Sunday, September 29, 2013

Op-ed:
Both Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio are eligible to be President or Vice-President
By: Diane Sori

Last Tuesday, Texas Senator Ted Cruz showed what an elected official should be...a champion of 'We the People.'  In a 21-hour 'non-filibuster' filibuster, Cruz let it be known about the danger facing us all...the danger that is ObamaCare. By standing strong, Ted Cruz got thrust into the limelight as the frontrunner for the Republican Presidential or Vice-Presidential nomination in 2016...and rightly so.

One of those standing united with Ted Cruz, and speaking when he needed a break, was Florida Senator Marco Rubio, who in 2012 was on Mitt Romney's Vice-Presidential 'short list' and whose name is also be spoken of for the Presidential or Vice-Presidential nomination in 2016. 

However, with both Cruz and Rubio's names comes the issue raised by some that neither meets the requirement of being a ‘natural born citizen.’  But what most do NOT realize is that in the case of both men this concern can be resolved by just reading the words...or lack of words...in the Constitution itself...just reading the words as written...NOT trying to change or reinterpret words that our Founders made clear and simple in their meaning.

Let me explain...let's start with the critical issue that is at the crux of the issues raised...what exactly is a 'natural born citizen'?  Simply, the Constitution does NOT define those words, but the Framers’ understanding...combined with statutes enacted by the First Congress...indicate that the phrase meant both birth abroad to American parents (in a manner regulated by federal law...more on that later), and birth within the nation’s territory regardless of parental citizenship.

In fact, the Supreme Court has upheld that meaning many times in various contexts even with being a 'natural-born citizen' a requirement to be President or Vice-President of this country.  But again, NOWHERE in the Constitution does it define ‘natural born citizen ' while 'native born' citizen is clearly defined.

And while Article 2 of the Constitution does state, “no person except a natural born citizen … shall be eligible to the Office of President,” the actual term ‘natural born citizen’ was ambiguous at best. Some contend that anyone born inside the U.S. should be considered a natural born citizen, and the Congressional Research Service (CRS)* seems to back that view. 

They have stated that, "The weight of scholarly legal and historical opinion indicates that the term means one who is entitled under the Constitution or laws of the United States to U.S. citizenship "at birth" or "by birth," including any child born "in" the United States, even to alien parents (other than to foreign diplomats serving their country), the children of United States citizens born abroad, and those born abroad of one citizen parent who has met U.S. residency requirements.”

And herein lies the key, and read these words very carefully, “one who is entitled under the Constitution or laws of the United States to U.S. citizenship "at birth" or "by birth," including any child born "in" the United States, even to alien parents...” Even to “alien parents,” as long as the child is born “in” the United States...that is the key phrase in Marco Rubio’s particular case.

In the case of Canadian born Ted Cruz the words "at birth" are key as Cruz's mother, a U.S. born American citizen, conferred citizenship to Ted under 'The Nationality Act of 1940' which states which children become “nationals and citizens of the United States at birth." Stating those born in the United States or born outside the United States to at least one parent who was a citizen at the time of the child's birth allows citizenship to go to that child if that citizen parent spent a certain number of years in the U.S.

And this is where Ted Cruz's American citizenship is garnered from as Cruz being born to a born in America citizen mother, was able to assume her citizenship 'at birth' because under the law in effect between 1952 and 1986...Cruz was born in 1970...someone must have a citizen parent who resided in the United States for at least 10 years, including five years after the age of 14, in order to have citizenship conferred to them. 

The indisputable fact is that Ted Cruz's mother, Eleanor Darragh, was born and raised in the U.S...in Delaware...did NOT go to Canada until her mid-to late 20s. and did NOT have Ted until into her 30's...way beyond the mandatory 5-year-post-age-14 residency requirement. 

And herein lies Barack HUSSEIN Obama's problems for whether he was born in Kenya as some claim or whether he was born in Hawaii as others claim...his American citizen mother did NOT reside in the U.S. for 5 years after age 14 as she was 18 years of age when Obama was born...only 4 years after reaching the mandatory 14 years of age...and Obama was born in 1961 so he comes under the same rules of law as Ted Cruz does.

This simple fact makes Barack HUSSEIN Obama ineligible to be President NO matter which side of the  'birther' vs 'non-birther' battle one is on.

As for Rubio, while we all know his parents were NOT citizens at the time of his birth there is NO doubt whatsoever that Marco Rubio was indeed born “in” the United States, in Miami in fact, as he has an indisputable birth certificate that proves just that.  His parents received their final naturalization papers in 1975, four years after Marco’ birth but there is NO denying that his “alien parents” were here LEGALLY, they came here through the LEGAL process, they lived here LEGALLY, and they became citizens LEGALLY as per the requirements of that day.  So, yes they were “alien parents” at the time of Marco’s birth but the Congressional Research Service clearly states that ‘under the Constitution’ as long as the person in question was born here, having “alien parents” means nothing.

There is even more credence in both Cruz and Rubio's eligibility to become either President or Vice-President.  Article Two: Section One, Clause 5 of the Constitution states the eligibility requirements for serving as either President or Vice President of the United States:

“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.”

Now reread these words very carefully again, “No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution...”  “At the time of the Adoption of this Constitution...” This again is a key phrase that allows both Cruz and Rubio to be the Republican nominee for either position.

Let me again explain...the requirement to be ‘natural born’ was an attempt to alleviate the fears that foreign aristocrats might immigrate to the new nation...the United States of America...and use their wealth and influence, and power to impose a monarchy upon the people, a monarchy, the very rule of government that the Founders were opposed to.

So to make sure this did not happen, as they were laying the foundations of the laws of our land that would became our Constitution, the Founders made it clear that at the time of the “Adoption of this Constitution” that no one NOT born on United States soil would be eligible to become President, because they feared that England might still try to destroy the emerging nation from within by ‘planting’ a person of their choosing within the emerging ranks of leaders.  

Breaking it down even further, this phrase uses the term ‘natural born’ in context only to the time in which the Constitution was being adopted and makes NO reference to ‘natural born’ in context to later years.

Now also take into account the words, “...have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.”  (Marco Rubio was born here, has lived here his entire life, and is over 35 years of age...Ted Cruz, while born in Canada, had citizenship conferred to him "at birth" through his mother, has lived here most of his life, and is over 35 years of age)  “...and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.”  “been fourteen Years a resident...” the word ‘resident’ contradicts the CRS’s interpretive ruling of having to “be born in” or did they take into account in their ruling that the Founders, at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, realized that since the nation was new that maybe some who aspired to the presidency might have been born in England or elsewhere but came here as a child...hmmm, we will never know for sure. 

