Thread: Barack Obama's citizenship questioned

This may not be part of the change Obama had in mind.

========================

Bill stems from Obama 'birther' controversy

Howard Fischer, Capitol Media Services
http://www.eastvalleytribune.com/story/149423
January 12, 2010 - 3:51PM


If Barack Obama wants to run for re-election he would need to produce proof of both his U.S. birth and citizenship to get on the ballot in Arizona, at least under a measure being pushed by a state legislator.

Rep. Judy Burges, R-Skull Valley, is crafting a measure to require anyone running for president or vice president to provide proof to the Arizona Secretary of State's Office that they are legally eligible to seek the office. The U.S. Constitution requires the president - and, by extension, the vice president - to be "a natural born citizen."

More to the point, Burges would require the secretary of state to verify, independently, that the information is accurate.

"And if it's not certifiable, then that person's name would not go on the ballot," she said.

Burges told Capitol Media Services the measure is not necessarily about Obama, though she admitted she has her doubts that he was born in Hawaii as he claims and, even if so, that he can show he is a U.S. citizen.

"With what's happening throughout the world, we need to make sure that our candidates are certifiable," she said.

Burges did not support Obama and is not a fan. And she said if, in fact, he is not a "natural born" citizen, that makes him suspect.

"When someone bows to the king of Saudi Arabia and they apologize for our country around the world, I have a problem with that," she said.

The kind of certification Burges wants, though, could be more difficult than simply checking for a valid birth certificate, as the arguments about his legal qualification go beyond whether he was actually born in Hawaii.

A lawsuit filed in federal court in Pennsylvania charged, among other theories, that Obama lost his U.S. citizenship when his mother married an Indonesian man and moved there, and that he failed to reclaim it as an adult. But Judge Barclay Surrick threw out the case without ruling on the legal theory, saying the plaintiff did not have standing to sue.

The U.S. Supreme Court eventually rejected the case.

Burges' bill, if it becomes law, would put the secretary of state in the position of having to determine whether the individual circumstances of a candidate's life disqualify him or her from being on the Arizona ballot.

The two-term lawmaker said her concerns remain about having a president whose citizenship - and, by her reckoning, loyalty - is not clear.

"We want to make sure that we have candidates that are going to stand up for the United States of America," Burges said.

"This is my home. I want to leave my children a better country than I inherited. And the only way I can do that is what I can do as a state legislator."

Burges said her suspicions about Obama go beyond that well-publicized bow in Saudi Arabia.

"Obama has a book and it said, when it came down to it, he would be on the Muslim side," Burges continued. "Doesn't that bother you just a little bit?"

The quote comes from Obama's book, "The Audacity of Hope," in which he writes about conversations with immigrant communities following the 2001 terrorist attacks, especially Arab and Pakistani Americans. Obama said they were fearful over detentions and FBI questioning and were concerned about the historical precedent.

"They need specific assurances that their citizenship really means something, that America has learned the right lessons from the Japanese internments during World War II, and that I will stand with them should the political winds shift in an ugly direction," Obama wrote.

=====================

(edit by Juan)

BTW, under the comments section, Judy Burges left this comment:


jburges wrote:

"In a recent article in the Michigan Law Review, "The Justiciability of Eligibility: May Courts Decide Who Can Be President?," Associate Professor Daniel P. Tokaji of Ohio State University reviewed the thorny legal impediments to federal lawsuits challenging the qualifications of a Presidential candidate.

"Prof. Tokaji concluded that state courts were the appropriate forum for such suits and that " it is up to states — and, in particular, to state legislatures — to define the rights and remedies available in cases where a presidential candidate is alleged to be ineligible.""


Interesting, don't you think? Kinda goes back to states rights and power over the feds. I like it.

This is a long one, written by Zachery Jones (suspect he is an American attorney, but could not trace), expressing his story of Obama and the chain of recent events with regard to eligibility and other smelly crimes. Lots of links, many we have seen already, but there are a few new ones.

===========================

Obama’s Presidential Eligibility Scandal?

Australia.to – News from Australia’s National Website
Tuesday, 12 January 2010 22:21
Written by Zach Jones
http://tinyurl.com/yhpsu9x

Did Hope for Rising GOP Stars like Bobby Jindal Play a Role in the Obama’s Presidential Eligibility Scandal?

When questions about Obama’s eligibility to serve as President arose ( http://obamacrimes.com/ ), I immediately recognized that this could be the biggest political scandal in U.S. history, bigger even than Watergate. The allegations, if true, would have created widespread political turmoil and would have had to involve people, high up people, ignoring and/or covering up facts. How could a young Senator from Illinois have gotten so far, so quickly, in national politics without some in both the Democratic & Republican Parties taking notice, researching, discovering details ( http://tinyurl.com/yj2mam2 ) of his past and recognizing that there was a BIG potential problem ( http://tinyurl.com/qv87zt )? Especially, given that every other person in Washington is a lawyer, people knew, the media had to have known, ( http://tinyurl.com/ygksng6 ) known both of the problem and its ramifications. After all, it’s the political big league in Washington.

