This is not about a Birth Certificate! As we can’t allow our U. S. Constitution to be selectively enforced.
President of the United States = POTUS You have to be A Constitutional Natural Born Citizen = NBC to be POTUS.
The Dual Citizen, Obama, lacks legal authority to be POTUS! or Look here for another way of saying what I say below.
POTUS, eligibility was never restricted to whites, males or anything else but what is listed in our Constitution. Consider these below source links from our United States Constitution as set in sequential order, and look at the clearly expressed systematics of the framers purpose and intent: Green links, you can click on it to go off my site, to that source record our United States Constitution.
Obama II is not a Constitutional, United States Natural Born Citizen. Because his father Obama Sr. was not and never was any type of United States Citizen but a British Subject an alien.
Obama II has said that his birth was governed by his father Obama Sr., citizenship status at his own birth. This then makes Obama II at the very best a dual citizen and maybe not even that as he as yet to prove that he is a born “citizen of the United States” .
For sure Obama is not a Constitutional NBC as required by our Laws to be POTUS. Obama has said he gave up his British Citizenship. This is not about being a US Citizen but about being a Natural Born Citizen. You can only get that status at your birth and if you are not born that way, then you will never be that way. It would require something unnatural to even suggest that you are what you are not.
Note the above are called source records and shows a clear difference between a U. S. Citizen and a Natural Born Citizen. The above is the law not an opinion or what some fool media talking head thinks.
Our limited constitutional republic, which is our form of government, is a government by laws and not by polls or what a few or many current people think it should be. We are or should be a Nation of Laws!
These men who wrote our United States Constitution while born on United States Soil were dual citizens because their parents were also British. Because they knew this and didn’t see themselves as being A Natural Born Citizen because their parents were not US Citizens at the time of their birth. These men who fought for and created the US Constitution were just Native Born Citizens of The United States like Obama is at best. These men wrote into and used the‘grandfather clause’ (see above) so they could be elected to be POTUS. It’s the way our founding fathers intended it to be. They have thus written it into our United States Constitution. If someone tells you this is not what they ment to say look for your own self at the above source record and see what you think it says.
Are we a Nation of Laws or a Nation of Fools?
SCOTUS 88 U.S. 162 Minor v. Happersett Argued: February 9, 1875 — Decided: March 29, 1875 “The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be Natural Born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was ‘NEVER DOUBTED’ that all children born in a country of parents who were it’s ‘Citizens’ became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or Natural Born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners.” Off site to source record. 9th P. down.
Most probably recognize that United States citizens are created either at birth or at the moment of naturalization. The former is a native (using that term in its modern sense and not in the sense that the Founders used it) and the latter is not. Most probably also recognize that a naturalized citizen is not eligible to be President. But what many fail to recognize is that the event of birth has two natural elements which always have and always will be present in every birth: (1) the place where one was born and (2) the two parents who procreated the child.
Hence, some also fail to understand that there are two types of born citizens, one being a born “Citizen of the United States” and the other being a “natural born Citizen.” Under current law, a born “Citizen of the United States” is one granted that status under the 14th Amendment or Congressional Act (e.g. Title 8 Section 1401), both of which consider either (1) being born on United States soil or (2) being born to at least one United States citizen parent sufficient conditions for being granted the status of a born “Citizen of the United States.”
Never in our history has the United States Supreme Court or the Congress ever required that one needs to satisfy both of these conditions in order to be a “citizen of the United States.” But as to a “Natural Born Citizen,” we have a different story.
There is a legal way to change our Laws but it can’t be done by Congress passing a law of any kind. Go over to Thomas and do a seach and see how many times Congress has tried to change our Constitution in the correct way but got no place in trying to do it the lawful way.
Now they are doing it because they want to and no one will stop them. George Washington says it better than I ever could. He called it Usurpation! Don’t let these fools tell you what it says. You read it and it means what you think it means, not what someone tells you it means. In this matter the SCOTUS has stated what it takes to be a Natural Born Citizen of The United States, without any doubts. Congress can’t do away with it other than in the way the Constitution allows. They are trying to trash it and are doing a good job of it to this date.
No doubt in my mind every Congress person, every judge, every person who took and oath or affirmed to uphold the U.S. Constitution and didn’t. All, will be shown to be a traitor to the United States and our U.S. Constitution. That includes George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, my own Republican Congress men, all our State governors, including the so called news media. Because Obama is not a Natural Born Citizen, They all know it is unlawful, all of them have helped it to happen rather than trying to stop this unlawful act. Therefore nothing citizen obama does sitting as an unlawful POTUS is legal. I call Obama the prince of fools, if you voted for the prince of fools and your not, then fix it!
Tea Party…I just love these people!
“We, the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, ensure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare and secure the blessing of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”
Did you know some people think George Washington was not the first President of the United States?
John Hanson was President of the Continental Congress and had quite the shoes to fill. No one had ever been President and the role was poorly defined. His actions in office would set precedent for all future Presidents. He took office just as the Revolutionary War ended. Almost immediately, the troops demanded to be paid.
Hanson, as President of the Continental Congress, ordered all foreign troops off American soil, as well as the removal of all foreign flags. This was quite a feat, considering the fact that so many European countries had a stake in the United States since the days following Columbus. Hanson established the Great Seal of the United States, which all Presidents have since used on all official documents. Hanson also established the first Treasury Department, the first Secretary of War, and the first Foreign Affairs Department. Lastly, he declared that the fourth Thursday of every November was to be Thanksgiving Day, which is still true today.
The Articles of Confederation only allowed a President of the Continental Congress to serve a one-year term during any three-year period, so Hanson actually accomplished quite a bit in such little time. He served in that office from November 5, 1781 until November 3, 1782. He was the first President of the Continental Congress to serve a full term after the full ratification of the Articles of Confederation – and like so many of the Southern and New England Founders, he was said to be strongly opposed to the U. S. Constitution when it was first discussed. He remained a confirmed anti-federalist until his untimely death.
Six other President of the Continental Congress, were elected after him – Elias Boudinot (1783), Thomas Mifflin (1784), Richard Henry Lee (1785), Nathan Gorman (1786), Arthur St. Clair (1787), and Cyrus Griffin (1788) – all prior to Washington taking office.
Why don’t we ever hear about the first seven President of the Continental Congress of the United States?
It’s quite simple – The Articles of Confederation didn’t work well. The individual states had too much power and nothing could be agreed upon. A new doctrine needed to be written – something we know as our Constitution.
Socialism is not the Answer 
The key to understanding the “Natural Born American Citizen” question is to remember that the “ONLY” time Natural Born American Citizen comes up is in the Article 2. Section 1. paragraph 5. qualification for President of the United States of America & and later by amendment the office of VP because a VP could possibly one day take over the Presidents spot. If anybody says the use of Natural Born American Citizen in any other SCOTUS decision says yea or nay about Obamas eligibility they are misrepresenting the facts because there is NO TIME that the SCOTUS has ruled on it dealing with Presidential eligibility. Ever! Natural Born is simply old English law stating that to be a Natural Born British Subject one would have to be born of “Blood & Soil”. (That is the Blood of both parents, American Citizen at the time of his birth and that birth on American Soil). Our founding fathers were for the most part old English Lawyers trained in British Law and knew well the meaning of Natural Born because it was used daily in determining who of the British Empire were eligible to be British Subjects. Therefore a member of the British Empire, Barack Husein Obama Sr., (a Kenyan and Kenya a British Colony back in 1961), which caused Barack Husein Obama Sr. to fall under the British Nationality Act of 1948, and that Act stating that any child born of this British Subject anywhere in this world will be born a British Subject just like his father & Barack Husein Obama Jr., born under the British Nationality Act of 1948 to a non-American British Subject was born a British Subject at the moment of birth no matter where that birth took place. There is no way around this! Thus both American Law and British Law prove that while Barack Husein Obama Jr. may well be a Natural Born British Subject due to his fathers status as a British Subject. His fathers status as a British Subject and his lack of American Citizenship makes it impossible for Barack Husein Obama Sr. to have a Natural Born American Citizen child. Just the fact that Obama Jr. was born a British Subject makes him at best a dual citizen of both England and the US and no dual citizen be it with England, Kenya, or Indonesia can ever be considered a Natural Born American Citizen. Dual Citizens can have Dual allegiances (please Google “John Jay, George Washington, Natural Born” John Jay was our first Supreme Count Justice). Pay attention folks, we are at the crossroads where our Capitalistic Republic could turn into a Communist Dictatorship. They have their teleprompter reading puppet sleeping in our White House tonight!
Great Comment. I wish there were more people that understood this as well as you do, but to many have drank the obama kool-aid.
Obama was once a dual national, but that lapsed long ago. He is no longer a citizen of Kenya.
In contrast, Thomas Jefferson actually was a dual national, of the USA and France, when he was president. He had been made a full citizen of France (voting rights and the right to run for office) by the French National Assembly during the French Revolution.
No American writer at the time that the US Constitution was written ever discussed dual nationality affecting Natural Born Citizen status. They used the term National Born only to refer to citizenship due to the place of birth. That is all; they barred foreign citizens from becoming president (because you have to be a citizen to be a Natural Born Citizen). And they barred naturalized citizens from becoming president (because you have to be Natural Born). But they never said that the US-born children of foreigners were not eligible or that the US-born children of foreigners were lower quality citizens than the US-born children of US citizens.
“Prior to the adoption of the constitution, the people inhabiting the different states might be divided into two classes: natural born citizens, or those born within the state, and aliens, or such as were born out of it. The first, by their birth-right, became entitled to all the privileges of citizens; the second, were entitled to none, but such as were held out and given by the laws of the respective states prior to their emigration. …St. George Tucker, BLACKSTONE’S COMMENTARIES: WITH NOTES OF REFERENCE TO THE CONSTITUTION AND LAWS OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES AND THE COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA. (1803)
“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
“What is a natural born citizen? Clearly, someone born within the United States or one of its territories is a natural born citizen.” (Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on OCTOBER 5, 2004)–Senator Orrin G. Hatch (R-UT).
The term natural born citizen was first codified in writing in colonial reference books in 1758 in the legal reference book “Law of Nations.”
That legal reference book was used by John Jay, who later went on to become the first Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court. Jay had the clause inserted into the Constitution via a letter he wrote to George Washington, the leader of the Constitutional Convention. Jay was considered the outstanding legal scholar of his time and he was the one is responsible for inserting that term into the U. S. Constitution, which was derived from the Law of Nations.
John Jay wrote: “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.”
All three of the 2008 presidential candidates, Obama (aka Soetoro), McCain, and Calero were not eligible under Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 of the U.S. Constitution to serve as Commander-in-Chief.
Just like a residential purchase of a home is void if fraud in the inducement (where one party conceals a material fact that if people knew about it ahead of time, they would not enter into a residential purchase of a home), the same thing has occurred with the primaries and presidential election on November 4, 2008.
Because these three candidates (Obama (aka Soetoro), McCain, and Calero) were ineligible under Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 of the U.S. Constitution, the 2008 presidential election and its results should be voided.
Regardless of what game of charades people in the mainstream media and people within our federal government are trying to pull. That is a legal fact that can not be disputed.
Obama has only one US citizen parent. His father was British subject and a Citizen of Kenya — as was Obama.
McCain was not born in the mainland US. John Sidney McCain III was born at the Colon Hospital, located at Avenida Melendez and 2nd Street, Manzanillo Island, City of Colon, Republic of Panama. The time of birth on the birth certificate issued by Panama Railroad Company (which owned the Colon Hospital) was 5:25 PM and the day and date of birth was Saturday, August 29, 1936.
Calero was not born in the mainland US. He was born in Nicaragua.