But critical in today's questioning is the memorandum to Congress dated April 3, 2009, written by the Congressional Research Service (CRS), stating:

“Considering the history of the constitutional qualifications provision, the common use and meaning of the phrase "natural-born subject" in England and in the Colonies in the 1700s, the clause's apparent intent, the subsequent action of the first Congress in enacting the Naturalization Act of 1790 (expressly defining the term "natural born citizen" to include a person born abroad to parents who are United States citizens), as well as subsequent Supreme Court dicta, it appears that the most logical inferences would indicate that the phrase "natural born citizen" would mean a person who is entitled to U.S. citizenship "at birth" or "by birth."

And the words, "natural born citizen" would mean a person who is entitled to U.S. citizenship "at birth" or "by birth" are the most important of all.

So with all the information I have presented, it should be clear to all that both Texas Senator Ted Cruz and Florida Senator Marco Rubio are indeed eligible to be either President or Vice-President of these United States.

And by the way....Cruz/Rubio 2016 or Rubio/Cruz 2016...either way works for me.
_____________________________________________
 *The Congressional Research Service (CRS) works exclusively for the United States Congress, providing policy and legal analysis to committees and Members of both the House and Senate, regardless of party affiliation.  As a legislative branch agency within the Library of Congress, the CRS has been a valued and respected resource on Capitol Hill for nearly a century.

68 comments:

  1. Nonsense. See instead: http://art2superpac.com/issues.html, for openers.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Nonsense...NO I don't think so. My supposition is just as valid as anyone's else's is.

      Delete
  2. http://obamaballotchallenge.com/jack-maskill-is-a-liar-more-on-the-fraudulent-congressional-research-service-presidential-eligibility-memo

    http://obamaballotchallenge.com/eligibility-attorney-mario-apuzzo-disproves-congressional-research-service-papers-on-presidential-eligibilitynatural-born-citizenship

    http://obamaballotchallenge.com/congressional-research-service-ted-cruz-not-qualified

    http://obamaballotchallenge.com/508

    http://obamaballotchallenge.com/debunking-the-new-natural-born-citizen-congressional-research-propaganda

    ReplyDelete
  3. Diane, I see you are still at it trying to change the meaning of "natural born citizen". Your facts are so skewed I wouldn't even know where to begin...but then again you know that and yet you keep spreading misinformation one blog at a time.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. NOWHERE in the Constitution is 'natural born citizen' defined...NOWHERE...so my supposition is as valid as all the others.

      Delete
    2. i.e. You and the LIberal Loons make up your own rules as you proceed to fit your agenda.

      Delete
  4. There have been many candidates for President that have had questionable status but only two have been elected to Presidents thus to this point that their “natural born citizenship” has been in question. The first was the 21st President Chester A. Arthur; the second was the 44th President Barack H. Obama.
    With President Arthur, the question could never be answered because his personal records were destroyed in a fire after he left office.
    President Obama’s status conversation has been suppressed, and most discussions have been focused on his birthplace. That could be because his literary biography that was published from 1991 to 2007, and other statements in newspaper articles stated he was born in Kenya. His birthplace, while part of the issue, is not the easiest reason to disqualify him. The fact that his father was not a U.S. citizen neither at the time of his birth nor ever for that matter is the disqualifying factor and makes him a citizen at birth, but not a Natural Born Citizen.
    My final presentations are these scenarios as to what the framers were talking about, and how we could/could have been usurped by a foreign monarchy today.
    An example of this would be if Prince Harry went to Italy on vacation and impregnated an American female. She has a baby and after the birth she announces to the world that she had Prince Harry’s child. Now we have a child that is an heir to the throne of England and by the standards put forth by those that disagree with me a person eligible to be our President.
    Also how are the citizenship statuses of any of the individuals: Ted Cruz, Nikki Haley, Bobby Jindal, or Marco Rubio any better than the potential citizenship of heirs to the thrown of Jordan listed below?
    Prince Hamzah (born 29 March 1980), Crown Prince from 1999 to 2004,
    Prince Hashim (born 10 June 1981), who has three daughters
    Princess Iman (born 24 April 1983)
    Princess Raiyah (born 9 February 1986)
    Ted and the gang are citizens at birth, but they are not a Natural Born Citizen. If they are eligible then the children of Queen Noor and King Hussein of Jordan would have been eligible in two more years if she had not renounced her American citizenship at the time of her marriage. They would have been born to a U.S. Citizen parent and a foreign national in a foreign country.
    Although I’m in total agreement that President Obama is not nor has ever been eligible to be President, this paper is in reference to the calls for Senator Ted Cruz to be President. I have presented all the evidence above as to why and how he, Bobby Jindal, Nikki Haley, nor Marco Rubio are eligible candidates for the office of the President of the United States.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "That could be because his literary biography that was published from 1991 to 2007, and other statements in newspaper articles stated he was born in Kenya."

      The author of the biography has sais she made a mistake and never received any information from President Obama that he was born in Kenya.

      Newspaper articles from the Spring of 1990 all say he was born in Hawaii. His 1999 Illinois Senate webpage says he was born in Hawaii. In fact, the article that mentions a Kenya birth is the one in which the literary agent assistant has said she made a mistake.

      Delete
    2. Peter, you have your opinion and I have mine but the bottom line remains that NOWHERE in the Constitution is 'natural born citizen' defined.

      Delete
  5. Y'all can keep arguing the point, but Experts have already resolved the issue. They are both natural born citizens. You can bitch until the cows come home, but the fact is inescapable and decided. Cheers!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Even the ubber liberal POLITICO agrees that both are 'natural born citziens.'

      Delete
    2. You're all a bunch of Natural Born Nazi Liars. Keep spewing the lies until everyone is brain-washed.

      Delete
  6. There has never been a President elected in all the US history who was born to a foreign father until Sotero / Ovomit. Never.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. President Arthur was born in 1829. His father became an American citizen in 1843.

      Arthur was elected to the Vice Presidency (which has the same natural born citizen requirement) and became President with Garfield was assassinated.

      Delete
    2. YES, the VP does have same requirements as POTUS.

      Delete
  7. Love Cruz...but he, Rubio and Obama are ineligible. The following are from Professor Dr. Kevin Gutzman and Mike Church.

    Let’s cut through all the opinion and speculation, all the “he says”, “she says”, fluff, and go right to the irrefutable, constitutional authority on all terms and phrases mentioned in the U.S. Constitution: the Supreme Court of the United States.
    First, let me note that there are 4 such cases which speak of the notion of “natural born citizenship”.
    Each of these cases will cite or apply the definition of this term, as given in a book entitled, The Law of Nations, written by Emmerich de Vattel, a Swiss-German philosopher of law.
    We know that Jefferson owned a copy. We know that Hamilton and Madison and Randolph had copies of Vattel’s book. It was widely relied on and quoted. Here’s how Vattel defined natural-born citizen. “Citizens and Natives” is subsection 212....
    The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. As the society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights. The society is supposed to desire this, in consequence of what it owes to its own preservation; and it is presumed, as matter of course, that each citizen, on entering into society, reserves to his children the right of becoming members of it. The country of the fathers is therefore that of the children; and these become true citizens merely by their tacit consent. We shall soon see whether, on their coming to the years of discretion, they m ay renounce their right, and what they owe to the society in which they were born. I say, that, in order to be of the country, it is necessary that a person be born of a father who is a citizen; for, if he is born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country.

    Now that we’ve read the entire definition, and we know that President Obama’s father was not of this country, then it would then make him ineligible, regardless of what his birth certificate says.

    Senator Rubio could only be eligible if -- he was born in Florida -- if his parents were naturalized or natural-born citizens and he was born in the United States. We know that that was not the case.

    Cruz was born in Canada. He was not born of the country or born in the country of natural-born citizens. That’s pretty much an open-and-shut case. The answer is no.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. A Google search for this "quote" from Professor Gutzman and Mr. Curch shows that the article was written by John Charlton.

      Can you specifiy where this article came from?

      Delete
    2. They can say whatever they like but NBC is NOWHERE defined in the Constitution and that says it ll.

      Delete
    3. You're a broken record skipping over the same fact that does not add to your intelligence.

      Delete
  8. Cruz and Rubio are not eligible. They are not 'natural born citizens' since their fathers were not citizens at the times of their births.

    Diane Sori, in her article, accepts an improper definition of 'natural born citizen' from a 2009 Congressional Research Service (CRS) source. However, we must go with the understanding of the phrase held by the Framers back in 1789. Historical evidence indicates the following definition:

    "A natural born citizen of the United States is a child born of two citizen parents. It matters not where the child was born. In order to confirm NBC status, a father must also have been a prior resident of the U.S. In order to retain NBC status, a natural born citizen must retain an exclusive U.S. citizenship.
    [http://wweethepeople.patriotactionnetwork.com/2011/09/08/natural-born-citizen-2/]

    [Some analysts differ saying the child must be born in the United States.]

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yours is just another opinion as is mine. Both have been ruled by modern day Constitution scholars to be eligible to run.

      Delete
    2. A natural born citizen must be born on US soil.
      Coincidentally, I have a nephew who was born in 1961 (purportedly as Obama) in England to two US citizen parents. His father was an Airman stationed in England. Upon return to US, my nephew required naturalization.
      SR511 was a scam. McCain is hiding his naturalization documentation.

      Delete
    3. To; dusel1

      Your nephew would have born under the 1952 McCarron-Walters Act. His citizenship would have been governed by Title III, Chapter 1, Section 301 (3).

      "Sec. 301. (a) The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth:

      (3) a person born outside the United States and its outlying possessions of parents both of whom are citizens of the United States and one of whom has had a residence in the United States or one of its outlying possessions, prior to the birth of such person;

      Your nephew would not have had to go through the naturalization process but because of his English birth certificate he would have needed a Certification of Citizenship (now called a form N-600)

      Delete
  9. This is so flawed, it is ridiculous. It is so full of inaccuracies and misconceptions, it is not worth the time to refute. All anyone needs to do to evaluate the quality of your cut & paste research, is to note the year you state that Obama was born.

    I wish both men a long illustrious career in the Senate. I like Rubio and I dearly love Cruz; but neither are natural born citizens, and I will (noisily) oppose their candidacy for POTUS or VP, with every fiber of my being. Either our Constitution means what it says and was intended to say, or it is a worthless dead letter. We abuse it for transient political expedience, at our everlasting peril. I'll have none of it... ◄Dave►

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. When they run someone needs to challenge their eligibility in every state. Proving they are ineligible also proves that Obama is ineligible.

      Delete
    2. Anyone who argues with insults has NO credibility whatsoever. And BTW, NOWHERE in our Constitution is NBC defined and my piece is NOT a cut and paste job as you say. I quoted the exact words of the Constitution as do all who write about it.

      Delete
    3. You're a brain-washed victim of the Obama usurpation.

      Delete
    4. dusel1, you seem to have nothing but insults to add to the conversation. Your lack of any intelligent addition to the conversation in addition to your cowardly act of hiding behind a pseudonym to hurl said insults only shows your lack of character, intelligence and your low class.

      Delete
    5. SJ, I'm impressed, you sure know some fancy words, but you still did exactlt what dusel1 did, you added absolutely nothing to the conversation. You may be showing off your " intelligence " by spouting the afore mentioned fancy words, but you are, by your own definition being a coward, showing your lack of character, and your low class. Choose your words more carefully the next time you insult someone.

      Delete
  10. After reading all these presentations of "Natural born Citizen" definitions, I am wondering why Obummer was allowed to run and elected President and even allowed a second term. (which he evidently bought) Where were all of you dictionary and Constitution defining people in 2008??? You are all 5 years too late?!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. @Anonymous September 29, 2013 at 2:20 PM

      Personally, I have been screaming my head off about Obama's ineligibility since early 2007. I suspect others here have been too. Nobody wanted to hear it. Where were you? ◄Dave►

      Delete
    2. I have been screaming about Obama's eligibility as long as you have.

      Delete
  11. The corrupt & fraudulent Obama, Rubio nor Cruz are legally eligible to be in the Presidential office according to the Constitution... The author of this article NEEDS to get their FACTS straight!!

