Thursday, January 15, 2009

Historical Documents Prove Obama II Ineligible for Presidency

By Jeff West


The Times Examiner


December 10, 2008


... Many people have questioned why the Founding Fathers did not define the phrase “natural born citizen” in the Constitution. The answer is simply that the meaning was commonly understood and there was no reason to define the term. Since Obama’s birth and before, Congress has passed many unconstitutional laws defining the phrase according to their ever-changing whims, with the result that it was consistently liberalized over time. It is a very sad statement about America that Congress cannot understand that the Constitution trumps their laws, hence the need for the Supreme Court to strike down their erroneous, unconstitutional laws.



The Supreme Court reiterated this in their decision of S.C. v. U.S. in 26US Supreme Court 110, 111 (1905) when they wrote: “The Constitution is a written instrument. As such, its meaning does not alter. That which it meant when adopted, it means now.”



They further confirmed this by quoting Chief Justice John Marshall (Gibbons v. Ogden):
“As men whose intentions require no concealment generally employ the words which most directly and aptly express the ideas they intend to convey, the enlightened patriots who framed our Constitution, and the people who adopted it, must be understood to have employed words in their natural sense, and to have intended what they have said.”


My discovery of this historical evidence symbolically came to me on Thanksgiving as I was thinking about how God blessed America with a wonderful land and Constitutional form of government. I was reading an article on the Internet discussing various legal attempts to define the phrase “natural born citizen” and I thought, “I know there is some literature or documents contemporaneous with the Founding Fathers that define this phrase as they understood it.” Suddenly I remembered that our Constitution was based upon the encyclopedic “The Law of Nations,” a treatise written by Swiss lawyer and diplomat Emerich de Vattel as a manual for how government should function. Written in 1758, this work was read not only by the Founding Fathers, but was also well-known throughout the colonies among the populace.



Thankfully, I found a copy on the Constitution Society’s website and sure enough, in Book I, Chapter XIX, part 212, it says: “The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens.” Here is the definition the Founding Fathers did not deem necessary to supply since it was already understood. ...





Comment on my AIP Blog - Here




_____
3 comments:
  1. Re: ““The Constitution is a written instrument. As such, its meaning does not alter. That which it meant when adopted, it means now.”

    Yes, except when an amendment to the constitution changes the law. In this case, the amendment is the 14th Amendment, which says:

    “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.”

    Now, there are some who say that the category of citizens at birth, which is what is referred to by the “all persons born” part of the 14th Amendment does not mean the same thing as a “Natural Born Citizen” under Article II. They say that the 14th refers to ordinary citizenship and Article II to the requirements to be president.

    But Vattel ALSO is not talking about the presidency. He is talking about citizens and citizenship. Ordinary citizenship. And he has a very tight definition of the ordinary citizen at birth.

    According to Vattel, you would have to have two parents who are citizens and be born in the country to be a citizen at birth. Others could be naturalized citizens. But by this he means that not only those who arrive as immigrants, but those born in the country whose parents had not yet been naturalized also have to be naturalized.

    Well, the 14th Amendment certainly does not require people who are born in the country but their parents have not been naturalized to be naturalized. It says that all “persons born.” So, obviously Vattel is out of date.

    Was he ever the authority that some claim he was?

    Perhaps, but perhaps not. After all, the British common law, as cited in United States v. Wong Kim Ark, says:

    “Children, born in England, of such aliens [those in amity - friendship], were therefore natural-born subjects.” And the discussion then says that “natural born subjects” is the same thing as “natural born citizens” only we do not use the word “subjects.”

    And the discussion then excludes from “Natural born subjects” only those children who were born to foreign ambassadors and other diplomats who were resident in the realm.

    Some say that because Obama’s father was not a US citizen, he was under the “jurisdiction” of that country (at that time Britain, later Kenya). But that is not the case, since “jurisdiction” has always been limited to foreign diplomats.

    You say that the definition was clearly understood: “The answer is simply that the meaning was commonly understood and there was no reason to define the term.” If so, the definition under the British Common law was certainly far more understood than Vattel.

    So, both under the original definition and under the 14th Amendment, the requirement that both parents be citizens fails.

    Moreover, it fails because it is not clear that the writers of Article II may have thought that the requirements would naturally have to be guided by subsequent legislation. Notice the part where it says “and 14 years a resident.” But that cannot be ordinary language. The requirements of residency are set by legislation, in this case mainly tax legislation. You do not have to be out of the country every day of the year in order not to be taxed as a resident. You can visit for a certain amount of time and still not be taxed.

    For the purposes of Article II a person would not have to be within the USA every second of the 14 years. She or he could travel, but if they stayed outside of the USA for more than the tax law says defines resident, then perhaps they would not qualify. In any case, the residency portion of Article II simply cannot work without relying on federal legislation as a guide.

    So, why not use federal citizenship law as a guide? In that case, the relevant law would be US Code Title 8, Chapter 12, Part 1, section 1401, which defines “citizen at birth.” Some say that a “natural born citizen” is not the same thing as “citizen at birth.” That may be true, but the common law and the Title 8 definition are the same when defining someone who has been born “in the realm” or (in Title 8): “born in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof.”

    Of course, it is only the Supreme Court that can make the final decision in this legal matter. But, if we want to see how the court might be leaning, the decision by the US Congress to validate Obama’s election may be a good guide. Most of the legislators have legal backgrounds, and many of them have received letters or e-mail from Obama opponents saying that Obama is not eligible because of Vattel.

    Yet they all, ALL, voted to approve the vote of the Electoral College, and many of them replied to the people who had sent the letters saying that Obama is not eligible. All said that he is eligible. One can be used as an example. Republican Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina said: “Every child born in the United States is a natural-born United States citizen except for the children of diplomats.”

    ReplyDelete
  2. The current SCOTUS threshold for a MUST STAY of BHO’s inauguration is not whether he is ultimately determined constitutionally ineligible to be POTUS, merely whether there now is SERIOUS QUESTION on his constitutional eligibility, since any determination of inelligibility AFTER inauguration would pose unnecessary civil and military difficulties.

    ReplyDelete
  3. http://legaltimes.typepad.com/blt/2009/01/smiling-photos-from-inside-the-supreme-court-.html

    ReplyDelete