Today I discovered that the reason I could not find a section of the Nationalization Statues is because the section had been scrubbed. This is not an accident. The section removed had confirmed that the interpretation of the State Department based on the Constitution and relevant case law was that Naturalization did not convey natural born status for Constitutional purposes.
The Foreign Affairs Manual (FAM) and associated Handbooks (FAHs) are a single, comprehensive, and authoritative source for the Department’s organization structures, policies, and procedures that govern the operations of the State Department, the Foreign Service and, when applicable, other federal agencies. The FAM (generally policy) and the FAHs (generally procedures) together convey codified information to Department staff and contractors so they can carry out their responsibilities in accordance with statutory, executive and Department mandates.
ACQUISITION OF U.S. CITIZENSHIP BY BIRTH ABROAD TO U.S. CITIZEN PARENT (CT:CON-636; 02-24-2016) is being scrubbed…
The Original Document “7 FAM 1131.6-2 Eligibility for Presidency.” (Still live at Wikipedia)
Section 1 of Article Two of the United States Constitution requires that a candidate for President of the United States be a “natural-born citizen”.
According to the US Department of State Foreign Affairs Manual: “the fact that someone is a natural born citizen (citizen at birth) pursuant to a statute does not necessarily imply that he or she is such a citizen for Constitutional purposes.”
The Current Document
7 FAM 1131.6-2 Not Citizens by “Naturalization”
Section 201(g) NA and section 301g) INA (8 U.S.C. 1401(g)) (formerly 301(a)(7) INA) both specify that naturalization is “the conferring of nationality of a state upon a person after birth.” Accordingly, U.S. citizens who acquire U.S. citizenship at birth by birth abroad to a U.S. citizen parent(s) are not considered “naturalized” citizens under either act.
To The Point
Article I, Section 9, Clause 7 of the United States Constitution states:
“No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law; and a regular Statement and Account of the Receipts and Expenditures of all public Money shall be published from time to time.”
This is the “Power of the Purse” clause, which Article I, Section 7, Clause 1 makes clear is exclusively held by the House of Representatives:
The Christian Science Monitor published a Staff Writer Linda Feldmann article titled “Obama looks to bypass Congress with help for homeowners, students” on October 24, 2011. The article details the beginnings of a new pseudo dictator-like approach to getting action on bills that the United States Congress refuses, for the public good, not to act into law. In other words, Obama is violating our laws by finding ways to bypass the United States Constitution the supreme law of our land.
Violating our Constitution in not new to this charlatan, who through slick con-man talk, convinces people that he is more knowledgeable about government affairs than he really is. He also convinced 70 million voters that he was qualified under constitutional law to be eligible to run for the office of the President of the United States. And to this day, three years later he has kept every official document that could prove his actual status as legitimate or a usurper in secret hiding places refusing to let even judges to view those documents.
Political Vel Craft
A prominent libertarian constitutional lawyer and civil libertarian has drafted an article of impeachment against President Obama over his attack on Libya, throwing down a legal gauntlet that could be picked up by some Congressional Republicans
Bruce Fein, a former Reagan administration official in the Department of Justice and chairman of American Freedom Agenda writes in his 15-page argument of Obama’s course that “Barack Hussein Obama has mocked the rule of law, endangered the very existence of the Republic and the liberties of the people, and perpetrated an impeachable high crime and misdemeanor.”
Sadly, there seems to be more talk about ineligibility on any given Sunday during football season in the U.S. than about one of the most important issues in America today. It’s the issue that still hasn’t gone away, despite the best attempts of politicians, media pundits, and well known talk show hosts from both sides of the political aisle. It’s the issue of the eligibility of Barack Hussein Obama to occupy the highest elected office in the United States.
Many Republicans and conservatives, under the influence of their Kool-Aid induced agendas, have described the eligibility issue as a “distraction” from the real issues. The majority of Democrats and progressives, for obvious reasons, have resorted to associating the issue with race, bigotry and hatred. Together, detractors of this issue from both sides have engaged in the methodical marginalization of the message and mocking those who dare act as the messengers.