Having a legal background, I decided to do my own research to satisfy my curiosity and it became abundantly clear that legitimate questions existed and continue to exist. Questions regarding interpretation of Article II, Section I ( http://topics.law.cornell.edu/constitution/articleii ) of the Constitution, questions of original intent, British/Kenyan law ( http://tinyurl.com/yaw7cjt ), acquisition of citizenship, questions about Obama’s birthplace ( http://www.wnd.com/index.php?pageId=78931 ), his adoption, his educational scholarships, his parent’s foreign allegiance/citizenship ( http://tinyurl.com/nl7n2r ), his prior inadvertent admissions ( http://tinyurl.com/yac3uca ), questions about his passport(s) ( http://www.wnd.com/index.php?pageId=100613 ), etc. ( http://tinyurl.com/yfh9qbl ), exist with sufficient basis in law and/or fact to warrant serious investigation and judicial review. So, like many others at the time, I sat back and waited for the media firestorm to begin. And I waited, and waited, and waited. Not a peep from the media, Hillary, McCain or Republicans. Why?

With an issue this big involving the first competitive African-American running for the Presidency of the United States, his intentional withholding of records ( http://tinyurl.com/mvtmpy ), and the possibility that he fails to meet the Constitutional requirements for the Office, I just knew that every stone would be quickly overturned to get to the bottom of it. Even though it’s common knowledge that the American media is pretty much left of center ( http://tinyurl.com/2ps9pm ) when it comes to politics and everything else - ‘the story’, this story was SO big that I was sure they would not be able to ignore it. It wasn’t like other political stories the media ignored such as John Edwards’ love child ( http://tinyurl.com/y8qjrja ) or Larry Sinclair’s allegations ( http://larrysinclair.com/ ) of drug use and sex with Obama. This story went to bedrock, the requirements of who can be President and who can serve as Commander In Chief ( http://tinyurl.com/y8qzmw3 ) of our military. To my surprise, next to nothing came from the mainstream media.

Many expected Republicans to wait as long as they possibly could before raising the issue because of the political/media ramifications. It seemed certain that they were praying for the media to take the lead so they could stay on the high road. After enduring eight years of constant Bush bashing and constant negative media spin about Republicans, it’s easy to appreciate their concerns ( http://tinyurl.com/2ps9pm ). It’s a shame that Republican fear may have trumped their doing the right thing early on. Had they manned up, we probably would not be in the current situation of having our rights and freedoms in jeopardy.

Republicans had seen the media for a decade artfully portray them as corrupt, uncaring politicians on a reckless spending spree. This portrayal led directly to the 2006 Democratic takeover of Congress. Even though, a Republican spending spree pales when compared to an Obama/Reid/Pelosi spending spree. Even though, Republican ‘caring’ has historically meant a limited federal government helping those in need with a hand up in ways that would not bankrupt the nation (sustainability) and Democrat ‘caring’ has historically meant a growing government trying to bait those with needs, real or otherwise, into becoming permanently dependent. What Republicans could count on in 2008 was that the mainstream media would likely report everything Republicans dared say about this critical Constitutional issue as racism, expressed and/or implied.

They were scared of the media in 2008. They were in the political wilderness. However, I believe fear was not the only factor keeping Republicans from speaking from conviction. Republicans might have been reluctant to rock Obama’s boat because their own leadership (those who would have fully understood Obama’s agenda, his past associations and ideology) may have been considering the possibility that losing to Obama might not be so bad.

Maybe they realized that if Obama were elected, Americans would likely be so disappointed and shocked by his policies that Republicans might quickly sweep back in power. Instead of being beaten up for eternity by the media for spoiling the first African American’s opportunity to reach the Presidency, they could be seen as adults setting things right after a rebellious kid’s screw ups. Yes, I think political calculations could well have been trumping principles. After all, the Party did have a few bright stars in waiting such as Gov. Bobby Jindal ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bobby_Jindal ). They could just bide their time, hope America wakes up as Obama revealed himself and be ready to step up.

Jindal, he’s the young Republican Governor who had a 77% approval rating in 2008. Jindal had taken over the reigns of Louisiana shortly after the embarrassing former Democratic Governor’s performance dealing with Katrina. Louisiana is also the home of some fairly egregious examples of Democratic corruption such as Rep. Jefferson’s conviction ( http://tinyurl.com/lucfvx ) and Senator Landrieu appearing to sell her vote for $300,000,000 dollars to Harry Reid ( http://tinyurl.com/ycfm6ou ) . Gov. Bobby Jindal is definitely a rising star in the Republican Party, a fiscal conservative, principled and someone not closely associated with President Bush. He is seen as a leader with a great future. I can certainly see him in the U.S. Senate.

