THE OBAMA FILE PART1

Submitted by:LadyByrd
http://www.theobamafile.com/_borders/00--Banner.jpg

Is Barack Obama Eligible To Be President Of The United States Of America?

The question that the courts or Congress must decide is whether a British subject and citizen of Kenya, a person governed by the laws of Great Britain at the time of their birth should be considered a natural "born citizen" of the United States as required by Article 2 Section 1 Clause 5 of the United States Constitution.    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 Chart

People are confused because they don't understand the meaning of the relevant legal terms.  This chart shows the elements for each of the constitutional terms that are used in the Constitution or in case law by the Supreme Court. For each presidential candidate, they can put the factual history of their birth in the equation and see if they fit the bill to be president of the U.S. under the Constitution of the United States of America, Article II, Section 1, Clause 5, and the 14th Amendment, Section 1, and the relevant federal law under Minor v. Happersett, (1874), U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898), and Perkins v. Elg, 307 U.S. 325 (1939). The relevant portions of these cases and precedents are described below in their historical context..  As you can clearly see in the matrix, Obama is a citizen of the United States, but he's not a "natural born citizen" of the United States, and, as such, is not eligible for POTUS, because his father, a Kenyan, was not a U. S. citizen. * Note:  U. S. mainland includes Alaska and Hawaii.  It does not include territories, commonwealths and possessions. Click here for a comprehensive etymological deconstruction of the term "natural born Citizen," by John Greschak.

Blood And Place Of Birth

The graphic above demonstrates the distinction between Ronald Reagan, a "natural born" citizen and Barack Obama, a "native-born" citizen." Ronald Reagan had no choice about his citizenship.  By blood and by place of birth, he was a "natural born" American citizen.  No law bestowed his citizenship upon him.  His father was an American.  His mother was an American.  He was born in America.  He was a "natural born" American. As a "dual citizen," Barack Obama had choices about his citizenship.  His father was a Kenyan.  His mother was an American.  He was born in America.  He was a "native born," 14th Amendment American citizen.  He was also a citizen of Kenya and a British subject -- he had choices about being a Brit, an American, a Kenyan or combination.  According to the U. S. State department, dual nationals owe allegiance to both the United States and the foreign country. The child in the left graphic is a "natural born" citizen because he or she was born in the United States of America (jus soli) and both parents are citizens (jus sanguinis).  The child meets both tests. The child in the right graphic is a "native-born" citizen because he or she was born in the United States of America and both parents are not citizens.  The child meets only one test (jus soli).

Four Cases

Persons, eligible for the presidency, have no first generation ties to a foreign nation, whereas ineligible persons always do. ALL statutory citizens are born with a tie to another nation by birthplace and/or blood, but NEVER is that the case with any natural born citizens who are only American. A statutory citizen (bestowed by man's pen) can never be a "natural born" citizen (bestowed by God/nature). Click the title link to see four prominent examples that clearly demonstrate the distinctions.

Obama Has Always Claimed "Native Born" Status

Obama...

...is not a "natural born" citizen because his father was a Kenyan national and a British subject, as was Obama, "at birth."  The Obama Campaign describes Barack Obama Sr. as, "a British subject whose citizenship status was governed by The British Nationality Act of 1948.  That same act governed the status of Obama Sr.‘s children." ...is a "native-born," 14th Amendment citizen because his mother was an American and he was born in Hawaii -- assuming he was born in Hawaii .  The Obama Campaign describes Barack Obama as a "native-born citizen" on it's website. ...is a "citizen" because his mother was an American and he was born in Hawaii -- assuming he was born in Hawaii.  If Obama was not born in Hawaii, all bets are off. See:  Right there on Obama's own website, where it says, "The Truth About Barack's Birth Certificate" -- "The truth is, Barack Obama was born in the state of Hawaii in 1961, a "native citizen of the United States of America." If you cursor down the page, Obama's dual citizenship status is described:       "When Barack Obama Jr. was born on Aug. 4,1961, in Honolulu, Kenya was a British colony, still part of the United Kingdom’s dwindling empire.  As a Kenyan native, Barack Obama Sr. was a British subject whose citizenship status was governed by The British Nationality Act of 1948.  That same act governed the status of Obama Sr.‘s children.

