Testifying to the Truth

Statements verified by public documents

Eligibility

Statement:

After researching this issue since the summer of 2008, the author has the following question:

When and where in our nation’s history is it documented that the definition of “natural born citizen” changed from what our founders knew when they wrote it into Article II, Section I of the Constitution of the United States as a requirement of eligibility for the office of President and the states then ratified it?

The following indicates that the definition has not changed, and in fact is understood as the same by current day legislators.

Artifacts/Facts:

 Article II, Section I, Clause V of the Constitution of the United States provides three requirements of eligibility for any person that would hold the office of President of The United States as follows:

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; neither shall any person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.”

The question of Barack Hussein Obama’s eligibility has been in public discourse since the campaign for President of Hillary Clinton raised the issue in 2008.  The vast majority of rhetoric and reporting in the media has either implied, or stated directly, that the Article II requirement required that a person must be a citizen, or born within the United States, to hold the office of President of The United States.

 Publicly available documents in The Library of Congress, US Supreme Court rulings, and from the Congressional record illustrate that our nation’s founders understood, and intended, the distinction between “citizen” and “natural born citizen.”  Congressional records show that current day members of Congress understand the distinction between “citizen” and “natural born citizen.”

Library of Congress

The original draft of Article II, Section I of the Constitution of The United States was written to require that a candidate for the office of President be a citizen.

Records of the Federal Convention

[Farrand’s Records, Volume 2, Page 116-117; 26, July 1787]

Resolved That it be an instruction to the Committee to whom were referred the proceedings of the Convention for the establishment of a national government, to receive a clause or clauses, requiring certain qualifications of landed property and citizenship in the United States for the Executive, the Judiciary, and the Members of both branches of the Legislature of the United States;

[Farrand’s Records, Volume 2, Page 367; 22 August, 1787]

at the end of the 1st section 10 article add

“he shall be of the age of thirty five years, and a Citizen of the United States, and shall have been an Inhabitant thereof for Twenty one years”

[Farrand’s Records, Volume 2, Page 494; 4 September, 1787]

Sect. 2. No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the U. S. at the time of the adoption of this Constitution shall be eligible to the office of President: nor shall any Person be elected to that office, who shall be under the age of 35 years, and who has not been in the whole, at least 14 years a resident within the U. S.

[Farrand’s Records, Volume 2, Page 598, Committee of Style]

Sect. 2. No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the U. S. at the time of the adoption of this Constitution shall be eligible to the office of President: nor shall any Person be elected to that office, who shall be under the age of 35 years, and who has not been in the whole, at least 14 years a resident within the U. S.

John Jay, who became the first Chief Justice of the US Supreme Court, wrote a letter dated July 25, 1787 to George Washington, who was a delegate to the Constitutional Convention.  The letter is housed in archives of The Library of Congress.  Jay wrote to Washington:

 “Permit me to hint, whether it would not be wise & seasonable to provide a strong check to the admission of Foreigners into the administration of our national Government, and to declare expressly that the Commander in chief of the American army shall not be given to, nor devolved on, any but a natural born Citizen.”

 Washington proposed the change in wording of the requirement from “citizen” to “natural born citizen.”  The proposal was accepted, and the wording of Article II, Section I remains the same today as first ratified by the states.

 The term “natural born citizen” was adopted from The Law of Nations by Emmerich de Vattel (Book 1, Chapter 19, Section 212) which states:

“The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and submit to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages.  The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens.  As the society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights.  The society is supposed to desire this, in consequence of what it owes to its preservation; and it is presumed, as a matter of course, that each citizen on entering into society, reserves to his children the right of becoming members of it.  The country of the fathers is therefore that of the children; and these become true citizens merely by their tacit consent.  We shall soon see whether, on their coming to the years of discretion, they may renounce their right, and what they own to the society in which they were born, 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.”

