Obama Presidential Eligibility – An Introductory Primer

From google cache. Links don’t work. This was worth preserving so I did.

Obama Presidential Eligibility – An Introductory Primer

One of my readers by the name of  Stephen Tonchen has created an introductory primer on Obama POTUS eligibility.  Much of the substance of the primer has been culled from my blog and helpfully supplemented by Mr. Tonchen’s own research.  This is by far the most clear, concise and powerful document created to help educate your friends and family on the eligibility issue.  I strongly urge my readers to download it and to link to it wherever possible.

I will just reprint its discussion about the important and still controlling SCOTUS case – Minor vs. Happersett:

  • In 1797 (a decade after the Constitution was adopted), the English translation of Emmerich de Vattel’s, Law of Nations was revised to include the term “natural born citizen”. The revised English translation helps to clarify the meaning of “natural born citizen”, as English-speaking people generally understood it towards the end of the 18th Century:

    The natives, or natural born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. … I say, that, in order to be of the country, it is necessary that a person be born of a father who is a citizen; for, if he is born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country. (Vattel, Law of Nations, Book 1, Chapter 19)

  • In 1874, in the Minor v. Happersett case, the Supreme Court affirmed the definition of natural born citizen which had appeared in the 1797 English translation of Vattel’s Law of Nations:

    …it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. (Minor v. Happersett, 1874)

  • In Minor v. Happersett, the Supreme Court expressed “doubts” regarding the citizenship of U.S.-born children whose parents were not U.S. citizens. In Wong Kim Ark, 1898, the Supreme Court examined these “doubts”, but did not render any decision or ruling pertaining to natural born citizenship. The Court ruled that Mr. Ark was a citizen; it did not rule that he was a natural born citizen. To date, the Supreme Court has never answered the question as to whether natural born citizenship extends to children of non-citizen parents.

It is those same doubts discussed so openly in the Minor case that need to be discussed in open court today.  If SCOTUS expressed such doubts then, then our current SCOTUS ought to enlighten us now.  As I’ve stated over and again, this is a legal question already considered by our highest court in 1874 – a full six years after the 14th Amendment was adopted.  This is an important time reference which should be wielded at all who state the 14th Amendment is controlling as to nbc status.  It is not.  SCOTUS expressed their doubts clearly six years later in the Minor case which has never been over-ruled.

The issue is not a conspiracy theory, it is a legal question, a legal question that SCOTUS precedent admits to not having cleared up yet.  It is not settled law and until it is our country and the Presidency are not legitimate.


Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: