(see update at end)
It is time for the democrats, the republicans, the Tea Party, the media, and the supporters of the Obama regime to have a serious discussion of the Constitution’s Article II natural born citizenship clause and the meaning of allegiance to the United States. Being the President is not a ‘right’, or an equal opportunity; nor does it have anything to do with skin color. The Constitutional requirements for the Presidency cannot be overridden by an election.
Americans by now have basic gut feeling that Obama is not an American. We see and experience that he is a person who dislikes our Nation and its founding documents. We also instinctively now know that Obama is not a ‘natural born citizen’. We know all politicians lie, but a natural born Citizen President would not:
- Jail Terry Lakin for requesting the information necessary to prove the authenticity of the CIC’s orders. In fact, if Obama had been vetted and was proven an NBC, Terry Lakin would be in Afghanistan helping his fellow soldiers.
- Treat the military with disrespect
- Sue a state for exercising its Ninth and Tenth Amendment priorities
- Invade or bomb Libya at the request of the international community or without Congressional approval
- Seize the economy
- Apologize for America
- Refuse to salute the flag or honor the National Anthem
- Declare Christianity irrelevant
- Fly the Chinese flag over the White House
These are serious violations of the law, the Constitution and the national security of the Nation.
Over the course of these months there have been many cogent descriptions of who is a natural born citizen. One of the best to date–Unalienable and Undivided Natural Allegiance– I am pleased to cross post with permission from The Birthers:
Unalienable and Undivided Natural Allegiance
©2011 TeoBaer, The Birthers
Because we differ in who the Founding Fathers turned to for their definition of a natural born citizen, Blackstone’s English common law or the Vattel’s Law of Nations, we turn a blind eye to the obvious, defining quality a natural born citizen at birth.
This is not to say those who support Vattel are wrong, in fact the Supreme Court is on their side with numerous cases defining the circumstances of the birth of a natural born citizen exactly as Vattel wrote. For those who support Blackstone they only have the uncertainty and ambiguity of Supreme Court decisions.
Take for instance, the MINOR V. HAPPERSETT, 88 U. S. 162 (1874) case, which says no one ever doubted Vattel’s definition, but Blackstone’s definition was in doubt to the children of Aliens.
The Constitution does not in words say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first.
But there is another way to read this, no one had doubts to the complete allegiance of those born in the country to parents who were citizens of that country, but to those who acquired dual nationality at birth there were doubts to their complete allegiance to the United States.
Wong Kim Ark did little to relieve this doubt, but it was the case that allowed dual citizenship in the United States. Before Wong Kim Ark there were no Supreme Court cases involving a dual citizen. But those that followed raised many questions over the allegiance or loyalty of such a creature.
Raising the child in an atmosphere of divided loyalties
Justice Blackmun commented in Rogers v. Bellei, 401 U.S. 815 (1971) “The Congress has an appropriate concern with problems attendant on dual nationality. These problems are particularly acute when it is the father who is the child’s alien parent and the father chooses to have his family reside in the country of his own nationality. The child is reared, at best, in an atmosphere of divided loyalty. We cannot say that a concern that the child’s own primary allegiance is to the country of his birth and of his father’s allegiance is either misplaced or arbitrary. “
Justice Brennan recognized this when, concurring in Kennedy v. Mendoza-Martinez, 372 U. S. 144 (1963), a case concerning native-born citizens, he observed: “We have recognized the entanglements which may stem from dual allegiance. . . .”
Foreign Claims to Allegiance
Justice Douglas said of dual nationality in Kawakita v. United States, 343 U. S. 717 (1952)”one who has a dual nationality will be subject to claims from both nations, claims which at times may be competing or conflicting,” that one with dual nationality cannot turn that status “into a fair-weather citizenship,” and that “circumstances may compel one who has a dual nationality to do acts which otherwise would not be compatible with the obligations of American citizenship,”
Historically the United States was against dual citizenship
Justice Burton stated in Savorgnan v. United States, 338 U.S. 491 (1950)that “The United States has long recognized the general undesirability of dual allegiances.”