As time passed, more and more lawsuits were filed (over 50) challenging Obama’s eligibility and nothing - nothing from the media, nothing from Hillary Clinton, nothing Republicans in Washington, nothing from John McCain. The issue was a hot potato that carried a truckload of political risk. Democrats, who were acutely aware that they risked losing the carefully groomed dependence of many minority voters, wouldn’t touch it. Politicians of both parties were afraid of the charge of racism - and for good reason. All they had to do was watch the vicious attacks against eligibility attorneys Philip Berg, Dr. Orly Taitz, Leo Donofrio, Stephen Pidgeon, and Mario Apuzzo.

Given that many politicians lack backbone, those of us concerned about the issue had little choice but to put faith with the American judicial system and hope that they would answer conclusively the questions of Obama’s eligibility. Well, so much for faith. Notwithstanding their oaths to protect the Constitution, judges apparently wanted nothing to do with this political hot potato either. Courts have been falling all over themselves from the beginning to do every legal contortion necessary to avoid granting discovery, examining facts and/or applying the law regarding this eligibility issue.

However, we are not defeated. Legal challenges ( http://tinyurl.com/yahexoq ) and opportunities for challenges ( http://tinyurl.com/dnfhak ) remain and it will only take one principled judge to resolve the eligibility issue. Is Obama a ‘Natural Born Citizen’ eligible to serve as President of the United States and Commander In Chief of its military? But, we all must remember that most judges begin their careers on the bench as politicians; and so far, politics trump a magistrate’s sworn duty.

Had the winner of the 2008 Presidential election been Governor Jindal, you can be sure there would have been endless lines of Constitutional experts brought in by FOX, CNN, MS-NBC, CBS, ABC to explain the history of the eligibility provision, the underlying issues and facts relevant to a reasoned determination. You see, Bobby Jindal was born in Louisiana in 1971 and his parents are Indian immigrants who came here to attend graduate school, nearly the exact factual situation as Obama’s (accepting a Hawaii birth). And had 50+ lawsuits been filed against a Presidential candidate Jindal, the media would have been in a frenzy trying to outdo each other, it would have been like the O.J. trial. I also believe that both the federal & state courts would have been decidedly more eager to get to the merits so that they could be seen as protecting the Constitution, the Presidency and apple pie.

But it wasn’t candidate Jindal - it was candidate Obama. So, instead of having extensive coverage and thoroughly investigating the issue, the media has given next to no coverage. And when the mainstream media decides to cover the issue, they do it so they can spin the story to wrongly equate the meaning of ‘citizen’ and a ‘natural born ‘citizen’ - and to paint those raising the issue as idiots. Where are the real journalists? With the exception of FOX, this is clearly the media’s ‘thrill up the leg’ political bias trumping journalistic principle.

With FOX, I think of them the same way as I think of Republicans. Because FOX is constantly vilified by Democrats and the left lending media, this potato was so hot that even they could not risk being wrong or having a court come to a different conclusion. FOX’s fear trumped their journalistic principle.

I wonder if the Republican leadership figured that if they didn’t complain about Obama in 2008, they would be able to count on Democrats and the Obama media not complaining about Jindal’s eligibility issues should he decide to run in 2012? My first thought was that having such an expectation would be a fool’s dream. However, I’m not so sure now. They all now have a lot of political capital invested in attempting to effectively rewrite the eligibility provision of the Constitution by some sort of contorted waiver/estoppel/abandonment theory. It’s all underhanded and improper; but as long as courts continue to abdicate their own responsibilities, who can know what determined politicians might accomplish?

The whole mess smells more and more like ‘the players’ in Washington have gotten together and decided, or implicitly understand, that the issue and the Constitution are to be ignored. Every player appears to be serving their own self-interest, burying their principles, avoiding risk, and using the mainstream media’s avoidance of the issue as political cover. If the mainstream media ever takes the lead and does their job, the other players will be forced to do theirs as well.

Even when, reports were coming out in Canada ( http://tinyurl.com/nydgh7 ) that a radio talk show host ( http://tinyurl.com/nsoqrt ) had revealed that he ( http://tinyurl.com/y9sk3vz ), his career ( http://tinyurl.com/yenn6bw ), [and his] family had been threatened; the mainstream American media simply ignored the story. No real investigation, nothing, nada was started. This smells really bad.

Regarding the Democratic leadership, anyone watching the recent antics of Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid concerning the healthcare takeover (with their buying of votes, conducting the people’s business in secret, not allowing debate or time to actually read the bills, misrepresentations, manipulation of the numbers, and their constant ridicule those in opposition) must realize that it’s not the means that count to these people – only the ends. Therefore, I have no doubt that they would turn a blind eye to the possibility that the Constitution might have been violated by Obama and those who have attested to his eligibility. Oh, that was Nancy Pelosi who did that ( http://tinyurl.com/qv87zt ).