US Supreme Court

While de Vattel’s writings do not provide legal precedence, rulings of the US Supreme Court do.  The US Supreme Court referred to de Vattel’s The Law of Nations several times from the inception of the court through 1875, confirming the relevance of that work to the definitions and distinctions between forms of citizenship.

 In Minor v Happersett, the US Supreme Court defines the term “natural born citizen:”

 “At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, 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.”

 Natural born citizenship is a compound requirement in that it requires birth within the country and to parents who were both citizens at the time of the birth.

Congressional record

John Bingham, aka “father of the 14th Amendment”, was a congressman from Ohio who prosecuted Lincoln’s assassins.  Ten years earlier, he stated on the House floor:

 “All from other lands, who by the terms of [congressional] laws and a compliance with their provisions become naturalized, are adopted citizens of the United States; all other persons born within the Republic, of parents owing allegiance to no other sovereignty, are natural born citizens. Gentleman can find no exception to this statement touching natural-born citizens except what is said in the Constitution relating to Indians.(Cong. Globe, 37th, 2nd Sess., 1639 (1862))

 Then in 1866, Bingham also stated on the House floor:

 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.(Cong. Globe, 39th, 1st Sess., 1291 (1866))

 No other Representative ever took issue with these words on the floor of the House.  If you read the Congressional Globe to study these debates, you will see that many of the underlying issues were hotly contested.  However, Bingham’s definition of “natural born citizen” (born of citizen parents in the US) was never challenged on the floor of the House.

 Current day legislators also recognize the distinction between “citizen” and “natural born citizen” as evidenced by the attempts to modify, or remove, the natural born citizen requirement of Article II.

The effort to remove the natural-born citizen requirement from the U.S. Constitution actually began in 1975 – when Democrat House Rep. Jonathon B. Bingham, [NY-22] introduced a constitutional amendment under H.J.R. 33 which called for the outright removal of the natural-born requirement for President found in Article II of the U.S. Constitution – “Provides that a citizen of the United States otherwise eligible to hold the Office of President shall not be ineligible because such citizen is not a natural born citizen.”

Bingham’s first attempt failed and he resurrected H.J.R. 33 in 1977 under H.J.R. 38, again failing to gain support from members of congress.

Bingham’s work lay dormant for twenty-six years when it was resurrected again in 2003 as members of Congress made no less than eight attempts in twenty-two months, to either eliminate the natural-born requirement, or redefine natural born citizenship.

1. On June 11, 2003 Democrat House member Vic Snyder [AR-2] introduced H.J.R 59 in the 108th Congress – “Constitutional Amendment – Makes a person who has been a citizen of the United States for at least 35 years and who has been a resident within the United States for at least 14 years eligible to hold the office of President or Vice President.” – Co-Sponsors: Rep Conyers, John, Jr. [MI-14]; Rep Delahunt, William D. [MA-10]; Rep Frank, Barney [MA-4]; Rep Issa, Darrell E. [CA-49]; Rep LaHood, Ray [IL-18]; Rep Shays, Christopher [CT-4].

2. On September 3, 2003, Rep. John Conyers [MI] introduced H.J.R. 67“Constitutional Amendment – Makes a person who has been a citizen of the United States for at least 20 years eligible to hold the office of President.” – Co-Sponsor Rep Sherman, Brad [CA-27]

3. On February 25, 2004, Republican Senator Don Nickles [OK] attempted to counter the growing Democrat onslaught aimed at removing the natural-born citizen requirement for president in S.2128“Natural Born Citizen Act - Defines the constitutional term “natural born citizen,” to establish eligibility for the Office of President” – also getting the definition of natural born citizen wrong. – Co-sponsors Sen Inhofe, James M. [OK]; Sen Landrieu, Mary L. [LA]

4. On September 15, 2004 Rep Dana Rohrabacher [CA-46] introduced H.J.R. 104“Constitutional Amendment – Makes eligible for the Office of the President non-native born persons who have held U.S. citizenship for at least 20 years and who are otherwise eligible to hold such Office.” – No co-sponsors.

