Sunday, January 04, 2009

Just a reminder: Why Obama can never be president of the USA

Exactly What IS a Natural Born Citizen?



What is a natural born citizen?


See also: Natural Born Citizen, explained

See also: The challenges to Barack Hussein Obama's citizenship

See also: Obama the Fraud

10 comments:

Ted said...

CHALLENGE (with answer), CAN ANYONE PROVE THIS WRONG?:–

1. Constitution Article II requires USA President to be “natural born citizen”.

2. BHO’s website admits his dad was Kenyan/British, not American, citizen when BHO was born.

3. BHO is therefore not a “natural born citizen” (irrespective of Hawaiian birth or whether he may be a 14th Amendment “citizen” of USA) — confirmed in the Senate’s own McCain qualification resolution (that both parents must be citizens of USA) co-authored by BHO.

4. Supreme Court has already docketed two upcoming conferences, 1/9/09 and 1/16/09 — between dates Congress counts electoral votes (1/8/09) and Presidential inauguration (1/20/09) — to address Berg Case and fashion relief on BHO’s eligibility to be President.

5. Since the fact of BHO’s dad being Kenyan/British not in dispute, Supreme Court rules on Summary Judgment to enjoin BHO’s inauguration as President.

6. Therefore, BHO is not inaugurated as President.

7. Vice President Elect Biden is inaugurated Acting President under the 20th Amendment to serve until new President is determined — the procedure for which determination to be set out by Congress and/or the Supreme Court so long as in conformance with the Constitution.

ANSWER TO ABOVE CHALLENGE

IF, when counting the electoral votes, Congress WERE TO find by 1/8/09 that Obama — not being an Article II “natural born citizen” (father Kenyan/British, not American) — fails to qualify as President, Biden would become the full fledged President under 3 USC 19 (free to pick his own VP such as Hillary) AND THERE WOULD BE NO NEED FOR DEFERRAL TO THE SUPREME COURT to enjoin Obama’s inauguration relegating Biden to being merely Acting President under the 20th Amendment until a new President were duly determined.

(The preferable choice, at least for the Democrats, would seem obvious.)

Anonymous said...

David Icke slams Obama as a fraud:

WWW.DAVIDICKE.COM/OBAMA

Anonymous said...

it's funny that it says "dwindling British empire".... oh what irony!

petrolinus said...

Are you actually serious about this, or are you just jerking around? Even if he wasn't born in the US, what on earth does it matter?
This accusation is a very poor disguise for nationalism and racism. Is the president's country of birth actually more important than his ability to perform his duties? I think there is no doubt that Obama has lived at least most of his life in the US, which might be a little more relevant.

Anonymous said...

Yes it does matter if BO is a citizen or not. The US constitution is what determines who is eligible to be president or not. Pet, by involking racism you are attempting to stop our first admendment rights. Surely you can engage in discussion without drawing the race card. At this point we have all heard enough about race and that is the liberal path because they believe it will be a conversation stopper, sorry that not longer works for true Americans. We value our freedom to speak and not be called names in an attempt to stop us. What are you afraid of? The truth coming out?

Anonymous said...

Wouldn't this suggest that many of our earliest presidents were also not qualified and thus never president?
Many had British parents.
They couldn't possibly have had American born parents if America was just being founded.
Think about it.

Perhaps you've heard the term "Anchor baby?"

Mark Yannone said...

In government schools that allow their students to read the Constitution without danger of being expelled, suspended, or otherwise punished, this question is occasionally raised in eighth or ninth grade. That's when the astute teacher (if any) refers the student to Article 2, Section 1, the section of the Constitution that addresses it.

To save you all the work of clicking on that link, here is the relevant paragraph, where the first citizens are exempted from the "natural-born" requirement:

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.

Note that to convey the founders' intention these days, we would punctuate that sentence without the second comma.

Anonymous said...

The McCain resolution was a non-binding resolution and therefore has no bearing.

The term "natural born citizen" is not actually defined in the Constitution. Case law must be examined.

In one example, United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898), the court ruled:

"It thus clearly appears that by the law of England for the last three centuries, beginning before the settlement of this country, and continuing to the present day, aliens, while residing in the dominions possessed by the crown of England, were within the allegiance, the obedience, the faith or loyalty, the protection, the power, and the jurisdiction of the English sovereign; and therefore every child born in England of alien parents was a natural-born subject, unless the child of an ambassador or other diplomatic agent of a foreign state, or of an alien enemy in hostile occupation of the place where the child was born. III. The same rule was in force in all the English colonies upon this continent down to the time of the Declaration of Independence, and in the United States afterwards, and continued to prevail under the constitution as originally established."

Anonymous said...

PEOPLE ARE PEOPLE. A BIRTHPLACE OR CITIZENSHIP DOESNT DEFINE MORALITY. GOOD OR EVIL IS ALL THAT MATTERS. WHICH IS OBAMA?

Mark Yannone said...

@ Anonymous

"A BIRTHPLACE OR CITIZENSHIP DOESNT DEFINE MORALITY. GOOD OR EVIL IS ALL THAT MATTERS."

I see. So you decided that the law we have been using to guide our interaction has been superceded by your decree? Does anyone else know about this yet?