obama headshot
By: Amil Imani with James H. Hyde

 


In our previous article, "Exonerating President Obama", we noted that the only Supreme Court precedent for the meaning of the term “natural born Citizen” in Article II, Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution appears to be the Judge Harlan dissent in the United States v. Wong Kim Ark case.  In collaboration with a constitutional attorney, we have examined the subject matter further.

We believe that to understand the complexity of this issue it will be essential to have an understanding of the place that the concepts of “Natural Law” and the book titled Law of Nations had obtained in the run up to the War of Independence with Great Britain. These concepts of natural law were commonly used throughout the colonies to explain, defend and justify the colonists’ contentions in our dispute with Great Britain. Our investigation leaves no doubt that the Founding Fathers of our nation clearly understood the meaning of the term “natural born Citizen” and its relation to Natural Law and Law of Nations. When you have finished studying our research you will also understand that these terms were used in the Declaration of Independence as well as in our Constitution and in the constitutions of a large number of states written at the same time as the Constitutional Convention was in session.

This background understanding will clarify why the delegates to the 1787 Constitutional Convention elected to include “natural born Citizen” in the eligibility requirements for the Office of the President of our nation and what it truly means.

In this article we will prove beyond all doubt that Barack Hussein Obama is not a natural born Citizen and is thus ineligible to be President of the United States.

Citations following the textual part of this article are not simply to provide you the references that support our assertions. They also provide you citations to reading material that will help you understand the 1770 period in our History. To understand our reasoning, it is important that the reader understands the Colonial people, and especially the Founders with their educational backgrounds, their political fears and the nation's interrelationship with other nations at the time leading up to the War of Independence. In this short article we could not provide all those dimensions, but we hope the reader will study the references to fully understand the time period during which these things took place. Unfortunately there are citations to books which are not available to download online, so to get the whole picture, the reader will need to find a library to borrow the needed materials.

1. In the time frame of 1740—1790, “Natural Law” had grown from the 17th century studies of the early enlightenment philosophers (Grotius, Pufendorf, Rousseau, Locke, de Wolf) into a reason-based concept that was based on the fact that all humans have inherent animal qualities that contribute to laws worldwide that are essentially the same.

2. Emer de Vattel, a Swiss scholar, published a now world famous work titled Law of Nations in French in 1758.  The Vattel work built upon the earlier philosophy of Natural Law, especially that of de Wolf.  But what made Vattel’s work so famous was his adoption of a more modern and easier-to-understand format, which was written like a scientific thesis. It started out with definitions that were worked into the initial textual material in a manner very different from the heavy, incomprehensible writing style of the earlier philosophers. His work is written like a modern do-it-yourself project where he captured the entire history and essence of Natural Law but mixed it into a means to build a new nation based on a new type of constitution or a way of establishing an acceptable set of rules for running a nation in a common sense manner based on the experience of political science as it developed over the centuries.

3. The delegates to the 1787 Constitutional Convention understood what they were voting on when they voted unanimously on Sept. 7, 1787 to add a clause to Article 2, Section 1, Paragraph 5 of the Presidential Eligibility Requirements. They had added an eligibility clause for anyone seeking the Office of the President that requires that they be a “natural born Citizen,” which means that both of his parents had to be citizens of the U.S. on the date of his birth.

4. In the period 1750-1770, the French language had become of growing interest in the world of American politics and had been of major importance to the academic world, especially for American attorneys and in particular how it relates to Natural Law in the time period 1730 and thereafter.

5.  The great majority of the delegates at the Constitutional Convention in 1787 were attorneys and at that time attorneys were primarily men from the upper classes who were typically very well educated at the few colleges and universities of merit in the U.S. For the most part the educational curricula in those schools followed the Classical Education model of Great Britain.

 

Second shot6. (a) After 1750, many leaders in the U.S. had become aware that the Classical Educational Model was not adequate for the times. This resulted in movements to modernize the curricula of American colleges and universities, in particular to introduce a new emphasis on the teaching of Law in the colleges and universities as opposed to the traditional apprenticeship programs being employed to qualify attorneys. Specifically, for many years prior to 1789, Thomas Jefferson, the then Governor of Virginia, had tried to pass a law in Virginia that would have placed William and Mary, an Anglican facility, in charge of the Virginia State University system and to modernize the curriculum. While his efforts were unsuccessful because of opposition from other church groups, Jefferson was instrumental in abolishing the Greek and Hebrew Professorships at William and Mary and initiating courses in Natural Law and Political Science; likewise, the College of Philadelphia (now Pennsylvania University) had initiated similar changes in the time period 1760-1780 which focused more specifically on legal areas, including Natural Law, to better prepare students to become attorneys. In the time period 1760-1780, the College of New Jersey (now Princeton) was only getting started with the new curriculum and was extremely focused on being a modern, more flexible educational facility compared to universities utilizing the Classical Model. Harvard and Yale were less rapid in modernizing in the time period 1760-1780, except that each had added the study of the French Language to their curricula.

6. (b) John Jay, subsequently the first  Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court, had written a letter on July 25, 1787, to George Washington, who was then the President of the Constitutional Convention, which was in session.  In this letter, John Jay expressed a fear for the nation if the office of the President should fall into the hands of a person with an allegiance to a foreign power. To reduce the chance for this from occurring Mr. Jay recommended including the provision in the President’s Eligibility Requirements that the President must be a “natural born Citizen” in addition to the other age eligibility and term of residency requirements that would suffice to adequately protect the nation from a person with a foreign allegiance from ever becoming President.

6. (c) From the floor of the Constitutional  Convention on Sept. 4, 1787, a delegate voiced an objection to the then proposed  language for Article 2, the Presidential Eligibility Requirements, and Article 2 was sent back to the committee for further consideration. On Sept. 7 the Presidential Eligibility Requirements issue of Article 2 was again brought to the floor, was brought to a vote and unanimously approved. It included the “Natural Born Citizen” requirement initially proposed by John Jay.

7.  As noted above, the vast majority of the delegates to the Constitutional Convention were attorneys. They had attended the very best colleges and universities in the U.S., which had modernized their curriculum and that some of the delegate attorneys had attended British universities, which, in the time period-1770, also included the concepts of Natural Law in their Philosophy curricula.

8. Three copies of the 1775 version of the book Law of Nations, written in French by Emer de Vattel in 1758, had been sent to Ben Franklin by its publisher. Mr. Franklin had sent one copy to the Library Company of Philadelphia (LCP).  In that same year, Mr. Franklin had sent a letter to the publisher informing him that he had been often loaning his copy to other congressman and they were in admiration of Vattel. The LCP was located on the 2nd floor of the Constitutional Convention building in 1787, and arrangements had been completed to provide library membership rights in the LCP on the second floor to all the Constitutional Convention delegates. The 1775 French version of Law of Nations was in the LCP catalog (titled in French: Les Droit des gens), as well as the Law of Nations, 1760 English version. The catalog was also an  inventory of the books on the shelf in 1789 which encompass the dates of the 1787 Constitutional Convention.

President Obama9. (a) We contend that it is inconceivable that 53 of the most able and highly educated gentleman in the United States, including 33 attorneys educated at the finest universities, as a group would not understand the meaning of the term, "natural born Citizen” before they would have cast a unanimous vote to include the term “natural born Citizen” in the President’s Eligibility Requirements. Further it is our contention that the delegates understood that the term “natural born Citizen” had a connection to Natural Law at the time the convention delegates voted unanimously to include the “natural born Citizen” language in Article 2.

 

9. (b) The preamble of the Declaration of Independence issued by the majority of the Congressmen of this nation on July 4, 1776 made reference to Natural Law and was based on the Natural Law concepts as set forth by Vattel, Wolf and Pufendorf.

Thomas Jefferson, who authored the Declaration of Independence, had been previously responsible for writing the then new Constitution for the State of Virginia which was also based on the Natural Law principles of those same philosophers. In addition, shortly after the 1787 Constitutional Convention completed its work, Thomas Jefferson and James Madison, then President of the College of William and Mary, in 1789 significantly changed that college’s Educational Model by eliminating the Greek and Hebrew requirements and created a new regime involving Natural Law and Political Science as the new curricula elements. James Madison had been the instructor for these courses prior to the 1789 educational regime change.

Thus, the concepts of Natural Law, set out in the Declaration of Independence, in the U.S. Constitution and in the State of Virginia Constitution, had never before in the history of the World been employed in the establishment of a representative republic.  It was the first time that a colony of a ruling power had set forth in a declaration to the sovereign that the sovereign had violated the Natural Rights of the colonists.

10. During the period that followed the Declaration of Independence in 1776 the principles of Liberty and Natural Law, as mentioned in the Preface of said Declaration, were frequently addressed by the American congressmen and that any interpretation of the term “natural born Citizen” at the time of the Signing of the Constitution in 1787 would be the position taken by Justices Fuller and Harlan in their dissent in the Wong Kim Ark  169 U.S. 715 case in which they wrote, “Considering the circumstances surrounding the framing of the Constitution, I submit, it is unreasonable that …Natural Born Citizen applied to (just) anybody.” These Supreme Court Justices clearly meant that the Court must refer to a meaning under Natural Law because it cannot be that just any child born in the U.S. would become a citizen by birth here because that would not address the danger they then feared of persons with an allegiance to a foreign power could become citizens.

11. (a) On Sept. 4, 1787, during the consideration by the delegates of the Presidential Eligibility Requirements in Article 2, Paragraph 5, there was a very powerful OBJECTION expressed that had to have been heard and understood by the Convention. Specifically, the OBJECTION was: “NO NUMBER OF YEARS (of residence in the U.S.) COULD POSSIBLY PREPARE A FOREIGNER FOR THAT PLACE [the presidency].” Based on the widely felt fear of the damage that a foreigner could unleash on the nation if a foreigner filled the highest position of our government, a change was requested. To address this fear, the committee submitted a change to the Eligibility Requirements for the Office of the President in Article 2, Section 1, Paragraph 5, specifically that the president must be a “natural born Citizen.”

11. (b)(1) We contend that from the 6th Century B.C., known as the “Classical Period,” Greek and Roman prose literature was the basis for the Educational Model in the colleges in the American colonies during the 1740s, specifically as it related to the study of politics and nations. This field encompassed the “Natural Law”102 philosophy, and Law of Nations evolved under the influence of the Enlightenment.101

11. (b)(2) By 1760 the term “Natural Law” had become widely understood by the learned and that it had permeated to all201.  So suffused203 was a concern for natural law and its intellectual origins at the time of the Revolution that, as noted above, the opening line of the Declaration of Independence makes a direct reference to the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God as the initial appeal to mankind for the justness of the American cause. Natural Law was thus the ultimate antidote to British claims of supremacy.204

 

4th_vattel11. (b)(3) By 1770 Emer de Vattel had become world renowned for his wonderful work Law of Nations and that it was the most influential treatise for the colonists.301 Specifically, he helped them in many areas including partnering302 to the exclusion of the sovereign, defensive unions with weaker states303, formation of perpetual confederation, as well as strategy for growth by association.304

 

There is absolutely no question but that Vattel was unrivaled in his influence on the American founders306, most all of whom were fluent in French and fully understood the French version of Law of Nations.

11. (b)(4) In view of the widespread publicity and familiarity with Natural Law, it is our contention and belief that the words “natural born,” which are part of the term “natural born Citizen,” were selected by the drafting committee because the words “natural born” indicate to any legally informed person that this is a special type of citizenship which is recognized in the Natural Law and in Vattel’s Law of Nations.

 

11. (b)(5) Natural Law recognizes the term jus sanguinis as a special form of citizenship in which a child’s nationality is determined by the citizenship of both of the child’s parents. This is a special form of citizenship, which is closely related to the citizenship of a child under section 212 of Vattel’s Law of Nations.

11. (b)(6) Since the term “natural born Citizen” was added to the Article 2 Presidential Eligibility Requirements of the Constitution to address the fear of those with foreign allegiances ascending to the presidency, everyone familiar with Vattel’s Law of Nations would know that Section 212 of Vattel’s Book I, Chapter 19 was involved because that section defines in French “Les naturels ou indigenes” are those persons born in a country of parents [plural] that are citizens.  The complete sentence, Les naturels ou indigenes,” sont ceux qui sont nés dans le pays, de parents citoyens in French translates to “The natural or native, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens.”

To further establish the relevance of Section 212, the last line of that section specifically makes it clear that this provision is directed to the special emotional relationship to the country if a child is born of parents who are citizens rather than foreigners.  The last sentence states, "…if he is born there of a foreigner it will only be his place of birth, and not his country." It is not essential to show that there was an English language translation at the date of the 1787 Convention that matches the English words, “natural born Citizen.” The committee carefully chose the English words “natural born Citizen” for the Constitution as John Jay submitted them so that the sentence would have the identical meaning as the 1758 Vattel sentence in French and to make it obvious that the term refers to the Natural Law and to Vattel’s Law of Nations.

11. (c) The fact that the eligibility requirement was passed unanimously is generally powerful evidence that that the vote was the “original intent” of the delegates, which is the usual question that needs to be answered positively when evaluating and construing the enforceability of a constitutional provision.

Conclusion:

12. (a) It is clear that the term “natural born Citizen” in Article 2, Section 1, clause 5 of the Constitution which states, “No person except a natural born Citizen ...shall be eligible for the Office of the President...”  requires a reference to the history of the United States to understand that term.

12. (b) We believe that in view of the degree of knowledge of the highly educated statesmen, congressmen and delegates to the Constitutional Convention in 1787, this sentence in Article 2 clearly makes reference to the Natural Law and to Vattel’s Law of Nations, in which the term is clearly and unequivocally defined.

