Sure Obama’s ineligible, but it’s only the Constitution that says so

 

 By Doug Book, staff writer

 On April 30th of 2008, the United States Senate proclaimed John McCain eligible to become the President of the United States, passing by unanimous consent Senate Resolution 511 which stated that his birth in the Panama Canal Zone did not violate the “natural born citizen” clause of the Constitution.

One of the co-sponsors of this non-binding resolution was Barack Hussein Obama.

 Though the Constitution does not define “natural born”, it is clear that the meaning had been based upon principles included in a work quite popular with many of the Founders, the 1758 “Law of Nations” by Frenchman Emerich de Vattel

According to the “Law of Nations”, the natives, or natural born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens…”

 So because of his birth in a Panama hospital, embarrassing questions were being raised about McCain’s Constitutional eligibility to serve

Nevertheless, rather than adhere to the text and spirit of the Constitution and engage in honest debate, members of the imperial senate rushed to put the issue to rest by ignoring the language of the document to which they had sworn a solemn oath of allegiance.

 And the true motive for this betrayal of trust is more disgraceful than the betrayal itself. For it was quietly hoped this cynical, bipartisan resolution proclaiming McCain’s eligibility might insure no question would arise about another candidate, one who was clearly and irretrievably ineligible for the highest office in the land.

 In 1800, Charles Pinckney, member of the Continental Congress and signatory to the Constitution wrote, “what better way to insure attachment to the Country than to require the President to have his American citizenship through his father and not through a foreign father.”

 Regardless of Barack Obama’s birthplace, his father was a British citizen, born in Kenya. This fact makes Obama Constitutionally ineligible for the Presidency, as he is NOT a natural born citizen.

 But who would be so politically tone deaf, as petty and perverse as to question Obama’s eligibility after he had so magnanimously sponsored the resolution purporting to resolve the question of McCain’s eligibility?

 And perhaps more importantly, rank cowards in the Republican Party, scared stiff at the thought of challenging the eligibility of America’s first viable black Presidential candidate could now assume the mantle of beneficent, post-racial guarantors of opportunity.

 Of course, the political nobility might experience a stunning episode of remedial patriotism before the next election. But there would be so many pigs overhead, it’s doubtful anyone would notice.

 To contact your Congressional Representative use this link: http://www.contactingthecongress.org/

  Attributionshttp://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getpage.cgi?position=all&page=S3646&dbname=2008_record

   http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getpage.cgi?position=all&page=S3646&dbname=2008_record

http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html#A2Sec1

 This day in history June 3

1979: The world’s worst oil spill occurred when an exploratory oil well Ixtoc 1 blew out spilling over 140 million gallons of oil into the bay of Campeche off the coast of Mexico.

 If you are not receiving coachisright.com directly, please signup using the RSS feature on   the home page. It’s easy and always free.

In this world you may have knowledge or you may have repose, but you may not have both.  What have you done today to deserve to live in America?

 Comments on this or any other coachisright.com essay can be sent by following the posting instructions below.

Be Sociable, Share!

25 thoughts on “Sure Obama’s ineligible, but it’s only the Constitution that says so”

  1. Tax Cuts – As Explained By A Democrat
    If you don’t understand the Democrats’ version of tax cuts (and you are not alone), maybe this will help explain it:

    50,000 people go to a baseball game, but the game was rained out. A refund was then due
    The team was about to mail refunds when the Congressional Democrats stopped them and suggested that they send out refund amounts based on the Democrat National Committee’s interpretation of fairness.
    After all, if the refunds were made based on the price each person paid for the tickets, most of the money would go to the ticket holders of the most expensive tickets. That would be unfair and unconscionable.
    People in the $10 seats will get back $15, because they have less money to spend. Call it an “Earned Income Ticket Credit.” Persons “earn” it by demonstrating little ambition, few skills and poor work habits, thus keeping them at entry-level wages.
    People in the $25 seats will get back $25, because that’s only fair.
    People in the $50 seats will get back $1, because they already make a lot of money and don’t need a refund. After all, if they can afford a $50 ticket, then they must not be paying enough taxes.
    People in the $75 luxury seats will have to pay another $50, because they have way too much to spend.
    The people driving (or walking) by the stadium who couldn’t afford to watch the game will get $10 each, even though they didn’t pay anything in, because they need the most help (sometimes known as Affirmative Action!).
    Now do you understand?

  2. Vattel is not mentioned in the Federalist Papers at all, while the common law was mentioned about twenty times. Vattel's work was not translated into English with the words "Natural Born Citizen" until ten years after the writing of the US Constitution.

    So, what was the meaning of Natural Born Citizen at the time that the Americans (not Swiss) wrote the US Constitution? It was from the common law, and it referred to citizenship due to the place of birth.

    “Under the longstanding English common-law principle of jus soli, persons born within the territory of the sovereign (other than children of enemy aliens or foreign diplomats) are citizens from birth. Thus, those persons born within the United States are "natural born citizens" and eligible to be President. Much less certain, however, is whether children born abroad of United States citizens are "natural born citizens" eligible to serve as President …"—- Edwin Meese, et al, THE HERITAGE GUIDE TO THE CONSTITUTION (2005) [Edwin Meese was Ronald Reagan’s attorney general, and the Heritage Foundation is a well-known Conservative organization.]

    Sure, the US Constitution does bar foreigners from becoming president because you have to be a US citizen to be a Natural Born Citizen. And it also bars naturalized US citizens from becoming president. But there is absolutely no evidence that the writers of the Constitution considered the US-born children of foreigners to be foreigners. And there is no evidence that they considered the US-born children of foreigners to be less reliable or less loyal than the US-born children of US citizens.

    1. You might read the comment of Charles Pinckney, included in the post. As a member of the Continental Congress and signatory to the Constitution, his beliefs might be considered evidence of what the Founders considered important.

      1. I think a better spokesperson for what the Founders believed is James Madison, primary author of the Constitution.

        “It is an established maxim that birth is a criterion of allegiance. Birth however derives its force sometimes from place and sometimes from parentage, but in general PLACE is the most certain criterion; it is what applies in the United States; it will therefore be unnecessary to investigate any other.”

        James Madison, The Founders’ Constitution Volume 2, Article 1, Section 2, Clause 2, Document 6 (1789)
        http://nativeborncitizen.wordpress.com/natural-bo

  3. Give it a rest!

    Many of our past presidents: Van Buren, Buchanan, Arthur, Wilson, Hoover, and of course Obama, all had at least one foreign born parent who were not naturalized citizens at the time of the future presidents’ births. Besides, under our Constitution, The House of Representatives is the final certifying body to an election, and, in each case, their word is final. The House did vote to make each of these men president, thereby giving their final stamp of approval as to the legitimacy of the election. So, regardless of your complaints, BO IS our president.

    You see, even if you were somehow able to PROVE, (which you cannot) that BO was born in Kenya, it would not change the fact the the House certified the election. He WILL be the Prez until at least Jan 20, 2013.

    Give it a rest and concentrate on how to remove a Marxist from the Whitehouse.

    1. Sorry, but I have a copy of his Kenyan hospital birth certificate, it was sent to Pelosi by certified mail telling her to do her constitutional duty and have him removed from office, however it is the Senate which has to impeach a president, and how in the world would you get Harry Reid to do that. Obama made sure he was reelected. A criminal complaint has been lodged with the FBI over the forged long form birth certificate he issued. A Hawaiian private investigator says that Obama had three forged long form birth certificates prepared and the one released is one of those. Obama could not seek naturalization in the U.S. because that would give away the fact that he was NOT born in Hawaii but in Kenya. Neither parent could give him citizenship.

    2. Maybe someone will take it upon themselves to enforce the "natural born" clause?

      We can only pray!

    3. Good point Mr. Milton. Let's use our resources to deny reelection to Mr. Obama for his actions, not his parentage.

  4. Neither the word "two" nor the word "parents" appears in the Constitution. However the 14th Amendment begins with the word "All" and goes on to say "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."
    Since 1865, there are only two classifications of ALL citizens: born citizens and naturalized citizens. Born citizens can be president or vice president and naturalized citizens cannot.
    Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia has written on the above extensively in his opinions on citizenship.

  5. The Charles Pinckney quote that you show is used MANY times on the Internet by birthers. However, there is no record that Pinckney ever said it. There is no book that shows that quotation.
    http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2009/03/framer-spe

    That is one reason, along with searches of the writings of John Adams, James Madison, John Jay, Alexander Hamilton, James Wilson and others, that I can say that so far as I know NO American at the time of the writing of the US Constitution ever used the phrase Natural Born or Natural Born Citizen in any way similar to Vattel and not to the meaning in the common law. And the meaning in the common law referred only to citizenship due to the place of birth.

    There is also an excellent example, examples really, of draft treaties prepared by Ben Franklin, John Jay and John Adams, in which the use of Natural Born Citizen is exactly the same as a British Natural Born Subject.

  6. This phrase:

    "What better way to insure attachment to the country then to require the President to have inherited his American citizenship through his American father and not through a foreign father. Any child can be born anywhere in the country and removed by their father to be raised in his native country. The risks would be for the child to return in later life to reside in this country bringing with him foreign influences and intrigues, thus, making such a citizen indistinguishable from a naturalized citizen. "

    Comes from an article written by PA Madison. It is his opinion, NOT Charles Pinckney's. He is entitled to his opinion, but it is shared by very few constitutional scholars, and it is CERTAINLY not a quotation from Charles Pinckney. http://www.scribd.com/doc/17441596/PA-Madison-Def

  7. Re: In 1800, Charles Pinckney, member of the Continental Congress and signatory to the Constitution wrote, “what better way to insure attachment to the Country than to require the President to have his American citizenship through his father and not through a foreign father.”

    Well, it turns out that Charles Pinckney never said it. Sadly, there are dozens of quotes on the Web that say that he said it, but there is no book that has those words under the Charles Pinckney name, and it is clear that the words do appear in the commentary of PA Madison written in 2008 in which the words are not quoted from Pinckney but stated as PS Madison's opinion. Those are PA Madison's words, not Pinckney's.

    Nor did any of the other writers of the Constitution say anything like it. Nor did any other American (not Swiss) leaders of the time. A search of the writings of John Adams, John Jay, James Madison, James Wilson and Alexander Hamilton, shows that they never used the phrase Natural Born in any other way than in the common law. They always used it to indicate citizenship due to the PLACE of birth, not to the parents of the child.

  8. Well here's another county heard from. Lawrence Solum, Constitutional scholar writing for the Michigan Law Review (2008) :

    "What was the original public meaning of the phrase that establishes the eligibility for the office of President of the United States? There is general agreement on the core of its meaning. Anyone born on American soil whose parents are citizens of the United States is a 'natural born citizen.' "

    1. Why depend on anyone else when we have it from the primary author of the Constitution?

      “It is an established maxim that birth is a criterion of allegiance. Birth however derives its force sometimes from place and sometimes from parentage, but in general PLACE is the most certain criterion; it is what applies in the United States; it will therefore be unnecessary to investigate any other.”

      James Madison, The Founders’ Constitution Volume 2, Article 1, Section 2, Clause 2, Document 6 (1789) http://nativeborncitizen.wordpress.com/natural-bo

  9. Re: "General agreement."

    No question. There is general agreement that if you wear both suspenders and a belt, you will hold your pants up. Even people who favor suspenders and people who favor a belt will agree on that. But the fact that both suspenders and a belt will work does not mean that EITHER suspenders or a belt will not work.

    So, while many people having both US parents AND being born in the country are Natural Born Citizens, it does not mean that some who were born in the country whose parents were not US citizens may also be Natural Born Citizens.

    And, in fact, the original meaning of Natural Born, at the time that the US Constitution was written, referred only to citizenship due to the place of birth. That is why there have been LOTS of lower-court rulings, all stemming from the Wong Kim Ark ruling, which have stated that the US-born children of foreigners are Natural Born Citizens, due to their natural birth, birth in America.

