• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

The True Definition Of Natural Born

Mike

Well-known member
True Definition of Natural Born Citizen
Townhall ^ | March 1, 2009 | Glenn Flowers



There has been much debate over what constitutes a natural born citizen. Much of the debate has been misinformed calling the concept of natural born an obscure technicality or an overight by the writers of the Constitution. Neither of these characterizations are true.

Many times the true meaning of consitutional wording must be determined by looking at the era and the circumstances, and, in some cases, terminology in other sections of the constitution, the inclusion or exclusion of supporting verbage, and even writings other than the Constitution.

Article 2, section 1 of the Constitution 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 who shall not attained to the age of thirty-five years, and been fourteen years a resident within the United Satates."

The addition of a grandfather clause in this paragraph says a lot as to the meaning of natural born. The first thing it says is that being born in the US is not enough to be natural born, otherwise the grandfather clause would not be necessary. The writers and delegates, having been born in the US, wanted to be eligible for the presidency, but most were the children of British subjects. Knowing that that eliminated them from being natural born and, thus, from eligibility, they included the grandfather clause which expired when the last person alive at the time of the ratification of the Constitution died. So, being a native born citizen is not the same as being natural born. If it were the framers would not have included the clause.

When asked to define natural born citizen, John Bingham, the author of the 14th ammendment which extended the bill of rights to former slaves, stated, "Any human born to parents who are US citizens and are under no other jurisdiction or authority." The Naturalization Act of 1790, also passed by this congress, declared "And the children of citizens of the US shall be considered as natural born, provided that the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been a resident of the US." Neither of these definitions, one from US law, mentions birthplace, only the parents' citizenship.

This concept of citizenship by blood as opposed to citizenship by geography is a concept with a long history in British common law. A law passed in 1677 says that natural born citizens are those persons born to British citizens, including those born overseas. Alexander Porter wrote an article over 100 years ago in which he declares that the framers drew upon this difference in the law of heredity and territorial allegiance to define a third class of citizen applicable only to the eligibility to hold the office of president. According to Morse, "the framers thought it wise to provide that the president should at least be the child of citizens owing allegiance only to the US at the time of birth." He goes on to say that the the eligibility of the president "was scarcely intended to bar the children of American citizens, whether born at sea or in foreign territory."

The concept of citizenship by blood also precludes the equation of natural born with native born as the latter strictly demands geographical requirements.

Many argue that Barack Obama was eligible to be a state senator and a US senator and could not suddenly be ineligible to be president, but that is exactly the case. If this premise were true, Arnold Schwarzenegger, governor of California, would also be eligible to be president, and it is established that he is not.

Barack Obama has proudly and publicly stated that his father was a citizen of Kenya. We know his mother was eigteen years old when he was born. These two facts make Obama ineligible to be president. No birth certificate is needed as proof, and it doesn't matter at all where Obama was born. His father's non-citizenship is all the law requires. He is ineligible from the beginning, meaning he is NOT the president and can be removed from office without any impeachment or trial, it requires only a ruling by the SCOTUS. HE is, in fact, a usurper, a pretender or a fake.

So why has Obama been shepharded into our highest elected office regardless of the fact that he is, according to his own statements and the law of the land, ineligible for that office? It is because those whose responsibility it is to insure the eligibility of the president, the SCOTUS, has chosen, in violation of the law, not to override the voters that voted for Obama. They are are cowards who violate their sworn oath rather than make an unpopular ruling. We are no longer a republic ruled by law, but, instead have become a democracy with rules made up as we go along, never to be written as law.

POSTSCRIPT: In each and every case dismissed by the SCOTUS challenging Obama's eligibility the reason for dismissal had nothing to do with the merits of the plaintiff's claim. Not once did the SCOTUS rule Obama was eligible or even consider whether he was or not, rather they dismissed each case on the technicality of plaitiff's lack of standing to file the case.
 

