Investigation: Obama likely not eligible Authors dissected 'natural born' qualification

Just saying is all...

Quote :

Posted: November 24, 2010
9:47 am Eastern

© 2010 WorldNetDaily


As the Supreme Court discusses arguments related to President Obama's eligibility, it may be instructive to note a recent best-seller investigated the issue in question, finding Obama may not fit the constitutional requirement that stipulates only "natural born" citizens can serve as U.S. president.

The Supreme Court conferred yesterday on whether arguments should be heard on the merits of a case entitled Kerchner v. Obama, which debates whether the writers of the Constitution believed the term "natural-born citizen" meant a person born in the United States to two parents who were both American citizens.

With nearly 900 endnotes, the book, "The Manchurian President: Barack Obama's Ties to Communists, Socialists and Other Anti-American Extremists," investigated the issue. The tome was written by WND senior reporter Aaron Klein and researcher Brenda J. Elliott.

An investigation by the authors found that according to correspondence from the original framers of the Constitution as well as multiple Supreme Court rulings and the legal writings that helped establish the principles of the Constitution, Obama is not eligible to serve as president since his father was not a U.S. citizen.

The authors concluded Obama may not be eligible regardless of his place of birth. The book recommends further legislative and judicial debate.

"It is undisputed that Obama's father was not a U.S. citizen," wrote Klein, "a fact that should have led to congressional debate about whether Obama is eligible under the United States Constitution to serve as president."

Obama was born Aug. 4, 1961, to Stanley Ann Dunham and Barack Obama Sr. Dunham was an American of predominantly English descent from Wichita, Kan., and was 18 years old at the time of Obama's birth. Obama Sr. was a member of the Luo tribe from Nyang'oma Kogelo, Nyanza Province, Kenya, which at the time was still a British colony.

Article 2, Section 1, Clause 5 of the U.S. Constitution stipulates presidential eligibility, requiring the nation's elected chief to be a "natural born citizen."

The clause 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."

The Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution specifically defines "citizen" but not "natural born citizen".

A "citizen" is defined as: "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."

However, no definition of "natural born citizen" – which is only used in the presidential requirement clause – was provided anywhere in the Constitution, and to this day the precise meaning of the term is still being debated.

There are no records of any definitive discussion on the matter during the Constitutional Convention. That – coupled with the absence of definitive Supreme Court rulings and a wide array of opinions throughout the centuries – has only further confused the question of what "natural born" actually means.

Still, the authors found that according to the framers of the Constitution as well as Supreme Court rulings, Obama does not fit the eligibility requirements.

'Natural born' defined

The first U.S. Congress passed a law that began to define "natural born." The Naturalization Act of 1790 rejected the condition of being born on U.S. soil and referred only to parentage: "The children of citizens of the United States, that may be born beyond sea, or out of the limits of the United States," the Act 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."

Five years later, however, Congress repealed the act.

"Still, it was clear that the intention of the Constitution's 'natural born citizen' qualification was to ensure the country would not be led by an individual with dual loyalties," wrote Klein in "The Manchurian President."

On July 25, 1787, John Jay, one of the three authors of the Federalist Papers, wrote to George Washington, who was at the time presiding over the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia.

Jay discussed the dual-loyalty concern, writing: "Permit me to hint, whether it would be wise and reasonable to provide a strong check to the admission of Foreigners into the administration of our national Government; and to declare expressly that the Commander in Chief of the American army shall not be given to nor devolve on, any but a natural born Citizen."

Jay, however, also did not define "natural born."

Representative John Bingham of Ohio, a principal framer of the Fourteenth Amendment, offered some definition for presidential qualifications in a discussion in the House on March 9, 1866: "[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."

"So according to Bingham, as well, Obama would not be eligible to serve as president," wrote Klein.

To try to understand what the Founding Fathers meant by "natural born," the authors wrote in "The Manchurian President" that some have turned to prominent legal tomes of the day.

The Law of Nations, a 1758 work by Swiss legal philosopher Emmerich de Vattel, was read by many of the American Founders and informed their understanding of the principles of law, which became established in the Constitution of 1787.

De Vattel writes in Book 1, Chapter 19, of his treatise, "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. … 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."

"So by de Vattel's standards, Obama arguably would not be eligible to serve as president," wrote Klein.

Supreme Court casts doubt

Numerous Supreme Court decisions have yielded conflicting views of citizenship and what it means to be a "natural born citizen." In Dred Scott v. Sandford, in 1857, for example, the court ruled that citizenship is acquired by place of birth, not through blood or lineage.

But much of that decision – which had notoriously excluded slaves, and their descendants, from possessing constitutional rights – was overturned in 1868.

Another case, Minor v. Happersett, in 1874, mentions the "natural born" issue.

"At common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the constitution were familiar," the decision states, "it was never doubted that all children born in a country, of parents [plural] who were its citizens [plural], became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further, and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction, without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case, it is not necessary to solve these doubts. It is sufficient, for everything we have now to consider, that all children, born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction, are themselves citizens."

Writes Klein: "According to this definition, and scores of other Supreme Court rulings, Obama may not be eligible to serve as president."

The authors conclude that a "reading of readily available legal resources regarding the definition of 'natural born citizen' clearly indicates a series of legitimate questions about Barack Obama's eligibility for the presidency, given that Obama's father was not an American citizen."

"The resources warrant further debate," wrote Klein.

"The Manchurian President" points out despite these glaring eligibility issues, the legislative and judicial bodies of the U.S. government have held no formal discussions, nor did they conduct a single formal investigation into whether Obama is eligible to serve under the Fourteenth Amendment.

Congress did, however, question the "natural born" qualifications of Obama's 2008 presidential opponent, Republican Sen. John McCain.

The scion of distinguished U.S. naval officers, McCain was born to two American parents in the Panama Canal Zone. On April 30, 2008, the U.S. Senate sought to answer the question by passing a nonbinding resolution, which states, "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."

Obama called 'Manchurian President'

Meanwhile, "The Manchurian President" bills itself as the most exhaustive investigation ever performed into Obama and his radical background and ties.

Among the many finds of "The Manchurian President":

* A coalition of extremists, including a founder of William Ayers' Weather Underground domestic-terrorist organization, helped craft Obama's "stimulus" bill;

* Obama's health-care policy, masked by moderate populist rhetoric, was pushed along and partially crafted by extremists, some of whom reveal in their own words that their principal aim is to achieve corporate socialist goals and a vast increase in government powers;

* Extremists are among Obama's "czars" and other top advisers. New information links top advisers Axelrod and Valerie Jarrett to communist activists. The book uncovers correspondence in which a communist confesses to mentoring and educating Axelrod and helping the top Obama aide to secure his first job. Obama then later worked with the same communist, the book finds;

* Copious research reveals more about Obama's deep ties to Ayers, uncovering for the first time where and how Obama first met Ayers – and it is much earlier than previously believed;

* Important aspects of Obama's carefully covered-up college years, with new details of his student career at Occidental College and later at Columbia University, are revealed;

* Obama's early years, including his previously overlooked early childhood ties to a radical, far-left church, are documented;

* Obama's associations with the Nation of Islam, Black Liberation Theology and black political extremists are also revealed, with extensive new information on the subjects;

* Obama's deep ties to ACORN, which are much more extensive than previously documented elsewhere, are covered. The book also crucially describes how a socialist-led, ACORN-affiliated union helped facilitate Obama's political career and now exerts major influence in the White House.

This is very obviously true, and what I've said from the beginning. Vattel is the one who coined the phrase "Natural Born" and it's meaning was very clear. The founders got the term from his work and used it in the Constitution. Naysayers ask; "Why didn't they define what Natural Born is?" They didn't imagine a need to define a term that was already defined, and has only ever had one definition.

