to his father being British/Kenyan, it is subject to debate. Ask the non debatable question first.
“Why has Obama, for over 2 years, employed numerous private and government attorneys to avoid presenting a legitimate birth certificate and college records?
Next mention that the Governor of Hawaii, Neil Abercrombie, could find no birth certificate for Obama.
Then inform them that Tim Adams, who worked in a Hawaii elections office in 2008, has signed an affidavit stating that there was no birth certificate in Hawaii for Obama in 2008.
If they mention the COLB, inform them it is a document that refers to another document and is not proof of birth in Hawaii.
FL judge, Health Care Bill Unconstitutional, Judge Roger Vinson, Requires Americans to obtain commercial insurance
From the New York Times January 31, 2011.
“Like a Virginia judge in December, Judge Roger Vinson of Federal District Court in Pensacola, Fla., said he would allow the law to remain in effect while the Obama administration appeals his ruling, a process that could take two years. But unlike his Virginia counterpart, Judge Vinson ruled that the entire health care act should fall if the appellate courts join him in invalidating the insurance requirement.
“The Act, like a defectively designed watch, needs to be redesigned and reconstructed by the watchmaker,” Judge Vinson wrote.
In a 78-page opinion, Judge Vinson held that the insurance requirement exceeds the regulatory powers granted to Congress under the Commerce Clause of the Constitution. Judge Vinson wrote that the provision could not be rescued by an associated clause in Article I that gives Congress broad authority to make laws “necessary and proper” to carrying out its designated responsibilities.
“If Congress can penalize a passive individual for failing to engage in commerce, the enumeration of powers in the Constitution would have been in vain,” Judge Vinson wrote.
In a silver lining for the Obama administration, the judge rejected a second claim that the new law violates state sovereignty by requiring states to pay for a fractional share of a Medicaid expansion that is scheduled for 2014.
Judge Vinson, the first judge to address that question, dismissed the contention that states were being illegally commandeered by the federal government. He said they always have the option, however impractical, to withdraw from Medicaid, a joint state and federal insurance program for those with low-incomes.
The judge’s ruling came in the most prominent of more than 20 legal challenges to some aspect of the sweeping health law, which was enacted last year by a Democratic Congress and signed by President Obama in March.
The plaintiffs include governors and attorneys general from 26 states, all but one Republican, as well as the National Federation of Independent Business, which represents small companies. Officials from six states joined the lawsuit this month after shifts in party control brought by last November’s elections.
The ruling by Judge Vinson, a senior judge who was appointed by President Ronald Reagan, solidified the divide in the health litigation among judges named by Republicans and those named by Democrats.
Last month, Judge Henry E. Hudson of Federal District Court in Richmond, Va., who was appointed by President George W. Bush, became the first to invalidate the insurance mandate. Two other federal judges named by President Bill Clinton, a Democrat, have upheld the law.”
Obama not president per Constitution, Constitution 101, Natural born citizen requirement trumps Electoral College
“Why has Obama, for over 2 years, employed numerous private and government attorneys to avoid presenting a legitimate birth certificate and college records?”…Citizen Wells and millions of concerned Americans
US President eligibility requirements
US Constitution
Article II
Section 1
“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.”
Twelfth Amendment – Election of President
“then the Vice-President shall act as President, as in the case of the death or other constitutional disability of the President.”
Twentieth Amendment
“If a President shall not have been chosen before the time fixed for the beginning of his term, or if the President elect shall have failed to qualify, then the Vice President elect shall act as President until a President shall have qualified; and the Congress may by law provide for the case wherein neither a President elect nor a Vice President elect shall have qualified, declaring who shall then act as President, or the manner in which one who is to act shall be selected, and such person shall act accordingly until a President or Vice President shall have qualified.”
It is clear from the language above, if you have reading comprehension skills of a fifth grader and an IQ greater than a squirrel, that one must be a natural born citizen to be president, irrespective of Electoral College votes, certification or swearing in ceremonies. It is sad that so many in Congress have these deficiencies.
Many of the states have statutes layered beneath the US Constitution clarifying duties and eligibility to run for office.
North Carolina
Elections and Election Laws.