    Mustata v. US Dept. of Justice, 179 F.3d 1017 (6th Cir. 1999) (children born in US to two Romanian citizens described as “natural born citizens” of the US):

    “Petitioners Marian and Lenuta Mustata are citizens of Romania. At the time of their petition, they resided in Michigan with their two minor children, who are natural born citizens of the United States.”

    Diaz-Salazar v. INS, 700 F.2d 1156 (7th Cir. 1983) (child born in US to Mexican citizen is “natural born citizen” of US):

    “Petitioner, Sebastian Diaz-Salazar, entered the United States illegally [from Mexico] in 1974 and has been living and working in Chicago since that time. *** The relevant facts which have been placed before the INS, BIA, and this court can be summarized as follows: The petitioner has a wife and two children under the age of three in Chicago; the children are natural-born citizens of the United States.”

    Nwankpa v. Kissinger, 376 F. Supp. 122 (M.D. Ala. 1974) (child born in US to two Biafra citizens described as “natural born citizen” of the US):

    “The Plaintiff was a native of Biafra, now a part of the Republic of Nigeria. His wife and two older children are also natives of that country, but his third child, a daughter, is a natural-born citizen of the United States.”

    AND there was Ankeny v. Gov State of Indiana, which ruled:

    "Based upon the language of Article II, Section 1, Clause 4 and the guidance provided by Wong Kim Ark, we conclude that persons born within the borders of the United States are ‘natural born citizens’ for Article II, Section 1 purposes, regardless of the citizenship of their parents.”

    That was appealed once, to the Supreme Court of Indiana, which turned down the appeal, leaving the ruling of the appeals court standing.

  10. He is not only not qualified through what we know to be Natural Parents but also because he is not qualified period. This man/boy is a puppet and is doing the bidding of others to get this nation down on it's knees and submitt to the rest of the world and allow all the Super Rich to Dictate and have a world of dominance.

    Barak Obama is as dangerous in the White House as Water is in White Hot oil

  11. Re: "He's not qualified period."

    So vote against him. If you feel that he is not qualified, that is your right.

    But he is a Natural Born Citizen, and hence is legally qualified.

  12. The following quote from James Madison is greatly relied upon to show that simple birth in the U.S. is all that is needed to make a “natural born Citizen.” “It is an established maxim that birth is a criterion of allegiance. Birth however derives its force sometimes from place and sometimes from parentage, but in general place is the most certain criterion; it is what applies in the United States; it will therefore be unnecessary to investigate any other.” Citation xxx Madison was well aware that members of Congress only had to show that they were “Citizens of the United States” for 7 years and not that they were “natural born Citizens.” Hence, Madison was only defining the requirement to be a "citizen of the United States" for 7 years which is the standard that Representative Smith had to meet, not the standard of an Article II "natural born Citizen" which is what a would-be President must meet. Hence, reliance on this quote is misplaced. The quote is no basis to define a "natural born Citizen."

  13. Finally, on the question of what is a "natural born Citizen," only the children of citizens can be "natural born Citizens." All other "citizens of the United States" are naturalized at birth or after birth by the 14th Amendment (at birth) , Congressional Acts (at birth and after birth), or treaties (after birth).

  14. Let's just look at some other problems with BHO's eligibility/how about solving the multiple social security numbers, as per the Sankey Daniels research/ why will no official body look into this/is this how overseas donations to the '08 campaign were handled? /what about the question of foreign student aid/did BO travel to Pakistan on conflicting passports?/why do average U.S. citizens have to abide by answering these questions, even to get a driver's license, but every official in a position of questioning what is going on, just will not step up to the plate for the American people to get us some answers/I just don't get it/ the problem of KERNING in terms of internet assembling or alteration has come up but no one seems to want to approach these topics/will our country ever be set aright? Someone here needs to take on the lib/dem media political establishment

  15. Who says that only the children of citizens can be Natural Born Citizens? Apuzzo and Donifrio. Anyone else?

    No

    the overwhelming majority of constitutional scholars hold that birth in the USA is sufficient to create a Natural Born Citizen, which is not affected by the citizenship of one or even two parents.