John Jay -- The First Chief Justice Of The U.S. Supreme Court

The term natural born citizen was first codified in writing in colonial reference books in 1758 in the legal reference book "Law of Nations." That legal reference book was used by John Jay, who later went on to become the first Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court.  Jay had the clause inserted into the Constitution via a letter he wrote to George Washington, the leader of the Constitutional Convention.  Jay was considered the outstanding legal scholar of his time and he was the one is responsible for inserting that term into the U. S. Constitution, which was derived from the Law of Nations. John Jay wrote: "Permit me to hint, whether it would be wise and reasonable 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 devolve on, any but a natural born Citizen."

Law Of Nations

Emmerich de Vattel was a Swiss jurist who attained world preeminence in international law.  This was primarily the result of his great foundational work, which he published in 1758.  His monumental work -- The Law of Nations --  applied a theory of natural law to international relations.  His scholarly, foundational, and systematic explanation of the Law of Nations was especially influential in the United States.  The Law of Nations was so influential in the United States because his principles of liberty and equality coincided with the ideals expressed in the U. S. Declaration of Independence.  In particular, his definitions in terms of Law governing nations regarding citizenship, defense of neutrality, and his rules for commerce between neutral and belligerent states were considered authoritative in the United States.  Many have said that de Vattel's Law of Nations was THE primary reference and defining book used by the framers of the U. S. Constitution.  It is really not possible to overstate the influence of de Vattel's Law of Nations as the primary reference book in the drafting of the U. S. Constitution.  Emmerich de Vattel's Law of Nations is almost beyond comparison in its value as a defining document regarding U. S. Constitution intent and interpretation.  The Law of Nations, or the Principles of Natural Law, published in 1758, is the first, and ONLY, definitive work the Framers of the U. S. Constitution used for the inclusion of the "Natural Born Citizen" phrase.  It nails what is meant by the "natural born citizen" phrase of Section 1, Article 2, of the U. S. Constitution.  It is amazing how perfectly, precisely, and explicitly what Emmerich de Vattel, wrote in paragraph 212, of book 1, chapter 19, of The Law of Nations entitled CITIZENS AND NATIONS, applies to the Obama FRAUD.  Quite clearly and explicitly it defines why Obama, can NOT possibly be qualified to be the President of the United States.  Obama MUST be disqualified from the office of President of the United States according to the U. S. Constitution Section 1 Article 2. "The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens.  As the society can not 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 own 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."

The U. S. Constitution And The Law Of Nations

The defenders of Obama and his questionable eligibility routinely reject the influence of Emmerich de Vattel's Law of Nations on United States law.  However, the Law of Nations is an integral part of and referenced by the U. S. Constitution and court findings. Article I, Section 8 of the United States Constitution states, in part: "The Congress shall have Power...To define and punish ... Offenses against the Law of Nations;..." Other references in the law: "The law of nations forms an integral part of the common law, and a review of the history surrounding the adoption of the Constitution demonstrates that it became a part of the common law of the United States upon the adoption of the Constitution." -- Filartiga v. Pena-Irala, 630 F. 2d 876 -- Court of Appeals, 2nd Circuit 1980