On this last issue the United States was offered by the English negotiator for the Treaty of Paris, David Hartley wants to make Americans and Englishmen dual citizens, “Neither shall the independence of the United States be construed any further than as independence, absolute and unlimited, in matters of government, as well as commerce. Not into alienation, and therefore the subjects of his Britannic majesty and the citizens of the United States shall mutually be considered as natural born subjects, and enjoy all rights and privileges as such in the respective dominions and territories in the manner heretofore accustomed.
This offer of course was rejected. Instead America charted a new vision and ideal for who would become a natural born citizen.
Who is a natural born citizen?
In all the Supreme Court cases only one describes the quality a natural born citizen is born with, and the arrival of this quality does not depend on Blackstone or Vattel, for as Yogi Berra once said, “it is what it is.”
On that day, Mrs. Shanks was found under allegiance to the State of South Carolina as a natural born citizen to a community, one of whose fundamental principles was that natural allegiance was unalienable, and this principle was at no time relaxed by that state by any express provision, while it retained the undivided control over the rights and liabilities of its citizens. SHANKS V. DUPONT, 28 U. S. 242 (1830)
Simply put, a natural born citizen is person who is born with only one allegiance and that allegiance is undivided allegiance to the nation state it was born into.
Using this quality one can see that Vattel is right in his definition, and at times Blackstone was also right. It could be argued that the children of aliens whose parents native country do not recognize the jus sanguinis birthright and who are born in the United States are natural born citizens, because at their birth they only possess natural allegiance for the United States. The same could be true of the children of American citizen parents who were born in a country that did not afford jus soli citizenship, for they too at birth would only have natural allegiance to the United States.
Why is this definition correct? It is the correct definition of a natural born citizen that puts aside the concerns of our founding fathers when they wrote,
“Permit me to hint, whether it would be wise and seasonable to provide a strong check to the admission of Foreigners into the administration of our national Government; and to declare expressly that the Commander in Chief of the American army shall not be given to nor devolve on, any but a natural born Citizen.” John Jay to George Washington, 1787
“Nothing was more to be desired than that every practicable obstacle should be opposed to cabal, intrigue, and corruption. These most deadly adversaries of republican government might naturally have been expected to make their approaches from more than one quarter, but chiefly from the desire in foreign powers to gain an improper ascendant in our councils. How could they better gratify this, than by raising a creature of their own to the chief magistracy of the Union?” Alexander Hamilton Federalist Papers 68
The only question you need to answer is does the requirement that a natural born citizen have undivided, unalienable natural allegiance to the United States prevent a person with foreign allegiances (a foreigner) from the presidency and does this natural quality of a natural born citizen prevent a foreign government from raising a dual citizen (a creature of their own) to usurp the office of the President of the United States?
Barack Hussein Obama, II by his own admission is a creature of foreign entanglements at birth and that his natural allegiance was divided at birth and this division made his allegiance to the United States alienable depending upon the jurisdiction he found himself in.
“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.” Obama’s 2008 Campaign website
The warning and intent of our founding fathers has been ignored, the Office of the President of the United States has been usurped by a creature of a foreign government, one who never possessed at birth, complete and undivided, unalienable allegiance to the United States of America.
In my opinion, until the Constitution is amended with agreement of 2/3 of the States, or the U.S. Supreme Court chooses to clarify the definition of ‘natural born citizen’, there is no constitutional or legal authority to arbitrarily declare birth place–jus soli– the only criterion for natural born citizenship.
Edwin Viera , a constitutional scholar, warned cogently in October 2008
“If Obama turns out to be nothing more than an usurper who has fraudulently seized control of the Presidency, not only will the Constitution have been egregiously flouted, but also this whole country could be, likely will be, destroyed as a consequence. And if this country is even credibly threatened with destruction, every American will be harmed—irretrievably, should the threat become actuality—including those who voted or intend to vote for Obama, who are also part of We the People. Therefore, in this situation, any and every American must have “standing” to demand—and must demand, both in judicial fora and in the fora of public opinion that Obama immediately and conclusively prove himself eligible for “the Office of President.”
Canada Free Press contributor Lawrence Sellin also warns:
What happens then, if through some tragic mistake of history, Obama is re-elected? Congress could find themselves, not only in dereliction of their duty, but potentially contributing to the destruction of our republic.