Regarding Hillary Clinton, she’s an old school hardball politician who is probably worrying more about her status and legacy now; rather than actually doing the right thing and demanding that Obama provide documentation proving that he is a natural born citizen. I guess it’s not a fight she’s willing to take on given that she is also the wife of the ‘first black President’ ( http://tinyurl.com/ybzocxc ).

Regarding the mainstream media, all you need to do is check who has been a consistent donor to Obama & Democratic politicians through the years. Then check for yourself what they are reporting, what they are leaving out, how stories are slanted, how far are they slanted and the frequency of displays of bias. There was a study out of, I believe, UCLA around 2004 that found that 18 of 20 major media outlets ( http://tinyurl.com/2ps9pm ) were left of center and that Brit Hume and the Drudge Report did indeed provide the fair and balanced news coverage. Today, the media appears to have dropped all pretense of being objective.

Regarding John McCain, he is also a seasoned politician who probably values his own legacy more than tackling such a big political nightmare. Especially, given that some have questioned his own ‘natural born citizen’ status ( http://tinyurl.com/ygpqzqa ), he might prefer someone else take the lead.

A few Republican politicians ( http://tinyurl.com/ykyemwk ) have displayed courage by trying to introduce legislation that would require that candidates must provide proof that they are in fact eligible for the offices they seeking. Of course, Nancy Pelosi is keeping this buried and it will not see the light of day while she is the Speaker of the House. This type of legislation is extremely important should Republicans gain power in 2010. It cannot be allowed to stand that politicians can willy-nilly change the effect of the Constitution without going through the proper process. Talk about elitism!

Representative Nathan Deal ( http://tinyurl.com/yfnj4mq ) has made the boldest direct display of courage to date by sending Obama a letter asking that he provide proof that he is a natural born citizen. Congressman Deal was of course immediately, repeatedly and viciously attacked for doing this one small act to protect the integrity of the Constitution. However, Rep. Deal’s act is very important because it provides a proof that a Member of Congress had specific concerns over Obama’s eligibility to serve. It is the first time that a sitting President has been confronted in this way. Well done! History must not be scrubbed to hide Obama’s probable criminal deception to obtain the Office of the Presidency.

Republicans took the easiest path in 2008 because they were fearful and had been relegated to the wilderness in 2006. With the emergence of the grassroots Tea Party revolt, Republicans are now poised to make substantial gains in 2010. I believe people are looking for genuine, principled, limited government, fiscal conservative leadership. Unfortunately, current Republicans will have to do this year because they are the best choice for the nation until better candidates ( http://tinyurl.com/q4hs48 ) emerge. However, all candidates should take heed that millions of Americans recognize that they must pay attention to what Congress is doing.

And just a friendly reminder, those of us who are concerned about the eligibility issue will also be paying attention. Please don’t consider running Gov. Jindal for the Presidency in 2012. As much as we (I) may like him, he is not a ‘natural born citizen’ and we (I) will not put our politics above principles founded in the Constitution!

Putting the country, the Constitution, & the rule of law ahead of politicians’ self-interest were called for in 2008 - and the call was ignored. Democrats and Republicans alike failed to answer.

After rereading this piece, I am more discouraged and fearful that the courts may well let down America, her Constitution and her people by failing to take the bull by the horns and look at the issue of Obama’s eligibility. (The court system was the only institution that I had a great deal of faith in but it looks like faith has been misplaced.)

It may ultimately fall to the military (who deserve to have a Commander In Chief who is in fact eligible to serve in that honored position and is legally capable of issuing ‘lawful orders’) to utilize the Uniform Code of Military Justice and demand that Obama establish the facts.

May I suggest Section 935. Art. 135. COURTS OF INQUIRY ( http://tinyurl.com/ycqb98b ) and possibly

Section 883. Art. 83. FRAUDULENT ENLISTMENT, APPOINTMENT, OR SEPARATION ( http://tinyurl.com/yd2tpcs )

Any person who--
(1) procures his own enlistment or appointment in the armed forces by knowingly false representation or deliberate concealment as to his qualifications for the enlistment or appointment and receives pay or allowances thereunder…

Stephen Pidgeon is upset with Glenn Beck and wrote the following letter to Beck. Sorry if this is a repeat.

The complete article with links is found here:

http://www.therightsideoflife.com/2010/ ... -comments/

===========================

Dear Mr. Beck:

You are ill-informed on the “birtherâ€

Originally Posted by Zachery Jones

It may ultimately fall to the military (who deserve to have a Commander In Chief who is in fact eligible to serve in that honored position and is legally capable of issuing ‘lawful orders’) to utilize the Uniform Code of Military Justice and demand that Obama establish the facts.