    “Natural Born” citizens
    Below is part of the discussion of the Congress of 1866 which wrote and passed the 14th Amendment, and according to the intent of the framers of that Amendment, which is the “Law of the Land”, as democrats like to say, neither Barack Obama, Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio, and even Mitt Romney, are not eligible to be President of the United States, according to the terms set forth in Article II, Section 1, of the Constitution which requires a President to be a “natural born citizen”. The left will argue that the courts make the law, but as we all know, it is the legislatures that write laws, the courts affirm their Constitutionality, and the executive, executes those laws. The fathers of all four of the above, were not citizens of the United States at the time of the births of their sons, Barack Obama Sr. was a British subject, and never applied for U.S. citizenship. Ted Cruz was born in Canada, and his father was still a Cuban citizen at the time of his birth, Marco Rubio’s father never applied for U.S. citizenship until 1997, and George Romney was born in Mexico, to parents who had relinquished their U.S. citizenship, and therefore George Romney was a Mexican citizen by birth and was never naturalized, which means that Mitt Romney is a Mexican citizen by birth. We cannot ignore the intent of the framers of the 14th Amendment because Obama was elected, and now seek to elect another ineligible candidate to compensate. We must as Americans. elect only “natural born citizens” to be President. We cannot have a President with a dual allegiance! Obama has proven this detrimental to the welfare and propriety of the United States of America.
    Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, James F. Wilson of Iowa, confirmed this in 1866: “We must depend on the general law relating to subjects and citizens recognized by all nations for a definition, and that must lead us to the conclusion that every person born in the United States is a natural-born citizen of such States, except that of children born on our soil to temporary sojourners or representatives of foreign Governments.”*
    When a child inherits the citizenship of their father, they become a natural-born citizen of the nation their father belongs regardless of where they might be born. It should be pointed out that citizenship through descent of the father was recognized by U.S. Naturalization law whereby children became citizens themselves as soon as their father had become a naturalized citizen, or were born in another country to a citizen father.
    Yes, birth is prima facie evidence of citizenship, but only the citizenship of the nation the father is a member.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. These old rulings from a century ago have been discredited by many modern Constitutional scholars.

      Delete
    2. Name two Constitutional scholars and quote their works.

      Delete
  12. A couple of notes for the consideration of other readers here. Nothing in the 14th Amendment changed the legal definition of natural born citizen, whatever anyone thinks it is. Rubio and Jindal were considered American citizens (not NBC) at birth only by the same misinterpretation of the 14th Amendment, which grants citizenship to anchor babies. Otherwise, they would not have become citizens until their parents did, a few years after their birth.

    Ted Cruz, while technically eligible, was not exactly born an American citizen. He was born a Canadian citizen to legal immigrants of Canada, and spent his first four years of life as exclusively a Canadian citizen living there. He still is (they have recently said so) and he could get a Canadian passport tomorrow if he applied, just by showing his birth certificate. (At least Obama arranged to acquire a Hawaii birth certificate, even if it is phony - personally, I suspect that he too was actually born in Canada, at a home for 'wayward girls,' since there is no record of his mother actually marrying Obama Sr., and I doubt that he is the biological father anyway.)

    Technically, Cruz would have had to apply for his American citizenship, at some point after his parents decided to immigrate back to America. Since before he was four-years-old, there would have been no legal record in America of his existence, he would have had to produce evidence of his mother's citizenship, to even apply for a U.S. passport. If one wishes to claim that he was born an American citizen, then one must acknowledge that he was also born a Cuban citizen. Chances are that he could also get a Cuban passport, if he wanted one and tried hard enough.

    Speaking of which, It is also worthy of note that after his family immigrated back to America from Canada, his father then spent the next 30+ years living here, without bothering to become an American citizen. I rather enjoy the old gent's act on the stump for Ted; but for a man who fought with Castro in the Communist Revolution, I find that little factoid a bit disturbing. ◄Dave►

    ReplyDelete
  13. The problem is NOT were he was born, the problem is the FORGE DOCUMENTS. Get it straight.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. And Obama's documents are all a forgery to date.

      Delete
  14. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  15. "And herein lies Barack HUSSEIN Obama's problems for whether he was born in Kenya as some claim or whether he was born in Hawaii as others claim...his American citizen mother did NOT reside in the U.S. for 5 years after age 14 as she was 18 years of age when Obama was born...only 4 years after reaching the mandatory 14 years of age...and Obama was born in 1964 so he comes under the same rules of law as Ted Cruz does."

    This is simply not true. First President Obama was born in 1961. His birth came under the 1952 Immigration and Nationality Act (also known as the McCarran–Walters Act). The residence of the mother only applies if he was born in Kenya (which he was not). He was born in Hawaii and under the 14th Amendment of the Constitution and the McCarran–Walter Act he was a natural born citizen at birth. As are Senator Rubio and Governor Jindal.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. THANK YOU, William! I can't believe I had to scroll through so many comments before I found one written by someone who has a clue!!

      Delete
    2. Obama has NOT been proven to have been bor in Hawaii as many have contested that as well as the year of his birth.

      Delete
    3. The 14th Amendment only cites plain-vanilla citizens, not natural born citizens.

      To wit:
      Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

      Section 2. Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.

      Section 3. No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may, by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

      Section 4. The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.
      Section 5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

      Delete
    4. Diana - that's not what your statement that I quoted claims. You say that even if he was born in Hawaii his mother could not pass citizenship to because of her age and the law. This is false.

      The "5 years after age of 14" requirement only applies to foreign births, not to births on US soil.

      The State of Hawaii has issued three certified verifications that President Obama was born in Honolulu on August 4th, 1961. You cannot get more official than that.

      Delete
    5. Actually, William, for many years i argued that the birthers were barking up the wrong tree. Then the White House released a birth certificate that sent off alarms for me, as the name of the hospital on that birth certificate was not the name of that particular hospital in 1961. it was merged with and became known by the name on the birth certificate around 1967. OOPS!

      Delete
    6. " the name of the hospital on that birth certificate was not the name of that particular hospital in 1961"

      Then how do explain the fact that the Nordyke twins, who were born the day after President Obama in 1961 have birth certificates that have the same hospital name?

      The fact is the Kapiolani Maternity and Gynecological Hospital has had the same name since the 1930s.

      Here is a lawsuit from 1934:

      70 F.2d 793 (1934)

      KAPIOLANI MATERNITY AND GYNECOLOGICAL HOSPITAL
      v.
      WODEHOUSE et al.

