Obama’s Eligibility; the Final Word

“The Final Word” -and yet it is wrong.

Note: I’ve embedded my comments among those of this almost correct essay by Paul Hollrah  I once shared most or all of his views, but deeper research and consideration taught me otherwise.

Published on Monday, 17 February 2014
Written by Paul R. Hollrah

In recent days I have been drawn into yet another debate over presidential eligibility, as specified in Article II, Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution. Given that Barack Obama has occupied the Oval Office illegally for more than five years, without so much as a whimper of protest from most American voters or the mainstream media, some may feel that any further discussion of this matter may be akin to “beating a dead horse.” Nevertheless, if we insist on referring to ourselves as a constitutional republic, and if we continue to insist that we honor constitutional principles and the rule of law, then we have no choice but to understand precisely what the Founders intended when they drafted our governing document in 1787.

What generated my recent exchange on the subject of presidential eligibility was an article in the January 31, 2014 edition of pegAlert, the newsletter of the Pennsylvania Business Council. The article in question was titled, “SANTORUM PREPPING FOR ANOTHER RUN IN 2016.”

In response, I asked the question, “Who keeps propping up Santorum’s ambitions… other than Rick Santorum? Unless I’m wrong, his father was still an Italian citizen when he was born. That makes him ineligible for the presidency.” To which a representative of the Business Council replied, “That might be so, but Santorum was born in the USA so that makes him a citizen.”

To that nonsensical assertion I replied, “… If Santorum was born in the US, which I assume he was, that does make him a ‘citizen.’ But that’s not what is at issue. What is at issue is his status as a ‘natural born’ citizen, which he must be if he wants to run for president. In order for him to be a ‘natural born’ citizen, both of his parents must have been US citizens. If Santorum’s father was still an Italian citizen when he was born, then he is not a ‘natural born’ citizen…”

The final response from the Pennsylvania Business Council brought us straight to the nub of the issue. The reply read, “Under (that) definition, none of our initial 6 or 7 presidents, would have qualified.” Bingo!! Without even trying, he inadvertently proved my point.   [actually, he was wrong, as were you.]

Once again I found myself confronted face-to-face with the harebrained notion that the terms “citizen” and “natural born Citizen” are synonymous… that to be a “citizen” equates to being a “natural born” citizen. That simply is not true.

[and once again I find myself confronted with the harebrained notion that “natural born citizen” and “natural born citizen of the United States” are synonymous, when that simply is not true.]

One would think that simple intellectual curiosity would lead those who share that mistaken belief to question why the Founders found it necessary to modify the phrase, “No person except a natural born Citizen,” with the phrase, “… or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution…”

Even the most unthinking and uneducated among us must agree that the use of the word “or”requires an implicit understanding that those who would seek the presidency had to be either “natural born citizens,” or “citizens of the United States” on the day that the Constitution became the law of the land.

[the Constitution’s prohibition against serving as President, shown by its language (No person…shall be eligible…) had one exception (No person, except a natural born citizen, shall be eligible…), and that exception had an exception of its own; “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 the President;…”

All of the immigrants who had joined the revolution and fought and suffered alongside the natives of the colonies had proven their trustworthiness and valor in battle. Following the war, they had five years to become naturalized in one of the thirteen countries of America in which they had settled. If they had chosen not to by the time the Constitution was ratified, which is inconceivable, then they were presumed to be uninterested and unworthy to be President, and so later naturalization was prohibited as qualifying for eligibility. That also meant that no native-born child of an immigrant who was born after the ratification would be eligible ever again. Going forward, only those born of Americans would be born eligible.]

On the day that the Declaration of Independence was signed on July 4, 1776, every citizen of the thirteen original colonies became citizens of a new nation, the United States of America.

[That is incorrect. There was no such nation until 1789 when the U.S. federal government was established. Before then there was only “The united STATES of America.”, meaning the 13 allied and eventually confederated nations of America.

Just because it is natural to over-inflate the impressiveness of the name of the alliance by capitalizing the word “united” does not make that use legitimate, nor accurate. Just more impressive.

It had a very huge competition across the Atlantic and it used the same term, and always capitalized it: UNITED KINGDOM of Great Britain. We had to show that we were just as awesome by capitalizing “the united states” into THE UNITED STATES. That looks much more dignified and strong. Much more “official” and sovereign.

