If the father of a child is the citizen of another country, the child’s citizenship is is not exclusively American at birth, he has dual citizenship and can elect to become the citizen of either of his parents countries when he comes of age. This does not fit the definition of “natural born citizen” as intended by the Framers of the Constitution.
The Founders feared divided loyalty and foreign influence over the president and especially that the child of foreign royalty could become president and claim the right to subjugate and rule America as a king. The intent of the Framers was to require that the president and commander-in-chief be solely American at birth and not have citizenship by birthright of any other country.
This fear of divided loyalty is a valid now as it was then, maybe more so, because today it is so much easier to maintain an emotional connection to a foreign nation. Obama declared in a speech in Berlin in July of 2008 that he is a “citizen of the world.” Michelle Obama has publicly called Kenya his “homeland.” Obama’s official biography circulated by his publisher for years stated that he was born in Kenya!
The politically incorrect truth is that the Founders meant for the president to come from an American family and only from an American family, not from a foreign family or a divided family that is half American and half another nationality. They intentionally wrote that requirement into the Constitution.
The first Congress, which included many of the Farmers, wrote this definition into the first Naturalization Act of 1790. This act has been replaced by newer naturalization laws, but it still shows the original intent of the Framers.
Today’s public is not much aware of the original meaning of “natural born citizen,” because the term is not in common use and such issues do not come up very often.
The politicians of both parties are ignoring the original intent of the Framers, because they both have favorite sons, whom they want to nominate that are not constitutionally eligible.
The courts are too intimidated by the politicians and fear of an adverse public reaction to even allow the issue to be properly argued in court.
None of the media, including the so-called conservative media are properly informing the public about this fraud. They are influenced by the same large corporations and wealthy elite that control the political parties.
BACKGROUND & DEFINITION OF NATURAL BORN CITIZEN
Taken from Article 2, Section 1 of the U.S. 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.
Surprisingly (or maybe not), no government officials are legally responsible for vetting the eligibility of Obama. The word of the Party is accepted under the “honor system.” Unfortunately, the political parties have no honor. See this link.
If Obama were eligible, the courts could easily rule on this or Congress could pass a resolution declaring that Obama is “natural born,” as they did for Senator John McCain. That they do not do it for Obama, just demonstrates that they themselves know full well that he is not eligible. Otherwise, they would resolve this controversy that has gone on for 3-4 years.
A special exception to the eligibility requirements has been made especially for Obama and there is a huge coverup by our corrupt Congress and the corporation-run media, both conservative and liberal. You can read the resolution on McCain’s eligibility here:
In the Resolution declaring McCain’s eligibility hearing, the Senate cited this statute below of the First Congress that defines the term “natural born citizen.” It is clear from the text of the Senate’s own reference that the term requires the parents to be citizens of the United States. If the children of an American citizen married to a foreign citizen were intended to be natural born citizens, they could have explicitly stated that.
Click the header below to go to the Library of Congress for the source of the quote.
That the Senate cited this law as proof of McCain’s eligibility just shows that Congress knew very well that Obama is not eligible, because the law eliminates Obama, declaring that the children of American citizens (plural) are natural born citizens.
If Congress wants to give away our birthright and make the children of foreigners on temporary student visas Natural Born Citizens and thus eligible to become president, a constitutional amendment is necessary.
Chap. III. — An act to establish an uniform Rule Of Naturalization.(a)
Section I. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That any alien, being a free white person, who shall have resided within the limits and under the jurisdiction of the United States for the term of two years, may be admitted to become a citizen thereof, on application to any common law court of record, in any one of the states wherein he shall have resided for the term of one year at least, and making proof to the satisfaction of such court, that he is a person of good character, and taking the oath or affirmation prescribed by law, to support the constitution of the United States, which oath or affirmation such court shall administer; and the clerk of such court shall record such application, and the proceedings thereon; and thereupon such person shall be considered as a citizen of the United States. And the children of such persons so
naturalized, dwelling within the United States, being under the age of twenty-one years at the time of such naturalization, shall also be considered as citizens of the United States. And the children of citizens of the United States, that may be born beyond sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born citizens: Provided, That the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in the United States: Provided Also, That no person heretofore proscribed by any state, shall be admitted a citizen as aforesaid, except by an act of the legislature of the state in which such person was proscribed.(a)
Approved, March 26, 1790.
This statute was replaced by later legislation, but it was enacted by many who were Founders and shows the intent of the Founders by use of the term “natural born citizen.”
The same definition is repeated in the following Supreme Court ruling, which still has the force of law:
Excerpted from Minor v. Happersett – 88 U.S. 162 (1874)
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. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case, it is not necessary to solve these doubts. It is sufficient for everything we have now to consider that all children born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction are themselves citizens. The words “all children” are certainly as comprehensive, when used in this connection, as “all persons,” and if females are included in the last, they must be in the first. That they are included in the last is not denied. In fact, the whole argument of the plaintiffs proceeds upon that idea.
Under the power to adopt a uniform system of naturalization, Congress, as early as 1790, provided “that any alien, being a free white person,” might be admitted as a citizen of the United States, and that the children of such persons so naturalized, dwelling within the United States, being under twenty-one years of age at the time of such naturalization, should also be considered citizens of the United States, and that the children of citizens of the United States that might be born beyond the sea, or out of the limits of the United States, should be considered as natural-born citizens. These provisions thus enacted have in substance been retained in all the naturalization laws adopted since. In 1855, however, the last provision was somewhat extended, and all persons theretofore born or thereafter to be born out of the limits of the jurisdiction of the United States, whose fathers were or should be at the time of their birth citizens of the United States were declared to be citizens also.
This is a quote from 1866 by John Bingham, known as the father of the 14th Amendment. It shows that the 14th Amendment does not change the meaning of the term “natural born citizen,” as some claim, and does not change the eligibility requirement for the presidency that he be natural born, the offspring of (two) American parents.
Has the Congress of the United States the power to pass and enforce the bill as it comes to us from the committee? Has the Congress of the United States the power to declare, as this bill does declare, in the words which I propose to strike out, that there shall be no discrimination of civil rights among citizens of the United States in any State of the United States, on account of race, color, or previous condition of slavery.
I find no fault with the introductory clause, which is simply declaratory of what is written in the Constitution, that 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; but, sir, I may be allowed to say further, that I deny that the Congress of the United States ever had the power or color of power to say that any man born within the jurisdiction of the United States, not owing a foreign allegiance, is not and shall not be a citizen of the United States. Citizenship is his birthright, and neither the Congress nor the States can justly or lawfully take it from him. But while this is admitted, can you declare by congressional enactment as to citizens of the United States within the States that there shall be no discrimination among them of civil rights?
This quote is from “The Law of Nations,” written by Emerich de Vattel in 1758. In book one chapter 19,
The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. 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. We shall soon see whether, on their coming to the years of discretion, they may renounce their right, and what they owe to the society in which they were born. 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.
It is clear that “natural born citizen” means the children of citizens (plural) of the United States. Obama is, therefore, not constitutionally eligible for the Presidency.
The meaning of the Constitution cannot be changed without an amendment. The leadership of Congress knows very well what the real requirement for the presidency is and they have just chosen to ignore it, in order to advance the corrupt political agendas of both parties. They are convinced that they can ignore the constitutional requirement as they please and no one will be able to do anything about it.
A great criminal fraud has been perpetrated on the American public by both of the political parties when Obama was elected and sworn in as president.
If justice be served, the members of the Democratic National Committee, who certified Obama’s eligibility should literally be charged with fraud and sent to prison. The Congressional leadership of both parties is complicit in this.
A YouTube Clip on the same theme: