Tweet
Obama is a citizen of the United States... and thus constitutionally ineligible to be President
Birther Report
8/11/2012
Obama is a citizen of the United States and thus constitutionally ineligible to be President
By Teo Bear @ the Birthers.org
(hat tip CDR Kerchner)
"The headline of this essay is a mirror of what I have seen and heard for four years by both Obama’s progressive/socialist supporters and his CINO (Conservative In Name Only) enablers. In big bold letters they all say these individuals are citizens of the United States, even going so far as to underline it so to show you the obvious, but hidden in plain sight is the small print of such a proclamation.
Anyone can read the Constitution of the United States to see that it provides for two classes of citizenship, and these classifications are not born and naturalized. The two classes of citizens the Constitution mentions are the “natural born citizen” and the “citizen of the United States.” It is true that under the 14th Amendment you can be born or naturalized as a citizen of the United States, but Article II does not make a distinction between a born or naturalized a citizen of the United States. Article II states that to be President you must be a natural born citizen or a citizen of the United States at the time of the adoption of the Constitution.
For four years I have heard every reason why Obama should be a natural born citizen. I can break them down into three dead end avenues.
What these partisan supporters of both parties run away from is simple fact that the Constitution of the United States names only two classes of citizens, those who are the natural born citizens and those who are the citizens of the United States. In the eyes of Article II of the Constitution you are classified as either a natural born citizen or a citizen of the United States. If you are not a natural born citizen and became a citizen of the United States after September 17, 1787 you are ineligible under Article II of the Constitution to be President of the United States of America. It is important to understand this, because it is possible to be born a citizen of the United States and not be a natural born citizen. Both the 14th Amendment and the laws of the United States say a person can be born a citizen of the United States.
The common law of England is not the common law of these states.
Let’s take an honest look at these “theories.” First, did the United States adopt English Common Law? The man called the father of the US Constitution; James Madison told George Washington that we could not adopt English Common law into the Constitution, even though it was adopted by the several states.
View the complete original article at: http://birthers.org/misc/CoUS.htm
View the complete Birther Report presentation at:
http://obamareleaseyourrecords.blogs...tates-and.html
Birther Report
8/11/2012
Obama is a citizen of the United States and thus constitutionally ineligible to be President
By Teo Bear @ the Birthers.org
(hat tip CDR Kerchner)
"The headline of this essay is a mirror of what I have seen and heard for four years by both Obama’s progressive/socialist supporters and his CINO (Conservative In Name Only) enablers. In big bold letters they all say these individuals are citizens of the United States, even going so far as to underline it so to show you the obvious, but hidden in plain sight is the small print of such a proclamation.
Anyone can read the Constitution of the United States to see that it provides for two classes of citizenship, and these classifications are not born and naturalized. The two classes of citizens the Constitution mentions are the “natural born citizen” and the “citizen of the United States.” It is true that under the 14th Amendment you can be born or naturalized as a citizen of the United States, but Article II does not make a distinction between a born or naturalized a citizen of the United States. Article II states that to be President you must be a natural born citizen or a citizen of the United States at the time of the adoption of the Constitution.
For four years I have heard every reason why Obama should be a natural born citizen. I can break them down into three dead end avenues.
- The United States used English Common Law for our national common law, and all a person needs to do to become a natural born citizen is simply be born within the United States and have parents who are not diplomats.
- The fourteenth amendment to the Constitution makes him a natural born citizen, regardless of his foreign father, as it made Wong Kim Ark.
- There are only two ways a person can be a citizen of the United States, be naturalized or be born a citizen, and if you are born a citizen of the United States you are a “de facto” natural born citizen.
What these partisan supporters of both parties run away from is simple fact that the Constitution of the United States names only two classes of citizens, those who are the natural born citizens and those who are the citizens of the United States. In the eyes of Article II of the Constitution you are classified as either a natural born citizen or a citizen of the United States. If you are not a natural born citizen and became a citizen of the United States after September 17, 1787 you are ineligible under Article II of the Constitution to be President of the United States of America. It is important to understand this, because it is possible to be born a citizen of the United States and not be a natural born citizen. Both the 14th Amendment and the laws of the United States say a person can be born a citizen of the United States.
The common law of England is not the common law of these states.
Let’s take an honest look at these “theories.” First, did the United States adopt English Common Law? The man called the father of the US Constitution; James Madison told George Washington that we could not adopt English Common law into the Constitution, even though it was adopted by the several states.
“What can he mean by saying that the Common law is not secured by the new Constitution, though it has been adopted by the State Constitutions. The common law is nothing more than the unwritten law, and is left by all the constitutions equally liable to legislative alterations. I am not sure that any notice is particularly taken of it in the Constitutions of the States. If there is, nothing more is provided than a general declaration that it shall continue along with other branches of law to be in force till legally changed.
What could the Convention have done? If they had in general terms declared the Common law to be in force, they would have broken in upon the legal Code of every State in the most material points: they wd. have done more, they would have brought over from G.B. a thousand heterogeneous & antirepublican doctrines, and even the ecclesiastical Hierarchy itself, for that is a part of the Common law. If they had undertaken a discrimination, they must have formed a digest of laws, instead of a Constitution.” James Madison Letter to Geo Washington October 18, 1787
................................What could the Convention have done? If they had in general terms declared the Common law to be in force, they would have broken in upon the legal Code of every State in the most material points: they wd. have done more, they would have brought over from G.B. a thousand heterogeneous & antirepublican doctrines, and even the ecclesiastical Hierarchy itself, for that is a part of the Common law. If they had undertaken a discrimination, they must have formed a digest of laws, instead of a Constitution.” James Madison Letter to Geo Washington October 18, 1787
View the complete original article at: http://birthers.org/misc/CoUS.htm
View the complete Birther Report presentation at:
http://obamareleaseyourrecords.blogs...tates-and.html