§ 163-114. Filling vacancies among party nominees occurring after nomination and before election. If any person nominated as a candidate of a political party for one of the offices listed below (either in a primary or convention or by virtue of having no opposition in a primary) dies, resigns, or for any reason becomes ineligible or disqualified before the date of the ensuing general election, the vacancy shall be filled by appointment according to the following instructions:
Position
President
Vacancy is to be filled by appointment of
national executive committee of
political party in which vacancy occurs”
§ 163-122. Unaffiliated candidates nominated by petition.
“(d) When any person files a petition with a board of elections under this section, the board of elections shall, immediately upon receipt of the petition, inspect the registration records of the county and cancel the petition of any person who does not meet the constitutional or statutory qualifications for the office, including residency.”
§ 163-123. Declaration of intent and petitions for write-in candidates in partisan elections.
“(f1) When any person files a petition with a board of elections under this section, the board of elections shall, immediately upon receipt of the petition, inspect the registration records of the county and cancel the petition of any person who does not meet the constitutional or statutory qualifications for the office, including residency.”
§ 163-127.2. When and how a challenge to a candidate may be made.
“(c) If Defect Discovered After Deadline, Protest Available. – If a challenger discovers one or more grounds for challenging a candidate after the deadline in subsection (a) of this section, the grounds may be the basis for a protest under G.S. 163-182.9. (2006-155, s. 1.)” § 163-127.5. Burden of proof.
(a) The burden of proof shall be upon the candidate, who must show by a preponderance of the evidence of the record as a whole that he or she is qualified to be a candidate for the office.”
Article 5.
Precinct Election Officials.
§ 163-41. Precinct chief judges and judges of election; appointment; terms of office; qualifications; vacancies; oaths of office.
“As soon as practicable, following their training as prescribed in G.S. 163-82.24, each chief judge and judge of election shall take and subscribe the following oath of office to be administered by an officer authorized to administer oaths and file it with the county board of elections:
“I, __________, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support the Constitution of the United States; that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to the State of North Carolina, and to the constitutional powers and authorities which are or may be established for the government thereof; that I will endeavor to support, maintain and defend the Constitution of said State not inconsistent with the Constitution of the United States; that I will administer the duties of my office as chief judge of (judge of election in) ______precinct, __________County, without fear or favor; that I will not in any manner request or seek to persuade or induce any voter to vote for or against any particular candidate or proposition; and that I will not keep or make any memorandum of anything occurring within a voting booth, unless I am called upon to testify in a judicial proceeding for a violation of the election laws of this State; so help me, God.””
Kentucky
“In accordance with the Twelfth Amendment to the United States
Constitution, and with sections 7-11 of Title III of the
United States Code”
UNITED STATES CODE
TITLE 3 THE PRESIDENT
Manner of voting
§ 8. The electors shall vote for President and Vice President, respectively, in the manner directed by the Constitution.
US Constitution
Article. II.
Section. 1.
“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.”
It is clear that NC and KY require that a presidential candidate be a natural born citizen in compliance with the US Constitution. Congratulations to Kentucky for their explicit language.
Constitution 101, State election laws, US Constitution rules, State election officials and electors legal duties
“Why has Obama, for over 2 years, employed numerous private and government attorneys to avoid presenting a legitimate birth certificate and college records?”…Citizen Wells and millions of concerned Americans
In men’s minds, as in nature, once a seed is planted, it many take many months to germinate, but the seed must be planted.
I was searching through Citizen Wells articles from 2008 on election laws and natural born citizen references when I came across this:
“Constitution 101 classes will begin soon.
State officers, election officials, judges and, of course,
US Supreme Court Justices will be invited. Stay tuned for a
class near you. I suppose Washington DC should be first.”
From Citizen Wells December 17, 2008.
The ultimate objective of a presidential election to inaugurate a
constitutionally qualified president that as closely as possible
reflects the will of the people.
The states have been given the power and the duty to control presidential
elections by the US Constitution.
The pervasive attitudes of the state officers and election officials is
that they, incorrectly, have no power to qualify presidential candidates
and/or they depend on political parties to vet the candidates.
