Sunday, September 5, 2010

RECAP...

Article II, Section 1, Clause 5: No person except a natural-born citizen …shall be eligible to the office of President.

The issue of whether or not Obama is “eligible to the office of President” depends upon whether or not he is an Article II “natural born citizen” of the United States.

The phrase “natural born citizen” “must be interpreted in the light of the common law, the principles and history of which were familiarly known to the framers of the Constitution”.

United States v. Wong Kim Ark., 18 S. Ct. 456, 169 U.S. 649 (U.S. 03/28/1898)

[1] SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

[16] The Constitution nowhere defines the meaning of these words ["citizen of the United States," and "natural-born citizen of the United States"], either by way of inclusion or of exclusion, except in so far as this is done by the affirmative declaration that “all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States.” In this, as in other respects, it [The Constitution] must be interpreted in the light of the common law, the principles and history of which were familiarly known to the framers of the Constitution. Minor v. Happersett, 21 Wall. 162 [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. Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 21 Wall. 162 (1874]; Ex parte Wilson, 114 U.S. 417, 422; Boyd v. United States, 116 U.S. 616, 624, 625; Smith v. Alabama, 124 U.S. 465. The language of the Constitution, as has been well said, could not be understood without reference to the common law. 1 Kent Com. 336; Bradley, J., in Moore v. United States, 91 U.S. 270, 274.

The “common law, the principles and history of which were familiarly known to the framers of the Constitution” was plainly expressed by the Supreme Court of the United States in the dissenting opinion of Scott v. Sandford, which quoted Vattel, and explicitly stated, “The natives or natural-born citizens are those born in the country of parents who are citizens…”

Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. 393 (U.S. 01/02/1856)

[1] UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT

[418] …The natives or natural-born citizens are those born in the country of parents who are citizens…

Furthermore, the Supreme Court of the United States in 1814 relied upon Vattel’s “Law of Nations” as the authority on citizenship issues, and stated in The Venus, “The natives, or indigenes [natural-born citizens], are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens.”

The Venus, 12 U.S. (8 Cranch) 253, 1814

“Vattel, …is more explicit and more satisfactory on it [CITIZENSHIP ISSUES] than any other whose work has fallen into my hands, [Vattel] says, ‘…The natives, or indigenes [natural-born citizens], are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens.’ ”

Vattel’s Law of Nations: § 212. Citizens and natives

…The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens.

Finally, the Supreme Court of the United States, in Minor v. Happersett, confirmed the definition of a “natural born citizen” as “children born in a country of parents who were its citizens”.

Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 21 Wall. 162 (1874)

“ ‘No person except a natural-born citizen …shall be eligible to the office of President’… 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.”

Simply put, Article II “natural born citizens” are those citizens who are “born in the country, of parents who are citizens.”

Hence, Obama is not an Article II “natural born citizen” of the United States, even if he was born in Hawaii, as his father was a “foreigner”…

To reiterate, Obama’s father was not a citizen of the United States.

Therefore, Obama is not an Article II “natural born citizen” of the United States.

Thus, Obama is not “eligible to the office of President”.

No comments:

Post a Comment

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.