May I suggest Section 935. Art. 135. COURTS OF INQUIRY ( http://tinyurl.com/ycqb98b ) and possibly

Section 883. Art. 83. FRAUDULENT ENLISTMENT, APPOINTMENT, OR SEPARATION ( http://tinyurl.com/yd2tpcs )

Any person who--
(1) procures his own enlistment or appointment in the armed forces by knowingly false representation or deliberate concealment as to his qualifications for the enlistment or appointment and receives pay or allowances thereunder…

Sorry, Atty. Orly Taitz already tried that tactic, without success.

On behalf of her 100+ military clients, Dr. Taitz went to Adm. Mike Mullen, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, about the possibility of an individual submitting an Article 135 through channels to validate the legitimacy of his or her military chain of command. Adm. Mullen's legal staff investigated the procedure and determined that an Art. 135 cannot verify the legitimacy of the Commander-in-Chief, because he is a civilian not subject to the Uniform Code of Military Justice.

However, this does not discount the fact that the Joint Chiefs of Staff are the appropriate persons to end the usurpation and deliver the nation from the present and ongoing coup d'état. In the case of a banana republic coup, the military usually must step in to restore a legitimate government. The JCS has charge of the military, which is the only institution which cannot be intimidated by the Chicago Machine, the DNC thugs, the murderers of Quarles Harris, Donald Young, Vince Foster, et al, the globalist elites of finance and commerce, the UN blue helmets, and least of all, Is|am.

[WVPatriot posted the following at Hannity forums. However, I maintain that U.S.-born children of those who died before the revolution were dual citizens after it.]

http://forums.hannity.com/showthread.ph ... &page=2164

Originally Posted by David Ramsay

None can claim citizenship as a birth-right, but such as have been born since the declaration of independence, for this obvious reason: no man can be born a citizen of a state or government, which did not exist at the time of his birth. Citizenship is the inheritance of the children of those who have taken a part in the late revolution; but this is confined exclusively to the children of those who were themselves citizens. Those who died before the revolution, could leave no political character to their children, but that of subjects, which they themselves possessed. If they had lived, no one could be certain whether they would have adhered to the king or to congress. Their children, therefore, may claim by inheritance the rights of British subjects, but not of American citizens. – David Ramsay, A Dissertation on the Manner of Acquiring the Character and Privileges of a Citizen of the United States . [Charleston, S.C.? N.p.]: Printed in the year 1789.

"That excludes any possibility that one parent of said children could be an alien who owes allegiance to a foreign sovereignty."

[quote="Rep. John A. Bingham"][size=117]"[I] find no fault with the introductory clause, which is simply declaratory of what is written in the Constitution, that every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen. . .â€

BORN IN THE USA?

3 dozen lawmakers want proof of Obama eligibility
Proposal would demand state officials independently verify information
________________________________________

Posted: January 18, 2010
10:01 pm Eastern
By Bob Unruh

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=122432

Lawmakers in Arizona have proposed a law that would require state officials to begin independently verifying the accuracy of newly required documents affirming the constitutional eligibility of any candidate for the U.S. presidency.

"Certainly, there has been controversy over President Obama and his birth certificate, where he was born, etc.," state Sen. Sylvia Allen, R-Snowflake, told the Arizona Capitol Times. "It just makes sense and will stop any controversy in the future to just show you are a natural born citizen."

She is one of about three dozen lawmakers to sign on as co-sponsors.
The plan would accomplish essentially the same thin as that proposed by Rep. Bill Posey, R-Fla., on the federal level.

The provisions of Posey's H.R. 1503 are straightforward:

"To amend the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 to require the principal campaign committee of a candidate for election to the office of President to include with the committee's statement of organization a copy of the candidate's birth certificate, together with such other documentation as may be necessary to establish that the candidate meets the qualifications for eligibility to the Office of President under the Constitution."

The bill also provides:

"Congress finds that under … the Constitution of the United States, in order to be eligible to serve as President, an individual must be a natural born citizen of the United States who has attained the age of 35 years and has been a resident within the United States for at least 14 years."

The sponsors' goal is to have the bill become effective for the 2012 presidential election. The legislation now is pending in a House committee and has more than a dozen co-sponsors.

But whatever support it does have, it faces massive obstacles in a House and Senate dominated by Democrat party faithful, as well as a president whose own political fortunes could be impacted by its requirements.

Rep. Judy Burges, R-Skull Valley, earlier told the East Valley Tribune her plan is not targeted directly at Obama, although she does have concerns about his loyalties.

"When someone bows to the king of Saudi Arabia and they apologize for our country around the world, I have a problem with that," she told the newspaper.

"We want to make sure that we have candidates that are going to stand up for the United States of America. This is my home. I want to leave my children a better country than I inherited," she said.