But until the federal government was created, and even after, the common usage of the two words were not as a unitary name but as an adjective modifying a noun. It could just as rightfully been “The ALLIED NATIONS of AMERICA” as a national name, and also been “the allied nations of America” as an alliance or union of sovereign nations.]

And the very first child born to newly-minted US citizens on July 4, 1776, before the ink was dry on John Hancock’s signature, became the nation’s very first “natural born” citizen.

[that is incorrect. Citizen zero was not the first natural born citizen (although I believe I’ve written an expostion stating exactly the opposite, with a title like “Citizen Zero… something or other”) The first child born on July 4th would have been the first American not born as a British subject. That is the only difference from before that date. Here’s why;

All subjects born in America were born as British subjects as a secondary aspect of their nationality. The primary aspect of their nationality was their colonial citizenship. Yes, citizenship! The colonies were not the product of royal creation but rebel creation. Nothing was done for them. They had to do it all themselves for almost a century, until the British Army showed up in large numbers to fight the French and the Indians in a protracted War in the frontier. But aside from that relatively “out-of-sight, out-of-mind” conflict, life in the colonies was one of self-sufficiency, self-reliance, and self-governance. The free men of the colonies were all citizens with citizen duties, -just like the free men in Britain who had civic citizenship duties.

All of the natives born of citizens were natural citizens, -or born natural citizens and not “made” natural citizens by “natural-ization”. In Britain they were distinguished as “subjects born, or “subjects made” (via natural-ization or common law governing children born of foreigners. They were all simply labeled as “natural-born subjects” -hyphen mandatory). So nearly all of the American colonial subjects of the King were also (first and foremost) natural born citizens of their home country (their colony or State).

Therefore, all of the founding fathers had no other view of themselves than as natural citizens of their own separate sovereign country. The first exception to the “No person…” prohibition was themselves. They were the ones it spoke of as apposed to naturalized foreigners, common law citizens, or future “natural born citizens of the United States“.

Be careful to not fall into the same error as the author of this piece who subconsciously attaches the appendage “of the United States” when it actually does not exist in the Constitution. He just reads it into it.  There is no concrete date by which to discern who would have been Citizen Zero of the United States.  Would it have been the first birth after ratification?  Or after the first election of national representatives?  Or after or upon the opening of the first Congress?  It doesn’t really matter though.]

The Constitution required that, in addition to being a resident of the United States for at least fourteen years, those who would seek the presidency must be at least thirty-five years of age. There were a great many men who met those two criteria, but the country needed a president and the only “natural born” citizens available on June 21, 1788, the day the Constitution was ratified, were children under twelve years of age.

To solve that problem, the Framers added a grandfather clause, making it possible for newly-minted US citizens [on July 4th, 1776], none of them “natural born,” to serve as president. This was necessary until such time as a body of individuals, born to US citizen parents after the Declaration of Independence, reached age thirty-five.

George Washington, our first president, was born at Wakefield, Virginia on February 22, 1732, forty-four years before the Declaration of Independence. He was a “citizen,” but not a “natural born” citizen because both of his parents were British subjects at the time of his birth.

John Adams, our second president, was born at Braintree, Massachusetts on October 30, 1735, forty-one years before the Declaration of Independence. He was a “citizen” because he was born in Massachusetts, but he was not a “natural born” citizen because both of his parents were British subjects at the time of his birth and owed their allegiance to the British crown.

Thomas Jefferson, our third president, was born at Shadwell, Virginia on April 13, 1743, thirty-three years before the Declaration of Independence. He was a “citizen” because he was born in Virginia, but he was not a “natural born” citizen because both of his parents were British subjects at the time of his birth.

James Madison, our fourth president, born in Virginia on March 16, 1751, twenty-five years before the Declaration of Independence; James Monroe, our fifth president, born in Virginia on April 28, 1758, eighteen years before the Declaration of Independence; John Quincy Adams, our sixth president, born in Massachusetts on July 11, 1767, nine years before the Declaration of Independence; and Andrew Jackson, our seventh president, born in South Carolina on March 15, 1767, nine years before the Declaration of Independence; were all “citizens” because they were born in what came to be the United States of America, but they were not “natural born” citizens because their parents were not US citizens at the time of their birth.