Chuck

Active member
Not once did the SCOTUS rule Obama was eligible or even consider whether he was or not, rather they dismissed each case on the technicality of plaitiff's lack of standing to file the case.
Has anybody figured out who would potentially have "standing" that would be accepted?
 

hypocritexposer

Well-known member
You are a "kook" Mike, wanting to debate and bring discussion about the Constitution and the obvious "work-around(s)" that are going on today.

If they want to change the Constitution, then have a public debate and make an amendment!

Barack Obama has proudly and publicly stated that his father was a citizen of Kenya. We know his mother was eigteen years old when he was born. These two facts make Obama ineligible to be president. No birth certificate is needed as proof, and it doesn't matter at all where Obama was born. His father's non-citizenship is all the law requires. He is ineligible from the beginning, meaning he is NOT the president and can be removed from office without any impeachment or trial, it requires only a ruling by the SCOTUS. HE is, in fact, a usurper, a pretender or a fake.
 

hypocritexposer

Well-known member
Pretty hard to debate an article like this, if you are a liberal , 2009

If you agree with the article, then Obama is an usurper.

If you disagree with it, then you are advocating a public debate in Constitutional law, on what the definition of "Natural Born", truly is.

Either way, you would be called a Kook!
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Mike said:
No debate on the article from the Libs? :roll:

Why debate it...The Pope could swear on a Bible to having watched Obama being born in Hawaii and the rightwingnuts and KKK folks wouldn't believe it...

And you can argue all you want- But the majority of the voters of the US in the election, the Secretay of States of all 50 States, the electoral college (the only ones that truly matter), the unanimous joint session of Congress, Vice President Cheney as President of the Senate, President Bush, Chief Justice Roberts, and the Chief of Staff of the United States Army George William Casey Jr---all know and recognize Barack Obama is the legitimate President of the US...

So all the wingernuts whining and bellyaching ain't going to change anything- and actually is hurting the Repubs cause...Like I heard the other day- Do Republicans think the only way they can win an election anymore is go to court :???:
 

hypocritexposer

Well-known member
And you can argue all you want- But the majority of the voters of the US in the election, the Secretay of States of all 50 States

Wrong again, alot said it was not their job! Do I need to paste the letters, they wrote washing their hands of the whole mess!
 

hypocritexposer

Well-known member
Pretty hard to debate an article like this, if you are a liberal , 2009

If you agree with the article, then Obama is an usurper.

If you disagree with it, then you are advocating a public debate in Constitutional law, on what the definition of "Natural Born", truly is.

Either way, you would be called a Kook!

[/quote]
 

Mike

Well-known member
Oldtimer said:
Mike said:
No debate on the article from the Libs? :roll:

Why debate it...The Pope could swear on a Bible to having watched Obama being born in Hawaii and the rightwingnuts and KKK folks wouldn't believe it...

And you can argue all you want- But the majority of the voters of the US in the election, the Secretay of States of all 50 States, the electoral college (the only ones that truly matter), the unanimous joint session of Congress, Vice President Cheney as President of the Senate, President Bush, Chief Justice Roberts, and the Chief of Staff of the United States Army George William Casey Jr---all know and recognize Barack Obama is the legitimate President of the US...

So all the wingernuts whining and bellyaching ain't going to change anything- and actually is hurting the Repubs cause...Like I heard the other day- Do Republicans think the only way they can win an election anymore is go to court :???:

Please debate the facts in the article on the table instead of the usual "change the subject" tactics of the Liberals....... :roll:
 

TexasBred

Well-known member
Oldtimer said:
Mike said:
No debate on the article from the Libs? :roll:

Why debate it...The Pope could swear on a Bible to having watched Obama being born in Hawaii and the rightwingnuts and KKK folks wouldn't believe it...

And you can argue all you want- But the majority of the voters of the US in the election, the Secretay of States of all 50 States, the electoral college (the only ones that truly matter), the unanimous joint session of Congress, Vice President Cheney as President of the Senate, President Bush, Chief Justice Roberts, and the Chief of Staff of the United States Army George William Casey Jr---all know and recognize Barack Obama is the legitimate President of the US...

