Understanding presidential eligibility requires accurate facts. To begin with, contrary to incorrect but widely held popular opinion, a "natural born citizen" is not the same as a citizen. Our Constitution does in fact logically define a natural born citizen, being both self evident and easily deduced, as one born in the U.S. to U.S. citizen parents (plural). Even if Barack Obama was born in Hawaii, his foreign father precludes Obama's eligibility for failing to be a natural born citizen, as uniquely required of both the President and Vice President, by our Constitution!
During the Constitutional Convention held at Independence Hall in Philadelphia, where the Declaration of Independence had been signed only a few years earlier in 1776, Alexander Hamilton suggested who shall be eligible to serve as President and Commander in Chief.
"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."
-- Alexander Hamilton, Founding Father, June 18, 1787.
However to better safeguard the office of the President and Commander in Chief from foreign influences arising from duel allegiances fraught with the potential danger of divided loyalties, not just from foreign birth but also by conflicts caused by having a foreign parent, it was further proposed by John Jay in a letter to George Washington, presiding over the Constitutional Convention, that one must be a "natural born citizen" in order to serve as President and Commander in Chief.
"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." -- John Jay, Founding Father and first Supreme Court Chief Justice writing to George Washington, at the Constitutional Convention, July 25, 1787.
The delegates agreed the higher expectation for undivided loyalty gained by this added safeguard against foreign influence, derived by requiring the President and Commander in Chief to be "natural born citizen" rather than a citizen, was indeed "wise and seasonable" as proposed by Jay. The founders justifiably and wisely required this extra eligibility measure to hopefully insure as best they could, the greatest possible loyalty to America, by excluding those with close familial foreign loyalties or competing allegiances concomitant with dual citizenship.
This eligibility requirement had the added appeal of comporting with the tenets of natural law, favoring independence by enabling not just a few related royals, but the vast majority of persons to be eligible to serve as President, as codified by the prominent 18th century theorist, Emer de Vattel. His famous masterpiece of political philosophy 'The Law of Nations or the Principles of Natural Law' was instrumental to the Founding Fathers in both the original French and translations.
"I am much obliged by the kind present you have made us of your edition of Vattel. It came to us in good season, when the circumstances of a rising state make it necessary frequently to consult the Law of Nations. Accordingly, that copy which I kept, has been continually in the hands of the members of our congress, now sitting." -- Benjamin Franklin, letter to Charles W.F. Dumas, a Swiss publisher who sent three copies of Vattel's 'Law of Nations' to Dr. Franklin as a gift, December 1775.
George Washington retained a copy of Vattel with such vigor, that he uncharacteristically incurred a hefty library late fee. His Mount Vernon estate recently discovered that one of his copies of Vattel had not been returned to the library from which George had
borrowed it while setting up office in adjacent quarters.
Adhering to the principles of Natural Law is so important that the Founders enshrined the 'Law of Nations' capitalized as a proper noun, within the Constitution - Article 1, Section 8, Powers Granted to Congress, item 10:
"To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offenses against the Law of Nations... ."
Vattel's 'Law of Nations' defined the exact meaning of a "natural born citizen" in the clearest possible terms:
"... 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." -- Emer de Vattel,'The Law of Nations' (1758) § 212 - 215.
The Founders uniquely required a "natural born citizen" only for eligibility to serve as President and Commander in Chief.
U.S. Constitution - Article 2, Section 1, Clause 5:
"No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States."
The Article 2, Section 1, exemption from being a natural born citizen,
"or a
Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution"
is made redundant and moot, by equating a "natural born citizen" and a citizen.
To do so, particularly by elected officials, is a grave threat to our national security, that essentially amounts to an illegal de facto amendment by an apathetic congress in collusion with complicit states that fail to object.
The intentional inclusion of the exemption confirms beyond any reasonable doubt, that the two terms are not equal and do not mean the same thing, as many were unfortunately misled to believe.
Obama is inescapably ineligible for failing to qualify as a natural born citizen. However the media has conveniently if not purposefully diverted public attention away from this irrefutable fact by promoting speculation about his alleged Hawaiian birth certificate. This contentious issue is one Obama continues to control due to Hawaiian privacy laws, which he suspiciously refuses to waive despite releasing what he purports to be his long form birth certificate. Changing the debate to his citizenship while employing Alinsky tactics of ridicule, has helped contain the damage. However being a U.S. citizen is insufficient to serve as President. The public must be made aware that the Constitution requires one to be a “natural born citizen” which encompasses citizenship involving birth in the U.S. expanded to require the circumstance of being born of TWO U.S. citizen "parents" (plural).
To further demonstrate that a "natural born citizen" and a "citizen" are not equal and do not mean the same thing, try this simple substitution exercise for yourself. Replace "natural born citizen" with "citizen" as demonstrated with the original Article 2, Section 1, text and the modified text and see what happens. For extra impact try reading each one aloud.
Original text:
“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 ..." (underline emphasis added)
Modified text: "No person except a
Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible ... "
Obviously the modified sentence does not make sense!
The substitution creates contradictory redundant nonsense because "citizen" without a qualifier such as
"at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution," represents a larger set of citizens encompassing all U.S. citizens, including the smaller subset of those who were
"a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution," thereby rendering the modified sentence meaningless.
Clearly "natural born citizen" and "citizen" are not interchangeable in Article 2, Section 1, of the Constitution. If they are not interchangeable, then they cannot be equal. If they are not equal, then a natural born citizen has to be either less than or greater than a citizen. Being a citizen is obviously a component of being a natural born citizen, so a natural born citizen cannot be less than a citizen. The one remaining possibility is that a natural born citizen must be greater than a citizen. The minimal requirement for citizenship at the time was one born in the United States to a U.S. citizen parent with citizenship following that of the father. Thus a natural born citizen must be one born in the U.S. to TWO U.S. citizen parents (plural)
Therefore the definitive irrefutable meaning of a "natural born citizen"
as logically deduced directly from Article 2, Section 1, of the U.S. Constitution,
is one born in the United States to United States citizen parents!
The Founding Fathers saw no need to further expound on the meaning a "natural born citizen" as it was both a familiar term and easily deduced. Nor for that matter did the Founders define any term with the possible exception of describing specific acts as treason. Any assertion or implication that the meaning of a "natural born citizen" is not knowable because it is not defined in the Constitution, is a dangerous disservice to the truth, perhaps owing to thoughtless uninformed ignorance or subversive intent, but not both. The words: defined, definition or even meaning, do not appear in the Constitution, as definitions are the common purview reserved for dictionaries. Indeed, the self evident meaning of a natural born citizen as deduced from the Constitution and specified in Vattel's 'Law of Nations' known to be much relied upon by the Founding Fathers, was later confirmed by both Congress and the U.S. Supreme Court.
Only a few years after the September 17, 1787 ratification of the Constitution, Congress passed two very enlightening naturalization bills, the first being replaced by the second. Each bill confirmed one of the two prerequisites for a natural born citizen. While that was not the primary purpose of either bill, the conclusions remain valid, particularly in comparison.
The first bill confirms one must be born to U.S. citizen parents (plural) by using the phrase "children of citizens" in reference to natural born citizens.
United States Congress, First Congress; March 26, 1790, Sess II, Chap. 3, Sec I, 104, passed “An act to establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization.” Wherein it states:
"... And the children of citizens of the United States that may be born beyond Sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born Citizens: Provided, that the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in the United States: ... ." 1
Soon afterwards in 1795, Congress repealed and replaced the 1790 Naturalization Act to correct errors and ambiguities. Among the many changes made, this aforementioned text, "shall be considered as natural born citizens" was corrected to read, "shall be considered as citizens" in reference to those "born beyond Sea, or out of the limits of the United States," specifically in regard to natural born citizens.
United States Congress, Third Congress; January 29, 1795, Sess. II, Chap. 19, 20; 1 stat 414, “An act to establish an uniform rule of Naturalization; and to repeal the act heretofore passed on that subject.” Wherein it states:
"... and the children of citizens of the United States, born out of the limits and jurisdiction of the United States, shall be considered as citizens of the United States: Provided, That the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons, whose fathers have never been resident of the United States ... ." 2
With the first Naturalization Act repealed, meaning forever removed as law, it's corrected 1795 replacement no longer considers children of U.S. citizens, "born
out of the limits and jurisdiction of the United States," to be natural born citizens. The corrected bill clearly confirms a natural born citizen must also be born in the United States or U.S. jurisdiction.
Neither bill attempted to comprehensively define or confirm both prerequisites for being a natural born citizen. Despite only the 1795 version remaining as law, each bill confirmed a different one of the two prerequisites of a natural born citizen i.e., one born in the U.S. to TWO U.S. citizen parents (plural).
The 14th Amendment to the Constitution was passed by Congress on June 13, 1866. It was ratified July 9, 1868. Section 1, of the 14th amendment begins,
"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." Being "subject to U.S. jurisdiction" meant that citizenship for those born in the U.S., no longer required at least one citizen parent as it had for nearly a century, but neither was it acquired just by birth on U.S. soil alone, as it is today.
Citizenship being granted by birth on U.S. soil alone, occurred as a consequence of the 1965 Immigration Act, considered by many to be an unconstitutional misinterpretation of the 14th Amendment and contrary to the 14th amendment's original intent of providing emancipated slaves who, without a U.S. citizen parent, even if born on U.S. soil, still had no other means of acquiring citizenship. The unique circumstances that necessitated the 14th amendment, confirm the minimal requirements for citizenship prior to the adoption of the 14th amendment. It does not however alter or amend Article 2, Section 1, of the Constitution.
Representative John Bingham, framer of the 14th Amendment, speaking before The U.S. House of Representatives on March 9, 1866, clearly agreed.
“I find no fault with the introductory clause [S 61 Bill], which is simply declaratory of what is written in the Constitution, that every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen.” (Cong. Globe, 39th, 1st Sess., 1291, March 9, 1866)
One might reasonably wonder, if the meaning of a natural born citizen is so clear, why haven't the courts weighed in yet? Naturally many lawsuits have been filed challenging Obama's eligibility. However with the exception the 2012 state ballot challenges in GA and NJ where both egregious rulings suspiciously devolve on venal judicial malfeasance and are being appealed, most cases were not allowed to be heard on the merits but were instead dismissed for lack of standing.
One extraordinary early exception was the travesty of
Dr. Terry Lakin's court martial, where the Judge blatantly forbid him from submitting any evidence or calling any witnesses. Dr. Lakin is also appealing his case.
Ankeny v. Governor, 916 N.E.2d 678 (Ind. Ct. App. 2009). In this case, the appellants Steve Ankeny and Bill Kruse, conducted their case Pro Se and subsequently lost. Perhaps having a competent attorney would have easily precluded this case from becoming a blight on the legal landscape that would later contaminate efforts by others. Suffice it to say, surely Mr. Ankeny and Mr. Kruse could have benefited greatly by having legal counsel and better arguments.
Those of Mario Apuzzo, Esq., come immediately to mind and which he has fortuitously further expounded upon in his analysis of the recent case of Farrar v. Obama, wherein a Georgia administrative law judge inappropriately relied on Ankeny v. Governor in making a recent ruling.
All That Is Wrong with Georgia State Judge Michael M. Malihi’s Decision that Putative President Obama Is a “Natural Born Citizen” (February 3, 2012).
Farrar v. Obama, GA, January 26, 2012, issued a very
controversial ruling that instead of properly citing a U.S. Supreme Court case directly, the GA court inappropriately relied on the Indiana case of Ankeny v. Governor which, among many errors Mr. Apuzzo expertly elaborates in his previously mentioned essay, entirely misinterpreted the U.S. Supreme Court rulings. The bizarre GA ruling essentially placed Obama above the rule of law by ignoring both his illegal failure to obey the courts' subpoena to appear and the considerable evidence presented. An appeal is pending.
Purpura-Moran v. Obama, NJ, April 10, 2012. "Obama Ballot Access Objection" before Administrative Law Judge Jeff S. Masin. A controversial ruling was handed down by Judge Masin in favor of Obama. The judge admitted that Obama hasn’t provided proof of birthplace, then he contradicted his own finding by ruling Obama was born in Hawaii. In a failed attempt to justify this judicial malfeasance, the judge relied on the defense's argument essentially advocating vote fraud and consistent with Obama's self admitted disdain and demonstrated pattern of contempt for our Constitution, that no state, including New Jersey has a law requiring a candidate for president to prove one's eligibility in order to be included on the state ballot.
This unconscionably illegally ignores the fact that the U.S. Constitution, being the supreme law of the land, is always applicable and obviously would supersede any state law to the contrary thereby negating any need for any state to implement such a law, in that Article 2, Section 1, Clause 5, requires the President and Commander in Chief to be a natural born citizen!
Update by plaintiff's attorney Mario Apuzzo, Esq., April 10, 2012
Generally the courts refused to allow the ineligibility issue be heard on merit by citing lack of standing or otherwise avoiding the issue by improperly ignoring both the letter and the spirit of the U.S. Constitution. The eligibility challenge should have been expeditiously taken up by the U.S. Supreme Court and subject to existing Supreme Court precedent confirming the inescapable fact that a "natural born citizen" is one born in the country of citizen parents (plural), as is both self-evident and logically deduced from our Constitution. Of particular note, the U.S. Supreme Court in Minor v. Happersett, 1874, clearly defined a natural born citizen as those born in the country to citizen parents!
Minor v. Happersett, 1874. “The Court held that Minor was a member of the “class” of persons who were natural born citizens. They defined this class as those born in the US to “parents” (plural) who were citizens.” This is “binding precedent as to the Constitutional definition of a natural born citizen.” -- Leo Donofrio, JD., Esq.
3
In fact this authoritative holding is so conclusive that perhaps it's no mere coincidence that nearly all references to Minor v. Happersett were discovered to have been surreptitiously scrubbed from the popular Justia.com legal reference service during Obama's 2008 campaign.
U.S. v Wong Kim Ark, 1898. This case is relative to the definition of a natural born citizen by virtue of being consistent with the holding in Minor v. Happersett. The court purposefully, precisely and accurately held that Wong Kim Ark was a citizen, as opposed to a natural born citizen. "Since Wong Kim Ark didn’t fit into the class of natural-born citizens as defined by Minor, the Court looked to the 14th Amendment to grant him US citizenship." -- Leo Donofrio, JD., Esq.
Senate Resolution 511 of April 3, 2008, recently also further confirmed the definition of a natural born citizen. Ostensibly meant to establish McCain’s eligibility as a natural born citizen, one must not overlook the curious irony that it was co-sponsored by Obama!
"... Whereas John Sidney McCain, III, was born to American citizens on an American military base in the Panama Canal Zone in 1936: Now, therefore, be it Resolved, That John Sidney McCain, III, is a `natural born Citizen' under Article II, Section 1, of the Constitution of the United States."
Senate Resolution 511 was agreed to in the Senate on April 30, 2008 without amendment and with a preamble by unanimous consent.
4 This means that every Senator in the 110th Congress (2007 - 2008) including John McCain, absolutely knew and agreed, that a natural born citizen requires one to be born within U.S. jurisdiction of TWO U.S. citizen parents! Despite his sworn oath to "support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic" taken as a military officer and then again upon becoming a Senator, John McCain dishonorably broke his oath, first by saying nothing during the campaign and then afterwards by covering up Obama's ineligibility!
Congress knows that Obama is not eligible and yet they have done nothing to depose the usurper, in direct violation of the law and their solemnly sworn Oath of Office to
support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic! There can be no greater justification than this betrayal, for the states to
repeal the heinous 17th Amendment independent of congress. This, and only this, will end the political corruption that was once effectively prevented by the foresight of our Founding Fathers.
Perhaps John McCain failed to challenge Obama for not being a natural born citizen, because he possibly also failed to meet the natural born citizen eligibility requirement. McCain was born in Panama while his father was stationed at the Canal Zone as a Naval officer. However it is suspected that he was actually born in a Panama City hospital, rather than on the Naval base which is considered American soil.
Rather than compelling McCain to produce his birth certificate which would verify birth location and parentage, they assumed birth on base and emphasized that his parents were citizens. It is highly suspicious that the author of this resolution, Senator Claire McCaskill (D) who actually tried to outlaw criticism of Obama in Missouri during the 2008 campaign, felt no similar compunction to investigate Obama.
The strategic likelihood is that the resolution, though curiously non-binding perhaps due to improperly relying on the repealed 1790 "Act to establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization" was actually a preemptive shot across the bow of McCain‘s campaign warning him not to raise Obama’s failure to qualify as a natural born citizen, as he also faced the same requirement of being a natural born citizen, meaning born in the U.S. of citizen parents as enshrined in the Constitution.
5The official Senate website appears to perhaps improperly rely upon the repealed 1790 "Act to establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization" to codify an unwarranted uncertainty currently displayed in the Senate explanation of Article 2, Section 1, Clause 5, as follows:
"This clause requires that in order to take the oath of office a president must be 35, a resident within the United States for 14 years, and a natural-born citizen. This last requirement raises the question of whether someone born to American parents outside of the United States would be eligible to hold the office."6
In this official Senate description, the eligibility requirement of being born to American parents (plural) is not disputed, however the requirement pertaining to birth location is curiously and incorrectly less definitive. For the purpose of expounding upon Obama's ineligibility regardless of birth location, it is sufficient to note that the requirement for a natural born citizen to be born of TWO U.S. citizen parents (plural), remains consistent with the Constitution.
Scene depicting the signing of the Constitution of the United States of America.
“No person, except a natural born Citizen…
shall be eligible to the Office of President…”
Obama is not the first to usurp the office of the President of the United States of America!
Chester Arthur, well ahead of eventually realizing his greatest political ambition by assuming the presidency on September 19, 1881, purposefully perpetrated an elaborate fraud to hide the fact that his emigrated Irish father had not become a naturalized U.S. citizen until August 1843, 14 years after our 21st President was born in 1829 at Fairfield, Vermont.
7 With the sole exception of Chester Arthur, every president prior to the usurper Obama who was not a citizen at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, has been a natural born citizen.
More recently, some members of Congress apparently incorrectly anticipated that modern media and communications would make a similar power grab much more difficult if not impossible. From June 11, 2003 to February 28, 2008 just before the election, numerable members of Congress unsuccessfully attempted to redefine or eliminate the Article 2, Section 1, natural born citizen clause an amazing eight traitorous times!
8
Then as if that wasn't bad enough, in formally concluding the 2008 Presidential election, Congress convened the required joint session on January 6, 2009 to count the electoral votes, and not one member dared to do their sworn duty to "support and defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic" by objecting to his election on the grounds of Obama's known ineligibility and anomalous identity documents i.e., alleged fraudulent birth certificate, social security number and selective service registration.
Members of Congress have been deluged to address these issues. Strangely, they've refused to investigate. Instead many have improperly dismissed the continuing concerns of their constituents on false pretenses.
9 Initially members of Congress excused their failure to support and defend the Constitution due to privacy concerns.
When this did not mollify the millions of citizens concerned with adherence to the Constitution by both the Executive branch and Congress, Congress quickly turned to the Congressional Research Service or CRS to codify their subversive dereliction of duty by deftly requesting rhetorical guidance on just the birth certificate issue. The expected Congressional Research Service reply came from Jack Maskell, a CRS attorney on April 3, 2009, in the now infamous
Maskell memorandum.
10
"Concerning the production or release of an original birth certificate, it should be noted that there is no federal law, regulation, rule, guideline, or requirement that a candidate for federal office produce his or her original birth certificate, or a certified copy of the record of live birth, to any official of the United States government; nor is there a requirement for federal candidates to publicly release such personal record or documentation. Furthermore, there is no specific federal agency or office that ‘vets’ candidates for federal office as to qualifications or eligibility prior to return.”
Any privacy concerns were forfeited when Obama voluntarily released his purported birth certificate to the public on April 27, 2011. Numerous experts have since concluded the birth certificate is a fake. One of the most prominent is Major General Paul Vallely, USA, Retired.
"Obama's birth certificate – I've had retired CIA agents and other investigators go over the birth certificate that was produced and by far, 10 out of 10 have said it's a forgery. So we still have that corruptness going on in the White House. There's a great number of organizations and people still trying to find out who Barack Obama is, where he was born, what his legitimacy is as president of the United States. We know for sure that the Constitution has been violated in Article 2, particularly when you look at the natural-born status." 11
Even if one assumes Obama’s dubious claim of being born in HI is true, Obama's foreign father precludes his being a “natural born citizen” and as if that's not enough, he is further ineligible by dual citizenship for being born a British citizen pursuant to the
British Nationality Act of 1948, as his father was a British citizen of the former British protectorate colony of what is now Kenya as of 1963.
12
Mistakenly equating a natural born citizen with a citizen, illegally and foolishly forfeits the constitutive protections of very wise eligibility exclusions deemed necessary by our Founding Fathers. For example, a foreigner and a naturalized citizen's child, if born on U.S. soil but raised abroad until age 21, who then resides in the U.S. for only 14 years would at age 35 be eligible for President! It's untenable and very dangerous to allow Obama to set de facto precedent, that in the future, just as was done in S.Res.511 by unethically incorrectly citing a repealed law, might tempt Congress to again illegally disobey the still intact Constitution, and allow another ineligible dual citizen to usurp the Office of the President of the United States of America.
Obama and his ilk are sabotaging the economy by unconstitutionally interfering with the private sector causing terrible unemployment, unwisely raising taxes, and incurring unprecedented insurmountable generational debt. The usurper Obama is a clear and present danger to our national security! Obama must be deposed and the damage repaired as soon as possible. Would you borrow money that your children and grandchildren would have to pay back? Would you surrender their right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, because of your complacency or fear? Of course not! So why would you allow an illegal de facto putative president and a corrupt congress to do it to them while you watch?
We the People must demand that Obama be deposed and tried for fraud if not treason! An investigation must identify and prosecute those complicit in the usurpation of the presidency. Demand Congress depose and prosecute Obama, along with his co-conspirators! Any politician or judge refusing this duty in violation of their oath of office, should also be regarded as a co-conspirator and similarly deposed or voted out of office.
We the People must not tolerate any further failure by those we elect and entrust with public office, to do their sworn duty to support and defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic. Public officials and all candidates for elected office, particularly for President of the United States, must address Obama’s ineligibility and anomalous identity documents i.e., fraudulent birth certificate, selective service registration, allegedly stolen social security number(s) and aliases or be dismissed as untrustworthy!
“You know there’s hardly a one of them had the guts to stand forward and speak truly to the issues that are raised by these anomalies and to address the constitutional issues that are involved in eligibility. And that, it seems to me, is a big strike against you because at the end of the day if you’re not willing to respect the requirements of integrity with regard to the most potently damaging office that it is in the gift of the American people to give, then I guess you’re willing to misinform and lie to them about just about anything.” -- Dr. Alan Keyes, U.S. Ambassador, Ret.
13
Wouldn’t it be great if you could void the laws and undo the huge debt Obama and a complicit Congress caused, without having to wait for the next election? Well, you can! However, pursuing impeachment won't necessarily do the job. Impeachment only applies to those legally in office. While impeachment may suffice to remove Obama from office, it may undo very little of the damage caused by Obama and it's extremely doubtful the Senate would dare cooperate given the level of corruption in the congress.
Usurpers should be arrested, not impeached. However that won't likely happen either, as Eric Holder is in Obama's pocket. Senate dereliction of duty in confirming Holder for Attorney General removed the means for "we the people" to have the usurper Obama arrested, further emphasizing the urgent need for the citizens of the several states to demand their state assemblies immediately act to repeal the 17th Amendment.
If justice was swift and sure as intended by the Founding Fathers, Obama would be deposed. Every law, executive order and appointment the usurper inflicted on us would be invalidated.
14 There would be a quick and thorough unraveling of the usurper's entire illegal administration, including the immediate resignation or removal the usurper's illegal Vice President Joe Biden, as well as Obama's two illegal dissidents on the Supreme Court. Following the rules of succession, the House Speaker would fulfill the remainder of the vacated presidential term.
Those who share Obama's socialist political proclivities may be content to assume Obama’s dubious claim of Hawaiian birth is true, by overlooking the anomalies with his identity documents proven to be fraudulent by law enforcement and numerous experts. Those who share Obama's seething contempt for our Constitutional Republic might further seditiously excuse Obama's ineligibility due to his dual citizenship by being born a British citizen pursuant to the
British Nationality Act of 1948, as his father was a British citizen of colonial Kenya.
However no one respecting the rule of law can overlook the fact that Obama's foreign father precludes his eligibility by failing to be a “natural born citizen” meaning one born in the U.S.A. to TWO citizen parents as logically deduced directly from and irrefutably required by the Constitution for the United States of America!
“If, in the opinion of the people, the distribution or modification of the constitutional powers be in any particular wrong, let it be corrected by an amendment in the way which the Constitution designates. But let there be no change by usurpation; for though this, in one instance, may be the instrument of good, it is the customary weapon by which free governments are destroyed.” --
George Washington, Farewell Address, 1796.
(Last revised: February 11, 2014)
1. University of Indiana Prof. Konstantin Dierks, Ph.D.,
First Congress; March 26, 1790, Ses II, Chap. 3, Sec I, 104, passed “An act to establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization.” (Publication date not provided).
2. ibid.,
Third Congress; January 29, 1795, Sess. II, Chap. 19, 20; 1 stat 414, “An act to establish an uniform rule of Naturalization; and to repeal the act heretofore passed on that subject.” Original Text:
PDF Version (SAA).
3. Natural born Citizen, Attorney Leo Donofrio, JD.,
Minor v. Happersett Is Binding Precedent As To The Constitutional Definition Of A Natural Born Citizen (June 24, 2011).
Update: Natural born Citizen, Attorney Leo Donofrio, JD.,
Minor v. Happersett Revisited. (January 9, 2012).
4. Library of Congress - Thomas,
Status - 110th Congress: Senate Resolution 511. Resolution agreed to in Senate without amendment and with a preamble by Unanimous Consent. (April 30, 2008).
5. ibid.,
Bill Text - 110th Congress: Senate Resolution 511 (April 10, 2008).
6. United States Senate: Reference,
Constitution of the United States with an accompanying explanation of each Article, Section, Clause and Amendment. (S.PUB.103-21, date not provided).
7. Free-books.us,
William Arthur. Father of President Chester Arthur Naturalization Certificate (Original, Library of Congress 1843).
8. Bob Unruh, WND,
What did Congress know about 'natural-born ctiizen'? "8 tries at eliminating requirement suggests organized stategy in place (July 01, 2011).
9. Bob Unruh, WND,
'Citizen' same as 'natural born citizen.' Comment suggests Founders didn't want special eligibility demand for presidents. (July 06, 2011).
10. Scribd: Maskell,
Maskell Memorandum. Congressional Internal Memo: What to Tell Your Constituents Regarding Obama Eligibility Questions. (April 3, 2009).
11. Bob Unruh, WND,
Ex-CIA: 'Forged document' released as birth certificate Gen. Paul Vallely: Congress afraid to probe 'possible felony' over fears of 'black backlash' (June 15, 2011).
12. Attorney Leo Donofrio, JD., WND Article,
Why Obama is ineligible – regardless of his birthplace (April 01, 2010).
13. Joe Kovacs, WND, Identity Anomalies With Video by Dr. Alan Keyes, U.S. Ambassador, Ret.,
Obama Social Security Number to become issue in 2012 race? 'You better probe a little harder to make sure identity you're dealing with is a real identity'. (August 11, 2011).
14. Attorney Orly Taitz, DDS., JD.,
Documents and Affidavits relative to the the Investigation and Prosecution of usurper Barack Hussein Obama II, aka: Barry Soetoro, Harrison J. Bounel, Barack Soebarkah (September 29, 2011).
Copyright © ObamaBirthCertificate.net. All Rights Reserved.
