Resolving the “Natural Born Citizen” Question

WILL CONGRESS ACT FOLLOWING THE OBAMA DEBACLE?

by Paul R. Hollrah, ©2012

Sen. Tom Coburn of Oklahoma is serving his second and last term in the U.S. Senate and has expressed the belief that a birth on U.S. soil, regardless of the parents’ citizenship, makes one a “natural born Citizen”

(Aug. 10, 2012) — Over the past two years I have engaged in an ongoing debate with Senator Tom Coburn (R-OK) over the issue of Barack Obama’s eligibility to serve as president of the United States.  Although Senator Coburn is an exceptionally fine senator, one of the top three in the senate, his views on the issue are not unlike those of other members of Congress.  They are simply wrong.

In all of our exchanges, Senator Coburn has relied on the same “boilerplate” language, insisting that, “First and foremost, while I disagree with most of President Obama’s policy positions, I believe he is a natural-born citizen and eligible to be President of the United States.  My belief is based upon the fact that he was born in Hawaii, as the release of his long-form birth certificate proves, and his mother (was) a U.S. citizen.  My staff has not found any evidence that contradicts these facts beyond conspiracy theories.  I also believe this issue was solved in the 2008 election, when each of the 50 states placed candidate Obama on its ballot and certified its election results.  Individual states are responsible for determining the eligibility of their federal candidates, and all 50 states legitimized candidate Obama’s presidency in this way.”

There are at least three major errors and misconceptions in Senator Coburn’s response.  First, he accepts that Obama was born in Hawaii and that the long-form birth certificate released by the White House on April 27, 2011, provides proof of that claim.  If the senator would examine the extensive forensic evidence developed by Sheriff Joe Arpaio, of Maricopa County, Arizona, he would know that the document provided by Obama is simply a poorly-constructed forgery.

Sheriff Arpaio has made it clear that anyone who feels that his Cold Case Posse… a team of highly respected and experienced lawyers, detectives, and forensic experts… was mistaken in their conclusions, they are free to submit the posse’s work to examination by a team of experts of their own choosing.  To date, none of the doubters have been doubtful enough to accept Sheriff Arpaio’s challenge.  Consequently, it is only the credibility of the doubters that is found wanting.   Rather than allow themselves to be proven wrong, they simply deny the validity of the posse’s findings without ever attempting to support their opposing position.

Even if it could be shown, conclusively, that Obama was born in Hawaii, his forged birth certificate notwithstanding, he still cannot claim status as a “natural born” citizen because, by his own admission, his father was a citizen of Kenya.  The place of one’s birth is not the determining factor in who is and who is not a “natural born” citizen.  Just as hundreds of thousands of “native born” children born in the U.S. each year are not “natural born,” because their parents are not U.S. citizens, tens of thousands of “natural born” babies are born abroad to American parents each year.  These children are “natural born” citizens because both parents are U.S. citizens.

Senator Coburn makes a common mistake, assuming that to be “native born” is to be “natural born.”  It is not.  The two terms are not synonymous.

Second, the senator argues that, “My staff has not found any evidence that contradicts these facts beyond conspiracy theories.”  The only thing to be said in response is that, when one fails to look for evidence, it is unlikely that one will find evidence.  Senator Coburn would be well advised to order his staff to utilize their own investigative resources and to take at face value the opinions of their friends on the Washington cocktail circuit who are armed with nothing more than inside-the-beltway “conventional wisdom,” which is almost always wrong.

Finally, the senator writes, “I also believe this issue was solved in the 2008 election, when each of the 50 states placed candidate Obama on its ballot and certified its election results.  Individual states are responsible for determining the eligibility of their federal candidates, and all 50 states legitimized candidate Obama’s presidency in this way.”

The senator must know that few states have laws requiring their state election board to certify the qualifications of candidates for president and vice president.  To the contrary, it is an implicit constitutional duty of the party nominating conventions to nominate eligible candidates and to certify the eligibility of candidates to the state election boards so that ballots can be printed.

For example, in 2008, all of the certifications provided to the fifty state election boards by the Republican National Convention contained language certifying that John McCain and Sarah Palin met all of the constitutional requirements for the offices of president and vice president.  The documents were signed by John A. Boehner and Jean A. Inman, Chairman and Secretary, respectively, of the 2008 Republican National Convention, and notarized by Sheila A. Motzko.

However, certifications provided to the state election boards by the Democratic National Committee were not uniform.  The certification provided exclusively to the State of Hawaii, pursuant to Hawaii Revised Statutes §11-113, which requires certification of constitutional eligibility, contained the following affirmation:

“THIS IS TO CERTIFY that at the National Convention of the Democrat Party of the United States of America, held in Denver, Colorado on August 25 though (sic) 28, 2008, the following were duly nominated candidates of said Party for President and Vice President of the United States respectively and that the following candidates for President and Vice President of the United States are legally qualified to serve under the provisions of the United States Constitution.” 

The remaining forty-nine states, which do not require a statement of constitutional eligibility, received the following certification:

“THIS IS TO CERTIFY that at the National Convention of the Democrat Party of the United States of America, held in Denver, Colorado on August 25 though (sic) 28, 2008, the following were duly nominated as candidates of said Party for President and Vice President of the United States respectively:”

Affixed were the names and home addresses of Barack Obama and Joe Biden.  The documents were signed by Nancy Pelosi and Alice Travis Germond, Chairman and Secretary, respectively, of  the 2008 Democratic National Convention, and notarized by Shalifa A. Williamson.

The phrase, “… and that the following candidates for President and Vice President of the United States are legally qualified to serve under the provisions of the United States Constitution” was purposely omitted.  Other than that, all of the documents were absolutely identical… even to the misspelling of the word “through” in the second line of the certifications.  Clearly, Democrats knew when they nominated him that Barack Obama was not eligible to serve as president of the United States.  The question is, what did Nancy Pelosi know, and when did she know it?  She should be put under oath in a court of law and made to answer that question.

Contrary to Senator Coburn’s assertion, the obligation to properly vet candidates for president and vice president lies only with: a) the party nominating conventions, b) the members of the Electoral College, and c) the members of Congress, in joint session.  The party responsibility is implicit; the responsibilities of the Electoral College and the Congress are explicit.

In a December 8, 2008 discussion of the congressional certification process, Edwin Vieira, Jr., Ph.D., J.D., a leading authority on the Constitution, argues that, “… the question of Obama’s eligibility vel non is not within the discretion of Congress to skirt or decide as its Members may deem politically or personally expedient.”  Dr. Viera argues that, if no objection is made on the basis that Obama is not a natural born citizen… “the matter cannot be said to have been settled to a ‘constitutional sufficiency’(emphasis added), because Congress has no power to simply waive the eligibility requirement.

In other words, the matter of Obama’s eligibility is still a matter before Congress because the Congress has not questioned and evaluated his eligibility, and in spite of the fact that the state election boards printed his name on the 2008 General Election ballot, the responsibility for vetting him is still on their collective plates.

In 2008, the delegates to the Democratic National Convention failed us, the 365 Democratic members of the Electoral College failed us, and the 535 members of the U.S. Congress failed us.  In order to clarify the issue and to avoid a future constitutional crisis over presidential eligibility, the Congress should take immediate steps to establish, by law, the definition of the term “natural born Citizen.”  To clarify the intentions of the Founding Fathers, the term should be defined as: “an individual born to parents, both of whom were United States citizens at the time of the birth, and neither of whom owed allegiance to any foreign sovereignty at the time of the birth.”

The American people will come to know that, between January 20 2009, and January 20, 2013, the man who occupied the Oval Office was not eligible to sit in that chair.  And while it would be all but impossible to reverse four years of presidential acts and appointments, by codifying the definition of “natural born Citizen” the people can be satisfied that we will never again suffer the likes of Barack Obama.  But the wrong that has been done to the American people will not soon be forgotten.  The delegates to the 2008 Democrat National Convention, the Democrat members of the 2008 Electoral College, and the members of the 111th Congress, of both parties, will carry the shame of their treachery to their graves. 

phollrah@yahoo.com

7 Responses to "Resolving the “Natural Born Citizen” Question"

  1. Robert Laity   Tuesday, December 12, 2017 at 10:50 AM

    The matter has been resolved. SCOTUS in Minor v Happersett (1875) unanimously supported the definition of a Natural Born Citizen as “one born in the United States to parents who were both US Citizens themselves”. It is still “good law” as we call it in the legal profession. Meaning it still controls.