"Obama has a book and it said, when it came down to it, he would be on the Muslim side," Burges said. "Doesn't that bother you just a little bit?"

Any state adopting – and enforcing – requirements similar to the federal plan would have an impact as great, since the information to meet those requirements presumably then would be public.

Democrats in the state already are arguing that the plan to demand all presidential candidates to submit proof they were born in the U.S. and sign an affidavit stating they are a U.S. citizen is not needed.

"He [Obama] clearly met the standards to run for president and hold office as president because the federal government installed him as president in January of last year," Rep. Kyrsten Sinema, a Phoenix Democrat, said. "The question has been asked and answered."

As WND has reported, however, no controlling legal authority every directly addressed the question of whether Obama met the U.S. Constitution's requirements to be president, that is being 35 years of age, a resident for at least 14 years and a "natural born citizen."

The proposal, H2442, also would require that the secretary of state in Arizona independently verify that the documents submitted are correct. Any failure could cause the candidate's name to be withheld from the ballot, officials said.

WND has reported on dozens of legal challenges to Obama's status as a "natural born citizen." The Constitution, Article 2, Section 1, states, "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."

Some of the lawsuits question whether he was actually born in Hawaii, as he insists. If he was born out of the country, Obama's American mother, the suits contend, was too young at the time of his birth to confer American citizenship to her son under the law at the time.

Other challenges have focused on Obama's citizenship through his father, a Kenyan subject to the jurisdiction of the United Kingdom at the time of his birth, thus making him a dual citizen. The cases contend the framers of the Constitution excluded dual citizens from qualifying as natural born.

Complicating the situation is Obama's decision to spend sums estimated in excess of $1.7 million to avoid releasing a state birth certificate that would put to rest all of the questions.

WND has reported that among the documentation not yet available for Obama includes kindergarten records, Punahou school records, Occidental College records, Columbia University records, Columbia thesis, Harvard Law School records, Harvard Law Review articles, scholarly articles from the University of Chicago, passport, medical records, his files from his years as an Illinois state senator, his Illinois State Bar Association records, any baptism records, and his adoption records.

Because of the dearth of information about Obama's eligibility, WND founder Joseph Farah has launched a campaign to raise contributions to post billboards asking a simple question: "Where's the birth certificate?"

The campaign followed a petition that has collected more than 480,000 signatures demanding proof of his eligibility, the availability of yard signs raising the question and the production of permanent, detachable magnetic bumper stickers asking the question.

The "certification of live birth" posted online and widely touted as "Obama's birth certificate" does not in any way prove he was born in Hawaii, since the same "short-form" document is easily obtainable for children not born in Hawaii. The true "long-form" birth certificate – which includes information such as the name of the birth hospital and attending physician – is the only document that can prove Obama was born in Hawaii, but to date he has not permitted its release for public or press scrutiny.

Oddly, though congressional hearings were held to determine whether Sen. John McCain was constitutionally eligible to be president as a "natural born citizen," no controlling legal authority ever sought to verify Obama's claim to a Hawaiian birth.

[quote="HighlanderJuan"]Stephen Pidgeon is upset with Glenn Beck and wrote the following letter to Beck. Sorry if this is a repeat.

The complete article with links is found here:

http://www.therightsideoflife.com/2010/ ... -comments/

===========================

Dear Mr. Beck:

You are ill-informed on the “birtherâ€

[size=117]Posted by Trip [at forums.hannity - the sixth post on the page at
http://forums.hannity.com/showthread.ph ... &page=2146 ]

As KSDB has accurately pointed out (but I intend to further), the requirement for [the office of] President in Article II is not merely "citizen" and never has been.

The requirement for President in Article II is not "citizen" but rather "Natural Born Citizen." In Alexander Hamilton's first draft of Article II the requirement was indeed only "citizen", or more accurately citizen at birth ("born citizen"). However they did not go with Hamilton's early draft of Article II.

>From the Yale Law Journal [Vol. 97: 881]:

• On June 18, a little over a month before Jay's letter, Alexander Hamilton submitted a "sketch of a plan of government which 'was meant only to give a more correct view of his ideas, and to suggest the amendments which he should probably propose ... in ... future discussion.' "40 Article IX, section 1 of the sketch provided: "No person shall be eligible to the office of President of the United States unless he be now a Citizen of one of the States, or hereafter be born a Citizen of the United States."
  
  Hamilton's draft, which appears to be an early version of the natural-born citizen clause, contains two distinct ideas: first, that those currently citizens will not be excluded from presidential eligibility, and second, that the President must be born a citizen.
  
  What actually transpired over this change in wording was that the President was no longer to be elected by the Congress, but rather by the people, and therefore the office required more stringent safeties on the allegiance of the office holder. By selection by the duly qualified and elected Congress, a certain degree of security was established for the office of President. However the President was decided to be elected from among the people and therefore more stringent security of allegiance was applied to the qualifications for office of President itself.