So all the wingernuts whining and bellyaching ain't going to change anything- and actually is hurting the Repubs cause...Like I heard the other day- Do Republicans think the only way they can win an election anymore is go to court :???:

No they all agree he got the most votes. No vote was taken on his citizenship.
 

hypocritexposer

Well-known member
History Repeats Itself
History

In 1880, a vice presidential candidate was challenged to prove he was a citizen. He promptly produced his Vermont birth certificate and the real issue was avoided. If the challenger had asked the right question, which was “When was your father naturalized?” the appointee would not have become president. You see, his father was a British subject and Chester Arthur was born 14 years prior to his father’s naturalization[1]. Chester Arthur was born a British subject.[2]
Today

Barack Obama was asked if he was eligible to become president under the Article II ‘natural born’ eligibility clause. Obama masked the truth by posting a Hawaiian Certification of Live Birth (C.O.L.B.). His supporters declared him a natural born citizen under the 14th Amendment[3] and the issue was pushed back into the realm of conspiracy theories.



Upon further investigation, the mask of the C.O.L.B. started to be more and more revealing of the original 1961 certificate, made much of by Hawaii’s Governor Lingle and the state’s Department of Health official, Dr. Fukino[4], as more probably a Dept. of Health document and not a hospital long form.



If Obama was trying to promote his Hawaiian native born status, he would have willingly posted a hospital certificate as solid, best evidence. A C.O.L.B. is labeled as only prima facie evidence;[5] the validity of its information open to inspection by a proper Hawaiian court venue.[6]



If the C.O.L.B. referenced document was not a hospital birth certificate, what was it? Under Hawaiian statute, specifically §338-5,[7] it is compulsory for the Dept. of Health to register a newborn child of a Hawaiian resident, even if no documentation of place and time of birth is presented. Only the word of one parent is required by law.



If the hidden 1961 certificate is a §338-5 form, face down like a card in a poker game, the $800,000 Barack Obama ponied up to prevent its public release means Obama is not just bluffing, but covering up perjury and other violations of election law.



In the end, a §338-5 compulsory registration will be more probative of the direct testimony evidence of Obama’s Kenyan birth,[8] than of his claimed Hawaiian birth.
Why Republicans Must Take This Issue Seriously

It is one thing when President Bush authorized monies for a Toxic Asset Repurchase Plan (TARP). Those funds, if applied judiciously, could leverage by a factor of over 2:1 an MBS bundle’s value from 20 cents to over 70 cents on the dollar. The banks also needed emergency injection of liquidity in order to continue daily business.



It is another, more serious concern when a president rams through trillions in expenditures, who, when state senator of Illinois made it a practice to legislate for his cronies monies that essentially evaporated. From $100,000 for a neighborhood park, to millions wasted on substandard Section 8 housing, the money was essentially stolen. The so-called ‘Stimulus Plan’ is no different. It will evaporate, leaving only an indelible stain of debt.



The trillions Obama is adding to the federal budget is not productive. Our monetary system based on debt relies on productivity and job creation. The money supply grows and the credit system stays healthy when profits refill the banking system.



In the summer, just prior to the November, 2008 elections, N.Y. Senator Chuck Schumer released proprietary information about IndyMac’s bank insolvency. He started a run on the banks which by autumn revealed decades of bad mortgages made through Fannie Mae and the Community Reinvestment Act. The housing bubble burst. Mortgage securities plummeted in value, and the liquidity of the banking system dried up internationally. Cf. The 2000 tech bubble Greenspan and Clinton created to help Al Gore’s election bid.[9]



The Democrats blamed President Bush and took the presidency and control of congress. The Democrats had been lining their pockets with Fannie Mae bonuses and political contributions for years, and then used the fraudulent profits and economic downturn to steal the 2008 election.



Now, President Barack Hussein Obama, one of the top benefactor’s of Fannie Mae political contributions, is raiding the U.S. Treasury as never done before. That money will evaporate, creating only temporary work and political bribes called earmarks.

http://paralegalnm.wordpress.com/2009/02/27/barack-hussein-obama-a-natural-born-subject-of-great-britain/
 
Top