Contrary to what OBOTS want to believe...AKA OBAMA is NOT a NATURAL BORN CITIZEN and thus cannot be POTUS!...Thanks Obama Timeline

At CanadaFreepress.com, J. B. Williams reviews the 2001 Supreme Court case Tuan Anh Nguyen v. INS (Immigration and Naturalization Service) and notes Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg’s comments about nationality. Ginsberg stated: “Mr. Kneedler, I have a problem with it [Kneedler’s argument]. You would surely have a huge statelessness problem if you didn’t recognize that the child born abroad to U.S. citizens is a U.S. citizen because, as you point out, in most countries in the world, they go by blood, not by land of birth. …You call the child born abroad an alien, but in most places in the world that child would NOT be a citizen of the place in which that person is born; isn’t that so? … If Congress went back to the way it was when everything was determined by the father’s citizenship, go back to before 1934, suppose Congress accepts your argument or we accept your argument and say plenary power, they can do whatever they damn please, so they say children born abroad of fathers who are U.S. citizens can become U.S. citizens, but not children who are born abroad of U.S. mothers where the father in an alien. That’s the way it used to be in the bad old days.” The case involved a child born in Vietnam to a Vietnamese mother and an American father who were not married. At age 6 the boy moved to the United States with his businessman father. At age 22 he was convicted of sexual assault, and the INS began proceedings to get him deported. Ngyuen considered himself Vietnamese, but his father considered him to be a U.S citizen. The appeal involved the fact that the INS has different rules for such a situation, depending on whether the mother or the father is the U.S. citizen. [10542, 10967, 10968, 10969, 10970, 10971, 10975]

In a 5–4 decision the Supreme Court ruled that the INS did not violate the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Ginsberg voted with the minority. The significance of the case is that Ginsberg understands legal precedent with regard to citizenship and parentage, and is aware of the concept of “natural law” that historically considered the bloodline of the father to be critical in ascribing citizenship. If Ginsberg understands that a child born in Vietnam to a Vietnamese mother and an American father is considered a U.S. citizen, she might similarly someday rule that a child born in the United States to an American mother and a father who is a citizen of the British Protectorate of Kenya is considered a British/Kenyan citizen. (If Obama cannot even depend on a liberal member of the Court to rule in his favor, there is little wonder why he is fighting eligibility lawsuits so fiercely. Luckily for Obama, most Americans do not understand the meanings of the different terms. “Native born” relates to place of birth, while “natural born” relates to parentage and the “laws of nature”—the family lineage of the father’s bloodline. That is the history of the terms, both in general and legal usage. [10542, 10967, 10968, 10969, 10970, 10971, 10975]

According to Emerich de Vattel’s The Law of Nations (1758)—which was widely read by and influenced the Founding Fathers of the United States: “…The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. As the society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights. The society is supposed to desire this, in consequence of what it owes to its own preservation; and it is presumed, as matter of course, that each citizen, on entering into society, reserves to his children the right of becoming members of it. The country of the fathers is therefore that of the children; and these become true citizens merely by their tacit consent. …I say, that, in order to be of the country, it is necessary that a person be born of a father who is a citizen; for, if he is born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country.” In other words, because Obama’s father was not a citizen of the United States, Obama is not a natural born citizen; he is only a native born citizen. He cannot therefore legally serve as president, because the U.S. Constitution requires that presidents attain age 35 and be natural born citizens 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…” [10542, 10967, 10968, 10969, 10970, 10971, 10975]

Because no one could have been a 35-year-old natural born citizen of the United States when the nation was founded, the language had to include “or a citizen of the United States, at the time of the adoption of this Constitution” or no one would have been eligible to serve as president. As the decades passed, of course, natural born citizens attained the age of 35 and the additional language became superfluous. Abraham Lincoln, for example, was at least age 35 when he ran for president and was a natural born citizen by virtue of having been born on U.S. soil to two citizen parents. George Washington was not a natural born citizen because his parents were not U.S. citizens at the time of his birth; that was of course impossible, because the United States did not exist at the time of his birth and his parents, although born in Virginia, were British subjects. Those who argue that it is sufficient to have been born on U.S. soil to be considered a natural born citizen do not understand the history of the term. They should be required to explain why the Constitution needed to include that presidential eligibility exception, “or a citizen of the United States, at the time of the adoption of this Constitution…” If natural born citizen means nothing more than having been born on U.S. soil, that language was not necessary. That it was included is further proof that the drafters meant for the term natural born citizen to mean what it had meant historically, in both British law, the Law of Nations, and other writings. They did not write that a president need be only a “citizen,” or even a “native born citizen;” they wrote that the president must be a “natural born citizen.” (As Obama likes to say, “Words have meanings.” So do those in the U.S. Constitution.) [10542, 10967, 10968, 10969, 10970, 10971, 10975]

Should the U.S. Supreme Court ever be asked to rule on the meaning of natural born citizen and how it applies to presidential eligibility, the Justices cannot ignore history, precedent, and centuries of law. (Vattel wrote in The Law of Nations, “I say, that, in order to be of the country, it is necessary that a person be born of a father who is a citizen; for, if he is born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country.” That was the historical meaning of the term natural born citizen. What many American believe to be the meaning of natural born citizen is actually the meaning of native born citizen.) If the Supreme Court rules according to the law, they would have no choice but to rule that Obama does not meet the eligibility requirements of the presidency. He is not a natural born citizen of the United States, regardless of where he was born, because he did not have two U.S. citizen parents and, historically, the father’s citizenship is conveyed to the child. (For that same reason, Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal cannot be president. At the time of his birth his parents were not both U.S. citizens.) The fact that most Americans, most politicians, and virtually everyone in the mainstream media does not understand the law is irrelevant. The Supreme Court can only rule on the basis of law and legal precedent, not the uninformed preferences of the citizenry. Having said that, the Court likely hopes never to have to address the issue. It may prefer that Obama continue to serve illegally to ruling that he is ineligible to serve as president, mostly because there would be no end of problems as a result of that ruling—not the least of which could be nationwide riots in which large numbers of people might be killed. [10542, 10967, 10968, 10969, 10970, 10971, 10975]