| 
Obama is a citizen of the United States
and thus constitutionally ineligible to be President
By Teo Bear @ the Birthers.org
(hat tip CDR Kerchner)
(hat tip CDR Kerchner)
The headline of this essay is a mirror of what I have seen and heard for four years by both Obama’s progressive/socialist supporters and his CINO (Conservative In Name Only) enablers. In big bold letters they all say these individuals are citizens of the United States, even going so far as to underline it so to show you the obvious, but hidden in plain sight is the small print of such a proclamation.
Anyone can read the Constitution of the United States to see that it provides for two classes of citizenship, and these classifications are not born and naturalized. The two classes of citizens the Constitution mentions are the “natural born citizen” and the “citizen of the United States.” It is true that under the 14th Amendment you can be born or naturalized as a citizen of the United States, but Article II does not make a distinction between a born or naturalized a citizen of the United States. Article II states that to be President you must be a natural born citizen or a citizen of the United States at the time of the adoption of the Constitution.
For four years I have heard every reason why Obama should be a natural born citizen. I can break them down into three dead end avenues.
1. The United States used English Common Law for our national common law, and all a person needs to do to become a natural born citizen is simply be born within the United States and have parents who are not diplomats.
2. The fourteenth amendment to the Constitution makes him a natural born citizen, regardless of his foreign father, as it made Wong Kim Ark.
3. There are only two ways a person can be a citizen of the United States, be naturalized or be born a citizen, and if you are born a citizen of the United States you are a “de facto” natural born citizen.
What these partisan supporters of both parties run away from is simple fact that the Constitution of the United States names only two classes of citizens, those who are the natural born citizens and those who are the citizens of the United States. In the eyes of Article II of the Constitution you are classified as either a natural born citizen or a citizen of the United States. If you are not a natural born citizen and became a citizen of the United States after September 17, 1787 you are ineligible under Article II of the Constitution to be President of the United States of America. It is important to understand this, because it is possible to be born a citizen of the United States and not be a natural born citizen. Both the 14th Amendment and the laws of the United States say a person can be born a citizen of the United States.
The common law of England is not the common law of these states.
Let’s take an honest look at these “theories.” First, did the United States adopt English Common Law? The man called the father of the US Constitution; James Madison told George Washington that we could not adopt English Common law into the Constitution, even though it was adopted by the several states.
“What can he mean by saying that the Common law is not secured by the new Constitution, though it has been adopted by the State Constitutions. The common law is nothing more than the unwritten law, and is left by all the constitutions equally liable to legislative alterations. I am not sure that any notice is particularly taken of it in the Constitutions of the States. If there is, nothing more is provided than a general declaration that it shall continue along with other branches of law to be in force till legally changed.
What could the Convention have done? If they had in general terms declared the Common law to be in force, they would have broken in upon the legal Code of every State in the most material points: they wd. have done more, they would have brought over from G.B. a thousand heterogeneous & antirepublican doctrines, and even the ecclesiastical Hierarchy itself, for that is a part of the Common law. If they had undertaken a discrimination, they must have formed a digest of laws, instead of a Constitution.” James Madison Letter to Geo Washington October 18, 1787
George Mason who is known as the Father of the Bill of Rights said “The common law of England is not the common law of these states.” George Mason, June 19, 1788
The United States Supreme Court made it abundantly clear that the common law of England is NOT the common law of the United States.
“It is clear there can be no common law of the United States. The federal government is composed of twenty-four sovereign and independent states, each of which may have its local usages, customs, and common law. There is no principle which pervades the union and has the authority of law that is not embodied in the Constitution or laws of the union. The common law could be made a part of our system by legislative adoption. When a common law right is asserted, we look to the state in which the controversy originated.