  2. Sharon Rondeau   Tuesday, December 12, 2017 at 7:54 AM

    He has been out of office for some time now.

  3. yogiman   Tuesday, December 12, 2017 at 7:47 AM

    If Senator Coburn believes only being born in the USA makes one constitutionally eligible for the Oval Office, he’s exposing his ignorance and should read the definition of natural born as described by the First Session of Congress in 1790. Many of the First Session of Congress were among the founders of the Constitution and realized that definition had not been noted.

  4. 2discern   Friday, August 10, 2012 at 4:20 PM

    It will not be impossible to repeal EVERYTHING a putative president deceitfully signed, appointed, dictated, etc.

    The treasonous acts of barry soetero and his accomplices will in fact nullify every legislation, court appointment, executive order. WHY?
    He was never the legal president. An illegal president cannot sign a legal document or make a legal declaration from the office he fraudulently held.

    If he gets away with this type of fraud we are doomed as a Nation. Nobody has to abide by any laws or taxes or compliance if he doesn’t. It will be a free for all. There are no laws to enforce if the highest office does not observe them. No more IRS, no more CONgressional crap passed as laws. There are none.

  5. Veritas   Friday, August 10, 2012 at 12:56 PM

    What of the certain Tea Pary backed elected officials who have appeared in Post Email articles who have turned their backs on constituents concerned about usurpation of the Executive Branch?

    When self-avowed “Conservatives” curtly tell constituents, “He HAS a birth certificate,” then the Constitution is not being guarded as the Supreme Law of the Land.

    Just that very question “What is the Supreme Law of the United States?” is on the qualifying exam to become a naturalized American citizen.

    Evidently it does not mean much to more than a few officials in BOTH parties!

  6. richard gorman   Friday, August 10, 2012 at 11:51 AM

    last line — ” …… will carry the shame and treachery to their graves.” No they will NOT. Why would they carry any shame. They are ALL willing participants in the overthrow of the USA – the republic and its Constitiution. They simply plan on maintaining a part of the aristocracy, reaping all the benefits, and ignoring the commoners -the proletariat-we the people. In other words they are proud of their Victory. They won- the people lost and it is all downhill (worse) from hence forward. You give the “soul-less” and the “heartless” too much credit.

  7. tommylaws1   Friday, August 10, 2012 at 10:48 AM

    Asking any of these RINO CONgressmen/women to uphold the Constitutions Article 2, Section 1, Clause 5, as defined by the Supreme Court in Minor vs. Happersett, 1875, which PROVES Obama is NOT, nor can he ever be a ‘natural born citizen’ (NBC) is like asking them to set themselves on fire.

    They will NEVER, ever do so, so they are ‘dancing all of us’, by the bullsh*t responses shown above.

    Orly Taitz is getting the exact same treatment by the equally corrupt Judiciary and even when she does somehow get granted access to the courts, judge after judge recuses themselves and then, the next judge sits on it for month after month after month.

    When are we going to finally say, ‘Its over. America is FINI’? There is no recourse. The entire ‘Ruling Class’ is 1 billion % committed to allowing this fraudulent usurper to stay in power. The RINO’s refuse to even discuss it. Why? Someone pulling the strings somewhere and part of the story is the disinformation piece coming out about Gen. Petraeus being Romnbama’s VP pick. A crock. Ain’t gonna happen. Rubio, who is equally as NOT an NBC as OScuma, will be it because he can virtually guarantee Florida and at least a chunk of the Hispanic vote while Gen. Petraeus, hero though he is, gives us…..the military, which Obama is doing everything in his power to destroy.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.