The Senate defined “natural born Citizen” in 2008, and Obama didn’t qualify

DEMOCRAT SENATOR PATRICK LEAHY AND OTHERS “RESOLVED” THAT IT TOOK TWO CITIZEN PARENTS TO BE A “NATURAL BORN CITIZEN”

by Tim DeJong

Sir William Blackstone, English law scholar whose philosophy was based on the Ten Commandments

(May 17, 2010) —  The simple truth in evidence is Obama’s own declaration that he was born of a British father and is therefore not a “natural born Citizen.”

The Constitution is a modest document. Much of its meaning is in what is usually called common law. Some assume common law refers to Blackstone or English Common Law. The framers and many justices, Joseph Story among them, have referred to Vattel as our common law. Given that the first school of law established at a college in the Congress United (between the Revolution and the ratification) was that created at William and Mary by Thomas Jefferson, when James Madison was its president, and among its first students was John Marshall, and the stated structure of the curriculum was Law of Nations based upon Vattel and Adam Smith’s Wealth of Nations. Can there be any doubt about the intent of the framers when justices including subsequent Chief Justice John Marshall cited Vattel when quoting “born on the soil of parents who are its citizens?” When the principal author of the 14th amendment, John Bingham, cites Vattel “about which there has never been doubt,” the meaning of “natural born Citizen” is confirmed for at least the twentieth time.

James Madison said:

I entirely concur in the propriety of resorting to the sense in which the Constitution was accepted and ratified by the nation. In that sense alone it is the legitimate Constitution. And if that be not the guide in expounding it, there can be no security for a consistent and stable, more than for a faithful exercise of its powers. If the meaning of the text be sought in the changeable meaning of the words composing it, it is evident that the shapes and attributes of the Government must partake of the changes to which the words and phrases of all living languages are constantly subject. What a metamorphosis would be produced in the code of law if all its ancient phraseology were to be taken in its modern sense. And that the language of our constitution is already undergoing interpretations unknown to its founders, will I believe appear to all unbiased Enquirers into the history of its origin and adoption.” Madison’s words define “the time-honored canons of statutory interpretation.” The words of our framers citing Vattel, and the subsequent use of the term coined by Vattel, “natural born Citizen” – not “subject.”

Framer Dr. David Ramsay pointed out in 1791:

A citizen of the United States means a member of this new nations. The principle of government being radically changed by the revolution, the political character of the people was also changed from subjects to citizens.

The difference is immense. Subject is derived from the Latin words, sub and jacio, and means one who is under the power of another; but a citizen is an unit of a mass of free people, who, collectively, possess sovereignty.

The Constitutional power to define “natural born Citizens” was not intended to be left to the states.  It was our common law, understood by every jurist of the time in the most quoted, the most cited, and the most important legal document in the framing of our Republic. The  Law of Nations was the most cited legal reference by almost a factor of four between 1789 and 1821 (followed by Bynkeshoek and Pufendorf).

The notion of “sovereign legal instruments” is a new twist.” We don’t need “sovereign legal instruments” to tell us that the four chief justices and dozens of justices of the Supreme Court who cite Vattel on “natural born Citizen,” and hundreds who cite Vattel on other legal matters (try to count the Vattel citations in James Wilson’s Philadelphia Lectures) have established our common law. There are well over 100 terms used in articles and amendments not defined in the body of the document. That was intentional. Madison, above, determined to keep the Constitution concise. A major role of the Supreme Court is to interpret the Constitution’s provisions.

Some of those submitting smoke are actually being paid by the White House, which in itself is a frightening testament to how close to tyranny we are.

Of course one could turn to that great legal scholar, Sen. Patrick Leahy, who agreed with former judge and HSA Secretary Michael Chertoff in 2008 when Chertoff said, “It is my understanding that a natural born citizen has two parents who are citizens.” This was, of course, part of the plot culminating in Senate Resolution 511 to insure that John McCain would be perceived as eligible to run against Obama, thereby silencing any questions about Obama’s failure to satisfy the “citizen parents” attribute of natural born citizenship.

Clever law professors such as Larry Tribe, for whom Obama was a research assistant, and whom Elena Kagan pardoned after Tribe was exposed as a plagiarist, will try to confuse the issue, but our framers said it simply and clearly, citing Vattel. A natural born citizen is born on our soil of citizen parents. Obama is ineligible, and if we have to have another revolution to return to the values which make our republic great, we will prevail.

Read the original sources. They are understandable. When Wong Kim Ark is raised, that is a common Obot smokescreen. Horace Gray was appointed by the only other usurper to sit in the White House, Chester Arthur, and his decision only applied to citizens, not natural born citizens. It is a confusingly-written document, but eventually cites Minor v. Happersett in which Vattel is cited. Since Wong Kim was never presumed to be a natural born citizen – he was born in San Francisco but of non-citizen parents – natural born citizenship was not at issue, and not determined. Some think Gray was creating smoke to protect his appointee.

Someone found an article written in a New York newspaper in 1789 describing a visit to George Washington’s New York office. Washington hadn’t yet entered the office when the reporters were admitted. Being reporters they noted that Washington, on his his first day as president had one book open on his desk, Vattel’s Law of Nations. Law of Nations is a readable compendium of what was described as natural law drawing from and citing philosophers from Aristotle to Vattel’s contemporaries. Read it online or from Amazon or the library. Several of our framers, including Alexander Hamilton, describe it as our common law.