When the ancestors of the citizens of the United States emigrated to this country, they brought with them, to a limited extent, the English common law as part of their heritage. No one will contend that the common law, as it existed in England, has ever been in force in all its provisions in any state in this Union. It was adopted only so far as its principles were suited to the condition of the colonies, and from this circumstance we see what is the common law in one state is not so considered in another. The judicial decisions, the usages and customs of the respective states, must determine how far the common law has been introduced and sanctioned in each.” Justice McLean Wheaton v. Peters, 33 U.S. 8 Pet. 591 591 (1834)
It is obvious from our national history that English common law was never adopted as a national common law, but it was adopted by the states. So if Obama was to use the laws of Hawaii to make him a natural born citizen, then let’s look at where this common law right originated. As Hawaii adopted English common law, Obama could make a common law claim to the title of a natural-born citizen/subject of the state of Hawaii.
§1-1 Common law of the State; exceptions. The common law of England, as ascertained by English and American decisions, is declared to be the common law of the State of Hawaii in all cases, except as otherwise expressly provided by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or by the laws of the State, or fixed by Hawaiian judicial precedent, or established by Hawaiian usage; provided that no person shall be subject to criminal proceedings except as provided by the written laws of the United States or of the State. [L 1892, c 57, §5; am L 1903, c 32, §2; RL 1925, §1; RL 1935, §1; RL 1945, §1; RL 1955, §1-1; HRS §1-1]
As can be seen by the reception statue, common law can be modified by five venues, the constitution or laws of the United States, laws of Hawaii, judicial precedent by Hawaii courts, or Hawaiian usage (i.e customs.)
Through the supremacy clause of the Constitution any local (i.e. state) citizenship laws including national laws and common law were superseded by the 14th amendment, which states that if you were born within the United States you became a citizen of the United States.
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. Section 1, Clause 1 of the 14th Amendment of the United States.
The 14th Amendment does not use the term natural born citizen; they simply states that if a person is born in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction, that person is a citizen of the United States. If we look at Article II, Section 1 we see this same distinctive term the 14th Amendment uses, citizen of the United 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; Article II, Section 1, Constitution of the United States.
As can be seen by the clear language of Article II, simply to be a citizen of the United States, as people claim Obama is, simply is not enough in itself to be eligible for President; they would have had to have been a citizen of the United States before September 18, 1787 in order to be eligible.
Since we have had Presidents since the adoption of both the 14th Amendment there are only two possibilities we can consider. One consideration is every President born since July 9, 1868 has been ineligible and the other possibility to consider is that the definition of a natural born citizen was not the English Common law definition of simply being a person born in the United States.
Considering that the framers of the 14th Amendment knew of Article II’s eligibility clause, and if English common law was the font from which the definition of a natural born citizen sprang from they surely would have written Section 1 of the 14th Amendment in such a way to insure that they were not negating this important definition.
All persons born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are natural born citizens of the United States and citizens of the State wherein they reside or all persons naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and citizens of the State wherein they reside.
English common law only relied on place of birth to make one a natural born subject/citizen, and the 14th Amendment only relies on place of birth to make one a citizen of the United States. All have the same prerequisite of being born in the United States, but - the Constitution is the supreme law of the land and the 14th Amendment changed the outcome. If we say English common law is in fact the source of our national common law, then a date was drawn and on July 8th, 1868 a person would be born a natural born citizen simply because he was born in the United States, July 9th, 1868 a person born also in the United States would not be a natural born citizen but a citizen of the United States.
Chief Justice Waite seen this paradox of citizenship the 14th Amendment created and stated that the 14th Amendment is not the only avenue to citizenship based upon location of birth, and his unanimous opinion in Minor v. Happersett actually deals with this.
CONTINUED HERE: http://birthers.org/misc/CoUS.htm
SHOCK CLAIM: Breitbart Reporter Charles Johnson Has Documented Proof Obama is Indonesian Citizen? - AUDIO HERE.
WATCH SHERIFF JOE'S 2ND OBAMA INVESTIGATION PRESS CONFERENCE HERE: CLICK HERE.
WATCH SHERIFF JOE'S 1ST PRESS CONFERENCE ABOUT OBAMA'S FORGED IDENTITY DOCUMENTS HERE: http://www.art2superpac.com/joe.html
SHERIFF JOE TEA-PARTY PRESENTATION VIDEO HERE: http://www.art2superpac.com/arizonavideo.html
-ARTICLE II ELIGIBILITY FACTS HERE: http://www.art2superpac.com/issues.html
No comments:
Post a Comment