    "Therefore every person born within the United States, its territories or districts, whether the parents are citizens or aliens, is a natural born citizen in the sense of the Constitution, and entitled to all the rights and privileges appertaining to that capacity."—William Rawle, A VIEW OF THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. 2d ed. (1829)

    “Under the longstanding English common-law principle of jus soli, persons born within the territory of the sovereign (other than children of enemy aliens or foreign diplomats) are citizens from birth. Thus, those persons born within the United States are "natural born citizens" and eligible to be President. Much less certain, however, is whether children born abroad of United States citizens are "natural born citizens" eligible to serve as President …"—- Edwin Meese, et al, THE HERITAGE GUIDE TO THE CONSTITUTION (2005) [Edwin Meese was Ronald Reagan’s attorney general, and the Heritage Foundation is a well-known Conservative organization.]

    “Natural born citizen. Persons who are born within the jurisdiction of a national government, i.e. in its territorial limits, or those born of citizens temporarily residing abroad.” — Black’s Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition

    Mustata v. US Dept. of Justice, 179 F.3d 1017 (6th Cir. 1999) (children born in US to two Romanian citizens described as “natural born citizens” of the US):

    “Petitioners Marian and Lenuta Mustata are citizens of Romania. At the time of their petition, they resided in Michigan with their two minor children, who are natural born citizens of the United States.”

    Diaz-Salazar v. INS, 700 F.2d 1156 (7th Cir. 1983) (child born in US to Mexican citizen is “natural born citizen” of US):

    “Petitioner, Sebastian Diaz-Salazar, entered the United States illegally [from Mexico] in 1974 and has been living and working in Chicago since that time. *** The relevant facts which have been placed before the INS, BIA, and this court can be summarized as follows: The petitioner has a wife and two children under the age of three in Chicago; the children are natural-born citizens of the United States.”

    As a result of this overwhelming view that the meaning of Natural Born Citizen does not require two citizen parents, the US Elecgtoral College gave Obama exactly the same number of votes that he won in the general election. In other words, not one single elector changed his or her vote out of the belief that Obama was not eligible. And the US Congress–all one hundred members of the Senate and 435 in the House (435 total)–voted to confirm Obama's election UNANIMOUSLY. In other words, not one single member in the 535 members thought that the citizenship of Obama's father has any effect on Obama's eligibility. And the US Supreme Court has turned down every single birther case.

  16. Big coachisright.com is a place where we can be heard and exchange ideas about how to save our country. While you certainly are welcome here, the suggestion you made regarding the president is not welcome here, thus it was deleted. Please continue to express your thoughts on this or any other topic, but in the future make certain those expressions don't include calls for violence against our elected officials.

    Thank you

    Coach

  17. Sufficient evidence exists indicating collaborated cover-up of fraudulent statements and documents across the issue of Obama's supposed birth story, birth records, and all his education, travel, and financial records.

    If this were all a open-and-shut case, why did George Stephanopoulos push so hard to get a verbal statement of compliance from Michelle Bachmann during his April interview with her? Something stinks. Many people's hands reached too deep in the cookie jar.

    When we are at the point where people's behavior is too big to fail that we must sacrifice the integrity and conscience of our entire nation to paint over a lie, we can never expect to prosper financially, socially, or historically.

    New local and national leadership across the board is needed. 2010 started it. 2012 it will continue.

  18. THEN HAVE THIS SENATE BILL RESOLVE 511 NULL AND VOID TODAY OR IS THIS COMMENT JUST THAT ‘ A STATEMENT THAT NOBODY DOSE A THING ABOUT AND KENYA IS A BRITISH SUBJECT NOT AMERICAN THE CONSTITUTION ALSO SAYS THAT THE ISLAMIC ARAB MUSLIM PEOPLE ARE NOT COMPADABIL TO BE A CITIZEN OF THE UNITED STATES BECAUSE THE BOOK QURAN IS CONSIDERED TO BE THE WORDS OF THEIR GOD ALLAH THE MOON GOD WHOM SAYS TO KILL ALL CHRISTIANS AND JEWS OBAMA IS MUSLIM

Comments are closed.