According to Our Constitution,”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; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.”

First we must remember:
*“The common law of England is not the common law of these States.” –George Mason

*One universal point most all early publicists agreed on was natural-born citizen must mean one who is a citizen by no act of law. If a person owes their citizenship to some act of law (naturalization for example), they cannot be considered a natural-born citizen. This leads us to defining natural-born citizen under the laws of nature – laws the founders recognized and embraced.

*Under the laws of nature, every child born requires no act of law to establish the fact the child inherits through nature his/her father’s citizenship as well as his name (or even his property) through birth. This law of nature is also recognized by law of nations. Sen. Howard said the citizenship clause under the Fourteenth Amendment was by virtue of “natural law and national law.”

 

Obama’s father was born in British East Africa Protectorate, as of 1895 (now known as Kenya, as of 1963)- in 1920, the Protectorate changed it’s name to the Colony of Kenya, but it was still under British rule. Obama inherited his citizenship from his father, making him a citizen of the Colony of Kenya, under British rule.Obama, therefore, inherited his father’s citizenship in British East Africa Protectorate, later known as the Colony of Kenya. It is irrelevant whether his mother was a US citizen, as they were married at the time of his birth. It is through the father that citizenship is decided.
That includes all these alleged ‘anchor babies’- if their father was a Mexican National at the time of the birth of a child, their children, even if born in the US, are NOT US citizens, contrary to popular myth. The exception to the use of the father’s status in deciding citizenship is if the child is illegitimate, in which case it is the mother’s status- if she is here illegally, and is a citizen of Mexico, the child is NOT a Natural-born child of the US. Location of birth is not the deciding factor of citizenship. The father must be a citizen of the US, and not of another nation/state; the same holds true for the mother of an illegitimate child. A child born in the US does not ‘automatically’ become a citizen solely by being born in the US; the father must be a citizen of the US, or, if an illegitimate birth, the mother must be a citizen of the US. If not, then the child is a citizen of wherever the parent was a citizen of prior to coming to the US.

*House Report No. 784, dated June 22, 1874, stated, “The United States have not recognized a ‘double allegiance.’ By our law a citizen is bound to be ‘true and faithful’ alone to our government.”

*Rep. John A. Bingham commenting on Section 1992 said it means “every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen.” (Cong. Globe, 39th, 1st Sess., 1291 (1866)

**Elk v. Wilkins, 112 US 94 (1884) @ 101-102 states that:
“The main object of the opening sentence of the fourteenth amendment was …to put it beyond doubt that all persons, white or black, and whether formerly slaves or not, born or naturalized in the United States, and OWING NO ALLEGIANCE TO ANY ALIEN POWER, should be citizens of the United States and of the state in which they reside. Slaughter-House Cases, 16 Wall. 36, 73; Strauder v. West Virginia, 100 U.S. 303, 306.”

**Under Constitutional Intent of the Natural Born Citizen Clause in Article 2.1.5, the successful US Government Attorney of later Wong Kim Ark fame shows us that the Paternal Link (that through the Father’s Status) is essential in determining who is or is NOT a United States Natural Born Citizen:
“Birth, therefore, does not ipso facto confer citizenship, and is essential in order that a person be a native or natural born citizen of the United States, that his father be at the time of the birth of such person a citizen thereof, or in the case he be illegitimate, that his mother be a citizen thereof at the time of such birth.” – GEORGE D. COLLINS, SAN FRANCISCO, CAL.”                                                            (ipso facto means ‘by the fact itself’)

 

Obama is not legally in office- he has usurped his position and needs to be immediately removed. He is then to be charged with perjury, and all the other impeachable offenses he has done, tried, and punished. Everything he has done is void.

**As for Congress winking at the Law and ignoring the Constitution regarding the Natural Born Citizenship requirement clause in the Constitution:

**Almeida-Sanchez v. United States, 413 U.S. 266 (1973) @ 272 “It is clear, of course, that no Act of Congress can authorize a violation of the Constitution.”

**Norton v. Shelby County, 118 U.S. 425 (1886) @442 “…an unconstitutional act is not a law; it confers no rights; it imposes no duties; it affords no protection; it creates no office; it is, in legal contemplation, as inoperative as though it had never been passed.”

**Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 137 (1803) @ 180 “… in declaring what shall be the supreme law of the land, the Constitution itself is first mentioned, and not the laws of the United States generally, but those only which shall be made in pursuance of the Constitution, have that rank.
Thus, the particular phraseology of the Constitution of the United States confirms and strengthens the principle, supposed to be essential to all written Constitutions, that a law repugnant to the Constitution is void, and that courts, as well as other departments, are bound by that instrument.