5. Again on January 4, 2005, Rep John Conyers [MI] introduced H.J.R. 2 to the 109th Congress – “Constitutional Amendment – Makes a person who has been a citizen of the United States for at least 20 years eligible to hold the Office of President.” – Co-Sponsor Rep Sherman, Brad [CA-27]

6. Rep Dana Rohrabacher [CA-46] tries again on February 1, 2005 in H.J.R. 15“Constitutional Amendment – Makes eligible for the Office of the President non-native born persons who have held U.S. citizenship for at least 20 years and who are otherwise eligible to hold such Office.” – No Co-Sponsor

7. On April 14, 2005, Rep Vic Snyder [AR-2] tries yet again with H.J.R. 42“Constitutional Amendment – Makes a person who has been a citizen of the United States for at least 35 years and who has been a resident within the United States for at least 14 years eligible to hold the office of President or Vice President.” – Co-Sponsor Rep Shays, Christopher [CT-4]

8. All of these efforts failing in committee and the 2008 presidential election looming with an unconstitutional candidate leading the DNC ticket, Democrat Senator Claire McCaskill, [MO] tries to attach the alteration to a military bill in S.2678 on February 28, 2008 – “Children of Military Families Natural Born Citizen Act – Declares that the term “natural born Citizen” in article II, section 1, clause 5 of the Constitution, dealing with the criteria for election to President of the United States, includes any person born to any U.S. citizen while serving in the active or reserve components of the U.S. armed forces.” – Co-Sponsors DNC Presidential candidate Sen Clinton, Hillary Rodham [NY]; DNC Presidential candidate Sen Obama, Barack [IL]; Sen Menendez, Robert [NJ]; Sen Coburn, Tom [OK].

Senate Resolution 511, agreed to April 30, 2008 was submitted by Claire McCaskill and co-sponsored by the following Senators:

  • Patrick Leahy (VT)
  • Barack Obama (IL)
  • Tom Coburn (OK)
  • Hillary Clinton (NY)
  • Jim Webb (VA)

 In referring to Section II, Article I of The Constitution the sponsors of the resolution affirmed that John McCain was a natural born citizen and therefore eligible for the office of President.  The resolution states:

 Whereas John Sidney McCain, III, was born to American citizens on an American military base in the Panama Canal Zone in 1936: Now, therefore, be it

 Resolved, That John Sidney McCain, III, is a `natural born Citizen’ under Article II, Section 1, of the Constitution of the United States.

 The resolution acknowledged the definition of natural born citizens as requiring being born to American citizens.  “Citizens” is plural – meaning both parents.  Reference to the resolution was raised by Senator Patrick Leahy on April 2, 2008 in a Senate Judiciary Committee oversight hearing on Homeland Security when Senator Leahy asked Michael Chertoff, who was head of Homeland Security at that time, what defined a natural born citizen.  You can view a video of the exchange on C-Span at about the 38 minute mark.

 By co-sponsoring the resolution, Barack Obama affirmed that the status of natural born citizen requires both parents be citizens at time of the birth.

State Department

Barack Hussein Obama has stated numerous times verbally, and in writing, that his father was a Kenyan citizen.  US State Department records show that Barack Obama, Sr. was deported back to his homeland in 1964 after he over-stayed his student visa.

Pattern of fraud

Barack Obama and his representatives have claimed that he is eligible to hold the office of President based on his claim that he was born in the state of Hawaii and presented first a document he claimed was his short-form birth certificate and then a document he claimed was his long form certified birth certificate.  As demonstrated by documents cited above the Constitution requires natural born citizenship, not simply citizenship.

The Maricopa County Sheriffs Office (MCSO) conducted a six month investigation that concluded there was probable cause that the document Barack Obama claimed as his long form birth certificate is fraudulent.  After additional months of investigation, The MCSO found the document to definitely be fraudulent.

The MCSO also investigated the Selective Service card Barack Obama had presented as his, and found it to be fraudulent.