"When the United States declared their independence, they were bound to receive the law of nations, in its modern state of purity and refinement." -- Ware v. Hylton, 3 Dall. 199, 281 (1796) (Wilson, J.) Dickenson, "The Law of Nations as Part of the National Law of the United States..." -- 101 U.Pa.L.Rev. 26, 27 (1952) "The plainest evidence that international law has an existence in the federal courts independent of acts of Congress is the long-standing rule of construction first enunciated by Chief Justice Marshall: "an act of congress ought never to be construed to violate the law of nations, if any other possible construction remains ...." -- The Charming Betsy, 6 U.S. (2 Cranch), 34, 67, 2 L.Ed. 208 (1804), quoted in Lauritzen v. Larsen, 345 U.S. 571, 578, 73 S.Ct. 921, 926, 97 L.Ed. 1254 (1953) “For two centuries we have affirmed that the domestic law of the United States recognizes the law of nations" -- Sosa v. Alvarez-Machain, 542 US 692 -- Supreme Court 2004 Chief Justice Rehnquist delivered the opinion of the Court, "The law of nations, as understood by Justice Story in 1824, has not changed" -- United States v. Alvarez-Machain, 504 US 655 -- Supreme Court 1992 But Obama's acolytes will argue none of this matters all day long -- insisting that all one needs to be eligible is to be born in the USA.

It's About Loyalty

The Founders wanted the President to be a Natural Born Citizen to ensure that the ONE person sitting at the top of the Executive branch had UNQUESTIONABLE, UNWAVERING loyalty to the United States, first and foremost.  At one point, the delegates writing the Constitution in 1787 considered THREE "presidents" in the Executive for "checks and balances."  They considered a "natural born citizen" clause for Senators as well.  Debating those issues, they felt that a "natural born citizen" clause for Senators would limit the pool of possible candidates and could cause bad feelings with immigrants needed to "jump start" the newly-formed republic. In the end, the Framers compromised that Senators be required to be US residents for 9 years, while striking the "natural born citizen" clause for the office.  The Framers also compromised on ONE Executive vs. THREE.  But to ensure "checks and balances," the Framers inserted in Art II, Sect. 1, Clause 5: "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..." The natural born citizen clause was NOT an accident, nor was it an inane rule to be restrictive to immigrants, and it certainly isn't just a "political" issue.  Loyalty to the US is the reason the natural born citizen clause was inserted into the Constitution.

Natural Born Citizen Was Defined In 1789

Attorney, Mario Apuzzo, contends that in defining an Article II "natural born Citizen," it is important to find any authority from the Founding period who may inform us how the Founders and Framers themselves defined the clause.  Who else but a highly respected historian from the Founding period itself would be highly persuasive in telling us how the Founders and Framers defined a "natural born Citizen."  Such an important person is David Ramsay, who in 1789 wrote, "A Dissertation on the Manners of Acquiring the Character and Privileges of a Citizen (1789)," a very important and influential essay on defining a "natural born Citizen."  David Ramsay (April 2, 1749 to May 8, 1815) was an American physician, patriot, and historian from South Carolina and a delegate from that state to the Continental Congress in 1782-1783 and 1785-1786.  He was the Acting President of the United States in Congress Assembled.  He was one of the American Revolution’s first major historians.  A contemporary of Washington, Ramsay writes with the knowledge and insights one acquires only by being personally involved in the events of the Founding period.  In 1785 he published History of the Revolution of South Carolina (two volumes), in 1789 History of the American Revolution (two volumes), in 1807 a Life of Washington, and in 1809 a History of South Carolina (two volumes).  In 1965 Professor Page Smith of the University of California at Los Angeles published an extensive study of Ramsay's History of the American Revolution in which he stressed the advantage that Ramsay had because of being involved in the events of which he wrote and the wisdom he exercised in taking advantage of this opportunity.  "The generosity of mind and spirit which marks his pages, his critical sense, his balanced judgment and compassion,'' Professor Smith concluded, "are gifts that were uniquely his own and that clearly entitle him to an honorable position in the front rank of American historians."  In his 1789 article, Ramsay first explained who the "original citizens" were and then defined the "natural born citizens" as the children born in the country to citizen parents.  He said concerning the children born after the declaration of independence, "[c]itizenship is the inheritance of the children of those who have taken part in the late revolution; but this is confined exclusively to the children of those who were themselves citizens…."  He added that "citizenship by inheritance belongs to none but the children of those Americans, who, having survived the declaration of independence, acquired that adventitious character in their own right, and transmitted it to their offspring…."  He continued that citizenship "as a natural right, belongs to none but those who have been born of citizens since the 4th of July, 1776…."  Continue reading here . . .