The definition of “natural born citizen” at the framing came from the jus solis of the English common law
“When Barack Obama Jr. was born on Aug. 4,1961, in Honolulu, Kenya was a British colony, still part of the United Kingdom’s dwindling empire. As a Kenyan native, Barack Obama Sr. was a British subject whose citizenship status was governed by The British Nationality Act of 1948. That same act governed the status of Obama Sr.‘s children.
Jus sanguinis (Latin for “right of blood”), by which nationality or citizenship is not determined by place of birth, but by having an ancestor who is a national or citizen of the state.
Jus soli (Latin for “right of soil”), or birthright citizenship, by which nationality or citizenship can be recognized to any individual born in the territory of the related state.
This is the case we have in the US now: If you’re an illegal alien, and you “break your water” and give birth ON US SOIL, that child is a US Citizen. The history of American citizenship has long been centered around MEN. While the 1790 Naturalized Act included all (white) “persons” and so included women, it also declared that “the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in the United States….”
This prevented the automatic grant of citizenship to children born abroad whose mother, but not father, had resided in the United States. As a course of Congressional law, this was the case until 1868, although citizenship court cases in New York and other states as early as 1802 extended the right to women as well in judicial manner. Legally, until the ratification of the 14th Amendment, Citizenship (NOT to be confused with Natural Born Citizenship which is NOT addressed in the 14th Amendment) was inherited exclusively through the father. In terms of Naturalization, the US Congress did not remove this until 1934, when the mother could extend her US citizenship to her children born overseas (with age requirements as well).
Remember also that the 14th Amendment did NOT resolve all citizenship issues. Children of immigrants were barred from citizenship until Wong Kim Ark in 1898, but many rights were STILL not completely granted to this group until 1952. Also, in Elk v Wilkins, the SCOTUS felt the Indians owed alliance to their tribes and thus were NOT part of the United States. Congress however extended Native Indians birth citizenship in 1924. Subsequently, that same right has been extended to Puerto Rico, Guam and other US Territories. Illegal aliens born ON US SOIL are extended US citizenship as a matter of Executive policy exercised through the State Department. But no Congressional law or SCOTUS decision officially and specifically recognizes the group of “illegal alien” and Citizenship rights. So let’s look at British Law (PAST AND PRESENT):
The British Nationality Act of 1981 came into force on January 1, 1983. Prior to 1983, British nationality was only be transmitted from the father through one generation only, and parents were required to be married. This is jus sanguinis or possibly even a type of lex soli in Obama Sr’s case, but not jus soli (unless you want to give the Kenyan birth theory credence…).
Because England has LONG been in the business of worldwide Colonization, this policy has been in place since AT LEAST the year 1350. Going back BEFORE America was “discovered” is statute 25 Edw. III st. 2 (Status of Children Born Abroad Act of 1350) that naturalized children of English parents born overseas. THIS IS JUS SANGUINIS AND IS STILL IN PLACE TODAY. This was in place throughout the British empire — regardless of birthplace, because of Colonization in FAR-OFF LANDS such as “New England”, Hong Kong, India and British East Africa (later subdivided and in part known as “Kenya”). If you want to consider the specific case of BHO Sr. and his heirs, entitlement to the status of British subject/citizen was first codified by the British Nationality and Status of Aliens Act 1914. Fast forwarding to CURRENT LAW, just like the US today, the UK today is currently BOTH jus solis and jus sanguinis. Taking the position that BHO was born ON US soil, he was born a US Citizen while also UK Citizen, later a Kenyan Citizen (and maybe even an Indonesian Citizen). The UK/Kenyan bond of allegiance did NOT dissolve until he turned 21 years of age, per the Kenyan Constitution. BUT keep in mind that ALL of those countries WOULD restore his Citizenship RIGHT NOW if he desired it — ALL of their Constitutions and nationality laws permit this. THAT IS THE TWO-WAY BOND OF ALLEGIANCE. So yes, there ARE allegiance issues with him holding DUAL or MULTIPLE NATIONALITY for nearly half his life!
First, let me note that there are 4 such cases which speak of the notion of “natural born citizenship”:
The Venus, 12 U.S. 8 Cranch 253 253 (1814)
“The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives or indigenes are those born in the country of parents who are citizens. Society not being able to subsist and to perpetuate itself but by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights.
“The inhabitants, as distinguished from citizens, are strangers who are permitted to settle and stay in the country. Bound by their residence to the society, they are subject to the laws of the state while they reside there, and they are obliged to defend it…
Shanks v. Dupont, 28 U.S. 3 Pet. 242 242 (1830)
Ann Scott was born in South Carolina before the American revolution, and her father adhered to the American cause and remained and was at his death a citizen of South Carolina. There is no dispute that his daughter Ann, at the time of the Revolution and afterwards, remained in South Carolina until December, 1782. Whether she was of age during this time does not appear. If she was, then her birth and residence might be deemed to constitute her by election a citizen of South Carolina. If she was not of age, then she might well be deemed under the circumstances of this case to hold the citizenship of her father, for children born in a country, continuing while under age in the family of the father, partake of his national character as a citizen of that country. Her citizenship, then, being prima facie established, and indeed this is admitted in the pleadings, has it ever been lost, or was it lost before the death of her father, so that the estate in question was, upon the descent cast, incapable of vesting in her? Upon the facts stated, it appears to us that it was not lost and that she was capable of taking it at the time of the descent cast.
Minor v. Happersett , 88 U.S. 162 (1875)
The Constitution does not in words say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens 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.
United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898)
At common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children, born in a country of parents who were its citizens, became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners.
I’d like to add to these, Perkins v. Elg, the importance of which is that it actually gives examples of what a “natural born citizen” of the U.S. is; what a “citizen” of the U.S. is; and what a “native-born citizen” of the U. S. is.
In this case, the U. S. Supreme Court found that a “natural born citizen” is a person who is born of two U.S. citizen parents AND born in the mainland of U.S.
Re: “the legal reference book “Law of Nations.”
Answer: The Book The Law of Nations was written by the SWISS philosopher Vattel. In Switzerland they thought that parents affect Natural Born status. But in the USA, we did not and still do not.
Re: “That legal reference book was used by John Jay, who later went on to become the first Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court.”
Answer: John Jay, a lawyer and jurist (NOT a philospher) was referring to the legal meaning of Natural Born used at the time. He, like John Adams, Alexander Hamilton, and the others at the time can be shown to use the phrase Natural Born exactly the way that it was used in the common law. Not one of them ever used it to refer to the parents, only to citizenship due to the place of birth. The PLACE of birth.
Re: “the U. S. Constitution, which was derived from the Law of Nations.’
Answer: Neither the book THE Law of Nations (Capital T in “the”) nor Vattel is mentioned either in the US Constitution or in the Federalist Papers. The common law is mentioned in the Federalist Papers about twenty times.
Obama was never a citizen of Indonesia, as a telephone call to the Indonesian Embassy will confirm.
Re: “In this case, the U. S. Supreme Court found that a “natural born citizen” is a person who is born of two U.S. citizen parents AND born in the mainland of U.S.”
The US Supreme Court ruled in the definitive case Wong Kim Arc v US that EVERY child born in the USA except for the children of foreign diplomats is NATURAL BORN. When a person is both a US citizen and Natural Born, she or he is, duh, a Natural Born Citizen.
“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.]
“What is a natural born citizen? Clearly, someone born within the United States or one of its territories is a natural born citizen.” (Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on OCTOBER 5, 2004)–Senator Orrin G. Hatch (R-UT).
“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
And these federal law cases:
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.”
Regarding Vattel and The Law of Nations, would be kinda nice if the Birfoon Tendency had ACTUALLY read the book as opposed to simply copy ‘n pasting each others droppings.
Like the part where Vattel states that his OPINION is only applicable to SOME countries and specifically points out England as an exception where soli and NOT sanguinis is the definer, too whit
“there are countries, such as England, in which the mere fact of birth within the country naturalizes the children of an alien.”
And where did the US gets it’s definitions in common law from…..hint, it begins with and E and ends in an NGLAND