**U.S. Constitution, Article. VI. “This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding. The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution.…”

 

If any refuse to uphold the Constitution, they are to be removed immediately.

In our Declaration of Independence, we stated “WE hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness—That to secure these Rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the Consent of the Governed, that whenever any form of Government becomes destructive of these Ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its Foundation on such Principles, and organizing its Powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. “

IT IS TIME for America’s peoples to uphold our rights!!
That also means that Rafael Edward ‘Ted’ Cruz, Marco Antonio Rubio, and Piyush ‘Bobby’ Jindal are also NOT eligible.

  • Cruz’s father was a citizen of Cuba at the time of his birth.(his father didn’t get Canadian citizenship until 1973;his son was born in Canada in 1970). Even if his father had later become a US citizen, and was able to pass that to his son, he would be a naturalized citizen, Not a Natural born citizen. It is the father’s citizenship at the time of birth that is the deciding factor.
  • Neither of Marco Rubio’s parents were US citizens at the time of his birth. They were naturalized in 1975. He, if his father’s status after 1975 passed to him, he would be a ‘naturalized citizen. Naturalized is not the same as a Natural born citizen.
  • Bobby Jindal’s father was a native citizen of India, arriving in the US 6 months prior to Jindal’s birth. Neither parent was a US citizen at the time of his birth. Even if his parents later became citizens, and his father was able to pass that along to him, he would be a ‘Naturalized citizen’, and not a Natural born citizen.
  • Obama’s father was a citizen of British East Africa Protectorate, as of 1895 (now known as Kenya, as of 1963)- in 1920, the Protectorate changed it’s name to the Colony of Kenya, but it was still under British rule. Obama inherited his citizenship from his father, making him a citizen of the Colony of Kenya, under British rule. He is not a Natural born citizen.

*When a child inherits the citizenship of their father, they become a natural-born citizen of the nation their father belongs regardless of where they might be born. It should be pointed out that citizenship through descent of the father was recognized by U.S. Naturalization law whereby children became citizens themselves as soon as their father had become a naturalized citizen, or were born in another country to a citizen father.

*Yes, birth is prima facie evidence of citizenship, but only the citizenship of the nation the father is a member.

*UPDATE: In regards to questions about the citizenship of the mother: Mothers citizenship rarely ever influenced the citizenship of their children except in certain situations such as the father dying before the child was born or when the identity of the father was unknown.

*Prior to the Revolutionary War place of birth within the dominions of the crown was the principle criterion for establishing perpetual allegiance to the King, however natural citizenship via birth could require being born to a British subject depending on the era in question. After independence this perpetual allegiance to the crown was abandoned for the principle of expatriation.

*It should be noted this allegiance due under England’s common law and American law are of two different species. Under the common law one owed a personal allegiance to the King as an individual upon birth for which could never be thrown off. Under the American system there was no individual ruler to owe a perpetual personal allegiance to.

*Furthermore, unlike the British practice, States required everyone including aliens to take an oath of allegiance to the State as a condition of residency. Children born to these residents were considered born into the allegiance of the State. In addition to this, States also had specific laws that banned citizenship to alien born who were not resident aliens who had declared their allegiance. New York for example, responded through enactment of a law to the ruling in Lynch v. Clarke (1844) that had used common law rules of citizenship by birth to specifically exclude children born to “transient aliens, and of alien public ministers and consuls, etc.”

*In other words, unlike under the common law, birth by itself did not create allegiance to anyone due merely to locality.

* Temporary sojourners like transient aliens were a description applied to aliens other than resident aliens. The difference being temporary aliens were here for temporary purposes, such as work, travel, visitation or school, who had no desire to become citizens or was prevented from becoming citizens by law. Resident aliens were those who desired to become citizens and had renounced their prior allegiances and had taken the legal steps to become citizens or reside within some state per state law.

 

*”The local or municipal authorities form distinct and independent portions of the supremacy, no more subject, within their respective spheres, to the general authority is subject to them within its own sphere. In this relation, then, the proposed government cannot be deemed a national one, since its jurisdiction extends to certain enumerated objects only, and leaves to the several States a residuary and inviolable sovereignty over all objects.” –James Madison ”

 

Note:  * quoted directly from:

http://www.federalistblog.us/2008/11/natural-born_citizen_defined/

Note:  ** quoted directly from:

http://www.wordsforgood.org/mirrors/educate-yourself.org/cn/Ted-Cruz-and-Marco-Rubio-Are-Constitutionally-Ineligible-to-Run-for-US-President10aug15.shtml

Feel free to look up the specific quotes regarding the decisions related to Natural born citizen. The legal opinions specifically addressing the issue are defined within the above information. Other quotes are directly from The Constitution and the Declaration of Independence.

Advertisements