Parents  (pl)

In the official copies of the THIRD U.S. Congress (1795) margin notes state "Former act repealed. 1790. ch. 3." referencing the FIRST U.S. Congress (1790).  Document ONE: the actual text of the THIRD CONGRESS in 1795 states, "...children of citizens [plural, i.e. two parents] of the United States...shall be considered citizens of the United States; Provided That the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons, whose fathers have never been resident in the United States..."  (THIRD CONGRESS Sess. II. Ch.21. 1795, Approved January 29, 1795, pp. 414-415. Document margin note: "How children shall obtain citizenship through their parents" Document margin note: "Former Act repealed 1790 ch.3.")  See Attachment A. Document TWO: the actual text of the FIRST CONGRESS in 1790 states, "...children of citizens (NB: plural, i.e. two parents) of the United States...shall be considered as natural born citizens of the United States; Provided That the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons, whose fathers have never been resident in the United States..." (FIRST CONGRESS Sess. II Ch.4 1790, Approved March 26, 1790, pp. 103-104. Document margin note: "Their children residing here, deemed citizens." Document margin note: "Also, children of citizens born beyond sea, & c. Exceptions.")  See Attachment B. Document THREE: the actual text of the Constitution from the Continental Congress and the Constitutional Convention, 1774-1789, and subsequent official printings, of the Constitution of the United States of American: Article II Section 1 Clause 5 states:      "No person, except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President…"  (See Attachment C)      Source

The Venus, 12 U.S. 8 Cranch 253 253 (1814)

The first was decided in A.D. 1814, at the beginning of the republic, by men who were intimately associated with the American Revolution.  In that year the following men sat on the Supreme Court: Bushrod Washington, (b. June 5, 1762 — d. Nov. 26, 1829), served Feb. 4, 1799 till Nov. 26, 1829. John Marshall (b. Sept. 24, 1755 — d. July 6, 1835), served Feb. 4, 1891 till July 6, 1835. William Johnson (b. Dec. 27, 1771 — d. Aug. 4, 1834), served May 7, 1804, till Aug. 4, 1834. Henry Brockholst Livingston (b. Nov. 25, 1757 — d. Mar. 18, 1823), served Jan. 20, 1807 till March 18, 1823 Thomas Todd (b. Jan. 23, 1765 — d. Feb. 7, 1826), served May 4, 1807 till Feb. 7, 1826. Gabriel Duvall (b. Dec. 6, 1752 — d. Mar. 6, 1844), served Nov. 23, 1811 till Jan. 14, 1835. Joseph Story (b. Sept. 18, 1779 — d. Sept. 10, 1845), served Feb. 3, 1812 till Sep. 10, 1845 Nearly all these men either participated in the American Revolution, or their fathers did.  Joseph Story’s father took part in the original Boston Tea Party.  Thomas Todd served 6 months in the army against the British; and participated in 5 Constitutional Conventions from 1784-1792.  During the Revolutionary War, Henry Brockholst Livingston was a Lieutenant Colonel in the New York Line and an aide-de-camp to General Benedict Arnold, before the latter’s defection to the British. William Johnson’s father, mother, and elder brother were revolutionaries, who served as statesman, rebel, or nurse/assistant to the line troops, respectively.  John Marshall was First Lieutenant of the Culpeper Minutemen of Virginia, and then Lieutenant in the Eleventh Virginian Continental Regiment, and a personal friend of General George Washington; and debated for ratification of the U.S. Constitution by the Virginian General Assembly.  Bushrod Washington was George Washington’s nephew and heir. Being witnesses and heirs of the Revolution, they understood what the Framers of the Constitution had intended. The Venus case regarded the question whether the cargo of a merchantman, named the Venus, belonging to an American citizen, and being shipped from British territory to America during the War of 1812, could be seized and taken as a prize by an American privateer.  But what the case said about citizenship, is what matters here. What the Venus Case says on citizenship: In the Venus Case, Justice Livingston, who wrote the unanimous decision, quoted the entire §212nd paragraph from the French edition, using his own English, on page 12 of the ruling:      Vattel, who, though not very full to this point, is more explicit and more satisfactory on it than any other whose work has fallen into my hands, says: "The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages.  The natives or indigenes are those born in the country of parents who are citizens.   Society not being able to subsist and to perpetuate itself but by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights." "The inhabitants, as distinguished from citizens, are strangers who are permitted to settle and stay in the country.  Bound by their residence to the society, they are subject to the laws of the state while they reside there, and they are obliged to defend it…"