12. (c) We are aware of a 1987 article directed to the issue of Eligibility Qualifications of the President.401 The analysis of this paper is based on the Farrand Records of the Constitutional Convention of 1911. Much better records are available today as can be seen in the Madison # 11(a) record and in the Bancroft record in the #11(a) citation. In fact, the Farrand record they relied on failed to show that there was an objection from the floor when the Presidential Eligibility issue was raised.  This objection obviously led to the addition of the term “natural born Citizen.”  For some reason, in complete disregard to the ordinary facts of Conventions, this article suggests there was something strange about the fact that Farrand’s Record showed no debate on this issue.  Everyone knows that there were no official records made of the Convention and that the Farrand records were inherently defective. Further in a convention in a small facility like Carpenter’s Hall where issues are discussed privately and where there is no disagreement that it is very common that there is little or no debate, normally evidenced by the unanimous approval. Even more to the point, the analysis failed to consider external facts, such as the educational background of the delegates, the historical situation of the nation as well as the political fears of the founders as noted by John Jay and approved by George Washington.  This deficiency is best addressed by the words of Mr. Bederman:

 

fathers“Comparative constitutionalism has something to offer not only for the making of Constitutions but also their interpretation. If originalism is going to be consistently and legally espoused as a means of constitutional construction, then the complete mentalite of the framing generation needs to be observed.  If it matters what the ‘intelligent and informed people’ of the Framing generation understood the Constitution to mean, it would be folly to exclude from the analysis of the crucial element of the educational background, historical sensibilities, and political fears of those people. As I have suggested here, classicism and ancient history were crucial components of those understandings and beliefs, and were as significant as the Framer’s economic interests, their religious values and their confidence in the rule of law and the promise of liberty.402”

12. (d) In our opinion, it is absolutely clear that under Vattel’s Law of Nations, Chapter XIX, Section 212, that Mr. Obama does not comply with the Article 2, Section 1 eligibility requirements of the U.S. Constitution to hold the Office of the President. This analysis is also based on Mr. Obama’s public admission that his father, a Kenyan, was still a British citizen in 1961 when Barack II was born. For most of this nation, once they understand and appreciate the historical place of the doctrine of Natural Law and the Law of Nations, this conclusion will be accepted, resulting in a sad day, maybe the most sorrowful day ever for our nation. We are good people, Democrats, Republicans, and independents. Each of us will need to come to terms with the fact that Mr. Obama has known for many years that he is not a "natural born Citizen” of the United States. None of us can hide any longer from this fact and each of us will need to consider the ramifications to our children of the immorality of his actions.

Citations:

 

#1  URL: http://encyclopedia2.thefreedictionary.com/Jus+naturae

#2  URL:  http://www.nlnrac.org/earlymodern/law-of-nations

#3 James Madison’s records of the Constitutional Convention Proceedings:

For Sept. 4, 1787: URL: http://teachingamericanhistory.org/convention/debates/0904.html

For Sept. 7, 1787; URL: http://teachingamericanhistory.org/convention/debates/0907.html

  George Bancroft, History of the Formation of the Constitution of the United States, Vol. 2, D. Appleton&Co.,1882, p.192-3

#4 French Educators in the Northern States during the Eighteenth Century, by  Rodrigue, E.M., The French Review, Vol.14, no.2 (Dec. 1940) p.95-108   URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/380865

      Bederman, David J., The Classical Foundations of the American Constitution, p. 21-25; p.109-110; p.162-163

URL: http://huguenot.netnation.com/general/huguenot.htm

URL: http://huguenot.askdefine.com/    The heritages of John Jay, George Washington and Thomas Jefferson.

#5 Biography of the Constitutional Delegates, 33 attorneys and 20 non-attorneys

URL: http://teachingamericanhistory.org/convention/delegates/

#6(a) William and Mary College Quarterly Historical Papers (1892), at  Oct. 1892,  William and Mary College Quarterly

URL: http://files.usgwarchives.org/va/schools/wmmary/pres0000.txt         See Pg. 73

URL: http://www.nlnrac.org/american/colonial-roots

#6(b) Bancroft, George,  History of the Formation of the Constitution of the United States, Vol. 2, D. Appleton&Co.,1882, p.436

John Jay, handwritten letter dated July 25, 1787 to George Washington and reverse side.

URL: http://www.columbia.edu/cu/lweb/digital/exhibitions/constitution/essay.html   (press 10627 re July 25 letter)

URL: http://www.columbia.edu/cu/lweb/digital/exhibitions/constitution/essay.html   (press 12782 re July 25 letter reverse)

#6(c)  James Madison’s records of the Constitutional Convention Proceedings:

  For Sept. 4, 1787: URL: http://teachingamericanhistory.org/convention/debates/0904.html

  For Sept. 7, 1787; URL: http://teachingamericanhistory.org/convention/debates/0907.html

   Bancroft, George, History of the Formation of the Constitution of the United States, Vol. 2, D. Appleton&Co.,1882, p.192-3

#7  Delegate Listing including Biographical data—33 attorneys and 20 non-attorneys

URL: http://teachingamericanhistory.org/convention/delegates For listing colleges of delegates see URL: : http://teachingamericanhistory.org/convention/delegates/education.html

#8  re book copies  URL: http://www.scribd.com/doc/63130788/Ben-Franklin-thanks-Charles-Dumas-for-Copies-of-Vattel-s-Law-of-Nations-or-Principles-of-Natural-Law

 re: Dumas/loaning

Re Library Co in Carpenter’s Hall URL:

 www.librarycompany.org/about/Instance.pdf  See Page 5.

Re 1789 LCP Catalogue           URL: http://www.archive.org/stream/catalogueofbooks01libr/catalogueofbooks01libr_djvu.txt    At this site, you will find the 1789 catalog of the LCP. It is very difficult to navigate the catalog because their cataloging system is a nightmare—it is partially based on the size of the book and the catalog doesn't indent any subjects.

Under VIII, 228 Law Quarto, no 224, it states Law of Nations or Principles of law of nature applied to affairs of nations and foreigners, English, Translated from the French of M.de Vattel, 2 vol.in one, London 1760.

and Under VI, General Politics, Quarto 177, no. 303 it states, 1775 version, "Le Droit des gens par M.de Vattel. Gift of Mr. Dumas.

# 9(a) No citations

#9(b) Re: connect of nat. Law and Declaration   URL:  http://www.nlnrac.org/american/declaration-of-independence

 Re T. Jefferson   Thomas Jefferson, “Writings”, (Merril Patterson . ed.; Library of Am. Ed., 1984

Re W&M   William and Mary College Quarterly Historical Papers (1892), at Oct 1892 William and Mary College Quarterly

URL:  http://files.usgwarchives.org/va/schools/wmmary/pres0000.txt  See P. 73

Re T. Jefferson and Nat Law:. Bederman, David J., The Classical Foundations of the American Constitution, p, 46-47

#10 Wong Kim Ark  169 U.S. 715

#11(a) James Madison’s records of the Constitutional Convention Proceedings:

For Sept. 4, 1787: URL: http://teachingamericanhistory.org/convention/debates/0904.html

For Sept. 7, 1787; URL: http://teachingamericanhistory.org/convention/debates/0907.html

   Bancroft, George, History of the Formation of the Constitution of the United States, Vol. 2, D. Appleton&Co., 1882, p.192-3

11(b)(1) Bederman, David J, “The Classical Foundations of the American Constitution”

(101)  Pg. ix

(102)..Pg. 21; Pg. 26

11(b)(2)

(201)  Bederman    Pg. 21

(203)  Bederman    Pg. 46

(204)  Bederman    Pg.  46

#11(b)(3)

(301)   Bederman    Pg. 109

(302)   Bederman    Pg. 110

(303)   Bederman    Pg. 110

(304)  Bederman    Pg. 110

(305)  Bederman    Pg. 110

(306)  Bederman    Pg. 273---Footnotes 99—104 Vattel

#11(b)(4) none

#11(b)(5) URL: http://www.thefreedictionary.com/jus+sanguinis

#11(b)(6) none

#11(c) URL: http://www.law.northwestern.edu/lawreview/v103/n2/703/lr103n2kay.pdf

#11(d) no citations#

#12(a) none

#12(b) none

#12(c)   (401) Nelson, M, “Constitutional Qualification for President”, Presidential Studies Quarterly, vol. 17, No.2, (Spring 1987), pp. 383-399

(402) Bederman   Pg. 231

#12(d) none

 

Amil Imani is the author of Obama Meets Ahmadinejad and Operation Persian Gulf.

 

2012-04-29 01:12:54
30603
Print
 
Comments List
David Farrar: "I am afraid it goes deeper and longer than you suppose."

What do you know about what I suppose?
@Admin says:
July 2, 2012 at 5:46 pm

You see...it's as if they don't see what I have written.

Whomever 'Admin' is, the predicate I have established, with altogether more prima facie evidence than you have thus far posted, is that George Romney's parents, although natural born US Citizens, were not US Citizens at the time of George's birth in Mexico.

I say again: George Romney was born in 1907, in Colonia Dublán in Galeana in the state of Chihuahua, Mexico, to expatiated parents. Although Gaskel Romney and Anna Pratt were born US citizens; they were not US citizens in 1907. In 1907 both of them were Mexican nationals.

All you have stated thus far is simply code based on the assumption that Gaskell and Anna did not give up their US citizenship or lost it during their 25-year sojourn in Mexico.

What I am saying is all the evidence I have tells me they weren't considered by the Mexican government as US citizens.

ex animo
davidfarrar
Mitt's father, George Romney, under US Law was a US citizen by birth, since his father was a US citizens on the date of his birth and since both parents had resided in US before George's birth. It doesn't affect this decision that George was born in Mexico.

George was born prior to 1934, and the best description of US law prior to 1934 is from the Canadian Law Firm Chang AND Boos. Since George and his wife were US citizens and Mitt was born in the US, Mitt, under Vattel section 212, is a Natural Born Citizen as required under US Constitution.

See the following:

Date of birth of child
Parent’s Residence Requirement to Transmit Citizenship Child’s Residence Requirement to Retain Citizenship
Before 5/24/1934 father is a citizen who resided in the U.S. before the child’s birth None.


see http://www.greencardlawyers.com/citizenship/citizenbybirth.html

Peng and Weber Immigration lawyers



Immigration and Naturalization Act. 8 U.S.C 1401


INA: ACT 301 - NATIONALS AND CITIZENS OF THE UNITED STATES AT BIRTH


Sec. 301. [8 U.S.C. 1401] The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth:

(a) a person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof;

(b) a person born in the United States to a member of an Indian, Eskimo, Aleutian, or other aboriginal tribe: Provided, That the granting of citizenship under this subsection shall not in any manner impair or otherwise affect the right of such person to tribal or other property;

(c) a person born outside of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents both of whom are citizens of the United States and one of whom has had a residence in the United States or one of its outlying possessions, prior to the birth of such person;

(d) a person born outside of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is a citizen of the United States who has been physically present in the United States or one of its outlying possessions for a continuous period of one year prior to the birth of such person, and the other of whom is a national, but not a citizen of the United States;

(e) a person born in an outlying possession of the United States of parents one of whom is a citizen of the United States who has been physically present in the United States or one of its outlying possessions for a continuous period of one year at any time prior to the birth of such person;

(f) a person of unknown parentage found in the United States while under the age of five years, until shown, prior to his attaining the age of twenty-one years, not to have been born in the United States;


(g) a person born outside the geographical limits of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is an alien, and the other a citizen of the United States who, prior to the birth of such person, was physically present in the United States or its outlying possessions for a period or periods totaling not less than five years, at least two of which were after attaining the age of fourteen years: Provided, That any periods of honorable service in the Armed Forces of the United States, or periods of employment with the United States Government or with an international organization as that term is defined in section 1 of the International Organizations Immunities Act (59 Stat. 669; 22 U.S.C. 288) by such citizen parent, or any periods during which such citizen parent is physically present abroad as the dependent unmarried son or daughter and a member of the household of a person (A) honorably serving with the Armed Forces of the United States, or (B) employed by the United States Government or an international organization as defined in section 1 of the International Organizations Immunities Act, may be included in order to satisfy the physical-presence requirement of this paragraph. This proviso shall be applicable to persons born on or after December 24, 1952, to the same extent as if it had become effective in its present form on that date; and

(h) a person born before noon (Eastern Standard Time) May 24, 1934, outside the limits and jurisdiction of the United States of an alien father and a mother who is a citizen of the United States who, prior to the birth of such person, had resided in the United States. 302 persons born in Puerto Rico on or after April 11, 1899



CHANG AND BOOS'
CANADA - US IMMIGRATION LAW CENTER


U.S. Citizenship Acquired by Birth Abroad
Written by Henry J. Chang
Introduction The laws regarding the transmission of United States citizenship to children born outside the United States can be very complex. A distinction is made between legitimate and illegitimate childen for the purposes of citizenship eligibility. In addition, the laws that were in effect at the time of the child's birth determine whether citizenship is transmitted in a particular case. Finally, depending upon when the child was born, he or she may have been subject to certain conditions subsequent, which were required for retention of citizenship.
Legitimate Children
Conditions Precedent -- Required Residence of Parent(s)
Prior to May 24, 1934, children born outside the limits and jurisdiction of the United States, whose fathers were United States citizens, acquired U.S. citizenship at birth unless the father had never "resided" in the United States prior to the child's birth. In the absence of a specific definition of "resided", the Immigration and Naturalization Service took the position that even a temporary sojourn by the U.S. citizen parent was sufficient to comply with this requirement.
Prior to May 24, 1934, U.S. citizen mothers were not permitted to transmit U.S. citizenship to their children born abroad. The Act of May 24, 1934 (the "1934 Statute") gave U.S. citizen mothers equality of status regarding their ability to transmit U.S. citizenship. However the provision was not applied retroactively. Therefore, children born before May 24, 1934 to a U.S. citizen mother and an alien father did not acquire U.S. citizenship.
On or after May 24, 1934, a child born outside the limits and jurisdiction of the United States, whose father or mother (or both) was a citizen of the United States at the time of the child's birth, would be considered a United States citizen provided that the U.S. citizen parent had resided in the United States prior to the birth of the child. The previous interpretation of "resided" continued to apply under the 1934 Statute.
The 1940 Statute became effective on January 13, 1941. The 1940 Statute defined the meaning of residence as the general place of abode. Although this did not necessarily require the establishment of a domicile or place of permanent residence, it contemplated the establishment of an actual principal dwelling place.
The 1940 Statute also provided for more stringent requirements for prior residence where, at the time of the child's birth, one of the parents was a U.S. citizen and the other was an alien. On or after January 13, 1941, in the case of a child born to a U.S. citizen parent and an alien parent, the U.S. citizen parent had to have resided in the United States or its outlying possessions for 10 years, at least 5 of which were after attaining the age of 16 years in order to transmit U.S. citizenship to the child.
In 1946, Congress modified the requirement slightly but only for the benefit of U.S. citizens who had served honorably in the U.S. armed forces during World War II. The U.S. parent's prior residence requirement could be satisfied by residence in the U.S. for 10 years, at least five of which were after attaining the age of 12 years if the U.S. citizen parent had served honorably in the U.S. armed forces after December 7, 1941 but before December 31, 1946.
On December 24, 1952, the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 (the "1952 Statute") became effective. As under the previous statute, where both parents were U.S. citizens, one parent would have to have resided in the United States prior to the child's birth in order to transmit U.S. citizenship. The meaning of residence previously applied under the 1940 Statute was essentially the same as under the 1952 Statute.
In the case of a child born to one U.S. citizen parent and one alien parent, the U.S. citizen parent now had only to be physically present in the United States or its outlying possessions prior to the child's birth for 10 years, at least 5 of which were after the age of 14. "Physical presence" was different from the concept of "residence" which had applied under the previous statute. The physical presence requirement could be satisfied by mere presence in the United States even if the person had not established a legal residence there.
The physical presence requirement was intended to preclude extended absences from the United States during the required period. However, it was found to be too restrictive. In 1966, Congress passed an amendment which, for children born on or after December 24, 1952, permitted the transmitting U.S. citizen parent to count presence abroad in the following capacities towards the physical presence requirement:
1. honorable service in the United States Armed Forces;
2. employment by the United States Government;
3. employment by an international organization with which the United States is associated; or
4. physical presence abroad as a dependent unmarried son or daughter and a member of the household of a person employed in one of the above categories.
The Immigration and Nationality Amendments of November 14, 1986 further liberalized the transmitting U.S. citizen parent's physical presence requirements. For children born on or after November 14, 1986, a child born to one U.S. citizen parent and one alien parent would acquire U.S. citizenship if the U.S. citizen parent was physically present in the United States or its outlying possessions for at least 5 years, at least 2 of which were after attaining the age of 14 years.
Conditions Subsequent -- Required Residence of the Child
Prior to May 24, 1934, there were no requirements imposed on the child born abroad as a condition subsequent to retaining U.S. citizenship. However, the 1934 Statute did impose retention requirements on the child unless both parents were U.S. citizens.
Where only one of the child's parents was a U.S. citizen, the child would have to reside continuously in the United States for at least 5 years immediately before his 18th birthday and take the Oath of Allegiance within 6 months after his or her 21st birthday. The retention requirements contained in the 1934 statute were repealed by the Nationality Act of 1940 (the "1940 Statute"). Therefore, no one actually lost their citizenship before the retention requirements were repealed. However, the 1940 Statute retroactively applied its new retention requirements to any children born to one U.S. citizen parent and one alien parent on or after May 24, 1934.
As stated above, the 1940 Statute retroactively applied more liberal retention requirements to children born abroad with one U.S. citizen parent and one alien parent on or after May 24, 1934. Such a child had to have resided in the United States or its outlying possessions for a period or periods totalling at least five years between the ages of 13 and 21 in order to retain U.S. citizenship. The child would also lose U.S. citizenship if he or she did not establish residence by the time he or she reached the age of 16 or the child's continued residence abroad made it impossible to comply with the residence requirements.
The retention requirement was made specifically inapplicable to a child whose U.S. citizen parent, at the time of the child's birth, was employed by the United States Government, certain United States organizations, or an international organization with which the United States was associated. However, the 1946 amendment which permitted relaxed prior residence requirements for a U.S. citizen parent who had served honorably in the United States Armed Forces during World War II specified that citizenship retention requirements would apply to the children of such parents.
The 1952 Statute imposed a revised requirement on any such children to be continuously physically present in the United States for at least 5 years between the ages of 14 and 28 in order to retain citizenship. The retention requirement was retroactively applied to any person born on or after May 24, 1934.
It was not certain whether or not persons who had already lost citizenship under the 1940 Statute's retention requirements would be reinstated even if they were able to comply with the 1952 Statute's retention requirements. However, as persons who have previously lost citizenship for failure to comply with prior retention requirements may now regain their citizenship by taking the Oath of Allegiance (discussed below), the issue is no longer as significant as it once was.
The physical presence requirement was found to be too restrictive and it was soon modified in a 1957 amendment. The amendment provided that absences from the United States aggregating less than 12 months would not break the continuity of physical presence for retention of citizenship.
Recognizing the hardships resulting from the 1952 Statute's retention requirements, Congress passed an amendment in 1972. The Act of October 27, 1972 (the "1972 Statute") liberalized the retention requirement so that any person who had acquired U.S. citizenship by birth abroad to one U.S. citizen parent and one alien parent was now required to be continuously and physically present in the United States for only 2 years between the ages of 14 and 28. In addition, the 1972 Statute provided that absences from the United States for an aggregate of less than 60 days during the required 2 year period would not break the continuity of physical presence for the purpose of satisfying the retention requirements. Finally, the 1972 Statute provided relief from the normal retention requirements for a child whose alien parent was naturalized as a U.S. citizen before the child reached the age of 18 and the child began residing in the United States before attaining that age.
The 1972 Statute left unchanged the language in the 1952 Statute which provided that it was applicable to persons born on of after May 24, 1952. It is at least arguable that the liberal retention requirements of the 1972 Statute should apply even to persons born on or after that May 24, 1952 who had already lost their citizenship for failure to comply with previous retention requirements. However, as persons who have previously lost citizenship for failure to comply with prior retention requirements may now regain their citizenship by taking the Oath of Allegiance, the issue is no longer as significant as it once was.
Although, taking the Oath of Allegiance reinstates U.S. citizenship only from the date of the oath, unless establishing U.S. citizenship during the period between purported loss of citizenship and the taking of the oath of allegiance is crucial (such as where the individual seeks to transmit U.S. citizenship to a child born during this period), the whether or not the 1972 Statute is retroactively applied will not be relevant.
On October 10, 1978, the retention requirements were completely repealed. However, Congress did not give this statute retroactive effect. Although any persons who had not yet lost citizenship for failure to satisfy the previous retention requirements were relieved of the requirement to do so, those persons who had lost U.S. citizenship prior to October 10, 1978 were not reinstated.
Illegitimate Children
Where the U.S. Citizen is the Mother
As mentioned above, the statutes prior to 1934 did not permit the transmission of citizenship through a U.S. citizen mother. However, the 1934 Statute permitted either the father or mother to transmit U.S. citizenship. This was construed as also authorizing the transmission of citizenship to an illegitimatechild born abroad on or after May 24, 1934 to a U.S. citizen mother. However, the 1934 Statute did not apply retroactively to births prior to May 24, 1934.
The 1940 Statute was the first to specifically adopt provisions regulating the status of illegitimate children. It provided that, where paternity had not been established before the child reached the age of 21 through legitimation (normally accomplished by the marriage of the child's parents) or court adjudication, an illegitimate child could acquire U.S. citizenship through its citizen mother as long as the mother had previously resided in the United States or one of its outlying possessions. .
The 1940 Statute applied to illegitimate children born either before or after the date of its enactment. While it did not confer U.S. citizenship on an illegitimate child of a U.S. citizen mother who had been legitimated by an alien father prior to the child reaching the age of 21, it did not adversely affect the status of anyone who acquired U.S. citizenship prior to such legitimation. Children born on or after January 13, 1941 could acquire U.S. citizenship at birth under the 1940 Statute and did not lose such status, even they were later legitimated by their alien father. Further, children who were born after May 24, 1934 but before January 13, 1941 could acquire U.S. citizenship at birth under the 1934 Statute and did not lose such status as a result of the 1940 Statute, even if they were later legitimated by their alien father. In other words, an illegitimate child born to a U.S. citizen mother and alien father would only be denied citizenship if he or she:
1. was born before May 23, 1934;
2. was legitimated before reaching the age of 21; and
3. was legitimated before January 13, 1941(the effective date of the 1940 Statute).
In light of the 1994 amendment (discussed below) which retroactively authorizes the transmission of U.S. citizenship by U.S. citizen mothers to children (legitimate or illegitimate) born prior to May 23, 1934, the issue of legitimation by an alien father is no longer relevant to the transmission of U.S. citizenship by a U.S. citizen mother to an illegitimate child.
The 1952 Statute provided that an illegitimate child acquired U.S. citizenship from a U.S. citizen mother if the mother was a U.S. citizen at the time of the child's birth and had been physicially present in the United States or one of its outlying possessions for a continuous period of one year. This provision did not adversely affect the status of anyone who had previously acquired U.S. citizenship. This provision is still in effect.
Where the U.S. Citizen Parent is the Father
Where the U.S. citizen parent is the father or an illegitimate child, the issue of legitimation becomes important. Prior to the 1940 Statute, there was no statutory provision defining the rights of an illegitimate child born to a U.S. citizen father. However, the prior case law had determined that legitimation of an illegitimate child in accordance with the laws of the father's domicile retroactively conferred U.S. citizenship on the child, provided that the father had resided in the United States prior to the child's birth. According to these cases, there was no time limit for when legitimation had to occur.
The 1940 Statute provided that citizenship rights could be transmitted to such children, under the same conditions as a legitimate child, only if the child's paternity took place while the child was still under the age of 21. Paternity could be established by either legitimation or court adjudication.
A July 31, 1946 amendment provided that, even if no legitimating acts occurred, illegitimate children of U.S. citizen fathers could still obtain U.S. citizenship at birth but only if:
1. the father served in the U.S. armed forces during World War II (after December 7, 1941 and before December 31, 1946); and
2. the father had resided ten years or more in the U.S., at least five years of which were after the age of 12.
The 1952 Statute slightly modified the conditions for the acquisition of U.S. citizenship by illegitimate children born after its effective date. It authorized the transmission of U.S. citizenship from the father if the transmitting father satisfied the prior residence requirements applicable to legitimate children. The provision for adjudication of paternity was omitted from the 1952 Statute. However, the broad definition of legitimation in the 1952 Statute permitted legitimation in accordance with the law of the father's residence or domicile or the child's residence or domicile.
Amendments contained in the Immigration and Nationality Act Amendments of November 14, 1986 granted citizenship at birth to illegitimate children born abroad to U.S. citizen fathers provided that the following applied:
1. the father has U.S. citizenship at the time of the child's birth;
2. the blood relationship between the child and the father is established by clear and convincing evidence;
3. the father (unless deceased) agrees in writing to provide financial support for the child until the child reaches 18 years of age;
4. before the child reaches the age of 18, one of the following has occurred:
1. the child is legitimated under the law of the child's residence or domicile;
2. the father acknowledges paternity of the child in writing under oath; or
3. paternity is established by adjudication in a competen court.
The 1986 amendments apply only to persons who had not attained the age of 18 on November 14, 1986. Persons born prior to that date were subject to the previous statutory standard. Persons whose paternity had been established by legitimation before November 14, 1986 were also subject to the previous standard. However, a person who was at least 15 but under 18 on November 14, 1986 could choose either standard to qualify for U.S. citizenship.

Retention Requirements for Illegitimate Children

The retention requirements applicable to legitimate children are inapplicable where U.S. citizenship is transmitted by a U.S. citizen mother to an illegitimate child. Such a child obtains unconditional U.S. citizenship and is not required to establish residence in the U.S. or to take any other action to retain such citizenship. However, where the U.S. citizen parent is the father, statutes before 1986 place an illegitimate child in the same position as a legitimate child once legitimation has occurred. Such a child is therefore required to establish residence in the United States in the same manner as a legitimate child.

Recent Amendments
The Immigration and Nationality Technical Corrections Act of 1994 (Pub. L. No. 103-416, 108 Stat. 4305) ("INTCA") has given rise to several changes in the Immigration and Nationality Act ("INA") which relate to the transmission, at birth, of U.S. citizenship to children born abroad. The implementation of INTCA has not affected the various residence/physical presence requirements imposed on U.S. citizen parents in previous statutes. In order to determine whether or not the U.S. citizen parent has complied with these requirements, the statute that applied at the time of the child's birth must be considered.

However, INA §301(h) now provides that any person born before noon (Eastern Standard Time) on May 24, 1934 outside the U.S. to an alien father and a U.S. citizen mother who resided in the U.S. is considered to be a U.S. citizen at birth. The provision is to be retroactively applied as though the amendment had been made at the time of the person's birth, subject to only two exceptions which are outside the scope of this article. Also, any provision of law that provides for a person's loss of citizenship or nationality if a person failed to come to, or reside or be physically present in the United States shall not apply to a person claiming citizenship under §301(h).
Prior to INTCA, a considerable number of children born to one alien parent and one U.S. citizen parent lost their citizenship as a result of their failure to satisfy the various retention requirements which were in effect from May 24, 1934 to October 10, 1978. INA §324(d)(1) now provides that a person who was a U.S. citizen at birth who lost citizenship for failing to meet certain physical presence retention requirements in effect before October 10, 1978 will, upon taking the oath of allegiance, once again be considered be a U.S. citizen and have the status of a U.S. citizen by birth. Persons born prior to May 24, 1934 to a U.S. citizen mother and an alien father and persons born on or after May 24, 1934 but before October 10, 1978 to a U.S. citizen parent and one alien parent, who lost U.S. citizenship for failure to comply with the retention requirements may now regain citizenship in light of these amendments.