A Private Investigator in Ohio has accumulated documentation that indicates Barrack Obama has been using a Social Security Number since the 1980’s that was not issued to him.

CONCLUSION

  1. Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution of The United States remains the same today as it was initially ratified by the states.  It requires that a person be a natural born citizen of the United States to hold the office of President of The United States.
  2. The idea that “citizen” and “natural born Citizen” are equivalent in status completely ignores the fact that the Constitution itself distinguishes between these two citizenship classes in the same paragraph of Article II Section 1 that establishes Presidential eligibility qualifications.
  3. The assertion that mere place of birth or length of residency establishes natural born Citizen status flies in the face of repeated attempts over decades by numerous members of Congress – all failed – to modify the definition of “natural-born Citizen” to that very effect, or to abolish the requirement entirely.
  4. The US Supreme Court has defined natural born citizen in Minor v Happersett as a person born in the country to parents who were both citizens at the time of the birth.
  5. Barack Hussein Obama’s father was not a US citizen.  Therefore, Barack Hussein Obama is not a natural born citizen of the United States and he is therefore Constitutionally ineligible to hold the office of President of The United States.

And yet . . .

Barrack Obama and his supporters claim that his being born within the United States satisfies the natural born citizen eligibility requirement in Article II.  In 2011, Obama announced that an image of his long-form birth certificate was posted at http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/rss_viewer/birth-certificate-long-form.pdf.  The document was determined to be fraudulent (see MCSO investigation links above).  Even without the digital document experts conclusions, the document itself presents data that make it suspect for fraud.

In box 6c the image claims Obama was born in Kapiolani Maternity & Gynecological Hospital.  The entity by that name did not exist until 1978 through a merger of two medical facilities – the Kapi‘olani Maternity Home and the Kauikeolani Children’s Hospital.  Yet, there is no Kapiolani Materiny & Gynecological Hospital in Hawaii’s state Business Registration system.

In box 11 the image claims Obama’s father’s birth place to be “Kenya, East Africa.”  In 1961 the official name was “British Protectorate of East Africa.”  Independence from Britain was proclaimed in December, 1963.  Kenya became a republic in Decemeber, 1964.

After the 2008 Democratic National Convention, the party issued two Certificate of Nomination.  One went to 49 states, and the second went to the state of Hawaii.  Hawaii has a constitutional requirement that a candidate for President of The United States must meet the US Constitution requirements of Article II, Section I.

The body of both certificates were exactly the same, except for the last sentence added for the certificate to Hawaii, including a typographical error in the phrase “August 25 though August 28.”  The typo of “though” is apparently meant to be the word “through.”

Notice that the certificate that went to 49 states has a date/time stamp.  This is required as the official mark that campaigning can begin in the state that receives it.  Also notice that the certificate that went to the state of Hawaii does not have a date/time stamp.

Spoilation

Statement:

Spoliation: the intentional destruction of a document or an alteration of it that destroys its value as evidence.  wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn

Artifacts/Facts:

On February 2, 2012, an objection to candidacy came before  the Illinois Board of Elections.  The board decision dismissed the objection, in favor of the respondent, and hid the evidence presented by the objector.

The candidate is Barack Obama.  The Illinois State Board of Elections (SBOE) accepted a copy of the birth certificate that Mr. Obama  presented to the American people in early 2011 as proof that he is eligible for the office of President of the United States.

The SBOE stated in their decision that the objector’s interpretation, which was based on a US Supreme Court ruling in Minor v Happersett, that natural born required parents who were citizens was incorrect.

The SBOE stated that the document candidate Obama presented as his birth certificate established his eligibility as a “natural born citizen.”

The definition of natural born citizen, as stated in its original source (The Law of Nations, Book 1, Chapter 19, Section 212),and in Minor v. Happersett,  is a person born in the country to parents who are citizens.  Barack Obama’s father was not a US citizen.