Inglis v. Sailors’ Snug Harbor, 28 U.S. 99, 3 Pet. 99, 7 L.Ed. 617 (1830)

The majority cited Vattel on the right of election to change one’s allegiance and thus citizenship in the context of the new nation being formed after revolution.  The Court found on principles consistent with Vattel’s jus sanguinis and not on the English common law rule of jus soli, that simply being born in New York, after July 4, 1776 and before September 15, 1776, when the British took possession of New York, was not sufficient to establish one’s status as an American citizen, for a child of minor years is incapacitated from making any citizenship election but rather followed the citizenship held or chosen by the father.  On the contrary, relying upon principles of the English common law, Justice Johnson and Justice Story, who wrote separate minority concurring opinions, would have found the child born in New York during the same time period a citizen of the State of New York, regardless of the citizenship of his parents.  Id. 136 and 164.  This case shows what the majority rule was on citizenship and that it followed the Vattelian doctrine that a child when born took on the national character of his or her father (meaning father and mother under the doctrine of merger of the wife’s citizenship into the husband) and did not acquire his or her citizenship from the territory in which he or she was born.

Shanks v. Dupont, 28 U.S. 3 Pet. 242 242 (1830)

16 years later the Supreme Court heard the case regarding the dispute over the inheritance received by two daughters of an American colonist, from South Carolina; one of whom went to England and remained a British subject, the other of whom remained in South Carolina and became an American citizen.  At the beginning of the case, Justice Story, who gave the ruling, does not cite Vattel per se, but cites the principle of citizenship enshrined in his definition of a "natural born citizen":      Ann Scott was born in South Carolina before the American revolution, and her father adhered to the American cause and remained and was at his death a citizen of South Carolina.  There is no dispute that his daughter Ann, at the time of the Revolution and afterwards, remained in South Carolina until December, 1782.  Whether she was of age during this time does not appear.  If she was, then her birth and residence might be deemed to constitute her by election a citizen of South Carolina.  If she was not of age, then she might well be deemed under the circumstances of this case to hold the citizenship of her father, for children born in a country, continuing while under age in the family of the father, partake of his national character as a citizen of that country.  Her citizenship, then, being prima facie established, and indeed this is admitted in the pleadings, has it ever been lost, or was it lost before the death of her father, so that the estate in question was, upon the descent cast, incapable of vesting in her?  Upon the facts stated, it appears to us that it was not lost and that she was capable of taking it at the time of the descent cast.

Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. 393 (1857)

Justice Daniels concurring cites Vattel and The Law of Nations and provides his definition of natural born citizens and takes out of Vattel’s definition the reference to "fathers" and "father" and replaced it with "parents" and "person," respectively, stated: "The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject 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 society cannot perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their parents, and succeed to all their rights."  Again: I say, to be of the country, it is necessary to be born of a person who is a citizen; for if he be born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country. . . ."