Copyright (C) Chang and Boos (2011). All rights reserved.
I am afraid it goes deeper and longer than you suppose. Mitt Romney may not be a nbC as well. I lack only the resources to gather the necessary documentary evidence to file against him when I file against Obama after they become their party's nominees later this summer.

George Romney (Mitt's father) was born in Mexico to expatriated US citizen parents who gave up their US citizen (via LDS church officials acting as their agent), along with 70,000 other Mormons, to be allowed by Mexican authorities to colonize in Mexico.

However, under the Third International Conference of American States, held on August 13, 1906, in Rio de Janeiro, a convention between the United States and most of the Latin American countries, including Mexico. It stated that if a naturalized citizen, a native of any of the countries signing the present convention, and naturalized in another, shall again take up his residence in his native country without the intention of returning to the country in which he has been naturalized, he will be considered as having re-assumed his original citizenship, and has having renounced the citizenship acquired by the said naturalization.

The problem is, when George Romney was born, he was a born of parents who were "perteptual inhanitants of Mexico and not US citizens. When the Romneys returned to US jurisdiction, everyone was again US citizens, with the exception of George Romney, who was a Mexican national by birth.

I have presented the evidence that is out there, including Mexican Naturalization documents for members of Mitt direct family; the second Mexican Constitution of 1857 that clearly states foreign nationals were not allowed to own land, build dwellings and towns, own water rights, proselytizing a new religion, et cetera, all activities Mexican nationals would have been allowed to do, but not US citizens.

Although, like Obama, Mitt Romney has reacted to these allegations with complete and utter silence and disdain; but he hasn't said they are untrue.

ex animo
davidfarrar
Jerry: "The only question raised for me is whether an NBC follows ONLY the paternal line, as Vattel clearly states [...]"

Vattel does not clearly state that, he writes in The Law of Nations or the Principles of Natural Law, book 1, chapter 19, § 212: "The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country of parents who are citizens."

Jerry: "This is, without question, the most important election [the presidential election of 2012] of our lives and every vote counts."

I am afraid this is not correct because the election fraud perpetrated in presidential elections -- especially since 1988 when the computer voting systems have been important -- is quite obvious. Remember the saying attributed to Josef Stalin: "Those who cast the votes decide nothing. Those who count the votes decide everything."
They keep bringing up Sen. Rubio and the others because they know the law and you don't.

You are right: they are betraying themselves. But can you blame them for following an unconstitutional law?

They believe Wong says all person born within US borders are Art. II, §1, cl. 5 natural born Citizens. This is what Obama believes; what Rubio believes and what all the others believe. But they would like to keep this little bit as quiet as possible, so they have their surrogates go out and keep raising the issue.

ex animo
davidfarrar
This is the best documented of any I've read thus far....and, I think, I've read most out there on this topic. The only question raised for me is whether an NBC follows ONLY the paternal line, as Vattel clearly states. or we need to refer to Minor v. Happersett where the judge noted "parents" (meaning both). Either way, BHO is clearly ineligible to sit at the Resolute Desk.

I find it remarkable that seemingly everyone in the DNC, the Congress and the MSM is complicit in this disgrace, either through apathy, ignorance or knowing fraud. Amil seems to blame Obama. I, on the other hand, point to the massive conspiracy which put him in office.

This is a National catastrophe of epic proportions and there is no simple way forward. Simply defeating him in November is grossly unsatisfactory since the horrors he has burdened us with, such as myriad legislation, over regulation from the EPA and other agencies, Czars up the gazoo and two Socialist Justices of the SCOTUS would remain. Impeachment is out since he is not legally our President. The only reasonable answer, though the fallout would be dramatic, is charging him with treason for refusing to uphold the Constitution - his sworn duty. What a mess that would be. The House could charge him, but the trial is the responsibility of the Senate....and that won't happen. So, it appears we'll have to wait until after the election to resolve the issues, when a stronger majority will exist in the House and the balance in the Senate has swung significantly to the right....and, hopefully, with a Republican President.

The 100 or so responses posted are some of the most intellectual blogs I've read anywhere. I hope by November you will all have a greater interest in the electoral process... This is, without question, the most important election of our lives and every vote counts.

Jerry
Vetting Rubio 2: A Waste of Time and Money

Rene Guerra, June 25, 2012



"For the umpteenth time elevated to the googolplex* power, dammit, Rubio is not eligible!"...would Aaron Cantor exclaim this time, upping his exasperation.


Some of you have either written to me or talked with me attempting to rebut the notions and contentions in the column by Cantor Vetting Rubio: A Waste of Time and Money that I sent out a few days ago regarding the subject of "natural-born" citizen as related to Marco Rubio and, logically, to Obama.


Before getting into my counter-rebuttal, a clarification is necessary here first: The rub is not about citizenship in general, but about a particular case of citizenship, that one of "natural-born" citizenship.


Upon the nomination of Obama as candidate to the Presidency** by the DemocRat Party and, more intensively so, after fools --leftists and non-leftists, them all alike-- got him ensconced in the White House, Obama's comrades, sympathizers and naively misguided folks have, all, taken it to making all kinds of claims about what "natural-born" citizen is.


**--The DemocRat Party nominated him as the candidate to becoming the head of only the executive branch of only the federal government, per the enumerated stipulations in Chapter 2 of the Constitution of the United States of America...and not to become either King of The United States of America or The Dear Leader, as the DemocRats deem him or as what he deems himself: the dictator that he in reality is. A dictator is that government official who arrogates upon himself the power to nullify existing legitimate laws and who, instead of serving as a public servant, rules at will, dictating and emitting edicts as he pleases, making thus the people his subjects. Such characterization fits perfectly Obama; he has morphed to an all-out dictator, and his administration, to an all-out dictatorship, e.g., the amnesty he decreed last week, and the "divorce" he adopted when he decided that ICE will not respond to inquiries from Arizona regarding suspected illegal aliens, despite that the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that Arizona was entitled to make such inquiries.


They make most of such claims mingling --maliciously the ones, just innocently but utterly mistakenly the others-- Constitution 215 (i.e., Chapter 2, Section 1, Clause 5 of the Constitution of the United States of America), where the "natural-born" requisite is explicitly written (i.e., "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"), with the first sentence in Section 1 of the 14th Amendment, where the case of "generic" American citizenship is addressed (i.e., "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.")


Others come up with convoluted explanations citing this and that, when the case is solved easily by simply referring to Constitution 215 --the supreme law in the United States of America-- and The Law of Nations as explained next.


Hence, and to make it easier for you, I am expanding on the "natural-born" citizenship typification in Constitution 215: When it comes to what the meaning of "natural-born citizen" is, the framers of the Constitution --mainly James Madison (i.e., the disputed "Father of the Constitution" and, on his own right, the true author and "Father of the Bill of Rights") and a few other statesmen and theoreticians in the Colonies at that time-- adhered to the principles of The Law of Nations.