      >>http://www.leagle.com/decision/193486370F2d793_1573

      Delete
  16. Original Intent...
    1 of 2

    Diane, I read about your Op-ed at BirtherReport.com today.

    >> http://www.birtherreport.com/2013/09/youve-been-had-court-ruling-proves.html

    My comment is brief, but I also include two other sources, not as 'truth proof' but for unique insights.

    John Jay added the prescient natural law word 'natural' to Alexander Hamilton's words "born a Citizen."

    Natural is a reference to 'born' because BEFORE a person can be designated a positive law 'citizen' a person MUST be a natural law 'born' person with two (2) married parents who are positive law U.S. Citizens BEFORE their natural law child is natural law 'born' on natural law U.S. soil.

    - - - - - - - - - -

    Alexander Hamilton ‘born a citizen’
    John Jay ‘natural’

    The first POTUS eligibility quote below is the June 18, 1787 Alexander Hamilton suggestion.

    “No person shall be eligible to the office of President of the United States unless he be now a Citizen of one of the States, or hereafter be born a Citizen of the United States.”

    The original intent of Alexander Hamilton is obvious, right?

    Obviously ‘born’ = ONLY born on U.S. soil
    Obviously ‘Citizen’ = ONLY citizenship from two (2) U.S. Citizen married parents
    Obviously ‘United States’ = ONLY U.S. Citizen on U.S. soil

    The second POTUS eligibility quote is the John Jay POTUS eligibility suggestion that won final approval and was adopted by the delegates at the 1787 convention.

    Charles Kerchner at Art2SuperPac

    >> http://www.art2superpac.com/issues.html

    has some comments about the Alexander Hamilton and John Jay POTUS eligibility suggestions.

    “Below is the relevant change to Hamilton’s proposed language detailed in Jay’s letter written to George Washington dated 25 July 1787:

    ‘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 Command in Chief of the American army shall not be given to nor devolve on, any but a natural born Citizen.’

    “Upon receiving Jay’s letter, General Washington passed on the recommendation to the convention where it was adopted in the final draft.

    Wikipedia.org

    >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural-born-citizen_clause

    has a succinct statement titled 'Constitutional Convention' that agrees with Charles Kerchner about the John Jay and Alexander Hamilton POTUS suggestions:

    “The Constitution does not explain the meaning of "natural born".[9]

    “On June 18, 1787, Alexander Hamilton submitted to the Convention a sketch of a plan of government.[10]

    "The sketch provided for an executive "Governour" but had no eligibility requirements.[11]

    “Article IX, section 1 of Hamilton's draft constitution provided:

    No person shall be eligible to the office of President of the United States unless he be now a Citizen of one of the States, or hereafter be born a Citizen of the United States.[13]

    “On July 25, 1787, John Jay wrote to George Washington, presiding officer of the Convention:

    "Permit me to hint, whether it would not 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 Command in chief of the American army shall not be given to, nor devolve on, any but a natural born Citizen."[15]

    “While the Committee on Detail originally proposed that the President must be merely a citizen as well as a resident for 21 years, the Committee of Eleven changed "citizen" to "natural born citizen" without recorded explanation after receiving Jay's letter.

    “The Convention accepted the change without further recorded debate.[16]”

    - - - - - - - - - -

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "The first POTUS eligibility quote below is the June 18, 1787 Alexander Hamilton suggestion."

      This is factually not true. Hamilton had two draft constitutions, one that he submitted to the Convention and one that was not submitted. Hamilton's June 18, 1787 draft constitution did not have the "born a citizen" phrase. In fact, Hamilton wanted the executive to be a "Governour" who would serve a life term.

      "IV. The supreme Executive authority of the United States to be vested in a Governour to be elected to serve during good behavior" June 18th, 1787 from Madison's Notes on the Debates in the Federal Convention.

      The Wikipedia article on Natural born citizen has been updated to reflect the fact that Hamilton had a second plan.

      "At the close of the Convention, Hamilton conveyed a paper to James Madison he said delineated the Constitution that he wished had been proposed by the Convention; he had stated its principles during the deliberations. Max Farrand wrote that it "...was not submitted to the Convention and has no further value than attaches to the personal opinions of Hamilton."[12] Article IX, section 1 of Hamilton's draft constitution provided:

      "No person shall be eligible to the office of President of the United States unless he be now a Citizen of one of the States, or hereafter be born a Citizen of the United States."[13]

      Delete
    2. Alexander Hamilton said...

      See the original Hamilton Plan on Memory.loc.gov.

      A Century of Lawmaking for a New Nation: U.S. Congressional Documents and Debates, 1774 - 1875

      Appendix F has The Hamilton Plan.

      >> http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llfr&fileName=003/llfr003.db&recNum=620&itemLink=r%3Fammem%2Fhlaw%3A@field%28DOCID%2B@lit%28fr0032%29%29%230030003&linkText=1

      Article IX Section 1 has the 'born a Citizen' phrase from original birther Alexander Hamilton

      >> http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llfr&fileName=003/llfr003.db&recNum=632&itemLink=r%3Fammem%2Fhlaw%3A@field%28DOCID%2B@lit%28fr0032%29%29%230030003&linkText=1

      to which original birther John Jay suggested to original birther George Washington that the natural law word 'natural' be added to the natural word 'born' in connection with the positive law words 'a Citizen' meaning soil AND birth go together like hand in glove.


      Art
      OriginalBirtherDocument13.blogspot.com

      Delete
    3. Google "Avalon Project" select "18th Century 1700-1799" then select "Notes on Debates in the Federal Convention of 1787 Reported by James Madison" then select "June 18". You can read the Hamilton plan as recorded by James Madison. There is no "born a citizen clause".

      Now go to GoogleBooks and search for "max farrand "born a citizen"", now select "The Records of the Federal Convention of 1787 - Vol3", now scroll up to page 619. Read James Madison's note on the Hamilton constitution. It begins, "Copy of a paper Communicated..."

      This plan was never submitted to the Convention. And it is the one with the "born a citizen clause".

      Hamilton, himself, said that this second constitution was given by him to Madison several days after the Convention ended.

      >>http://consource.org/document/alexander-hamilton-to-timothy-pickering-1803-9-16/

      Delete
    4. When the Library of Congress is back online, go to the urls to read the exact words of The Hamilton Plan in Appendix F.