The political parties have evolved and changed since the creation of the
US Consitution and are given no powers. However, members of the parties,
as US Citizens have an implied duty to uphold the Constitution and party
officers typically have taken oaths as elected officials to uphold the
US Constitution.
Clearly, the intent of the US Constitution and Federal Election Law is
for an eligible candidate to move through this election process to allow
for a constitutionally valid vote by Electors.
All officers and election officials, most judges and most Electoral
College Electors were informed prior to the general election and
particularly prior to the Electors meeting and voting, of compelling
evidence that Barack Obama is not eligible to be president. Despite
these warnings, Electors met and voted on the basis of party loyalty or
perceived directives from the states. State or party policies dictating
how an Elector votes violate the spirit and letter of constitutional
and federal law.
Even though the manner of Electoral College voting in clearly defined by
the US Constitution and Federal Election Law, some states have included
explicit references to law in their Certificates of Voters that are
signed by Electors and state officers. Below are certificates from 2004.
“pursuant to the Constitution and the laws of the United States
and this state, certify”
Alaska
“by authority of law vested in us”
Arizona
“by authority of law in us vested”
Arkansas
“as provided by law”
California
“pursuant to the Constitution and the laws of the United States
and the state of california, do hereby certify”
Connecticut
“in pursuance of the Constitution and laws of the United States
and in the manner provided by the laws of the state of Connecticut”
Hawaii
“in pursuance of the Constitution and laws of the United States”
Idaho
“having met agreeably to the provisions of law”
Illinois
“as provided by law”
Indiana
“as required by the Twelfth Amendment to the Constitution of
the United States”
Iowa
“in accordance with law”
Kansas
“agreeably to the provisions of law”
Kentucky
“In accordance with the Twelfth Amendment to the United States
Constitution, and with sections 7-11 of Title III of the
United States Code”
UNITED STATES CODE
TITLE 3 THE PRESIDENT
Manner of voting
§ 8. The electors shall vote for President and Vice President, respectively, in the manner directed by the Constitution.
US Constitution
Article. II.
Section. 1.
“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.” Minnesota
“In testimony whereof, and as required by the Twelth Amendment
to the Constitution of the United States we have hereunto set
our hands”
Montana
“agreeable to the provisions of law”
Nevada
“agreeably to the provisions of law”
New Jersey
“proceeded to perform the duties required of us by the Constitution
and laws of the United States.”
North Carolina
“by authority of law in us vested”
Pennsylvania
“agreeably to the provisions of law”
Rhode Island
“in pursuance of law”
South Carolina
“pursuant to the Constitution and laws of the United States and of
this state”
Tennessee
“pursuant to the Constitution and laws of the United States and of
this state”
Utah
“in pursuance of the statutes of the United States and of the statutes
of the State of Utah”
Virginia
“in pursuance of the Constitution and laws of the United States”
Washington
“pursuant to the provisions of federal and state law”
Conclusion
The US Constitution is clear on presidential eligibility and how
Electoral Colleges Electors are to vote.
Ignorance is no excuse. Everyone involved was forewarned. Voting
party line over law will not be tolerated.
Electors and state officers have signed or will sign Certificates of Voters
for the 2008 Election. As you can see from the above, they will
certify that they are aware of the law and are abiding by the law.
Kentucky gets the award for the most constitutionally clear wording
and should be applauded for doing so.
There are consequences for false attesting.
One of the consequences is that the votes of many Electors are now
null and void.
State officers, election officials, judges and, of course,
US Supreme Court Justices will be invited. Stay tuned for a
class near you. I suppose Washington DC should be first.
Constitution 101, Justice Scalia, Pay attention to the Constitution, Michele Bachmann class
“Why has Obama, for over 2 years, employed numerous private and government attorneys to avoid presenting a legitimate birth certificate and college records?”…Citizen Wells and millions of concerned Americans
From MinnPost.com January 24, 2011.
“Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia gave members of Congress what amounted to a largely uncontroversial lesson on the Constitution and Federalist Papers in a briefing this afternoon organized by Rep. Michele Bachmann.
“I told them to pay attention to the Constitution,” Scalia told MinnPost following the hourlong discussion, which included a short question and answer session between lawmakers and the Court’s most outspoken conservative jurist.
More than 50 members and staffers attended the “wonderful civil discussion,” which was closed to the press, Bachmann told reporters in a news conference afterwards. At least three Democrats were present, one of whom said the briefing was “incredibly useful” and non-partisan.
Rep. Jan Schakowsky, Democrat of Illinois, said Scalia told the members to get a hard copy of the Federalist Papers and keep it on their desks.
“You’re not going to like some of the things I have to say about the ability of Congress to limit the executive [branch],” Schakowsky said Scalia told them. Iowa Republican Steve King later told reporters that was in reference to Congress ceding authority to the executive in recent years, a practice King has frequently (and vocally) opposed.
King said Scalia was “very careful to not address subject matter that may come before the Court.” That includes the recently-passed health reform law, which is being challenged in several federal courts and is expected to be appealed to the Supreme Court.”
House Republicans propose $2.5 Trillion in Spending Cuts, Spending Reduction Act of 2011, GOP promises to slash the federal budget
From US News January 20, 2011.
“Moving aggressively to make good on election promises to slash the federal budget, the House GOP today unveiled an eye-popping plan to eliminate $2.5 trillion in spending over the next 10 years. Gone would be Amtrak subsidies, fat checks to the Legal Services Corporation and National Endowment for the Arts, and some $900 million to run President Obama’s healthcare reform program. [See a gallery of political caricatures.]
What’s more, the “Spending Reduction Act of 2011” proposed by members of the conservative Republican Study Committee, chaired by Ohio Rep. Jim Jordan, would reduce current spending for non-defense, non-homeland security and non-veterans programs to 2008 levels, eliminate federal control of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, cut the federal workforce by 15 percent through attrition, and cut some $80 billion by blocking implementation of Obamacare. [See a slide show of the top Congressional travel destinations.]
Some of the proposed reductions will surely draw Democratic attack, such as cutting the Ready to Learn TV Program, repeal of the Davis-Bacon Act, the elimination of the Energy Star Program, and cutting subsidies to the Woodrow Wilson Center. [See editorial cartoons about the GOP.]
Here is the overview provided by the Republican Study Committee:
FY 2011 CR Amendment: Replace the spending levels in the FY 2011 continuing resolution (CR) with non-defense, non-homeland security, non-veterans spending at FY 2008 levels. The legislation will further prohibit any FY 2011 funding from being used to carry out any provision of the Democrat government takeover of health care, or to defend the health care law against any lawsuit challenging any provision of the act. $80 billion savings.
Discretionary Spending Limit, FY 2012-2021: Eliminate automatic increases for inflation from CBO baseline projections for future discretionary appropriations. Further, impose discretionary spending limits through 2021 at 2006 levels on the non-defense portion of the discretionary budget. $2.29 trillion savings over ten years.
Federal Workforce Reforms: Eliminate automatic pay increases for civilian federal workers for five years. Additionally, cut the civilian workforce by a total of 15 percent through attrition. Allow the hiring of only one new worker for every two workers who leave federal employment until the reduction target has been met. (Savings included in above discretionary savings figure).
“Stimulus” Repeal: Eliminate all remaining “stimulus” funding. $45 billion total savings.
Eliminate federal control of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. $30 billion total savings.
Repeal the Medicaid FMAP increase in the “State Bailout” (Senate amendments to S. 1586). $16.1 billion total savings.
More than 100 specific program eliminations and spending reductions listed below: $330 billion savings over ten years (included in above discretionary savings figure).”
HR 1503 revisited?, Presidential Eligibility Act, Brian Williams interview of Speaker Boehner, Williams says citizen, Natural Born Citizen
“Why has Obama, for over 2 years, employed numerous private and government attorneys to avoid presenting a legitimate birth certificate and college records?”…Citizen Wells and millions of concerned Americans
Speaker of the House John Boehner was interviewed by Brian Williams last friday after the reading of the US Constitution in the House Chambers and the shout of “Except Obama, except Obama” when the Natural Born Citizen clause was read. Williams continues the Orwellian tradition of the mainstream media of obfuscating the Obama eligibility issues by using citizen instead of Natural Born Citizen. Boehner, as Speaker of the House, should know better and should have corrected Williams. Otherwise, we have just another Pelosi look alike.