The Law of Nations is the jurisprudence codex compiled in 1758 by Emerich de Vattel, "...a Swiss philosopher, diplomat, and legal expert whose theories laid the foundation of modern international law and political philosophy."


You can find a copy of The Law of Nations at the website whose URL is http://www.constitution.org/vattel/vattel_01.htm.


The Law of Nations was --at the time the Constitution was framed and ratified-- THE norm in terms of jurisprudence related to societal and international relations.


James Madison and the rest of drafters of the Constitution were, most of them, erudite individuals and, logically, very familiar with and, as customary at the time, adherents to the tenets, contentions, notions and formulations in The Law of Nations.


In other words, when the framers referred to "natural-born citizen" in the Constitution of the Unites States of America, they referred to it using the juridical acceptation in The Law of Nations, which, at the time, was THE norm.


And what The Law of Nations says about "natural-born citizen" in Book I, Chapter XIX, Section 212, Clause 2 is specifically and explicitly the following: "...natural-born citizens are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens".


Were Obama's two parents American citizens?


No! Absolutely and undeniably, not.


Of the two, only his mother was an American citizen; his father was a British subject born in what now is Kenya...as everyone knows.


Consequently, the dictator has never been a "natural-born citizen".


He may be a plain American citizen, either by jus sanguinis from his mother and/or by jus soli...that, if he was born on American soil; however he is NOT a "natural-born citizen", because his father was NOT an American citizen at all. That, in addition to the probable fact that he may have been born in Kenya, as many plausibly sustain.


The high hierarchs of the DemocRat Party (i.e., whose ideological marrow is the very incarnation of the hardcore-Left in America) knew it then, and know it now, but they covered --and keep covering-- it up...out of the most heinous sense of anti-Americanism.


The high hierarchs of the Republican Party knew that too, and know it now, but --most likely, out of sheer cowardice, fretting "offending" blacks and afraid of being labeled "racists" by the DemocRats if they raise the issue-- they covered, and keep covering, it up as well.


And the gist of the matter here is that the same yardstick in The Law of Nations applies to Marco Rubio, and to Nikki Haley and to Bobby Jindal as well, one of whom --particularly Rubio-- may result being Romney's VP ticket-mate.


In those three cases --Rubio's, Haley's and Jindal's-- the situation is more accentuated; their parents --the mothers and the fathers-- were NOT American citizens at the time the three were born.


Those three are not "natural-born citizens"; consequently, they can never occupy the Presidency, therefore, neither of the three should be chosen by Romney as candidate to Vice-President.


For the umpteenth-plus-one time elevated to the googolplex power, dammit, Rubio is not eligible!

The high hierarchs of the Republican Party know this as well, but --with the help of pundits such as Hannity, O'Reilly, Levin, Coulter, Gibson and many others -- they are covering it up. (By the way, they are among the conservative pundits who --joining Pelosi, Reed, Schumer, Durbin and the rest of hierarchs in the hardcore-Left, including the "mainstream" media-- call us "kooks", us, we grassroots conservatives who want to exercise our inalienable constitutional right and unavoidable civic duty of demanding from Obama unequivocal and unambiguous proof of complete compliance with Constitution 215).


Why are they doing that?


Most likely, out of fear of being branded directly racists and, obliquely,"birthers", by the DemocRats, who --aided by a "mainstream" media maliciously oblivious to the matter of "natural-born" citizenship in Rubio's case-- would like to, in turn, preempt any attempt by non-leftist Americans adherent to the Constitution to --once Obama is out of the White House past noon, January 21, 2013-- start a thorough, deep and extensive investigation on how a constitutionally-grossly-unqualified individual --i.e., Obama-- came, first, to be nominated by the DemocRats their candidate to the Presidency, and, second, sworn President of the United States of America...by none else than the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States of America, John Roberts.


ObamaSwearingInCeremonyWithCommunists01e.jpg

If Romney --who, by the way, must solve his dual (i.e., American and Mexican) citizenship problem-- gets elected President along with a vice-President that is NOT a "natural-born citizen", the DemocRats would be gripping him tightly by those male-body parts dangling between the legs that, ouch, hurt a lot if clasped, in this most critical issue. Then, Romney --along with RINOs and establishment-Republicans-- would block any such investigation on Obama...out of fear of having their own "natural-born citizen" issue exposed.



Such an investigation on Obama could definitely result --much to Romney's glory and, more importantly, to great benefit to America-- in decimating politically the entire DemocRat high hierarchy...for, Pelosi, Reed, Schumer, Durbin, Boxer, Levin, Leahy, Feinstein, and hundreds more have participated as accomplices in the criminal usurpation and impersonation Obama has committed.


Furthermore, such an investigation would probably destroy politically, even, the entire DemocRat Party itself as an institution, and for decades, the same way the collapse of the Soviet Union destroyed politically the Soviet Communist Party, and as, by carom, resulted in destroying as well the Mexican Institutional Revolutionary Party (PRI -- acronym in Spanish) --the arch-corrupt and venal, leftistoid political party that wrecked Mexico uninterruptedly for more than 70 years. Neither the Communist Party of Russia nor those of the other members of the defunct Soviet Union and Soviet Satellites have recovered from their collapse, and neither has the Mexican PRI. No one ever thought before the phenomenal collapse of the Soviet Union that all those political parties would in effect disappear. The DemocRat Party could follow that fate.


Thus, Romney would be enormously stupid if he renders himself fangless (more than he already is due to Romneycare) by pairing with someone who is not a "natural-born citizen", e.g., Rubio.


But if Romney decides for a VPthat is not a "natural-born citizen", such as Rubio, Romney will have no alternative but --behaving politically either as a coward or as a consummate weasel-- dodge making such investigation...under the excuse that his VP would fall along with the DemocRat falling-dominoes.

What Romney will do from now to election-day and thereafter will depend on the pressure that grassroots conservatives, particularly through the Tea Party Movement, subject him to.


You all know of the tepid reaction Romney had to the savaging of Arizona's SB 1070 immigration law (and Rubio's expected silence, for, he essentially opposed SB 1070) with his insipid and dull statement.


Beware, by the way, that this ruling of the U.S. Supreme Court on Arizona's SB 1070 law could very well be a portentous wraith of what the U.S. Supreme Court will flog us with next Thursday by upholding Obamacare, thus giving the dictator more power to destroy America further.


If you want to help strengthen America, visit and join


www.USASurvival.org


www.RiseUpAmerica.net
So what about Rubio???
Its all spelled out ..... there can not be any more debate about what is and what hasn't been proven scientifically. The question is when do the so-called Representatives of the PEOPLE take the necessary action. There is of course an action of REDRESS !!!!!!! This is an action the public has had since its inception ..... I must say that it doesn't have to come to this but there is certainly a lot of TRASH that needs to go out with the rest of the GARBAGE that has been deceiving the American public for sometime. Who in our LEADERSHIP is qualified to assume this role ..... GOD only KNOWS !!!! Because all we have been given is men of mediocrity .... or WORSE in current case at hand.



I am a loss for words about the current state of affairs in our Congressional branch.....they are either inept or just plain deceptive and liars !!!!!!!