      I read them yesterday right there in Appendix F, Article IX Section 1.

      A Century of Lawmaking for a New Nation: U.S. Congressional Documents and Debates, 1774 - 1875

      Appendix F has The Hamilton Plan.

      >> http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llfr&fileName=003/llfr003.db&recNum=620&itemLink=r%3Fammem%2Fhlaw%3A@field%28DOCID%2B@lit%28fr0032%29%29%230030003&linkText=1

      Article IX Section 1 has the 'born a Citizen' phrase from original birther Alexander Hamilton that original birther John Jay suggested to original birther George Washington should be clarified with his word 'natural', and which was finally adopted as 'natural born Citizen' by the original birther delegates to the 1787 constitutional convention.

      >> http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llfr&fileName=003/llfr003.db&recNum=632&itemLink=r%3Fammem%2Fhlaw%3A@field%28DOCID%2B@lit%28fr0032%29%29%230030003&linkText=1


      Art
      OriginalBirtherDocument13.blogspot.com

      Delete
    5. Many modern day scholars have disputed these findings. Thi piece is mY opinion alone and is as valid as any of the others.

      Delete
    6. to: ajtelles

      I've read the LOC site you link - you are ignoring the fact that Hamilton wrote two draft plans.

      1) the June 17th, 1787 plan - without the "born a citizen" requirement.

      2) the plan he gave to Madison several days after the end of the Convention - with the "born a citizen" requirement.

      Delete
    7. The point...
      1 of 2

      To Diane Sori, yes, with 100% agreement with "opinion."

      EVERYBODY'S opinion "is as valid as any of the others," and the original genesis of my opinion expressed here is the original intent of the original birthers.

      The issue is not my opinion or our opinions, but the opinion(s) of the original birthers, right?

      That's all.

      My point here is the common sense original intent of the original birthers who were the original authors of the original words of the original birther document, the U.S Constitution, specifically in this context, Article 2 Section 1 Clause 5, and the September 17, 1787 original intent meaning in Clause 5 of 'natural born Citizen' that was separated in the SAME Clause 5 in the SAME sentence with a comma and the word "or" in "...or a Citizen ... at the time ... Adoption ... Constitution."

      - - - - - - - - - -

      To William Rawle, so far, every time you attempt to correct my comments, you ignore the major point.

      The umbrella major point is the common sense original intent of original birther John Jay to protect 17787 America into perpetuity from foreign influence over the executive office and control of the military.

      The point is the fact that original birther John Jay suggested to original birther George Washington that the natural law word 'natural' should be added to original birther Alexander Hamilton's natural law word ''born' and associated with Hamilton's positive law words 'a Citizen.'

      Included in the major point is the acceptance by the original birthers at the constitutional convention with NO comment about the meaning of 'natural born Citizen' because they were obviously aware that to be 'natural born' meant ONLY being born on U.S. soil and NOT did not include foreign soil.

      Included in the major point is that the U.S. 'natural born Citizen' citizenship status of the child derived from the U.S. Citizen status of the parents who were U.S. Citizens BEFORE their child was born on U.S. soil... NOT born on foreign soil.

      The 1795 Naturalization Act 'Citizen' designation replaced the repealed 1790 Naturalization Act 'natural born citizen' designation.

      See original birther John Jays letter at the Art2SuperPac home page here -

      >> http://www.art2superpac.com/issues.html

      See the jpg here -

      >> http://www.kerchner.com/images/protectourliberty/johnjay1787lettertogeorgewashington.jpg

      Delete
    8. The point...
      2 of 2

      Hurray for 'opinions' based on the common sense original intent of the original authors, aka the original birthers, right?

      So far, since the 1795 Naturalization Act, the original intent of the original birthers has been confirmed by the SCOTUS which has NEVER opined that a 'natural born Citizen' is a child born on U.S. soil with two (2) U.S. Citizen married parents AND ALSO born on foreign soil with two (2) U.S. Citizens married parents.

      The SCOTUS has been consistent since the 1795 Naturalization Act that said that a child born on foreign soil with two (2) U.S. Citizen married parents was a 'natural born Citizen' was repealed by the 1790 Naturalization Act that states that a child born on foreign soil with two (2) U.S. Citizen married parents was ONLY a 'Citizen' and consequently NOT '...eligible to the Office of the President.'

      Finally, the SCOTUS has also never opined that a 'natural born Citizen' is a child born on foreign soil with one (1) U.S. Citizen parent married to a foreign citizen.

      The 1952 Immigration and Nationality Act does say that a child born on foreign soil with one (1) U.S. Citizen parent married to a foreign citizen definitely IS a 'Citizen' so consequently NOT '...eligible to the Office of the President' but NOT a 1787 U.S. Constitution Article 2 Section 1 Clause 5 'natural born Citizen' who IS '...eligible to the Office of the President.'


      Art
      OriginalBirtherDocument13.blogspot.com

      Delete
    9. Correction - dates switched...

      In the third paragraph from the end, '...since the 1795 Naturalization Act" should be 'since the 1790 Naturalization Act.

      Also, '...was repealed by the 1790 Naturalization Act' should be 'was repealed by the 1795 Naturalization Act.

      Art
      OriginalBirtherDocument.blogspot.com

      Delete
    10. To: ajtelles,

      Part 1 of 2

      All the natural law/positive law stuff is nice but meaningless. The Founders/Framers did not have to add the word "natural" to the word "born", they already had a term that they were very familiar with "natural born subject".

      We know they used both terms interchangeably after July 4th, 1776. The best example is in Massachusetts where between 1785 and 1791 they passed acts of naturalization that used both terms:

      February, 1785, “AN ACT FOR NATURALIZING NICHOLAS ROUSSELET AND GEORGE SMITH.” in which it was declared that Nicholas Rousselet and George Smith “shall be deemed, adjudged, and taken to be citizens of this Commonwealth, and entitled to all the liberties, rights and privileges of natural born citizens.”

      February, 1786, "AN ACT FOR NATURALIZING MICHAEL WALSH.” in which it was declared that Michael Walsh “shall be deemed, adjudged, and taken to be a citizen of this Commonwealth, and entitled to all the liberties, rights and privileges of a natural born citizen.”

      July, 1786,“AN ACT FOR NATURALIZING JONATHAN CURSON AND WILLIAM OLIVER” in which it was declared that Jonathan Curson and William Oliver “shall be deemed adjudged and taken to be free Citizens of this Commonwealth, and entitled to all the liberties, privileges and immunities of natural born citizens."

      March, 1787, “AN ACT FOR NATURALIZING WILLIAM MARTIN AND OTHERS.” in which it was declared that William Martin and Others,”shall be deemed, adjudged and taken to be free Citizens of this Commonwealth, and entitled to all the liberties, privileges and immunities of natural born subjects.”

      May, 1787, the Massachusetts legislature passed “AN ACT FOR NATURALIZING EDWARD WYER AND OTHERS THEREIN NAMED.” in which it was declared that William Martin and Others,”shall be deemed, adjudged and taken, to be free Citizens of this Commonwealth, and entitled to all the liberties, privileges and immunities of natural born subjects.”

      October, 1787, “AN ACT FOR NATURALIZING BARTHOLOMY DE GREGOIRE, AND MARIA THERESA, HIS WIFE, AND THEIR CHILDREN.” in which it was declared that Bartholomy de Gregoire, and Maria Theresa, his wife, their children,” shall be deemed, adjudged and taken to be free Citizens of this Commonwealth, and entitled to all the liberties, rights and privileges of natural born citizens.”

      November, 1787, “AN ACT FOR NATURALIZING ALEXANDER MOORE, AND OTHERS, HEREIN NAMED.” in which it was declared that Alexander Moore and others,”shall be deemed, adjudged and taken to be free citizens of this Commonwealth, & entitled to all the privileges, liberties, and immunities of natural born subjects.”

      June, 1788, “AN ACT FOR NATURALIZING WILLIAM MENZIES, AND OTHERS, THEREIN NAMED.” in which it was declared that William Menzies and others “shall be deemed, adjudged and taken to be free citizens of this Commonwealth, and intitled to all the liberties, privileges & immunities of natural born subjects.”

      November, 1788, “AN ACT FOR NATURALIZING ELISHA BOURN, AND OTHERS, THEREIN NAMED.” in which it was declared that Elisha Bourn and others “shall be deemed, adjudged and taken to be free Citizens of this Commonwealth, & entitled to all the liberties, privileges & immunities of natural born Citizens.”

      (Continued below)

      Delete
    11. Page 2 of 2 (continued from above)

      February, 1789, “AN ACT FOR NATURALIZING JAMES HUYMAN, AND OTHERS, THEREIN NAMED.” in which it was declared that James Huyman and others “shall be deemed, adjudged and taken to be free Citizens of this Commonwealth, and entitled to all the Liberties, Privileges and Immunities of natural born subjects.”

      June, 1789,“AN ACT FOR NATURALIZING NATHANIEL SKINNER, AND OTHERS, THEREIN NAMED.” in which it was declared that Nathaniel Skinner and others "shall be deemed, adjudged and taken to be free citizens of this Commonwealth, and entitled to all the liberties, privileges and immunities of natural born subjects.”

      March, 1790, “AN ACT FOR NATURALIZING JOHN JARVIS, AND OTHERS, THEREIN NAMED” in which it was declared that John Jarvis and others, “shall be deemed adjudged and taken to be free citizens of this Commonwealth, and entitled to all the liberties, privileges and immunities of natural born subjects.”

      March, 1791, “AN ACT FOR NATURALIZING JOHN WHITE & OTHERS" in which it was declared that John White and others, “shall be deemed adjudged and taken, to be free citizens of this Commonwealth, and intitled to all the liberties, privileges, and immunities of natural born subjects.”

      The Founders/Framers knew what "natural born" meant, they didn't need to reinvent it.

      Delete
    12. Original Intent...

      William, you didn't need to post all of those naturalization quotes about the 'Commonwealth' citizens.

      That is certainly interesting state history, but the issue is federal history starting with the original intent of the original words of the original birthers on September 17, 1787.

      The issue is the original intent of the original birthers who wrote the original words of the original birther document of the republic, the 1787 U.S. Constitution, specifically Article 2 Section 1 Clause 5 and the contrast between 'natural born Citizen' and '...or a Citizen' in the SAME Clause 5 in the SAME sentence, separated by a comma and the word 'or' that was put there for a very good reason.

      The very good reason In 1787 America was that there were NO 'natural born Citizens' old enough between July 4, 1776 and September 17, 1787, ONLY 11 years 3 months, born ON U.S. soil and 35 years old with 14 years residence on the SAME U.S. soil, to qualify to be '...eligible to the Office of the President,' so the original birthers in 1789 had to choose an '...or a Citizen' who was naturalized on July 4, 1776 as a 'citizen' by adhering to the revolution and the war of independence.

      The first naturalized citizen who was the first '...or a Citizen' citizen to be elected president was General George Washington, of course, followed by 6 more 1776 naturalized citizens as '...or a Citizen' citizens as president, until president # 8, Martin van Buren, born 6 years 5 months AFTER 1776 on December 5, 1782.

      My point is that the best place to start to analyze the perpetual meaning of the 1787 Article 2 words 'natural born Citizen' is with the original intent of the original birther themselves.

      That's all this is about, THEIR original intent, not the several states, not the SCOTUS, not the amendments or the acts of the Congress.

      If we all start with the original intent of the original birthers, it will be easier to analyze and clarify the intent of the naturalization acts of Congress such as the 1790 Naturalization Act 'natural born Citizen' designation the 1795 Naturalization Act 'Citizen' designation and the amendments of the Congress such as the 14th amendment and the 1952 Immigration and Nationality Act 'Citizen' designation, and the SCOTUS opinions about what makes a citizen a 'citizen' of the U.S.

      Original intent, what a concept, right?

      Original intent, what an original genesis place to start to analyze and clarify the original words of the original birthers, right?


      Art
      OriginalBirtherDocument.blogspot.com

      Delete
    13. ajtelles:

      "That is certainly interesting state history, but the issue is federal history starting with the original intent of the original words of the original birthers on September 17, 1787."

      So you agree that in Massachusetts natural born citizen and natural born subject meant the same thing.

      So when the citizens of Massachusetts read the Constitution for the first time and saw the term "natural born Citizen", they would assume it meant the same as natural born subject. Unless someone told them differently, right. Their interpretation of the original intent of the Framers would be to continue using the same meaning for NBC as they had been using.

      Delete
  17. Original Intent...
    2 of 2

    Soil and birth go together like hand in glove.

