Obama’s ineligibility for dummies
- Lawrence Sellin Thursday, March 31, 2011
On August 28, 2008, Representative Nancy Pelosi, then Chair of the Democratic National Convention signed an official Certification of Nomination verifying that Barack Obama was legally qualified to serve as President of the United States under the provisions of the United States Constitution.
I would like to know what Constitutional criteria were used by Rep. Pelosi to make that determination and what evidence she provided to support her contention.
The issue of Barack Obama’s eligibility must be resolved now before the 2012 election. It is incumbent on those, who authorize his place on the ballot to cite the legal bases for making such a claim. Let me begin by asserting that the Certification of LiveBirth, which mysteriously appeared without verification by the State of Hawaii and may be a forgery, or newspaper clippings, are not adequate proof of eligibility.
* * * * * * * * * * *
(editorial comment)
* * * * * * * * * * * * Forensic document examiner Sandra Ramsey Lines,
a Former Federal Examiner with a long history of expert testimony in state and federal courts, has testified in an affidavit that states, in part:
“I can state with certainty that the COLB presented on the internet by the various groups, which include the “Daily Kos,” the Obama Campaign, “Factcheck.org” and others cannot be relied upon as genuine. Software such as Adobe Photoshop can produce complete images or alter images that appear to be genuine; therefore, any image offered on the internet cannot be relied upon as being a copy of the authentic document.” Sandra Ramsey Lines summary is also posted at U. S. Law Blog.
Excerpted from:
Article II, 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 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.”
Traditionally, “natural born” refers to ancestry describing a child born in the United States (or areas such as US military bases), whose parents are US citizens at the time of birth.
I hasten to add, however, that nowhere in the Constitution or in its Amendments is the term “natural born” defined.
Nevertheless, there is a legal paper trail supporting that description. Much of what I write below is taken from a superb report by Leo Donofrio found here (link).
The definition of “natural born” originates from John Armor Bingham, a Republican congressman and abolitionist from Ohio and principal framer of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution.
In 1862 and 1866, respectively, Bingham stated on the floor of the House of Representative:
“All from other lands, who by the terms of [congressional] laws and a compliance with their provisions become naturalized, are adopted citizens of the United States; all other persons born within the Republic, of parents owing allegiance to no other sovereignty, are natural born citizens.”
“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.”
No Representative took issue with these words. The underlying issues within those Congressional debates were hotly contested. Yet Bingham’s definition of “natural born citizen” (born in the US of citizen parents) was never challenged on the floor of the House.
In the concurring opinion in Duncan v. Louisiana, 391 U.S. 145 (1968), United States Supreme Court Associate Justice Hugo Black, emphasized his reliance on the statements made by Representative Bingham and Senator Howard in Congress which pertain to the drafting and adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment. Justice Black stated that “it is far wiser to rely on” the words of Bingham and Howard when analyzing the 14th Amendment. The relevant passage is as follows:
“Professor Fairman’s “history” relies very heavily on what was not said in the state legislatures that passed on the Fourteenth Amendment. Instead of relying on this kind of negative pregnant, my legislative experience has convinced me that it is far wiser to rely on what was said, and, most importantly, said by the men who actually sponsored the Amendment in the Congress. I know from my years in the United States Senate that it is to men like Congressman Bingham, who steered the Amendment through the House, and Senator Howard, who introduced it in the Senate, that members of Congress look when they seek the real meaning of what is being offered. And they vote for or against a bill based on what the sponsors of that bill and those who oppose it tell them it means.”
As best as I can ascertain from the Constitution and its history, Barack Obama is not eligible to be President of the United States.
That is my argument, Rep. Pelosi. Please tell us yours?
| Lawrence Sellin Lawrence Sellin Most recent columns Lawrence Sellin, Ph.D. is a recently retired colonel with 29 years of service in the US Army Reserve. He is a veteran of Afghanistan and Iraq. Lawrence Sellin, Ph.D. receives hate mail at mailto:lawrence.sellin@gmail.com?bcc=letters@canadafreepress.com |
Comments:I think now is the time to do some community organizing of our own and begin a public "mass assault" on the issue to prove that we are not just a "small bunch of nuts".
One simple thing we can do easily, among hopefully many others, is to click "Trump" on any online Presidential candidate poll we encounter. Supporting Trump publicly will send a message.
I think we need to start identifying and executing tactics like that in support of a strategy of wanting to know the truth about Barack Obama now.
Posted by Lawrence Sellin on 04/02 at 01:58 AM | #
* * * * * * * * * *
Just a Reminder - Before he was nominated AKA Obama Signed Resolution Describing Him As Ineligible
Obama Signed Resolution Describing Him As IneligibleYet the Obots still argue that Obama is eligible to serve as Commander-in-Chief.
On April 10, 2008, Sens. Patrick Leahy (D-VT) and Claire McCaskill (D-MO) introduced a resolution expressing the sense of the U.S. Senate that presidential candidate Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) was a 'natural born Citizen,' as specified in the Constitution and eligible to run for president. Sen. McCaskill knew Obama was not a U.S. Citizen, that’s why she introduced this bill -- dressing it up to look like it was in Sen. John McCain's cause.
It was during the bill's hearing that Sen. Patrick Leahy, Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, made the following statement:
"Because he was born to American citizens, there is no doubt in my mind that Senator McCain is a natural born citizen," said Leahy. "I expect that this will be a unanimous resolution of the Senate."
At a Judiciary Committee hearing on April 3, Leahy asked Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff, himself a former Federal judge, if he had doubts that McCain was eligible to serve as President.
"My assumption and my understanding is that if you are born of American parents, you are naturally a natural-born American citizen," Chertoff replied.
"That is mine, too," said Leahy.
What's interesting here is that Sen. Leahy, the Chairman of the Senate Judiciary, confirms that a "natural born" citizen is the child of American citizen parents.
Parents -- that's two. That's BOTH parents.
No comments:
Post a Comment