On March 1, 2012 the Maricopa County Arizona Cold Case Posse presented a report of their six month investigation that stated there is probable cause that the document claimed to be Barack Obama’s birth certificate is a forgery, and that the Selective Service Card claimed to be Mr. Obama’s is also an obvious forgery.

Constitutional crisis

Statement:

“The only people who don’t want to disclose the truth are people with something to hide.” – Barack Obama 8/20/2010

Artifacts/Facts:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yGfEzLlcO_s

Barack Obama’s presidential campaign organization initially submitted a document in 2008  as his Certificate of Live Birth to be proof he met the constitutional requirement of natural born citizen to hold office of President of the United States.  That document has shown to be a forgery.

A document was submitted in 2011 by the White House claiming it to be Mr. Obama’s long form birth certificate.  A law enforcement agency released a report on March 1, 2012 that there is probable cause that the document is a forgery.  Preliminary report found here.

Proving birth in the United States is not proof that a person is a natural born citizen.  The US Supreme Court has differentiated between citizenship and natural born citizenship.  Natural born citizenship requires being born in the country to parents who themselves were citizens (Minor v Happersett).

Barrack Obama affirmed the correct definition of natural born citizenship when he co-sponsored Senate Resolution 511, agreed to by the US Senate on April 30, 2008.  The resolutoin was referred to during sworn testimony before the  Senate Judiciary Committee on April 2, 2008.  Michael Chertoff, then Secretary of Homeland Security, described natural born citizenship.  Patrick Leahy stated his agreement.

Law of the land

Statement:

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

Artifacts/Facts:

 This statement is the preamble to the Constitution of the United States.  This document is the core for all laws in the nation. 

The Constitution of the United States is an agreement between its citizens that establishes the branches of government, their duties, and restrictions.

Since its initial ratification by the states, there have been twenty-seven amendments to the Constitution.

Requirements

Statement:

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; neither shall any person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.

Artifacts/Facts:

Article 2, Section 1, Clause 5 of the Constitution of the United States.

There are three requirements of eligibility for the office of President of the United States.  The same three requirements must be met for someone to hold the office of Vice President.

The term “natural born citizen” isn’t defined in the Constitution.  The framers/founders adopted the term from The Law of Nations by Emmerich de Vattel; Book 1, Chapter 19, Section 212 Citizens and natives.

The term “natural born citizen” was defined by the US Supreme Court ruling in Minor v. Happersett (1875) as follows:

At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, 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.

 Dr. Herb Titus discusses “natural born citizenship” in a two-part video and how it relates to Article II Section I of the US Constitution.

Declaring right to be free

Statement: 

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, . . .

Artifacts/Facts:

This statement is the beginning of the second paragraph of the Declaration of Indenpendence, written in congress July 4, 1776.

Original intent

Statement:

In the name of God, Amen. We, whose names are underwritten, the loyal subjects of our dread Sovereign Lord King James, by the Grace of God, of Great Britain, France, and Ireland, King, defender of the Faith, etc.

Having undertaken, for the Glory of God, and advancements of the Christian faith and honor of our King and Country, a voyage to plant the first colony in the Northern parts of Virginia, do by these presents, solemnly and mutually, in the presence of God, and one another, covenant and combine ourselves together into a civil body politic; for our better ordering, and preservation and furtherance of the ends aforesaid; and by virtue hereof to enact, constitute, and frame, such just and equal laws, ordinances, acts, constitutions, and offices, from time to time, as shall be thought most meet and convenient for the general good of the colony; unto which we promise all due submission and obedience.

In witness whereof we have hereunto subscribed our names at Cape Cod the 11th of November, in the year of the reign of our Sovereign Lord King James, of England, France, and Ireland, the eighteenth, and of Scotland the fifty-fourth, 1620

Artifacts/Facts:

The above is the full text of the Mayflower Compact.  The Pilgrims intent in settling the land that became the United States was to found a community for the glory of God.

Post Navigation

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.