Even setting aside the fact that it is known the term came from Vattel and that the founders used it from his book, where it is very clearly defined, and that everybody with an legal training at that time knew what the term meant... (good god this is a big run on sentence lol) the intention of "Natural Born" is clear from the other qualifications the founders set.

You are not Natural Born if you become a citizen after being a citizen elsewhere (Naturalized citizen). You're not Natural Born if born outside the US its territories or waters, even if to two US citizens (Citizen from birth, not Natural Born). You are not Natural Born if born in the US to parents who aren't under the jurisdiction of the US (in other words these 'anchor babies' are NOT legal citizens let alone NB). These are all clearly defined in the Constitution. What do they have in common? If the child has any attachment to a foreign power, the child isn't NB even if it is a citizen from birth. Yet we're supposed to believe that that exclusion of foreign influence doesn't apply to dual citizen children? Yeah right.

As far as McCain goes, despite the fact congress gave him a pass, he isn't eligible for the White House either. Despite the fact he was born to two US citizens, it wasn't on US soil, territories, or waters.

Quote :

You are not Natural Born if you become a citizen after being a citizen elsewhere (Naturalized citizen). You're not Natural Born if born outside the US its territories or waters, even if to two US citizens

Unless both parents are US citizens and in the military there is an exception to this. So the State Department has explained to us when my son was born.

Quote :

As far as McCain goes, despite the fact congress gave him a pass, he isn't eligible for the White House either. Despite the fact he was born to two US citizens, it wasn't on US soil, territories, or waters.

Actually McCains father was in the military on duty so he is eligible. We will argue this until the day I die. I am sure the founding fathers knew this would happen and McCain or anyone else should not be penalized for there parents serving this country.

Pissedoffvulcan wrote:

Unless both parents are US citizens and in the military there is an exception to this. So the State Department has explained to us when my son was born.

No, there is not a Constitutional exception for children of military personnel born overseas. Notice I said "Constitutional" exception. The Constitution makes no exception for these individuals, yet it does set the requirements that excludes them from the White House. There have been claims that these children are exceptions made by Congress. The first was in 1790, and the latest (as far as I know) was the one Congress made for McCain. However, Congress has exceeded its power in these declarations. The only legal way Congress can make an exception for these individuals is to ratify an Amendment to the Constitution, which has not been done. Therefore, despite the fact I agree your son should be eligible, he is not.

I would also point out that other veterans I've talked to were told exactly the opposite that you were told about their children. There were told their children would never be eligible for the White House because they were born out of country.

As far as what the founders intended... If they had considered this situation IMHO they would have made an exception for these children. However, I doubt they ever considered it. In those days wives didn't normally go off to war, or to military outposts with their husbands. Back then most people wouldn't consider bringing women into situations where they'd be in potential danger. And remember at the time of the ratification of the Constitution, there were no military bases outside the US. So even though wives did sometimes go to the secure bases with their husbands, none of them were outside the US. It may have been an oversite on the part of the founders not to consider this situation, or to make an exception for it. But that doesn't change the fact they did not. So once again the only way to do so now, is to legally ratify an Amendment to the Constitution.

I am going to have to agree with eber322 with this one. Congress realizes it can get away with doing what they are doing. But really need to legally fix it.

The book im reading know called Plain, Honest Men, The Making of The American Constitution really shows how much of a miracle that they were thorough as they were in one summer. And the fact it even got completed with so many differing opinions and ideas of how a government should run. So its understandable over the generations small details like this were missed. But it doesnt mean are government can over look the constitution because of it. And our founders did leave future issues open to be fixed for future generations. Highly recommend this extremely detailed read on how they eventually came together with the founders own words.

eber322 wrote:

Pissedoffvulcan wrote:

Unless both parents are US citizens and in the military there is an exception to this. So the State Department has explained to us when my son was born.

No, there is not a Constitutional exception for children of military personnel born overseas. Notice I said "Constitutional" exception. The Constitution makes no exception for these individuals, yet it does set the requirements that excludes them from the White House. There have been claims that these children are exceptions made by Congress. The first was in 1790, and the latest (as far as I know) was the one Congress made for McCain. However, Congress has exceeded its power in these declarations. The only legal way Congress can make an exception for these individuals is to ratify an Amendment to the Constitution, which has not been done. Therefore, despite the fact I agree your son should be eligible, he is not.

I would also point out that other veterans I've talked to were told exactly the opposite that you were told about their children. There were told their children would never be eligible for the White House because they were born out of country.

As far as what the founders intended... If they had considered this situation IMHO they would have made an exception for these children. However, I doubt they ever considered it. In those days wives didn't normally go off to war, or to military outposts with their husbands. Back then most people wouldn't consider bringing women into situations where they'd be in potential danger. And remember at the time of the ratification of the Constitution, there were no military bases outside the US. So even though wives did sometimes go to the secure bases with their husbands, none of them were outside the US. It may have been an oversite on the part of the founders not to consider this situation, or to make an exception for it. But that doesn't change the fact they did not. So once again the only way to do so now, is to legally ratify an Amendment to the Constitution.

Regardless we are penalizing those of us who serve in the military this great country of ours. According to you we are penalizing great Americans who served there country faithfully and their children I am sorry the founding fathers did not mean that. Now if my son decides to become a Canadian citizen then he forfeits that right.

Pissedoffvulcan wrote:

Regardless we are penalizing those of us who serve in the military this great country of ours. According to you we are penalizing great Americans who served there country faithfully and their children I am sorry the founding fathers did not mean that. Now if my son decides to become a Canadian citizen then he forfeits that right.

And I agree with you that there should be an exception for the foreign born children of US military personnel who are both US citizens. But it quite simply isn't up to you or me to disregard the Constitution because we don't agree with part of it. If we do that, we're no better that the people who defend Obamas right to the White House when the Constitution makes it clear he has none. The exception needs to go through the process and become an Amendment. Until that happens McCain, your son, and all the others like them, simply have no standing as Natural Born.

I could play devils advocate here for why those children shouldn't be an exception:
You were ordered to serve outside the US, was your wife? If she wasn't in the military as well, then she choose to be there and give birth there. That's no different than other US civilian citizens who choose to go abroad and give birth knowing their kids won't be Natural Born. If there's no exception for their kids, then why would there be for your civilian wife who is also abroad by choice? And if a female in the military becomes pregnant, I'm sure they can easily get discharged or at least leave to return to the states to give birth.

But it quite simply isn't up to you or me to disregard the Constitution because we don't agree with part of it. If we do that, we're no better that the people who defend Obamas right to the White House when the Constitution makes it clear he has none.


BINGO! Its all theses little exceptions in ignoring the constitution over the course of our countrys life time that have brought us to the problems we have in government now.

And as a side note im in that boat also. My father was in the army stationed in Germany so I ended up being born on a military base their.

Doing research I also found out that you must be in the US at least 14 years to be president.

Pissedoffvulcan wrote:

Doing research I also found out that you must be in the US at least 14 years to be president.

And 35 or older.

However it is not clear on the military and the kids being born overseas.

Pissedoffvulcan wrote:

However it is not clear on the military and the kids being born overseas.

It's very clear that it isn't addressed or even hinted at. Therefore you have to go strictly by what it does say, which makes them not Natural Born and therefore not eligible.

Depends on what expert you talk to. Because it does not clearly state what a natural born citizen is. It does not say you have to be born on US soil.

Pissedoffvulcan wrote:

Because it does not clearly state what a natural born citizen is. It does not say you have to be born on US soil.

That's because the term wasn't new. That word was a known term to the founders and lawyers in general, there was no need to define it in the Constitution. The term as used by Vattel, who coined it, means "those born in the country, of parents who are citizens."

The fourteenth Amendment makes it clear that children born abroad to US citizens are citizens from birth, so we know those kids are citizens. But it sets no requirements for Natural Born citizenship.

So, since the Constitution gives no other definition for the term, we need to use the meaning that was known at that time.