    Original birther John Jay was prescient in suggesting to original birther George Washington, the presiding office of the 1787 Constitutional Convention, that the natural law word 'natural' be added to original birther Alexander Hamilton's natural law word 'born' in association with the positive law words 'a Citizen.'

    Prescient common sense original intent from John Jay, right?

    What this means is that in 1787 John Jay was suggesting to George Washington that to prevent foreign influence in the executive office with control of the military, POTUS eligibility must ONLY be for a person born on U.S. soil in1787 and perpetually.

    Also, the obvious conclusion is that in 1787 America the birth was expected to be as the result of the union of two (2) U.S. Citizen married parents who were U.S. Citizens BEFORE their child was born on U.S. soil.

    Senator Cruz is my excellent Texas Senator, but Sen. Cruz is a 1952 Immigration and Nationality Act 'Citizen,' see Sec. 301. [8 U.S.C. 1401 (g)], which states that a person is simply a 'citizen' if they are born on foreign soil with one (1) U.S. Citizen parent and married to one foreign citizen who has NOT naturalized before the child is born.

    Yes, Sen. Cruz is a 1952 Immigration and Nationality Act 'Citizen' but he is not a 1787 U.S. Constitution Article 2 Section 1 Clause 5 'natural born Citizen' because he was not born on U.S. soil with two (2) U.S. Citizen married parents.

    Also, the 1790 Naturalization Act 'natural born Citizen' designation for children born on foreign soil with two (2) U.S. Citizen married parents was repealed and replaced with the 'Citizen' designation in the 1795 Naturalization Act for children born on foreign soil with two (2) U.S. Citizen married parents.

    Since the 1795 Naturalization Act, there has NEVER been a naturalization act, an amendment or a SCOTUS opinion that has said that a 'natural born Citizen' is a person born on foreign soil with two (2) U.S. Citizen married parents or only one (1) U.S. Citizen parent.


    Art
    OriginalBirtherDocument.blogspot.com

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "What this means is that in 1787 John Jay was suggesting to George Washington that to prevent foreign influence in the executive office with control of the military, POTUS eligibility must ONLY be for a person born on U.S. soil in1787 and perpetually.."

      Then why didn't the Convention follows Jay's advice? The original grandfather clause allowed "naturalized" citizens to be President.

      For example, if King George's son had come to America after the Revolution but before the Constitution was ratified and become a citizen of any of the states, he would have been eligible to be elected President.

      Delete
  18. The author of this article has a rampant imagination. She's pulling stuff out of her anus, the 14th Amendment, and has both hands behind her back with her fingers crossed. Author: you need help. You cannot even understand the difference between being born in Canada and being born in the United States of America. You are blurring the lines between simple logic and your agenda to get another usurper elected to the presidency.

    Neither the 14th Amendment nor Wong Kim Ark make Barry Soetoro (alias Barry Soebarkah, alias Harrison J. Bounel, alias Barack HUSSEIN Obama) a Natural Born Citizen. Instead, he is a British subject and not even a US citizen. Obama is flat out an illegal alien.

    This author is also blurring the lines between and mixing and matching a plain-vanilla citizen and a natural born citizen. A congressman (House Representative or a Senator) only needs to be a plain-vanilla citizen. A citizen can be created by being born on US soil to an illegal alien or one citizen parent.

    A President/Vice President must be a natural born citizen. A natural born citizen must be born on US soil to parents who are both citizens at the time of the birth.

    The different requirements (citizen vs. natural born citizen) are called out in the US Constitution.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Diane Sori is an Obama mole.
    Obama has circumvented the US Constitution and she is cunningly dismissing him as ineligible because she knows that he will remain unchallenged by the brain-dead Obama voters, the main-stream media, and the treasonous rats in congress and the unSupreme Court. So, she wants to add to the mix of usurpers by justifying her own agenda.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Diane Sori an Obama Mole? Diane has been a contributing editor for SJ Husak At large for quite some time. From time to time we have had to ask her to soften her approach regarding President Obama, as she is so staunchly against his policies. Of all the ill informed statements ever dusel1, yours goes to the head of the class. ~ SJ Husak At Large - CONSERVATIVE SPOKEN HERE - Please like our page at https://www.facebook.com/s.j.hUSAk

      Delete
    2. Dittos to SJ Husak...

      Diane, do NOT take dusel1 seriously.

      The scatological references and shallow rhetoric indicates obvious lack of intellectual substance.

      The fact that dusel1 stated what I understand is the original intent of the original birthers, i.e., that a 'natural born Citizen' is a natural law reference to being born on U.S. soil and NOT foreign soil with a positive law reference to deriving U.S. Citizen status from BOTH married parents, does NOT mean that the derogatory comments are to be tolerated without comment here or on ANY common sense forum.

      PS.

      Diane, I really... really... really. REALLY... like and 100% agree with your heartfelt comments about the threat from political Islam to OUR FREE America and to our FREEDOM document, the 1787 U.S. Constitution.

      In reading your Islam posts I could also see in your comments sentiments that I have read on Robert Spencer's JihadWatch.org and on Pamela Geller's AtlasShrugs2000.typepad.com.


      Art
      OriginalBirtherDocument.blogspot.com

      Delete
  20. The Constitution provides that in Art 2 Sect 1 Cl 5 the requirement of "natural-born citizen", Art 1 Sect 8 Cl 10 provides "Law of Nations". The question to really ask is what is "Law of Nations" about? Alexander Hamilton, a lawyer, and one of the Founding Fathers spoke of "Law of Nation"

    Law of Nation, written by Emmerich de Vattel, in 1758 was definitely available to the Founding Fathers as they wrote the Constitution.

    Of specific interest in this work in Book 1, Chapter 19, Section 212 which defines Natural-born citizens:

    § 212. Citizens and natives.

    The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. As the society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights. The society is supposed to desire this, in consequence of what it owes to its own preservation; and it is presumed, as matter of course, that each citizen, on entering into society, reserves to his children the right of becoming members of it. The country of the fathers is therefore that of the children; and these become true citizens merely by their tacit consent. We shall soon see whether, on their coming to the years of discretion, they may renounce their right, and what they owe to the society in which they were born. I say, that, in order to be of the country, it is necessary that a person be born of a father who is a citizen; for, if he is born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country.



    Reference: http://www.constitution.org/vattel/vattel_01.htm


    ReplyDelete