Especially given this draft change, it is clearly wrong to equate "natural born citizen" with anyone who is a citizen at birth, and it is improper to ignore the word "natural" in the phrase "natural born citizen" simply because one has no innate understanding of the meaning of "natural". "Natural" in "natural born citizen", is an application of Natural Law, which is opposed to Positive Law, with this phrase being a term of art outside legislative definition and having a set, established meaning.

As employed by our Founders, the term "natural" indicates a "self-evident" status requiring no legislative clarification nor definition. A natural born citizen, one born on that country's soil of parents who are citizens, has "self-evident" citizen status upon birth because they could not possibly have any other citizenship or allegiance.

Given that the requirements for the Office of President are inscribed on parchment since the founding of this country, it would be unreasonable to assume that the definition of "natural born citizen" was unknown or vague. This Yale Law Review article tries to argue for a liberal interpretation of Constitution open to the repeated flux of legislative naturalization. However, even this article concludes the following:

• "Constitutional scholars have traditionally approached the uncertainty surrounding the meaning of the natural-born citizen clause by inquiring into the specific meaning of the term "natural born" at the time of the Constitutional Convention. They conclude that a class of citizens should be considered natural born today only if they would have been considered natural-born citizens under the law in effect at the time of the framing of the Constitution" (see footnote 8 ).
  
  [list:18ch166f]8. These writers assume that the phrase "natural born citizen" was a term of art during the preconstitutional period since the phrase is not defined in either the Constitution or the records of the Constitutional Convention. See Gordon, supra note 2, at 2 ("The only explanation for the use of this term is the apparent belief of the Framers that its connotation was clear.")

[/list:u:18ch166f]Given the fact that these Yale Scholars reviewing other scholars' opinions reach the conclusion that "natural born citizen" should only be considered under the law in effect at the time of the framing, then the 14th Amendment could not reasonably [a]ffect "natural born citizen". Given the fact these same scholars recognize that NBC is a term the Framers used believing its "connotation was clear", then there could not have possibly been numerous interpretations at the time nor by the several states. These two conclusions together indicate that "scholars" believe that the one interpretation of "natural born citizen" by the founders from 200+ years ago remains intact and the only valid interpretation today.

Not surprisingly there are more than 100 years of Supreme Court opinion clearly indicating the definition of natural born citizen, and even indicating a reference consulted by our founders as they authored the Constitution in Carpenter's Hall, that reference being Emerick de Vattel's "Law of Nations".[list]â–º 1759 E. de Vattel, The Law of Nations, bk 1, c. 19, sec. 212 (175 (1759 first English translation);

► 1814 The Venus, 12 U.S. (8 Cranch) 253, 289 (1814) (Marshall, C.J., concurring) (cites Vattel’s definition of natural born citizens);

â–º 1830 Shanks v. Dupont, 28 U.S. 242, 245 (1830) (same definition without citing Vattel);

â–º 1875 Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162, 167-68 (1875) (same definition without citing Vattel);

â–º 1879 Ex parte Reynolds, 1879, 5 Dill., 394, 402 (same definition and cites Vattel);

â–º 1890 United States v. Ward, 42 F.320 (C.C.S.D.Cal. 1890) (same definition and cites Vattel);

â–º 1898 U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (189 (only declared under the Fourteenth Amendment a child born on U.S. soil to foreign parents and subject to the jurisdiction of the United States a “citizen of the United Statesâ€

Originally Posted by MinutemanCDC_SC

Originally Posted by HighlanderJuan

BTW, this Heritage Foundation article (a long one) discusses executive orders through Clinton's reign. I've asked the author (via e-mail) if he has an update coming out.

Give me advance warning if you decide to post the update here.

I'm not sure my broadband connection can handle it.

I received an answer back:


Thanks for writing. At this time, Todd is not planning to update that article. Thanks again for checking out his research.

Cordially,
Elizabeth Garvey

It would seem from the article below there are many states tightening their eligibility rules for candidates as a result of the Obama eligibility questions (that's a good thing), and one way we can help, is to get involved in changing our own state's eligibility laws and support stronger, more restrictive candidate requirements within our own state.

=================

BORN IN THE USA?

Obama's eligibility becomes war among the states
Lawmakers jump into fray, seek answer to constitutional question
________________________________________
Posted: January 19, 2010, 8:20 pm Eastern
By Bob Unruh
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=122542

The demand for documentation of Barack Obama's eligibility to occupy the Oval Office is surging, with lawmakers in several states now working on legislation that could be used to require future presidential candidates to reveal precisely how they are qualified under the U.S. Constitution's demand for a "natural born citizen."

WND already has reported ( http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=122432 ) on a bill co-sponsored by some three dozen lawmakers in Arizona who want to require candidates not only to submit the information, but state officials to independently verify the accuracy.

Bill sponsor Rep. Judy Burges, R-Skull Valley, told WND she already has started getting questions from other states who want details about the proposal.

A separate proposal has been created by a freedom of information action group in New York State, and now the National Conference of State Legislatures, ( http://www.ncsl.org/default.aspx?tabid=16588 ) which monitors and tabulates the work of legislative bodies, confirms through its database that several other plans are in the works.

Some of the proposals are very clear even without the full text. In New Hampshire, for example, a pending plan would require "certified copies of birth certificates for nominees for president and vice president."

Others are a little more oblique. In Georgia, for example, lawmakers propose a bill "relating to procedures for qualification of candidates generally, so as to require each candidate for public office to be in compliance with certain disclosure requirements."

There is no definitive word on what that would mean to presidential candidates.

An Indiana proposal is equally unclear, because it "authorizes a challenge to a candidate's eligibility to seek an office to be filed by a registered voter of the jurisdiction conducting the election." It could apply only to local elections.

In Virginia, a summary says the proposal "provides that candidates shall provide evidence of their qualifications for office to have their names printed on the ballot. The State Board of Elections shall provide a list of acceptable forms of evidence."

And in the New York state plan proposed by a freedom of information organization ( http://www.debrajmsmith.com/AFFOIsp5.html ) to state lawmakers would provide that "an individual seeking placement on the New York State's election ballot(s) for the office of president or vice president of the United States must present proof of eligibility, as per requirements that are stated in Article 2, section 1, paragraph 5 of the U.S. Constitution."

The proposals essentially are moving the same direction as a federal measure proposed by Rep. Bill Posey, R-Fla. ( http://posey.house.gov/ )

Posey's H.R. 1503 states:

"To amend the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 to require the principal campaign committee of a candidate for election to the office of President to include with the committee's statement of organization a copy of the candidate's birth certificate, together with such other documentation as may be necessary to establish that the candidate meets the qualifications for eligibility to the Office of President under the Constitution."

The bill also provides:

"Congress finds that under … the Constitution of the United States, in order to be eligible to serve as President, an individual must be a natural born citizen of the United States who has attained the age of 35 years and has been a resident within the United States for at least 14 years."

The sponsors' goal is for the bill to become effective for the 2012 presidential election. The legislation now is pending in a House committee and has more than a dozen co-sponsors.

But whatever support Posey's plan has, it faces massive obstacles in a House and Senate dominated by Democrats, as well as a president whose own status could be impacted by its requirements.

In Arizona, state Sen. Sylvia Allen, R-Snowflake, said the controversy over Obama and his birth certificate has raised questions.

"It just makes sense and will stop any controversy in the future to just show you are a natural born citizen," she told the Arizona Capitol Times.

If states start adopting such election requirements, their laws possibly could have an impact similar to federal legislation, since the information submitted to meet the requirements presumably would be public.

The issue with Obama's eligibility is that although a computer-generated image of a "certification of live birth" was posted online by his campaign, the image does not actually document a birthplace.

Hawaiian law at the time, for example, allowed family members to register a birth in Hawaii by submitting information to the state.

A second significant factor is the multitude of documents that Obama has kept from the public.

Besides his actual birth documentation, the documentation includes ( http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=100613 ) kindergarten records, Punahou school records, Occidental College records, Columbia University records, Columbia thesis, Harvard Law School records, Harvard Law Review articles, scholarly articles from the University of Chicago, passport, medical records, his files from his years as an Illinois state senator, his Illinois State Bar Association records, any baptism records, and his adoption records.

Thirdly, another significant factor is the estimated $1.7 million Obama has spent on court cases specifically preventing any of the documentation of his life to be revealed to the public.

And as WND has reported, however, no controlling legal authority ever directly addressed the question of whether Obama met the U.S. Constitution's requirements to be president, that is being 35 years of age, a resident for at least 14 years and a "natural born citizen."

The Arizona proposal, H2442, also would require that the secretary of state in Arizona independently verify that the documents submitted are correct. Any failure could cause the candidate's name to be withheld from the ballot, officials said.

WND has reported on dozens of legal challenges to Obama's status as a "natural born citizen." The Constitution, Article 2, Section 1, states, "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."

Some of the lawsuits question whether he was actually born in Hawaii, as he insists. If he was born out of the country, Obama's American mother, the suits contend, was too young at the time of his birth to confer American citizenship to her son under the law at the time.

Other challenges have focused on Obama's citizenship through his father, a Kenyan subject to the jurisdiction of the United Kingdom at the time of his birth, thus making him a dual citizen. The cases contend the framers of the Constitution excluded dual citizens from qualifying as natural born.

Oddly, though congressional hearings were held to determine whether Sen. John McCain was constitutionally eligible to be president as a "natural born citizen," no controlling legal authority ever sought to verify Obama's claim to a Hawaiian birth.