THIS CONGRESSMAN STATED THAT BIRTH IN THE U.S. IS NOT A PREREQUISITE TO BE PRESIDENT
September 11, 2010
Dear Editor: The following message was sent to Congressman Brian Bilbray (CA-50) on September 10, 2010. A similar message was sent on Wednesday, September 8, 2010 to the District Director for the local office of Congressman Bilbray. No response has been received to the earlier message.
It is my understanding that a letter has been sent to you via certified mail from Mr. Lucas Smith asserting that Mr. Smith has personal knowledge indicating that Barack Obama was born in Mombasa, Kenya; and further that Mr. Smith provided a certified copy of the Kenyan birth certificate for Mr. Obama (which Mr. Smith has in his possession).
The learned constitutional scholarship and meticulous research of Attorneys Mario Apuzzo and Leo Donofrio has demonstrated clearly that the “natural born citizen” requirement relating to eligibility for the office of president set forth in Article II of the United States Constitution means, as defined by Emerich de Vattel in “The Law of Nations,” “born in the country of parents who are citizens.” (Vattel provides an exception regarding the first requirement in the case of “children born out of the country in the armies of the state” which apparently covered John McCain.)
Thus the presidential eligibility clause in Article II of the U.S. Constitution means that there are TWO independent conditions which must be met to satisfy the NBC requirement to serve as president (or vice-president in accordance with the Twelfth Amendment to the Constitution), and for which, by implication, the people have a right of verification and substantiation:
- the person elected to the office of president must have been born in the United States (subject to the single exception stated above); and
- the person elected to the office of president must have been born of parents who are BOTH citizens of the United States at his or her birth.
The purported Kenyan birth certificate may or may not be authentic, but it seems unlikely that Mr. Smith would send this document by hand-addressed certified mail to 535 members of Congress, as well as to the non-voting members of the House, unless he believed it to be authentic.
If this document is valid, then Obama is clearly and unequivocally ineligible to serve in the office of president, and he must be removed.
On the other hand, if it can be proven that he was actually born in Hawaii as he claims, then the parental citizenship issue must be resolved, most likely requiring a clarifying decision by the U.S Supreme Court in spite of the clear language of the Constitution. (See note below) This is why it is so important to get the matter of the legally-admissible documentation of Obama’s birth location resolved promptly, so as to move expeditiously to the Supreme Court if that becomes necessary as a result of the production by Obama of a valid Hawaiian birth certificate.
It is without doubt the responsibility of Obama himself to provide this documentation. His refusal to do so is not only absolutely unprecedented – it is an outrage against the American people, and itself creates a mandate for a congressionally-ordered resolution of this matter, including a forensic examination of the Lucas Smith document if a valid Hawaiian birth certificate is not produced.
If the law does not provide a remedy to the denial of a vested legal right of the people to have a constitutionally-qualified president, then this government is no longer “a government of laws, and not of men”, in the famous words of no less an authority than Chief Justice John Marshall in Marbury v. Madison.
For your information, an interview was conducted with Mr. Lucas Smith by Sharon Rondeau, editor of The Post and Email, and published here.
A related guest editorial, of which I was the author, containing certain observations relating to the presence of Mr. Smith at the September 8, 2009 hearing at the Federal Courthouse in Santa Ana, CA in the Obama eligibility case Barnett et al v. Obama, was published shortly thereafter here.
Since I believe that this is an extremely urgent matter relating directly to the national security of the United States, I feel it is necessary for you to be aware of this information in order to fulfill your duties pursuant to your oath of office as a member of the United States House of Representatives to “support and defend the Constitution of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic”.
I hereby request a substantive response from you or your authorized representative concerning such action as you intend to undertake in connection with this matter, a matter which I believe represents a true constitutional crisis unprecedented in the history of this nation.
David F. LaRocque
CDR USNR (ret)
(Note: Both of the NBC conditions are equally necessary. However, a Supreme Court decision in one case (Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162, 1874 par 9) has introduced enough ambiguity with the following words that Apuzzo and Donofrio believe the matter must be finally resolved by the U.S. Supreme Court:
“…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.”
Sharon Rondeau has operated The Post & Email since April 2010, focusing on the Obama birth certificate investigation and other government corruption news. She has reported prolifically on constitutional violations within Tennessee’s prison and judicial systems.