« DemocracyRules Offers to Buy Cox Newspapers | Main | Obama Was Not Born in a Honolulu Hospital »

December 03, 2008


This is NOT rocket science:
Since the Constitution’s Article II requires our President to be a “natural born citizen” (not merely “citizen” as allowed for those living when the Constitution was enacted) meaning both parents were US “citizens” when the child was born (parents not necessarily “natural born” citizens), there’s NO WAY Obama can be President — regardless of being born in Kenya OR Hawaii. Obama’s dad was NOT an American citizen. He was a citizen of the UK (ruling Kenya at the time). Case closed.

{From DR -- Ted, thanks for the comment. Actually, though, I do think this matter DOES sort of fit in the "rocket science" category. Evertyhing you say above is valid. But it's actually quite hard (from me anyway) to reason the whole thing out. Key problems:

(1) What did the Framers know and when did they know it? Arrgh. Constitutional experts have to put themselves in the mindset of the Framers, and that requires a lot of scholarly knowledge about the history, law, and society of that time.

(2) What amendments and laws have been passed since then, which could impinge on the meaning of Article II section 1? Double arrgh! Legal experts have to comb through every relevant law from then to now, looking for anything that could modify the meaning of Article II, Section 1.

(3) I'm not even a lawyer, I'm a scientist. However, I respect the conclusions of Benjamin and Donofrio because they know a lot about these matters, and have specifically studied them full time for months. Also, I have previous knowledge that Blackstone is considered authoritative. So if you go with Benjamin and rely on Blackstone, or Donofrio, and rely the Constitution wording itself, Obama looks ineligible.

The wonderful thing these very smart guys did was make the case simple and clear for the rest of us.

Pro Patria}

Ted, where did you get that _both_ parents had to be American citizens for their child to be a "natural born" American citizen? I'm a "natural born" American citizen and _neither_ of my parents were American when I was born.

I was born in a US territory (in 1949), and that, my friend, makes me a "natural born" American citizen. Always have been, always will be. So, maybe not quite so "case closed" after all; maybe you might want to check a bit further into the _real_ facts (and law) behind your assertion?


{From DR -- Beth, thanks for the comment. Actually, from the way you describe your past, I don't think you WOULD be a "natural born citizen".

You might want to read the piece by Benjamin on Texas Darlin. To be natural born, one must be "born to US soil," and have "undivided allegiance" since birth.

So it's completely possible to be a full US citizen, without being a "natual born citizen", as the term was used and understood by the Framers of the Constitution.

Blackstone, and other historical records of the time clearly indicate the Framers wanted the Presidents to have no undivided allegiance at all. This meant no dual citizenship, ever, or anything else that would make a person's allegiance divided in some way.

Pro Patria}

Sorry Beth, by the way, that is my middle name and I love it,

that your parents were not American Citizen's at the time of your birth means that you are a Citizen of the United States, just not a "Natural Born Citizen". The difference is there solely for the Office of President. To be eligible for the Offic of President, then both of your parents must have been Citizens of the United States by having been through "Naturalization", which means taking the Oath of Citizenship, and then they pass on their citizenship to you through you being born in the United States.

"Natural Born Citizen" means that both of your parents have citizenship, unadulterated by another allegiance to any other foreign country, status in the United States and are on US soil when you are born. Obama's father, according to him, was a Citizen of Kenya and also the UK because at the time, the UK controlled the territory of Kenya, and he held a dual citizenship by that. Obama carried that dual citizenship from his father, and no matter where he was born, becuase of that dual citizenship from his father, he is NOT a "Natural Born Citizen", he can be a "Naturalized Citizen" if he has taken an oath of Citizenship after reaching the age of majority and sworn allegiance to the United States of America. However, even if he had sworn allegiancce to the US at any time in a quest for Citizenship, it still would not be "Natural Born Citizen" as that can never be repaired to original, if it was ever given up, as in when Obama's Mother took him to Indonesia and his step-father adopted him, in order to put him into school in Indonesia, as was required at that time.

(Beth is my middle name, as well…I, too, think it’s pretty neat.)

I think the question of “natural-born” is one with many nuances – depending on what ‘cause’ one is promoting… I have a feeling that no matter what SCOTUS decides is the legal definition (as applicable to the 14th Amendment) there are going to be some _mighty_ disgruntled citizens.

Personally, I think the question of Obama’s eligibility to be POTUS is nothing more than a tempest in a teapot and the last-grasp at a straw by those still convinced he is Muslim, a Socialist, is hell-bent on destroying our nation, and who knows what else.

I, personally, think there are too much precedence (case law) to find anything _other_ than that he is fully qualified (14th Amendment-wise) to be POTUS {Polarik’s 'investigation' and/or other 'proof' notwithstanding, of course ;-)}.

As far as _my_ “natural-born” citizenship goes, please take a look at the information from “U.S. Constitution Online” at: http://www.usconstitution.net/consttop_citi.html

The relevant portion for _my_ natural-born citizen status is: “Separate sections handle territories that the United States has acquired over time, such as Puerto Rico (8 USC 1402), Alaska (8 USC 1404), Hawaii (8 USC 1405), the U.S. Virgin Islands (8 USC 1406), and Guam (8 USC 1407). Each of these sections confer citizenship on persons living in these territories as of a certain date, and usually confer natural-born status on persons born in those territories after that date.”

Both of my parents were citizens of another country and were subsequently naturalized (as were my two elder siblings – neither of whom were born, as I was, in a US territory.)

Being born in the US territory, I was “under legal protection” of the US; my parents, who were “nationals” were also under that legal protection.

They did not take an oath of allegiance _on my behalf_ to any _other nation_ nor did they declare/register me as a citizen of any _other_ nation. Not only was I a US citizen at birth, I was a “natural-born” US citizen. All four of them (the family I was born into) had to go through the immigration/naturalization process to gain their US citizenship.

I did not – my “natural-born” citizenship-ness (is that a word?) was/is _without_ qualification by virtue of the location of my birth and that location’s status as a US territory (at the time – now a State) subject to all the laws of the US.

[That said, just for kicks, just to muddy the waters, my father was born in the US (see the first bullet on the link above) which made him, too, a “natural-born” citizen.

However, his parents were both citizens of another country, and as a young man, he worked for the government of that country…having to declare allegiance to it in the process. By doing so, his status changed and, therefore, he had to go through the naturalization process to (re-)gain his US citizenship.

In recent years, we have found that that (his taking an oath to uphold the laws of that other country), in and of itself, should _not_ have diminished his rights as a “natural-born” citizen, _but_, since he _did_ go through the naturalization process, I (and my siblings) have to declare on official documents asking for information on his citizenship status history, that he was naturalized.

(Paper trails and all that…) My siblings and I invariably get into a ‘discussion’ with the examining officer about our father’s naturalization…they insist he didn’t _need_ to be naturalized (since he was “natural-born”) and that we’ve filled out our paperwork incorrectly, and us trying to patiently explain that, whether or not he ‘needed to’, he _had_ been naturalized.

Ah, yes; the laws for US citizenship through immigration and naturalization...and their _distinct_ differentiation from "natural"/"natural-born" US citizenship...]

{From DR-- Sorry Beth, I disagree again.

In the eyes of the US Constitution, there is a distinct difference between "born to the soil" of the US, and being a "natural born citizen" of the US. Remember, the Constitution has to be interpreted in the legal, linguistic, and social context in which it was written.

The Framers wanted the President to have undivided allegiance to the US. We know that because they exchanged letters about it. In the English common law of the time, the term "natural born subject" meant to be (1) born to the
soil, and (2) to have undivided allegiance.

At that time, if a person's parents were not US citizens, then they automatically conferred their home citizenship onto the newborn. As a dual citizen, with divided allegiance from birth, the baby could never become President.

Obama is out.

As I said, Judah Benajmin explains this in detail on Texas Darlin.

--Pro Patria}

DR: You will see that Beth is correct and that you are incorrect when the SCOTUS declines to hear the case. Watch and learn.

Still doesn't change the fact that I, a person born in a US territory (now a State) of non-citizen parents, was, am, and always will be, (_without qualification_) a "natural-born" US citizen. The laws on citizenship through immigration & naturalization, combined with laws on citizenship through birth in US States and Territories, make that abundantly clear. The distinction is in _how_ one gains citizenship; _either_ by birth ("natural-born" per the laws of what constitutes a US citizen) OR by deliberate choosing to avail oneself of the law to _become_ a US citizen.

"As I said, Judah Benajmin explains this in detail on Texas Darlin." [DR]
DR - you are taking Judah Benjamin's 'explanation' (on Texas Darlin) as a factual piece of 'evidence' about Obama's status as a natural-born (or even in-any-form) US citizen? (I am presuming the article you refer to is the one found at: http://texasdarlin.wordpress.com/2008/08/10/obamas-dual-citizenship-disaster-an-overview/ ?)

Does it not strike you as odd the 'fact' that Obama's "real/original" birth certificate was issued in the name of "Soetoro" (from the 'argument' on the TD site: "Soetoro is the name on Obama’s Birth Certificate (BC) because a new BC was issued when he was adopted by Lolo Soetoro, his step-father.") If I'm not mistaken (and I very well _could_ be...but in this case, I seriously doubt it) the _only_ reason there might be/is a change to a name on a BC would be _if_ 1) the child's name was misspelled (horribly) and it was noticed and corrected within days of its issuance, and/or 2) the (real) father's identity became known _after_ the BC was issued - as a legal certification of _birth_ lineage; not for/because of anything else. A birth certificate certifies a birth (and the parentage of the child born); adoption papers certify/legalize an adoption of a child to/by the parent(s) who adopted him/her. The former (an original BC) _does not_ change because of the latter (an adoption). At least, that's how it (legally and factually) works, I believe, for everyone living and thinking in the _real_ world. (The exception being, of course, those who don't live or think in terms of reality and/or logic.)

Sorry, the JB-on-TD 'argument' (as a piece of factually verified -or verifiable- knowledge) falls flat on its face; as a piece of (evidently) severe Obama-phobia and (obviously) grabbing at innuendos, rumors, and wild speculation to 'prove' a point, though, it sure is swell.

All of the Obama photos are fakes and the few documents released are forged. Obama is an illegal alien. Born in an out of wedlock birth whose father was a US Citizen living in Hawaii Frank Marshall Davis the white mother is unknown. In an out of wedlock birth the mother determines citizenship and nationality. Find that woman. Her name would be on the vault birth certificate as well as her nationality.

Our investigation has determined that Obama is older than he claims and probably was born before Hawaii became a state in 1959 making him unnatural born on that score alone. Why isn't the press investigating the facts?

Why aren't Hawaiian authorities prosecuting Obama for citing a forged birth certificate on the Internet and elsewhere?

Obama Birth Announcement Forged

The comments to this entry are closed.


  • The 2006 Weblog Awards
  • "This is a great blog."



  • Before posting a comment, ask yourself whether it is polite, fair, and truthful. Comments are auto-deleted if they contain profanity (even with ast*ri*ks). Comments may also be edited or deleted if they include anything false, misleading, insulting, unethical, illogical or spamlike. Rude comments or spam result in a permanent ban of future comments.