Print Friendly

69 Responses to "The Senate defined “natural born Citizen” in 2008, and Obama didn’t qualify"

  1. MeJane   Monday, May 24, 2010 at 5:08 PM

    Good point Texomad, I stand corrected! McCain is a Title 8 statutory citizen, not natural born. Thanks,. : )

  2. Cody Judy   Sunday, May 23, 2010 at 9:05 AM

    I was asked by the acting prosecution James David Manning to explain my own Natural Born Citizenship to the Jury, which I did and then remarked, ” I’m a natural born citizen and didn’t need a United States Senate Resolution to tell me I was. The whole point of it was when I went back to where it all began for me, the place of birth it was in the United States and it wasn’t for Sen. John McCain.”
    http://codyjudy.blogspot.com/2010/05/forefathers-were-very-intelligent-men.html
    Wake up and smell the McCain America..you be the Judge, man you guys are awake this morning.. right on!

  3. Cody Judy   Sunday, May 23, 2010 at 8:25 AM

    This is some of the paper work submitted in the CIA Columbia Obama Trial in Harlem,NY

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/22288917/Judy-v-Obama

    If you will, consider the 1937 gap recognized by Congress and specifically passed for the Panama Canal Zone… which granted McCain citizenship. You can research this act by Congress specified for that region.
    In the argument, alluded to this on page 16, but all the information is great!

    One has to understand that U.S. Sen. Res. 511 was the gag order for Republicans, that every R Senator voted for..in affect closing the door for objection in the Senate by R’s of Obama’s eligibility. This is the “key” and why Sen. Hillary Clinton, and Obama were co-sponsors of that in the Senate Judicary Com.

    America has been swindeled based on a ‘bad’ deal for McCain…and the unificaton of parties on the issue of Obama. This began the lie..that led to another…that led to another.

    Yes, America should be very angry and kick the hell out of the Senate every R that voted for this Sen. Res 511… mind you this is their part in the Obama Emperor rule. They are not excused. They had a responsibility to uphold the Constitution

    You know I think our forefathers were genius… I was reading Article 1 Sect. 8, 10th clause and what STUCK out like a sore thumb for me was ” and Offenses against the Law of Nations”… an interesting parody to

    http://www.lonang.com/exlibris/vattel/:
    The Law of Nations or the Principles of Natural Law(1758)

    What was interesting is so many have said our Constitution didn’t define “natural born citizen”, and here within the Constitution is a exact wording of the work that our forefathers held in high esteem.

    “On every question of construction[of the Constitution] let us carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or intended against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed”
    Thomas Jefferson June 12, 1823-letter to Judge William Johnson

    Cody Robert Judy

  4. triper57   Saturday, May 22, 2010 at 4:52 PM

    Reality – Case law has no place here. Just because one court interpreted the Constitution one way and another later interpreted it another way does not mean that this court has to interpret it either way. The fact is that none of the previous cases have been asked to define a ‘Constitutional Natural Born Citizen’. As far as the SCOTUS goes, they are charged with determining the writers original intent, and applying it to the case before the Court. They can not define the terms in the Constitution, only the writers could define the terms. Since they did not define any terms in the Constitution, like any contract, it is left up to the courts to determine the intent of the writers undefined terms in the contract. To define the meaning of the words would ultimately change the contract if the meaning they placed on the words did not reflect the exact meaning of the writers. The SCOTUS can only determine if the circumstances of the case placed before the court conforms to the original intent of the writers meaning of ‘Natural Born Citizen’.

  5. triper57   Saturday, May 22, 2010 at 4:26 PM

    One problem with this resolution. Congress can not define the term ‘Natural Born Citizen’ or determine who is or is not a ‘Natural Born Citizen’. They would like this ability to change the Constitution by redefining its terms. Since the writers did not define the term the only body that can determine the writers original intent of the term ‘Natural Born Citizen’ is the SCOTUS. There are enough references as to the original intent of the writers to justify the definition of ‘Natural Born Citizen’ to mean a citizen born to two citizens on US soil, Or a second generation US citizen born in the US.

    The fact that the qualifications for Congressman and Senator, a citizen; is differentiated from the qualifications for the President, a natural born citizen; begs one to ask the question what is the difference between a Citizen and a Natural Born Citizen.

  6. TexomaEd   Friday, May 21, 2010 at 11:50 PM

    Not so.

    In the Wong Kim Ark case the Supreme Court Justice Gray gave the opinion of the court. On page 168-9 of the record, he cites approvingly the decision in Minor vs. Happersett:

    “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.”

  7. TexomaEd   Friday, May 21, 2010 at 11:21 PM

    Reality, the 14th amendment is law and it is not made up — it refers to those either born in the US or naturalized as “citizens”. A natural born citizen is someone born in the country to citizen parents, a definition which has been held by four US Supreme Court decisions. Persons who are born outside the US to one or two citizen parents are citizens at birth via statute (see Title 8 Section 1401).

    Note also that the definition of native-born is “of a specified place by birth” and not to be confused with the term “natural born citizen”, which is a person whose citizenship is attained by the laws of nature and not of man. If you are born in the US to citizen parents, you don’t need any law to say that you are a US citizen. You are obviously and “naturally” a US citizen — you are a natural born citizen — 100% American at birth and not subject to any foreign power.

    At birth, Obama was a dual citizen, for he was a British citizen by descent from his father, and an American citizen by descent from his mother. Like a naturalized citizen, Obama was subject to a foreign power at birth, and so like a naturalized citizen, he is ineligible to be President.

    These are the facts.

  8. James   Friday, May 21, 2010 at 7:31 PM

    However the Indiana Supreme Court refused to review the Court of Appeals’ decision in Ankeny and the case has not been appealed to the federal courts.
    As far as I know, no Supreme Court decision has upheld the 3 classes of citizens model.
    Since the 14th Amendment, the Supreme Court has affirmed two classes of Citizens: Citizens-at-birth and Naturalized Citizens.
    The current US Code outlines citizenship as follows under “Nationals and US Citizens at Birth:
    http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/8/1401.html

  9. reality   Friday, May 21, 2010 at 3:41 PM

    there is no category ’14th amendment citizens.” that is made up. Courts only recognize and have only recognized two kinds of american citizens….naturalized and native or ‘natural born….that is it….hundreds of cases refer to these by name….none ever mention ’14th amendment citizen.’ Sorry. You are wrong and don’t quite understand the facts.

