ALL THREE BRANCHES OF GOVERNMENT HAVE FAILED US BY REFUSING TO ANSWER THIS VERY SIMPLE QUESTION
by Kathleen Gotto
(Mar. 26, 2010) — It is astounding that more than a year into Obama’s presidency such a question is still without an answer. The specific issue that has been largely kept under wraps by the mainstream media concerns the question, “Is Barack Obama constitutionally qualified to serve as our president?” In other words, irrespective of the fact that Obama is the de facto U.S. president, the question still looms large whether or not he is a de jure or legal president. Such determination can be resolved only by the courts and may ultimately have to be resolved by the U.S. Supreme Court.
The Constitution of the United States, Article II, Section 1, Clause 5, states the requirements for a person to be eligible for the office of President:
“No Person except a natural born Citizen [emphasis added], 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.”
We can reasonably assume that Barack Obama meets the last two constitutional requirements. It is beyond dispute that he is a resident of the U.S. He lives here and is obviously over thirty-five years old. Beyond that, Americans have no assurance he is even a U.S. 14th Amendment citizen, let alone a natural born Citizen. The Constitution itself does not define the term “natural born citizen”; however, from various legal blogs which have argued this issue extensively over the internet, the consensus appears to be that our founding fathers relied heavily upon renowned Swiss jurist, Emmerich De Vattel, and specifically his book, The Law of Nations or the Principles of Natural Law (1758) for their understanding of a NBC being a child born of two citizen parents. Their reliance on De Vattel is not surprising since his book was published during the time our founding fathers were grappling with the issues of sovereignty, law, rights and obligations for the new republic. While there are various ways for one to attain citizenship in the United States, the president of this country “shall” be a natural born citizen. If one somehow attains the presidency but is ineligible to do so under the Constitution, he is in fact as Dr. Edwin Vieira so starkly stated, a usurper.
On October 29, 2008, Dr. Vieira wrote an article, “Obama Must Stand Up Now or Step Down” which is a very powerful essay on the constitutional crisis that America will face if a man not constitutionally qualified is elected. But America was seduced by vapid promises of hope and change and invited the Trojan horse inside the gates. Dr. Vieira will likely prove to have been prescient in his stark warning to America.
So, is Barack Obama a usurper? You be the judge. Until we can find a competent and courageous judge who would be willing to suffer the wrath of Obama’s thugs to finally adjudicate this issue and allow for full discovery, we will not know for sure. Obama was not vetted by the media, the Democrat party, or anyone else. There had to have been either a dismissal of any questions surrounding his eligibility or a concerted effort to cover up Obama’s constitutional problem to obtain the support and nomination of the Democrat Party. With all the obfuscation, stonewalling, and attacks made against Obama’s detractors, it certainly appears that leaders in the Democrat Party were aware of Obama’s little problem. It will take court-ordered, full discovery to do the job that should have been done by proper vetting. And it will likely take the U.S. Supreme Court to issue a definition of what a natural born Citizen is before this issue is finally resolved.
Numerous lawsuits have been filed on Obama’s eligibility in the courts at both the state and federal levels. While there are cases still pending, most have been dismissed primarily on the grounds that the litigant has no “standing.” The judges have incredibly ruled that the litigants didn’t have standing because they were injured no more than the rest of the citizenry. Hello! What kind of tortured logic or legal justification is that upon which to issue a decision with such momentous importance for a nation?
Attorneys Leo Donofrio and Mario Apuzzo have done an outstanding job in explaining what constitutes a natural born Citizen. While Donofrio’s blog has been temporarily suspended on the NBC issue as he prepares litigation on behalf of Chrysler dealers and the loss of their livelihood at the hand of the federal government, Apuzzo’s Kerchner v. Obama case is still going through the courts. In his legal analyses, legal briefs, and his articles, all of which are posted on his website, Apuzzo has done an excellent job in educating the public on the issues. The summation of his arguments, concluding that a natural born citizen must be the child of two U.S. citizens, comports with De Vattel and the conclusion reached by Donofrio and other attorneys who either have had or still have pending lawsuits on this matter.
What is curious about the NBC issue is that Barack Obama had already acceded the fact of his born allegiance to the British crown and citizenship of that country through his father. He openly acknowledged his British citizenship in his memoir, Dreams from My Father:
When Barack Obama Jr. was born on Aug. 4, 1961 (where he was born has never been verified) Kenya was a British colony, still part of the United Kingdom’s dwindling empire. As a Kenyan native, Barack Obama Sr. was a British subject whose citizenship status was governed by The British Nationality Act of 1948. That same act governed the status of Obama Sr.’s children:
British Nationality Act of 1948 (Part II, Section 5): Subject to the provisions of this section, a person born after the commencement of this Act shall be a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies by descent if his father is a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies at the time of the birth.
In other words, at the time of his birth, Barack Obama Jr. was both a U.S. citizen (assuming his mother met the citizenship age requirement at the time to pass her citizenship on to her son) and a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies by virtue of being born to a father who was a citizen of the UK. The status of his birth, therefore, begs the question: how can a man born subject to the British crown through his father be a natural born American citizen?
As already stated, prior to the 2008 election, Obama eligibility lawsuits were entered and dismissed on lack of standing grounds. Lawsuits continued to be filed even after the election with the same results. Unfortunately, the constitutional requirement to be a NBC got buried under the brouhaha surrounding Obama’s birth certificate. The copy that had been posted on the internet has been denounced as a fake. Indeed, if it had been genuine, it would have been made readily available for forensic examination months ago. That never happened.
Even the state of Hawaii became involved in the birth certificate issue. Dr. Chiyome Fukino, Hawaii State Health Department Director, issued her second statement on Obama’s birth status on July 27, 2009, hoping to stem the tide of requests to her office for releasable information under Hawaii’s Uniform Information Practices Act (Modified) and stated:
“I, Dr. Chiyome Fukino, Director of the Hawaii State Department of Health, have seen the original vital records maintained on file by the Hawaii State Department of Health verifying Barrack Hussein Obama was born in Hawaii and is a natural-born American citizen.
I have nothing further to add to this statement or my original statement issued in October 2008 over eight months ago,” Fukino said, in hopes of ending the controversy surrounding Obama’s citizenship.
It is interesting to note that no judge has yet adjudicated the definition of NBC, but a bureaucrat in Hawaii has declared Barack Obama to be a “natural-born American citizen.” On what basis does Fukino make her astounding statement? Obviously just because she said so. Fukino is no attorney, let alone a judge, so whether her vital statistics department actually has a native-born Hawaiian birth certificate or an original certificate of live birth from a foreign country on file for Obama is immaterial. Whether Obama was born in Hawaii or elsewhere in the States is not the question that needs to be adjudicated in a court of law. The only question that needs to be answered is whether he is a natural born citizen and thus meets the first eligibility requirement under the Constitution to serve as president. Again, the haunting question remains: how can a man born subject to the British crown and having allegiance thereto be a natural born American citizen?
There are other allegations that swirl around Barack Obama that will likely be made public beyond the internet once this issue is taken up by the courts. Those allegations are serious. But for now, the only question that we need to have answered to avoid a constitutional crisis and to avert the destruction of our republic is whether or not Barack Obama is a natural born citizen. My money says he is not.