At approx one minute Williams brings up the fact that twelve congressmen have challenged Obama’s eligibility. Apparently he was referring to HR 1503 that was initiated by Representative Posey with twelve cosponsors.
HR 1503, which expired with the end of the 111th Congress contained the following language:
“To amend the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 to require the principal campaign committee of a candidate for election to the office of President to include with the committee’s statement of organization a copy of the candidate’s birth certificate, together with such other documentation as may be necessary to establish that the candidate meets the qualifications for eligibility to the Office of President under the Constitution.”
Williams speaks in the present tense about the twelve congressmen. Is he referring to the 2009 bill or new initiatives?
John Boehner needs a quick tutoring on the US Constitution and the status of Obama eligibility questions. He did state that he would not tell the other congressmen what to think. That is good, but he can and must do better.
“Why has Obama, for over 2 years, employed numerous private and government attorneys to avoid presenting a legitimate birth certificate and college records?”…Citizen Wells and millions of concerned Americans
Quite a few attorneys have been involved in lawsuits challenging Obama’s eligibility. Some of them are Democrats. Other attorneys and legal experts have commented on Obama, eligibility issues and court proceedings. Some of those expert opinions are presented below.
John Boehner, members of Congress, judges and other officials holding offices designed to serve and protect the American public, pay attention.
Long time Democrat and civil rights attorney, Bartle Bull.
From Citizen Wells November 12, 2008.
Responses to Judge Surrick’s ruling in Berg v Obama.
“Judge Surrick ruling exerpts:
“If, through the political process, Congress determines that citizens, voters, or party members should police the Constitution’s eligibility requirements for the Presidency, then it is free to pass laws conferring standing on individuals like Plaintiff. Until that time, voters do not have standing to bring the sort of challenge that Plaintiff attempts to bring in the Amended Complaint.”
“…regardless of questions of causation, the grievance remains too generalized to establish the existence of an injury in fact. To reiterate: a candidate’s ineligibility under the Natural Born Citizen Clause does not result in an injury in fact to voters. By extension, the theoretical constitutional harm experienced by voters does not change as the candidacy of an allegedly ineligible candidate progresses from the primaries to the general election.””
Mark J. Fitzgibbons is President of Corporate and Legal Affairs at American Target Advertising:
“Chief Justice John Marshall, writing in Marbury v. Madison, said that judges have a duty to decide cases under our paramount law, the Constitution. I have lamented previously about how some judges tend to evade their duty to decide constitutional matters by resorting to court-made doctrines. Judge Surrick’s reliance on case law to dismiss Berg’s suit for lack of standing is reasoned from a lawyer’s perspective, but not heroic and perhaps evasive of his larger duty.
His decision to “punt” the matter to Congress creates, I suggest, a dangerous, longer and perhaps more painful constitutional quagmire than had he heard the evidence in the case. Even had the case lacked merit, the Constitution would not have been harmed.”
“Ellis Washington, currently a professor of law and political science at Savannah State University, former editor at the Michigan Law Review and law clerk at The Rutherford Institute, is a graduate of John Marshall Law School and a lecturer and freelance writer on constitutional law, legal history, political philosophy and critical race theory. He has written over a dozen law review articles and several books, including “The Inseparability of Law and Morality: The Constitution, Natural Law and the Rule of Law” (2002). See his law review article “Reply to Judge Richard Posner.” Washington’s latest book is “The Nuremberg Trials: Last Tragedy of the Holocaust.”
Mr. Washington wrote the following response to the Philip J Berg lawsuit and Judge Surrick ruling in a World Net Daily article dated November 8, 2008 :”
“Constitutionally speaking, Judge Surrick’s reasoning is completely illogical and a total dereliction of his duty as a judge to substantively address this most vital constitutional controversy. Instead, in a gutless manner, Surrick dismissed Berg’s complaint 10 days before the elections on a technicality of standing, which to any rational person begs the question: If Philip J. Berg as an American citizen, a respected Democratic operative and former attorney general of Pennsylvania doesn’t have the “standing” to bring this type of lawsuit against Obama, then who in America does have standing? The good judge in all 34 pages of legal mumbo jumbo didn’t bother to answer this pivotal question.
That Berg’s complaint is not “concrete or particularized enough to constitute an injury” is an amazing admission by any person that went to law school and even more so given the fact that Surrick is a respected appellate judge!”
John McCain, with two US Citizen parents, has questionable status.
“A. Citizenship and Natural Born Citizenship by Statute
According to the Supreme Court in United States v. Wong Kim Ark, the Constitution “contemplates two sources of citizenship, and two only: birth and naturalization.” Unless born in the United States, a person “can only become a citizen by being naturalized . . . by authority of congress, exercised either by declaring certain classes of persons to be citizens, as in the enactments conferring citizenship upon foreign-born children of citizens, or by enabling foreigners individually to become citizens . . . .” A person granted citizenship by birth outside the United States to citizen parents is naturalized at birth; he or she is both a citizen by birth and a naturalized citizen. This last point is discussed thoroughly in Jill A. Pryor’s 1988 note in the Yale Law Journal, The Natural-Born Citizen Clause and Presidential Eligibility: An Approach for Resolving Two Hundred Years of Uncertainty.
The Supreme Court holds that the citizenship statutes are exclusive; there is no residual common-law or natural-law citizenship. Citizens have no constitutional right to transmit their citizenship to children. In Rogers, the Supreme Court upheld a statute requiring children born overseas to citizen parents to reside in the United States to retain their citizenship. Since “Congress may withhold citizenship from persons” born overseas to citizen parents or “deny [them] citizenship outright,” it could impose the lesser burden of requiring U.S. residence to retain citizenship.
Congressional power to withhold citizenship from children of U.S. citizens is not hypothetical; for decades, it was law, and to some extent still is. The Tribe-Olson Opinion proposes that “[i]t goes without saying that the Framers did not intend to exclude a person from the office of the President simply because he or she was born to U.S. citizens serving in the U.S. military outside of the continental United States . . . .” However, the Seventh Congress, which included Framers Gouverneur Morris and Abraham Baldwin among others, did precisely that. In 1961 in Montana v. Kennedy, the Supreme Court construed an 1802 statute to mean that “[f]oreign-born children of persons who became American citizens between April 14, 1802 and 1854, were aliens . . . .” Thus, children of members of the armed forces serving overseas, and diplomats and civil servants in foreign posts, were not only not natural born citizens eligible to be president, they were not citizens at all.
Denial of automatic citizenship had very different implications than it would now because until the late nineteenth century, there was little federal immigration law. There were no general federal restrictions on who could enter the country, no provisions for deportation of residents who became undesirable, and immigration officials to deport them. Of course, these children could become citizens by individual naturalization. But even if the child suffered based on lack of citizenship, according to the 1907 Supreme Court decision in Zartarian v. Billings, “[a]s this subject is entirely within congressional control, the matter must rest there; it is only for the courts to apply the law as they find it.””
William A. Jacobson, Associate Clinical Professor at Cornell Law School, believes Obama was born in Hawaii but states the obvious.
“There is a bizarre intellectual dance taking place around the topic of Barack Obama’s birthplace.
The world has been artificially divided into “Birthers” and “anti-Birthers” when in fact I suspect a large percentage or even majority of the population is neither and simply wants all the evidence released so that we can move beyond the issue. For most people, who have had to show their own birth certificates at various points in their lives, the notion that a presidential candidate should release his or her birth certificate to prove qualification for office reflects neither pro- nor anti-Obama sentiment, but a “what’s the big deal?” attitude.”
“We can deal with accusations of John McCain’s alleged misconduct during imprisonment even though such suggestions were beyond the pale, and also questions as to whether McCain’s birth in the Panama Canal Zone disqualified him from the highest office in the land:”
“We have reached the point that merely expressing normal political and legal inquisitiveness will result in a charge of Birtherism or racism because it now involves Barack Obama, even though similar questions as to John McCain’s eligibility for office were raised in the 2008 election cycle.
I repeat, whiter-than-white John McCain had his eligibility questioned because of his birthplace, so how is it necessarily racist that the same thing takes place as to Barack Obama? The racist charge is just a way of shutting down the conversation, a convenient excuse for epistemic closure.
As I’ve posted before, I think the circumstantial evidence supports the view that Obama was born in Hawaii, and there is no credible evidence otherwise. But to reach this conclusion, the one thing neither I nor anyone else can honestly say is that all the evidence has been reviewed.”
John Boehner and Congress, Natural Born Citizen 101, Constitution 101, You must stay after class
“Why has Obama, for over 2 years, employed numerous private and government attorneys to avoid presenting a legitimate birth certificate and college records?”…Citizen Wells and millions of concerned Americans
“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.” Congressional Oath of Office
“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.”…US Constitution
The US Constitution was read in the House of Representatives last week. As I understand it, Constitution 101 classes will be held for congressmen. Some members of Congress, including John Boehner, may have to do some remedial work including stay after class. The same day that the Constitution was read, John Boehner used the word citizen and natural born citizen interchangeably. He also exhibited ignorance regarding proof of Obama’s birthplace.
Last Friday, after responding to Speaker Boehner’s remarks on this blog, I contacted his office regarding his gaffe. I am not aware of a correction or apology from John Boehner.
Speaker Boehner, you owe the American people an apology and you need to issue a corrected statement in response to Brian Williams’ questions. You also need to learn the truth about Obama’s eligibility issues. I am certain I and others can find the time to assist you.
Brad Miller exploits tragedy, NC Congressman reveals agenda, Miller Obama camp hypocrite
“Why has Obama, for over 2 years, employed numerous private and government attorneys to avoid presenting a legitimate birth certificate and college records?”…Citizen Wells and millions of concerned Americans
**** Updated 7:23 PM ****
From the Greensboro News & Record January 10, 2011.
“Congressional republicans spoke to rallies in which there were large banners showing pictures of human beings stacked like cord wood at Dachau,” Miller said, mentioning images showing President Barack Obama compared to Adolf Hitler.
“Sprinkled throughout the rallies were signs promoting violence,” Miller said. “And they said not word of criticism. Not a word of protest.”
Miller said he’s predicted violence for more than a year and a half, and that violence broke out at the Tucson, Ariz., public meeting where Giffords , a Democrat, was shot in the head.
“I think the American people need to hold their politicians accountable for embracing extremist, violence-prone fringe elements,” he said.
“Americans have in the past.”
Many conservatives say it’s just talk, and that any attempt to blame them for Gifford’s shooting is a cynical attempt to exploit a tragedy for political gain.”
I found no link on the internet.
Congressman Miller stated:
“I think the American people need to hold their politicians accountable for embracing extremist, violence-prone fringe elements,”
Yes, Brad Miller, we have been trying to hold the Obama camp accountable for years. Where were you?
Where were you when Jon Voight and his family were attacked for asking simple questions in 2008?
Did you demand an investigation when the New Black Panther Party, linked to Obama, threatened voters in Philadelphia?
Did you demand an investigation when Lou Dobb’s house was shot at in 2010?
Let’s not forget the game plan of Obama’s cousin Raila Odinga, who Obama campaigned for:
“Ethnic Tensions/Violence as a last Resort
To discourage voter participation in hostile areas”
“Use ODM agents on the ground to engineer ethnic tensions in target areas”
Brad Miller, did you not read about the army of paid bloggers of the Obama camp who spread misinformation and attacked those questioning Obama?
I began learning about the Nazi like tactics of the Obama camp early in 2008. My first question, “Where was Obama on November 4, 1999” got unexpected results. That was my first experience of the backlash from questioning the messiah, Obama. The more questions that I asked, the more serious the attacks which evolved into multiple death threats. Just for asking simple questions.
I am a student of history and a big fan of George Orwell and his insightful book, “1984.” The parallels to Nazi Germany and the totalitarian mind controlling regime of Big Brother were clearly apparent by mid 2008.
Here are some Citizen Wells articles on why the Obama camp resembled Nazi Germany.
Citizen WElls 