  10. reality   Friday, May 21, 2010 at 3:39 PM

    thank you for making my point……..they were only saying if you have 2 citizen parents and are born out of the U.S., you are natural born…..it has nothing at all to do with citizens born in the United States. Nothing at all. Read more.

  11. mr.smith   Friday, May 21, 2010 at 1:16 PM

    There must be someone, with stature, on board with this in order for it to go further. Someone big enough and loud enough to not be quieted on the subject. Recruit this person and move forward, arrest him

  12. reality   Friday, May 21, 2010 at 12:29 PM

    From Wong Kim Ark:

    “Considering the circumstances surrounding the framing of the Constitution, I submit that it is unreasonable to conclude that “natural-born citizen” applied to everybody born within the geographical tract known as the United States, irrespective of circumstances, and that the children of foreigners, happening to be born to them while passing through the country, whether of royal parentage or not, or whether of the Mongolian, Malay or other race, were eligible to the Presidency, while children of our citizens, born abroad, were not.”

    This is the DISSENTING opinion in this case. That means the side that lost. He is ADMITTING that the majority opinion in WONG KIM ARK says that born in the U.S. means natural born and elligible for the presidency. That is the problem….no cases say that u need 2 citizens to be parents….and hundreds say the opposite.

  13. reality   Friday, May 21, 2010 at 11:23 AM

    there are 4 if you misread these cases or look at them in the most narrow light…the truth is there are literally HUNDREDS precedent setting cases over the years declaring if you are born IN THE U.S. you are a natural born citizen evern if your parents are from Mars. Jus Soli…..we’ve had other presidents without 2 citizen parents, and many other’s who ran without 2 citizent parents….for instance, John Charles Freemont ran as a presidential candidate on the Republican ticket in 1856…..He had a French father….it goes on and on and on. No real scholars, lawyers, or judges agree with De Vattels 2 citizen parent theory. Neither did our founding fathers or they would have SPECIFICALLY PUT IT IN if they wanted as they were profoundly aware of De Vattel. They did not put it in.

  14. reality   Friday, May 21, 2010 at 11:18 AM

    71 is pretty old

  15. TexomaEd   Friday, May 21, 2010 at 12:16 AM

    In the Ankeny v. Indiana case, the court issued a lame judicial attempt at defining the “natural born citizen” clause. They failed miserably, and this failure is very encouraging. Their arguments were weak.

    Their main argument was that citizens are only born or naturalized, and that all born citizens are natural born citizens. The court failed to note that there are three classes of born citizens:

    1. 14th amendment citizens – Persons born on US soil to alien parents domiciled here, according to the SCOTUS Wong Kim Ark case.

    2. Statutory citizens – Persons born abroad to US citizens are citizens by federal statute.

    3. Natural born citizens – Persons born on US soil to parents who are citizens.

    All of the above are citizens, but each class has their citizenship bestowed through different circumstances. Some require the 14th amendment. Some require a statute. But natural born citizens require neither, for their citizenship is self-evident to all. The citizenship and allegiance of natural born citizens at birth is 100% American – these are the citizens that our Founding Fathers wanted for future presidents.

  16. TexomaEd   Friday, May 21, 2010 at 12:10 AM

    Great post, MeJane. Keep in mind that McCain is not a 14th amendment citizen, as he was not born in the US, and he was not naturalized either. He is a citizen at birth via a federal statute, which makes him a “statutory citizen”. The statute is Title 8 Section 1401 which states that the following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth:

    (c) a person born outside of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents both of whom are citizens of the United States and one of whom has had a residence in the United States or one of its outlying possessions, prior to the birth of such person.

  17. James   Thursday, May 20, 2010 at 2:17 PM

    The eligibility lawsuit in Indiana: “Ankeny et. al. v The Governor of Indiana, Mitch Daniels” challenged BOTH Obama and McCain’s right to receive Indiana’s electoral votes on the grounds that neither was a natural born citizen. The original trial court and the Indiana Court of Appeals both disagreed and the Indiana Supreme Court refused to review the lower courts’ decisions.
    http://www.in.gov/judiciary/opinions/pdf/11120903.ebb.pdf

  18. yo   Thursday, May 20, 2010 at 12:39 PM

    unreality.

    here’s what it says:

    “Whereas John Sidney McCain, III, was born to American citizens on an American military base in the Panama Canal Zone in 1936: Now, therefore, be it
    Resolved, That John Sidney McCain, III, is a `natural born Citizen’ under Article II, Section 1, of the Constitution of the United States.”

  19. Texoma Ed   Thursday, May 20, 2010 at 11:28 AM

    Given the current composition of the Supreme Court, I am quietly optimistic that they will correctly interpret the definition of “natural born citizen”. In addtion to the original intent of the Founding Fathers, they have precedent Supreme Court decisions (four, I believe) to draw upon — all of which characterized or defined a natural born citizen as being none other than a person born in the country to citizen parents.

  20. reality   Thursday, May 20, 2010 at 10:37 AM

    hey auntie, the supreme court has ALREADY DECLINED TO HEAR 7 CASES REGARDING THIS. They will not hear any because it’s none of the judicial branch’s business to declare an elected president eligible or not. This needed to be questioned before he was elected.
    ————–
    Mrs. Rondeau replies: They were, and refused to hear the cases then as well. The only justice who seemed to deem the issue subject to SCOTUS review was Justice Souter, and he resigned. Strange, isn’t it, because he wasn’t that old.

  21. reality   Thursday, May 20, 2010 at 10:35 AM

    The resolution did not say you need 2 citizen parents to be Natural Born….it said since McCain had 2 citizen parents, it did not matter that he was born out of the country and that he was natural born. that is all. can anyone read.

  22. Me Jane   Wednesday, May 19, 2010 at 11:52 PM

    Thank you, AuntieMadder. I read your link. I knew that there were other cases against McCain but I could not find any info on them. Cody Judy is very interesting because he had standing and could prove harm. It looks like he got the runaround; Article II should have been addressed. Here is something I found, a letter from him to President Bush. Here is a highlight:
    http://www.codyjudy.us/crj4ussenatorut_039.htm

    McCain defaulted in this case. I ultimately believe the court failed to follow its own directive found in U.S. Constitution, Article VI that Judicial Officers are also bound to support this Constitution and Procedure in not validating the Default prior to the election, as I still have 3 pending motions which the court has not ruled upon. That court has had 5 “notices to submit for a decision” submitted in proper time structure and ultimately refuses to have made a decision, because of, I believe, fear of the Defendant or worse, fear that the Defendant had to be the republican nominee because he was the only one Democrats were sure to defeat. I believe it is because the District Court Judge, appointed by President William Jefferson Clinton, recognized out of all the suits filed against McCain and dismissed because of “lack of standing or direct harm” proven by the plaintiffs because they were not in the Presidential Race or contest, that mine didn’t qualify for that kind of dismissal. My suit actually demanded a decision on the issue of Article II, Section 1, asserting “No person except a “natural born” citizen shall be eligible to the Office of President and I was in the race proving “direct harm” and had “standing.”

  23. AuntieMadder   Wednesday, May 19, 2010 at 10:10 PM

    I haven’t forgotten what happened to Lou Dobbs. And as I’ve said before, I wouldn’t hold a grudge against Beck, O’Reilly, and the rest if they simply left it alone. My beef with them is for going Alinsky on “birthers” with their ridicule, insults, etc.

  24. AuntieMadder   Wednesday, May 19, 2010 at 10:08 PM

    Oops! I meant to type that I couldn’t agree more.

  25. AuntieMadder   Wednesday, May 19, 2010 at 8:41 PM

    Yo, after what this country’s survived over the last 15 months, I’d be inclined to vote for you. Even if you’re thoroughly inexperienced, if you have enough sense to surround yourself with the best and most experienced, always ask them questions and rely upon their knowledge, you could only do better than that idiot squatter and the Chicago mob buddies he’s surrounded himself with. And I suspect you have that much sense.

  26. AuntieMadder   Wednesday, May 19, 2010 at 8:35 PM

    Hear! Hear! Thank you, P & E!

  27. AuntieMadder   Wednesday, May 19, 2010 at 8:31 PM

    Mrs. Rondeau, I could agree more.

  28. AuntieMadder   Wednesday, May 19, 2010 at 8:29 PM

    I could say he’s a snake but that would be an insult to snakes. By the way, I hate snakes but still don’t think it’s right to put them down like that.

  29. AuntieMadder   Wednesday, May 19, 2010 at 8:28 PM

    Some guy named Cody Judy (in Utah, I think) filed an eligibility suit against McCain but the judge dismissed it because McCain lost to Obama. He testified last week at the Columbia trial held by Pastor Manning. There’s a little bit about it in the trial coverage here: http://www.oilforimmigration.org/facts/?p=6647

  30. Bob1943   Wednesday, May 19, 2010 at 7:23 PM

    I wanted to read it the Goldberg article too, and maybe leave a comment, couldn’t find it either.

  31. MeJane   Wednesday, May 19, 2010 at 4:27 PM

    CAN OBAMA’S INELIGIBLITY BE PROVED THROUGH MCCAINS INELIGIBILITY?

    What I want to know is why haven’t any of the current lawsuits gone after McCain to prove his ineligibility as candidate, a 14th amendment citizen and not a natural born one? It is easier to disqualify McCain in terms of Article II. His records are available; no one is protecting him (as Obama is protected) but resolution 511 and the complicit RNC.

    Northern District of California Judge William Alsup ruled in the case of Robinson v. Bowen, filed by an elector pledged to third-party candidate Alan Keyes seeking an injunction to keep McCain off the November ballot. Two other challenges claiming that McCain’s birthplace in the Panama Canal Zone in 1936 disqualifies him under the Constitution have been dismissed on standing because Keyes’ did not bring the suit. Please note the case was not thrown out on merit.

    I believe Keyes’ in particular still has standing for a new case against McCain, one that could set up a land mark a precedent proving that McCain was unqualified to run for the office of President. Indirectly this would affect Obama because it would legally define the natural born citizen clause in Article II. This would give cases against Obama much more strength as it would set up a legal precedent. While you cannot keep McCain off of the ballot obviously because there is no remedy for that as that is in the past it can be proved that financial injury occurred and election fraud was committed which hurt Keyes’ chances during the election by running against a fraudulent candidate. The people who voted for McCain in effect had their votes nullified by voting for an illegitimate candidate. The financing of McCain’s campaign was fraudulent and collected under the false pretenses that McCain was a natural born citizen, as per Article II of the Constitution. Had McCain been disqualified, (as he should have) and as this would have been addressed late in the campaign, the Republican’s would not have recovered, giving all others in the race, especially those on the Conservative third party side, namely Keyes, a greater chance of winning than he ordinarily would have in our two party system, again proving injury. If McCain had been disqualified Keyes’ candidacy would have come into play and being of African American descent would have made the election more on an even keel, neutralizing Obama’s “historic” candidate status. How do you rectify such a damage, maybe the entire election should be nullifiied? Certainly and without a doubt monetary damage was done to Keyes’ and the Republican’s who donated money or time to either candidates campaigns. Presidential campaigns are not inexpensive to run, they require work, time and money which was a wasted effort on Keyes’part and the part of anyone who contributed to or worked on his campaign or the McCain campaign for that matter because of this fraud.

    I believe that Resolution 511 was brought forth by the Progressives in Congress to give Obama cover. By protecting McCain’s ineligibility vulnerability Obama was also protecting his own vulnerability. If McCain were found to be ineligible, then so would Obama. Obama needed a way to get the Left off of McCain’s ineligibility because eventually if they succeeded in proving their case and it would have been his undoing as well. Resolution 511 also made Obama vulnerable because of the two US citizen parents portion of the resolution, which he signed and co-sponsored, but he lacked the very same stated qualification to be natural born according to that Resolution. He was evidently willing to take that risk to protect McCain that also in the long run protected himself. Resolution 511 is Unconstitutional Congress has no enumerated Power to change the meaning of the words, “natural born” in Article II.

    Another factor that damages McCain and this goes for all of our representatives is even though McCain was ineligible himself, McCain was duly notified of a potential problem with Obama’s Article II eligibility. His failure to at least notify the President of the Senate under 3 U.S.C. § 15 was negligence, and a breach of contract to all Republicans . . . especially those who contributed time and money to his campaign. His unwillingness to do this protected his and Obama’s crime.

    If we can’t get Obama, lets go after Progressive light McCain to get Obama removed.

  32. Cincinnatus Dogood   Wednesday, May 19, 2010 at 2:56 PM

    Beck made a point the other day, anyone that has “er” attached to their name is listed as a nut. The only way (other than SCOTUS) is impeachment. I think they are holding back until November. Everyone forgets Lou Dobbs sniper moment.

  33. yo   Wednesday, May 19, 2010 at 2:04 PM

    Obama is requiring students at a high school he’s going to visit to provide proof of citizenship before they meet him.

    He won’t provide his own, and he thinks arizona is scum for requiring it of it’s criminals.

    What can you say about a guy like this?

    http://www.mlive.com/news/kalamazoo/index.ssf/2010/05/obama_may_personally_greet_eac.html

  34. AuntieMadder   Wednesday, May 19, 2010 at 1:43 PM

    Senators don’t define the Constitution. When the time comes, Obama’s ineligibility issue will go to the SCOTUS, who will not even consider the words of Congress in the “McCain” bill. And for what it’s worth, which appears to be nothing here, the bill they wrote to make the ineligible McCain eligible, is unlawful because it overwrites the eligibility requirements of the Constitution.

  35. Julie Krauss   Wednesday, May 19, 2010 at 12:16 AM

    Re Olson’s 4/4/08 letter to Leahy, under the law firm’s imprimatur: This document is embedded in the Senate’s discussion of April 28, 2008, regarding McCain’s eligibility. Go to the GPO’s Congressional Record search site:

    http://www.gpoaccess.gov/crecord/retrieve.html

    Click on the circle for 2008, and in the Search Box enter the Senate Page Number during which the issue was addressed. That is, type in S3645 and click the “Submit” button. The page will be downloaded as a pdf.

  36. TexomaEd   Wednesday, May 19, 2010 at 12:06 AM

    The Honduran military, on orders from the Honduran Supreme Court, removed the Honduran President, who was engaged in violating the Honduran constitution. This was not a coup d’etat. After escorting the president across the border, the Honduran military stepped back and allowed civilians to take control of the government.

  37. TexomaEd   Tuesday, May 18, 2010 at 11:58 PM

    I think you make a good point about Kansas and Arizona being sovereign territories of the US, which would then allow someone born there to be VP or President. The key word is “sovereign”, for that means that no foreign country can lay any claim on anyone born in those territories.

    Note that this same rationale cannot be made for McCain’s birth in the Panama Canal Zone. The 1903 treaty granted the US jurisdiction in the Canal Zone “as if” we were sovereign. We were not sovereign — Panama was. And this was evident by the fact that we paid rent to Panama.

  38. TexomaEd   Tuesday, May 18, 2010 at 11:42 PM

    JD Hayworth for US Senate!

  39. Julie Krauss   Tuesday, May 18, 2010 at 11:35 PM

    Scribd has the full memo (just over two pages) at

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/25457698/The-Tribe-Olson-Natural-Born-Citizen-Memo

    Other sites seem to have it as well, but I haven’t checked to see if they got it from Scribd.

  40. TexomaEd   Tuesday, May 18, 2010 at 11:31 PM

    First things first. The minimum requirement for the defense of our Constitution is the removal of Obama from the Office of President. Other charges can be brought against him after he has assumed the role of private citizen.

  41. TexomaEd   Tuesday, May 18, 2010 at 11:26 PM

    They did not want to call attention to Obama’s eligibility issue. They felt they could get away with McCain’s eligibility issue by equating birth on a US naval base abroad with being born in the country. However, there would not have been such wiggle room with Obama’s eligibility issue — his father was not a US citizen, nor even close to being one.

  42. Sharing thoughts   Tuesday, May 18, 2010 at 4:47 PM

    I think this has been scrubbed from the internet also:

    GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP,
    Washington, DC, April 8, 2008.
    Re legal analysis of question whether Senator
    John McCain is a natural born citizen eligible
    to hold the office of President.

    Hon. PATRICK J. LEAHY,
    Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary, U.S.
    Senate, Dirksen Senate Office Building,
    Washington, DC.
    DEAR CHAIRMAN LEAHY: Pursuant to a request received from the staff of your Committee,
    I enclose for your and your Committee’s consideration a copy of my and Professor Laurence Tribe’s analysis of the question whether Senator John McCain is a natural-born citizen eligible, under Article II of the Constitution, to hold the office of President of the United States. Professor Tribe and I are in agreement that the circumstances of Senator McCain’s birth to American parentS, in the Panama Canal Zone make him a natural-born citizen within the meaning of the Constitution.
    Please do not hesitate to contact me if I can be of further assistance in this matter.
    Very truly yours,
    THEODORE B. OLSON.
    GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP

    Theodore B. Olson is a partner in Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher’s Washington, D.C. office; a member of the firm’s Executive Committee, Theodore B. Olson 42nd Solicitor General of the United States.

    At a Judiciary Committee hearing on April 3, 2008 Leahy asked Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff, himself a former Federal judge, if he had doubts that McCain was eligible to serve as President.

    “My assumption and my understanding is that if you are born of American PARENTS, you are naturally a natural-born American citizen,” Chertoff replied. “That is mine, too,” said Leahy.
    http://leahy.senate.gov/press/200804/041008c.html
    Senator Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.)

    Seems pretty simple, senators sitting in this Judiciary Committee meeting KNOWS.

  43. Vic Hern   Tuesday, May 18, 2010 at 12:49 PM

    Any attempt to arrest any of the conspirators including the commander of conspirators must be done by the military. The military will not initiate any such action without some legal standing and backing, or unless a top officer leads the way with support from Congress or another branch or department of National Government or maybe a coalition of State Governments.
    Perhaps that State coalition is the angle to pursue since the Feds seem hammer-locked by AKAObama and the Obots.

    “Obama And The Obots” sounds like a good name for a music group spoof.
    Send to Rush?

  44. jondos   Tuesday, May 18, 2010 at 11:34 AM

    Can someone post a link to the Jonah Goldberg article. I can’t find it and I am very interested to read it. Thank you.

  45. James Carter   Tuesday, May 18, 2010 at 10:25 AM

    Mr. Laity:
    I am well aware that Senatorial resolutions do NOT trump the U.S. Constitution. My point was that although the “natural born citizen” status of both McCain and Obama were publicly questioned and legally challenged the Senate resolved the issue to their satisfaction for McCain only and not Obama as well. That should raise questions about Obama in and of itself.

  46. Stock   Tuesday, May 18, 2010 at 8:35 AM

    Mr. Laity; the Resolution serves to define the term as stated by the entire United States Senate-it serves as a clear starting point- a very blatant and open one( rather than having initially to be mired in arguments as to the meaning of cases and treatises-) It further serves to show the disfunctionality or may I say cowardice of John McCain-who sold us all down the river-and should now be held to account by the people of Arizona.

  47. yo   Tuesday, May 18, 2010 at 8:06 AM

    Jonah Goldberg, of he National Review, stated in his online article this morning that he doesn’t want the “birthers” to make their case because it would cause a “constitutional crisis.”

    Isn’t that great. Ignore the constitution so you won’t have a constitutional crisis.

    I think we can fairly say that that is the position of the Republican Party, and the courts, and the media. We’ve seen enough documents right here at the postemail to know conclusively that they are well aware of both the two citizen parent requirement and that the birth in Hawaii has never been proved.

    When i’m president, :), i plan to censor all of them. When they tell me that they have some constitutional right to free speech, i’m going to tell them that i can’t be bothered with looking into it because it may precipitate a constitutional crisis.
    ——————-
    Mrs. Rondeau replies: I think that’s why none of the so-called “conservative” writers at Townhall.com, Ann Coulter, Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh, etc. will touch the eligibility issue. It’s a very cowardly approach, in my opinion. We have a constitutional crisis, and avoiding it does not make it go away.

  48. Robert Laity   Tuesday, May 18, 2010 at 3:32 AM

    Time to ARREST “all…”

  49. Robert Laity   Tuesday, May 18, 2010 at 3:32 AM

    Senatorial resolutions do NOT trump Article II.

  50. Robert Laity   Tuesday, May 18, 2010 at 3:30 AM

    Only a bona-fides POTUS should be allowed the process that “Impeachment” includes. Obam should be immediately arrested,yesterday.

  51. Robert Laity   Tuesday, May 18, 2010 at 3:12 AM

    US is being “duped”
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sUaGe63Aqv4

  52. Robert Laity   Tuesday, May 18, 2010 at 3:09 AM

    http://americangrandjury.org/public/

  53. Robert Laity   Tuesday, May 18, 2010 at 3:04 AM

    Let me try this again:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sUaGe63A

  54. Robert Laity   Tuesday, May 18, 2010 at 3:01 AM

    Corrected link:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sUaGe6Aqv4

    Link to testimony that Obama asked his lawyers to “find a way to evade article II”
    http://opengov.ideascale.com/akira/dtd/6507-4049

  55. Robert Laity   Tuesday, May 18, 2010 at 2:55 AM

    Pelosi is named as a co-conspirator in Obama’s fraud and treason:
    http://americangrandjury.org/public/

    Obama not being the bona-fides President is NOT entitled to the protections afforded to a President in an “Impeachment” Process. If a significant number of Senators vote for Obama,a fraud remains in office. Obama HAS a majority of Democrats as Senators.
    A bona-fide POTUS would be entitled to such an up and down vote:
    1. Articles of Impeachment are presented
    2. A trial in the senate ensues and a vote occurs as to whether or not to remove a POTUS from office or not.

    Obama has been charged with Treason and Fraud. He is NOT a “Natural-Born” American and he knows it. That is fraud.In fact,there is evidence that Obama purposely instructed his
    lawyers to find a way to “EVADE Article II” so that he could be POTUS.

    Recently, Clarence Thomas,SCOTUS Justice publicly admitted that SCOTUS is “evading” the issue.

    Obama MUST be arrested:

    Not only is he disqualified to be POTUS,he is encumbered by other acts from being in ANY
    office under the USA.

    While Obama owed allegiance to the USA,as a US Senator,Obama overtly campaigned for a known enemy of the US,Raila Odinga,a genocidal,radical Islamist supremacist and reportedly “Obama’s paternal cousin”,the current Prime Minister of Kenya. Odinga is associated with terrorists who bombed (2) US Embassies KILLING americans.One in tanzania and the other in Nairobi. These acts by Obama to “give aid and comfort” to Odinga,et al,in Kenya constitutes TREASON.
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sUaGe6Aqv4
    See also 18USC,Part 1,Chapter 115,Sec.2381

  56. Robert Laity   Tuesday, May 18, 2010 at 2:42 AM

    Beck deserves criticism as does O’Reilly,Geraldo and Smith. They have all disparaged the issue as “nutter”. They are all misprisioners of fraud and treason.”Fool”,”Idealogue”…try traitors.

  57. Robert Laity   Tuesday, May 18, 2010 at 2:37 AM

    Along with Palin who said “The eligibility issue was not a proper issue for discussion”,both Palin and McCain are guilty of Misprision of a felony and treason.

  58. Dan   Monday, May 17, 2010 at 10:02 PM

    McCain Resolution 511

    READ PAGE TWO, PARAGRAPH 3, ASK THEM HOW THEY
    PRESUME THAT OBAMA WAS BORN ON AUGUST,04,1961
    IN HAWAII. WHY WAS THIS INCLUDED IN A RESOLUTION
    WITH NO FACT. DID THEY SEE A VAULTED BIRTH CERTIFICATE.
    THIS SHOULD BE INVESTIGATED. SOMETHING’S UP!

    (note: these two web addresses have been cancelled. One
    had contained a pdf.)

    http://leahy.senate.gov/issues/Judiciary/McCainAnalysis.pdf

    http://leahy.senate.gov/press/200804/043008d.html

    I am concerned that “Two” Attorney’s of Great Stature would result to forming and Signing this document..

    1) They state that Obama was born in Hawaii on August 04, 1961.
    (Currently there is no Proof of this other than stories and Forged Birth Certificates.
    The “Two” Lawyer’s stated that they find it “INCONCEIVABLE” that Obama would
    not be Eligible to be President by a mere two year’s of Hawaii’s admission to the U.S.

    …….born within the sovereign territory of the United States.
    Historical practice confirms that birth on soil that is under the sovereignty of the United
    States, but not within a State, satisfies the Natural Born Citizen Clause. For example, Vice
    President Charles Curtis was born in the territory of Kansas on January 25, 1860-0ne year
    before Kansas became a State. Because the Twelfth Amendment requires that Vice Presidents
    possess the same qualifications as Presidents, the service of Vice President Curtis verifies that
    the phrase “natural born Citizen” includes birth outside of any State but within U.S. territory.
    Similarly, Senator Barry Goldwater was born in Arizona before its statehood, yet attained the
    Republican Party’s presidential nomination in 1964. And Senator Barack Obama was born in
    Hawaii on August 4, 1961-not long after its admission to the Union on August 21, 1959. We
    find it inconceivable that Senator Obama would have been ineligible for the Presidency had he
    been born two years earlier.

    The Document was dated March 19, 2008
    It was signed by Laurence H. Tribe and Theodore B. Olson (I had failed to download the pdf, thinking it would
    remain on the internet)……..Dan Smith, NY

  59. Stock   Monday, May 17, 2010 at 8:21 PM

    JOHN MCCAIN EVERYBODY! HE LET US DOWN. HE SAID NOTHING! HE KNEW! HE HAD THE POWER AND ABILITY TO SPEAK UP AND FAILED TO DO SO! HE HAS TO BE MADE TO ANSWER FOR BEING SINGULARLY RESPONSIBLE FOR CAUSING OUR NATION TO SUFFER THIS SOCIALIST REGIME AS A RESULT OF HIS FAILURE AND REFUSAL TO ACT. IT IS HIS OBLIGATION TO TAKE ACTION. WE CANT LET THIS BE FORGOTTEN.

  60. Jim Delaney   Monday, May 17, 2010 at 7:47 PM

    Good post. Barry’s ineligibility is blindingly obvious to any but a fool or ideologue. One and the same, I would guess. But for some weird and not so creditable reason folks like O’Reilly, always infuriatingly striving to be objective, and, yes, even Glenn Beck, who has been so well-served by a very capable research team, both refuse to lend any credence whatsoever to the obvious ineligibility issue. They myopically denigrate “birthers” and errantly rely upon the infamous Certificate of Live Birth and newspaper announcements of Obama’s birth as proof positive that Barry “was born in the USA, and, therefore, eligible to be President.” Amazingly shallow. What they willfully ignore is the obvious: the meaning of “natural born citizen”. Their lack of integrity and the absence of even a modicum of courage on their part border on sedition. So, while I am grateful for Glenn’s public service, I have lost considerable respect for him. As for O’Reilly, I now have difficulty listening to him. His psychopathic need for a moderate facade is extremely troubling. Frankly, I am running out of news sources. Thank God for XM radio.
    ————-
    Mrs. Rondeau replies: Don’t forget about The Post & Email!

  61. True Patriot   Monday, May 17, 2010 at 7:43 PM

    Correct Heather and Femi Nazi Pelosi should be at the top of the list to be impeached, imprisoned for the rest of her miserable life!

    My legal question is since it is now common knowledge that this fraud we have hanging out in the White House is ineligible to serve as POTUS, how can you impeach someone who was never qualified to be seated in the first place? Shouldn’t everything he has signed and done be null & void legally.

    It would seem so. This is the biggest bunch of frauds in the history of America. God Bless America & Our Troops.

  62. Thomas   Monday, May 17, 2010 at 4:42 PM

    I agree with Heather about ” Time to impeach all those involved in this scam. They are out of time! ” but , I think that they all should be tried for TREASON against the U.S.A. as well !!!