[underline added.  When the new nation began, all citizens were State citizens, except those born in non-State Western territories ceded to the States by the Crown in the Treaty of Paris.  They were not born as citizens but were born as Americans.  They would not become citizens until they settled in one of the semi-sovereign States. There are no “citizens” in wilderness because that term has no meaning except in relationship to society.]

However, Martin Van Buren, our eighth president, was born at Kinderhook, New York on December 5, 1782, six years and five months after the Declaration of Independence. Unlike his seven predecessors, he was not just a “citizen,” he was a “natural born” citizen… the first president, at least thirty-five years of age, who was born to US citizen parents after the signing of the Declaration of Independence.

[a constitutional natural born citizen did not have to be born to “US citizen parents”.  That is an almost invisible but huge error.  It is based on unfounded presumption.  One only had to be born to American parents who were citizens, meaning colonial parents who were citizens of their colony or post-July 4th State.]

What a great many patriotic, but ill-informed, Americas refuse to accept is the fact that, while the Founders intended that only “natural born” citizens should ever serve as president, there were no 35-year-old “natural born” citizens available during the first 35 years of our nation’s history. Accordingly, it became necessary to provide an exemption of limited duration covering those citizens born prior to July 4, 1776. All were “grandfathered” and made eligible under the phrase, “or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution…”

[once it is pointed out, it is very evident that in his thinking, “natural born citizen” is inexorably connected to the missing adage of “of the United States” which has never existed except in the mind of those who imagine it.]

Every U.S. president since Van Buren… with the exception of Chester A. Arthur, whose Irish father was a British subject at the time of his birth, and Barack Obama, whose Kenyan father was also a British subject at the time of his birth… has been a “natural born” U.S. citizen, as required by Article II, Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution.

Barack Obama was born with dual US-British citizenship “by descent” from his Kenyan father and his American mother.

[that is incorrect. His mother’s nationality was not passed to him because that only occurs via mandate of law and not via natural law. According to the statute in effect when he was born, his mother’s citizenship was not recognized by any American statute if born in the U.S., instead it only applied to a foreign birth location, but she was too young by several months to impart her citizenship to her child.

The legal assumption is that her son was born in Hawaii and is deemed to be an American citizen based on 14th Amendment common law as handed down from British tradition from the founding of the American colonies. That would be true if his father was an immigrant. But he was not. He was merely a guest of the U.S. government, and the U.S. born children of guests are not legally American citizens, although they are assumed to be so based on long-standing federal policy, -but not actual law or court ruling.]

However, under Chapter VI, Sec. 97(1) of the Kenyan Constitution of December 12, 1963, Kenyan Independence Day, Obama lost his British citizenship on August 4, 1984, his twenty-third birthday. However, his eligibility status is now complicated by the fact that, under Chapter 3, Section 14 of a revised Kenyan Constitution, adopted on August 4, 2010, he became a citizen of Kenya “by birth” and is required to obey the laws of Kenya, should he ever set foot in that country during or after his stay in the White House.

[all persons within a nation are required to obey the laws of the nation. But if they now view him as a Kenyan, and he moved to and lived in Kenya, then he would be liable to charges of treason if charged with conspiring or assisting its enemies.  Outsiders cannot be charged with treason, only citizens and permanent residents.]

The Framers found it inconceivable that a president of the United States, commander in chief of the Army and the Navy, should ever be required to obey the laws of a foreign nation. Barack Obama provides, if nothing else, a definitive example of why the Founders insisted that the president must be a “natural born” citizen, untainted by any hint of foreign allegiances.

Although Democrats have successfully defended Obama’s illegal presidency, based largely on the fact that he is a black man, insulated from the rule of law by the color of his skin, we must insist that constitutional mandates apply equally to presidents of both parties, Democrats and Republicans. This means, of course, that conservatives such as Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX), Gov. Nicki Haley (R-SC), Gov. Bobby Jindal (R-LA), Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL), and former Sen. Rick Santorum (R-PA)… all born to one or more non-US citizen parents… are not natural born citizens and must be eliminated from consideration for the 2016 GOP nomination.

[that would be the constitutional path to follow, playing by the constitutional rules, but is it totally appropriate to play by the rules of a confrontational game when they other side’s rule is that there are no rules?

When Nancy Pelosi removed the language from the Democrat Party Official Certification of Nomination which certified that Obama was constitutional qualified for the office, that was the Demoncrap party putting a gun to the head of the referee and pulling the trigger.

Should we have no other response, in the light of the fact that no one in America has done a damn thing about Obama’s usurpation?

Should we still just pretend that the rules of the game have not changed in a serious way?

Should we pretend that they will ever again be recognized? What if they aren’t? What if we jettison our best hope of taking the White House by “defending” the Constitution as we select one more RINO in a long line of Rinos while we go on to lose the election and the presidency to say… Hilary Clinton?

How would that help preserve the Constitution? Which is more importance; unwavering fidelity at all costs, or actually winning the election at any cost, (-as is the enemies strategy)? ]

In the days of Washington, Adams, and Jefferson, a man of Barack Obama’s background and qualifications would have received zero consideration for the presidency. Without question, he would have been declared ineligible. Yet, in spite of the fact that the Constitutional criteria for the presidency have not changed one iota since 1787, millions of Americans today insist that he is eligible for the office. By what tortured reasoning, what conceivable standard, they won’t say.

[they all suffer from a national delusion that views native-birth as imparting citizenship and that citizenship imparts eligibility for the presidency. It is an ingrained fundamental delusion that everyone just assumes is the truth since they have never heard otherwise in their whole life.]

Liberals and Democrats being what they are, we can always count on them to expect to have things both ways. But conservatives and Republicans believe in constitutional principles and the rule of law and we simply cannot allow the bandwagon-riders in our party to circumvent the Constitution. So, sorry, Ted, Nicki, Bobby, Marco, and Rick… we love you all and you’re a great credit to our country, but you just can’t play in our presidential sandbox.

[in an ideal world, that should be the policy of all conservatives, -but what if only inferior natural born candidates step forward? What then? Do we want to nominate another Romney, -the man who gave the nation gay “marriage” by violating the explicit law of Massachusetts and forcing all State clerks to allow homosexuals to register for marriage licenses, as well as giving us RomneyCare, -the forerunner of ObamaCare?

In the end, which is more important; losing but doing so constitutionally? -or winning but doing so unconstitutionally as the Dems have done now twice? What would a war strategist do if the survival of the free world depended on the outcome? Fight by the rules? or fight like there are no rules; -only life or death as the possible outcomes?]

added comments by Adrien Nash  May 2014  obama–nation.com


About arnash
“When you find yourself on the side of the majority, it’s time to pause and reflect.” - Mark Twain - Politicians and diapers - change 'em often, for the same reason. "Government is like a baby. An alimentary canal with a big appetite at one end and no sense of responsibility at the other." Ronald Reagan "Liberals claim to want to give a hearing to other views, but then are shocked and offended to discover that there are other views." William F. Buckley, Jr. “The trouble with the world is that the stupid are cocksure and the intelligent are full of doubt.” - Bertrand Russell The people are the masters of both Congress and the courts, not to overthrow the Constitution, but to overthrow the men who pervert it. Abraham Lincoln “Good people sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf.” - George Orwell “Satan will use a lake of truth to hide a pint of poison”.

One Response to Obama’s Eligibility; the Final Word

  1. arnash says:

    By Devvy Kidd

    Here we go again.

    Marco Rubio, Ted Cruz and Bobby Jindal all want to be the next U.S. president. The only problem is, just like the impostor in the White House, Barack Obama, all three are constitutionally ineligible, contrary to declarations from their campaign managers, ignorant journalists and partisan mouth pieces.
    Ted Cruz is a U.S. citizen at birth, but not a natural born citizen. When the issue of Cruz’ ineligibility came up in mid – 2013 with the Dallas Morning News proclaiming he was born with dual citizenship, Cruz announced he was giving up his dual citizenship because Ted Cruz wants to be president more than he wants to take his next breath:

    “Now the Dallas Morning News says that I may technically have dual citizenship. Assuming that is true, then sure, I will renounce any Canadian citizenship,” he continued. “Nothing against Canada, but I’m an American by birth, and as a U.S. Senator, I believe I should be only an American.”

    Technically? Sorry, Ted, but like the fraud in the White House, you were born with dual citizenship. The prostitute MSM including big money anchors on FOX like Hannity & O’Reilly to this day continue to parrot that because the fraud in the White House’s mother was a U.S. citizen, therefore, so is Barry Soetoro. The key word here being born. Cruz thinks be can become natural born at age 43 when he announced he would give up his Canadian citizenship.

    continued at…

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: