If you're new here, you may want to subscribe to my free Email alerts. Thanks for visiting!
A LETTER TO A MEMBER OF THE NH HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
by Lawrence Sellin, ©2011
(Nov. 25, 2011) — Sir,
Thank you for your response. First, let me wish you and your family a Happy Thanksgiving.
The core arguments of my articles are that the Democrat and Republican parties at the national level, i.e., the Congress and the national committees are corrupt and they do not uphold the Constitution. Obama and his Administration are simply the most flagrant examples.
Except for Rick Perry, to some extent, and Sarah Palin as a non-candidate, no Republican candidate has directly addressed the issue of corruption, which, for me, is the central issue of our time.
Nor has the leadership of the Republican Party taken a stand on Obama’s ineligibility for the Presidency (it does not matter where he was born, see article below) or his crimes both before and after occupying the Oval Office.
In fact, the Republican Party has joined the Democrats and the mainstream media to suppress discussion of these issues, have actively distributed misinformation and deliberately misdirected citizens.
Hundreds of my readers have written one or more letters to their Congressional representatives about these issues only to be ignored or ridiculed.
In fact, Karl Rove and the Republican leadership are promoting their own ineligible Vice Presidential candidate, Marco Rubio, who is not a natural born citizen (his parents were not US citizens at the time of his birth). I think Rubio is excellent, but he should not become Vice President at the expense of the Constitution.
When the politicians stop listening to the citizens, which they have, when they ignore the Constitution and when they pursue their own power and wealth at the expense of the country, it is time to remove them by whatever legal means necessary.
Many of us who would normally vote Republican will not vote, if the Republican Party continues to endorse corruption in Washington, D.C. and not uphold the Constitution.
We are prepared to let Obama win, allow the present corrupt political system to collapse and rebuild the country from the bottom up according to the Constitution and the vision of the Founding Fathers, if the Republican Party refuses to speak out about Obama’s illegal Presidency and his crimes.
Many Republican elected officials have criticized my position stating that we are in a severe economic situation and should focus on removing Obama from office.
It is my contention that we can immediately remove Obama by addressing the issue of his Constitutionally illegal Presidency, his use of a Social Security Number not issued to him, his forged birth documents and his forged Selective Service registration.
Obama and his supporters have perpetrated the greatest fraud in the history of the United States.
I contend that we are in our current dire economic situation precisely because our Republican leaders were too cowardly or complicit to vet Obama properly before the 2008 election.
Now the same Republican leaders are asking the American people to remain silent, not to vet Obama in 2012 and endorse blatant violations of the Constitution and permanent political corruption in Washington, D.C.
We will not.
COL(R) Lawrence Sellin, Ph.D.
“A Natural Born Citizen” by Professor RD Skidmore, ©2011, reprinted by permission
The Constitutional requirement for President is “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; …”
Note the Constitutional distinction of “natural born Citizen” and “Citizen.” The paramount question is “why would the founders make the distinction of ‘natural born Citizen’ and ‘Citizen’ if it was not meaningfully important”?
In the case, Minor v. Happersett (1874), Minor, a woman, wanted to register to vote in the federal Presidential election and was denied registration because of her gender.
Deliberating this case, the Supreme Court recognized that the Constitutional framers did not define ‘natural born Citizen’ but that they did know its meaning and that it was different from ‘Citizen’ as stated in our Constitution. It was the framers who made this distinction, and the Court rendered unanimously the definition that children born of PARENTS (note the plural) who are citizens are natural born citizens ELIGIBLE for the Presidency.
The first seven Presidents were ‘Citizens’ of the United States and not ‘natural born Citizens’, yet they qualified for the office (Washington through Jackson); because they were citizens “AT THE TIME OF THE ADOPTION OF [THE] CONSTITUTION!” These Presidents had lived through the Revolutionary War, they were patriots, loved our country at the exclusion of Great Britain, and held allegiance to our country as patriots. The founders recognized that a ‘natural born Citizen’, being born to ‘Citizen’ PARENTS (plural) would have the same regard and love of country as these founders; at least that was their hope, prayer and intention.
The founders recognized that congress may define at any time who can become a citizen and how they become a citizen; one only need to begin reading the naturalization acts passed by congress, and include the 14th Amendment. These enactments define citizenship and naturalization of citizens but never define the eligibility requirement for President of the United States.
Though constitutionally distinct and separate there are those who argue that Mr. Obama is both a citizen and natural-born citizen, and thus eligible for the office of President because this fits their prejudices.
The Constitutional citizenship clause does not apply to Obama, as it did to George Washington, because he was not alive and “a citizen of the United States” at the time of the adoption of the Constitution (1785).
Obama is subject to the “No Person except a natural born Citizen” clause. How does he fare under this clause?
Obama has documented that his father was a British subject at the time of his birth and The British Nationality Act of 1772 declares unequivocally that children born of British Subjects regardless of their birth location are themselves British Subjects:
“That all Persons born, or who hereafter shall be born, … are hereby declared and enacted to be, natural-born Subjects of the Crown of Great Britain, to all Intents, Constructions, and Purposes whatsoever, as if he and they had been and were born in this Kingdom:”
Now the issue and question is not where Obama was born, rather “Were both of his parents U.S. citizens when he was born?”
By Obama’s own admission, and demonstrated on the questionable documents he has provided the public, the answer is “NO”.
Remember, the Supreme Court (1874) in the Minor case unanimously defined children born of PARENTS (note the plural) who are citizens are ‘natural born Citizens’; and it is these children who are ELIGIBLE to hold the office of President of the United States.
Because Mr. Obama’s father, at the time of his birth was a British Subject, and the Constitutional definition requires citizen Parents (note the plural), he is not a ‘natural born Citizen’ as required for the office; he is for ever excluded from ever meeting the natural-born Citizen QUALIFICATION for President; thus Mr. Obama is ineligible to be President of the United States.
Supporters of Mr. Obama do raise the case of U.S. v Wong Kim Ark to defend their citizen/natural-born citizen prejudice.
Wong was the son of Chinese subjects and born in California. At 17, in 1890, he left to visit China. Upon his return he passed through the collector of customs and was permitted to land as ‘a native-born citizen of the United States.’ Wong again left to visit China in 1894, and returning to his homeland (U.S.) “applied to the collector of customs to be permitted to land; and that such application was denied upon the sole ground that said Wong Kim Ark was not a citizen of the United States.”
In the Wong case (1898) the court addressed the issue of Wong’s citizenship. The United States Supreme court rendered a divided decision on the case where the majority found that Wong was a citizen. The court does not address if Wong is a ‘natural-born Citizen’ qualified to be President of the United States; they left intact the Minor (1874) definition.
Unlike popular culture, in law there is precedent setting from Stare Decisis (to stand by that which is decided earlier). This is a hierarchy of law in that when a judgment is given by the court it is considered superior to future judgments and should be adhered to. Should Stare Decisis be ignored because the outcome does not fit our prejudices?
Minor v Happersett (1874) defined children born of PARENTS who are ‘Citizens’ are a ‘natural born Citizen’ eligible to hold the office of President, compared to the Wong case of 1898 which addressed Wong’s citizenship, not his qualifications to be President.
In each case the court addressed two different issues and the Wong case did not strike down nor re-define Presidential eligibility.
Our nation does not recognize dual citizenship and when our naturalized citizens take their oath of allegiance to the United States they renounce any and all allegiance to any foreign land or person. As weak as some would want The British Nationality Act to be, the Supreme Court’s unanimous definition of Natural Born Citizen remains unchanged.
Our congress and courts have refused to confront this issue and it is a Constitutional crisis for our nation and troops. The media and candidates refuse to ask the right questions, insisting on affirming Obama was born in the USA while disregarding the Constitutional requirements.
Where Obama says he was born is irrelevant. What is relevant is the Constitutional requirement for the Presidency and the Oath many of us have taken especially those in public office to “… support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter: So help me God”
“An act to establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization”, United States Congress (March 26, 1790). ; Harvard, available at http://pds.lib.harvard.edu/pds/view/5596748, (last visited 26 October 2011) ; Indiana University, available at http://www.indiana.edu/~kdhist/H105-documents-web/week08/naturalization1790.html, (last visited 26 October 2011)
“An act to establish an uniform rule of Naturalization; and to repeal the act heretofore passed on that subject”, United States Congress (January 29, 1795).; Indiana University, available at http://www.indiana.edu/~kdhist/H105-documents-web/week08/naturalization1790.html, (last visited 26 October 2011)
British Nationality Act, 1772; Anno Regni decimo tertio G E O R G I I III. 1772 (13 Geo. 3) C A P. XXI.; available at http://www.uniset.ca/naty/BNA1772.htm, (last visited 26 October 2011)
United States Constitution, Article 2, Section 1, Paragraph 5. 1787
United States Constitution, Article 2, Section 1, Paragraph 6. 1787
United States Constitution, Amendment XII, U. S. Constitution, ratified July 27, 1804
United States Constitution, Amendment XIV, ratified July 9, 1868
MINOR v. HAPPERSETT, 88 U.S. 162; 21 Wall. 162 OCTOBER, 1874, Term; available at http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/minorvhapp.html, (last visited 25 October 2011); Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162, 167, 21 Wall. 162, 22 L.Ed. 627 (1875) Refer to paragraphs 17-19.
U.S. v. WONG KIM ARK, 169 U.S. 649 (1898), (JUSTICE HARLAN dissenting.); Cornell University Law School, Legal Information Institute; Available at http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0169_0649_ZS.html, (last visited 7 November 2011)
Oath of Office Congress: TITLE 5 > PART III > Subpart B > CHAPTER 33 > SUBCHAPTER II > § 3331; available at http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/5/usc_sec_05_00003331—-000-.html, (last visited 26 October 2011)
Oath of naturalization for citizenship; available at http://www.uscis.gov/portal/site/uscis/menuitem.5af9bb95919f35e66f614176543f6d1a/?vgnextoid=facd6db8d7e37210VgnVCM100000082ca60aRCRD&vgnextchannel=dd7ffe9dd4aa3210VgnVCM100000b92ca60aRCRD, (last visited 26 October 2011)
Oath of Office for President, US Constitution, Article II, Section 1, adopted 1787
Lawrence Sellin, Ph.D. is a retired colonel with 29 years of service in the US Army Reserve and a veteran of Afghanistan and Iraq. He receives hate mail at email@example.com