  63. Mick   Monday, May 17, 2010 at 4:19 PM

    To WAYK,
    The Constitution certainly has Natural Law embedded within it. The Bill of Rights are all about Natural Law (natural god given rights), and it is listed as the body of law that the Congress shall use in International Relations (A1S8C10-law of nations). Citizenship issues are certainly part of International Relations. As far as the effect of International Law on US Citizenship issues one must not look no further than Perkins v. Elg to see that a foreign country’s laws regarding it’s citizenry are certainly accounted for, and to be obeyed when dual citizens, in their minority, are present in that foreign country (army conscription).
    Scalia recently cited Vattel in the dicta of Heller v. DC. Vattel was the most cited body of law in the 19th century, and many of those concepts have been written into our law.
    Obama and his minions are pushing BCL Natural Born Subject as Natural Born Citizen for a reason. The fact that makes him ineligible is already apparent, and the BC should only be requested as backup evidence of paternity. We still do not absolutely know WHERE birth occured, so why rely on that argument? I have no trust in this attorney (Jensen), since he relies on a question that he doesn’t know the answer to. I am afraid Col. Lakin is being duped.

  64. 12thGenerationAMERICAN   Monday, May 17, 2010 at 3:30 PM

    i.e., A little less talk and a lot more action!!!!!!!!!!

  65. WAYK   Monday, May 17, 2010 at 3:04 PM

    Unless I am mistaken Tim DeJong has quoted from comments of mine at TPE ( http://tinyurl.com/TPE-WAYK-1 ) with the implication that I “support” Obama – or worse! Given I have today here at TPE referred to “the criminality, conspiracy, and contempt behind the usurpation” of Obama, DeJong’s allusions are inaccurate, unfair, and absurd. No personal disrespect intended.

    DeJong’s skepticism regarding “sovereign legal instruments” is not consonant with the decision of SCOTUS in US v. Tompkins, 1934. Unless SCOTUS reverses that decision a federal court will not apply any rule of decision in the matter of natural born citizenship that is not authorized by a sovereign legal instrument, meaning a (state or federal) constitutional or statutory instrument. Indeed, US v. Tompkins explicitly rejects the notion of anything or anybody having (as DeJong words it) “established our common law” at the federal level.

    There is no FEDERAL common law, as even Donofrio concedes, and SCOTUS has consistently rejected the proposition that the common law of nations or common international law can be applied within the US absent an American sovereign legal instrument to give it force. Not even the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, to which the US is a signatory, is enforceable in federal courts. As Justice Scalia wrote in Sosa v. Alvarez-Machain, 2004:

    “General common law was not federal law under the Supremacy Clause, which gave that effect only to the Constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties … Creating a federal command (federal common law) out of ‘international norms,’ and then constructing a cause of action to enforce that command…is nonsense upon stilts… That portion of the general common law known as the law of nations was understood to refer to the accepted practices of nations in their dealings with one another (treatment of ambassadors, immunity of foreign sovereigns from suit, etc.) and with actors on the high seas hostile to all nations and beyond all their territorial jurisdictions (pirates). Those accepted practices have for the most part, if not in their entirety, been enacted into United States statutory law…The notion that a law of nations…can be used by a private citizen to control a sovereign’s treatment of its own citizens within its own territory is a 20th-century invention of internationalist law professors and human-rights advocates. The Framers would, I am confident, be appalled by the proposition that, for example, the American peoples’ democratic adoption of the death penalty could be judicially nullified because of the disapproving views of foreigners.”

    It should not be expected that Vattel, for whose disapproving views on natural born citizenship no American sovereign legal instrument can be cited, will receive serious consideration from SCOTUS.

    There is criminality, conspiracy, and contempt behind Obama’s usurpation and his theft of constitutional government from the American people. It is very disappointing that every institution in our society is both cowardly and derelict in exposing it. However, constitutional and legal government cannot be restored by going beyond the Constitution and the law, and I believe I have demonstrated that relying on Vattel is not relying on the constitution or the law. I could be proved wrong by one instance of a sovereign legal instrument which is based on Vattel’s view of natural born citizenship or by a decision from SCOTUS wherein US v Tompkins and the non-existence of a federal common law is repudiated. I cannot find either. Until then Lt. Col. Lakin, in upholding his oath to defend the US Constitution, is America’s best chance to restore constitutional government and the rule of law, which is being eroded daily by the disgusting, illegal Obama regime. May God bless Lt. Col. Lakin’s courageous and patriotic stand. Any comment I make here is intended to be a small but honest contribution to the unmasking of tyranny. Obama wishes to cloud the judgment of those for and against him, and so defeat them. He will not cloud mine.

    PS Given he is a demonstrable liar and fraudster, Obama’s “admissions” are to be treated with the most extreme caution.

  66. ELmo   Monday, May 17, 2010 at 1:58 PM

    This is a super article – it is obvious that it was well researched and thought out. We are all frustrated but time works against “Obama and the Bots”. As long as the question is kept alive, the truth will eventually come out. This site is to be congratulated for it’s relentless pursuit of the truth (when the MSM is ducking or obfuscating or simply covering up). Cheer up! Every day brings a new revelation or insight and brings the truth one day closer to
    Historical fact.
    Keep up the good work P&E (And all contributors thereto).
    Again – Congratulations to TIm DeJong on an excellent essay.
    ELmo

  67. Tom the veteran   Monday, May 17, 2010 at 1:08 PM

    Yada, Yada, Yada! Preaching to the choir again! We ALL know this stuff better than those who are currently graduating from William and Mary! What I want to know is WHEN IS SOMEBODY GOING TO DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT?
    Seems like the whole darn world knows he’s ineligible! Are we waiting to take over the House and Senate so that we can impeach the bum?

  68. James Carter   Monday, May 17, 2010 at 12:58 PM

    SR 511 resolved that John McCain was eligible to serve as POTUS per Article 2, Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution specifically because he was born to American citizens. There was no similar resolution for Obama even though he was not born to American citizens.

    What’s wrong with that picture?

  69. heather   Monday, May 17, 2010 at 12:54 PM

    Time to impeach all those involved in this scam. They are out of time!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.