Constitution, Natural born citizen, Certification of Live Birth
Obama's ineligibility for dummies
<http://www.facebook.com/sharer.php?u=http%3A%2F%2Fcanadafreepress.com%2Find
ex.php%2Fprint-friendly%2F35012&t=Obama%E2%80%99s%20ineligibility%20for%20du
mmies&src=sp> Share |
<http://www.addthis.com/bookmark.php?v=250&username=xa-4d529beb02c4728d>
Bookmark and Share | (25)
<http://www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/site/comments/obamas-ineligibility
-for-dummies/> Comments |
<http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/CFP-subscriptions/> Subscribe |
<http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/35012> Back to full Article |
<mailto:[email protected]?subject=Dear%20Canada%20Free%20Press>
Contact Us
By Lawrence Sellin Thursday, March 31, 2011
imageOn August 28, 2008, Representative Nancy Pelosi, then Chair of the
Democratic National Convention signed an official Certification of
Nomination verifying that Barack Obama was legally qualified to serve as
President of <http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/print-friendly/35012>
the United States under the provisions of the United States Constitution.
I would like to know what Constitutional criteria were used by Rep. Pelosi
to make that determination and what evidence she provided to support her
contention.
The issue of Barack Obama's eligibility must be resolved now before the 2012
election. It is incumbent on those, who authorize his place on the ballot to
cite the legal bases for making such a claim.
Let me begin by asserting that the Certification of Live Birth, which
mysteriously appeared without verification by the State of Hawaii and may be
a forgery, or newspaper clippings, are not adequate proof of eligibility.
Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution 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; 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."
Traditionally, "natural born" refers to ancestry describing a child born in
the <http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/print-friendly/35012>
UnitedStatesuch as US military bases), whose parents are US citizens at the
time of birth.
I hasten to add, however, that nowhere in the Constitution or in its
Amendments is the term "natural born" defined.
Nevertheless, there is a legal paper trail supporting that description. Much
of what I write below is taken from a
<http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/2011/03/09/the-house-of-representat
ives-definition-of-natural-born-citizen-born-of-citizen-parents-in-the-us/>
superb report by Leo Donofrio found here (
<http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/2011/03/29/justice-hugo-black-in-du
ncan-v-louisiana-indicates-obama-would-not-be-eligible-ineligibility-echoed-
by-former-attorney-general-jeremiah-black/> link).
The definition of "natural born" originates from John Armor Bingham, a
Republican congressman and abolitionist from Ohio and principal framer of
the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution.
In 1862 and 1866, respectively, Bingham stated on the floor of the House of
Representative:
"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."
"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."
No Representative took issue with these words. The underlying issues within
those Congressional debates were hotly contested. Yet Bingham's definition
of "natural born citizen" (born in the US of citizen parents) was never
challenged on the floor of the House.
In the concurring opinion in Duncan v. Louisiana, 391 U.S. 145 (1968),
United States Supreme Court Associate Justice Hugo Black, emphasized his
reliance on the statements made by Representative Bingham and Senator Howard
in Congress which pertain to the drafting and adoption of the Fourteenth
Amendment. Justice Black stated that "it is far wiser to rely on" the words
of Bingham and Howard when analyzing the 14th Amendment. The relevant
passage is as follows:
"Professor Fairman's "history" relies very heavily on what was not said in
the state legislatures that passed on the Fourteenth Amendment. Instead of
relying on this kind of negative pregnant, my legislative experience has
convinced me that it is far wiser to rely on what was said, and, most
importantly, said by the men who actually sponsored the Amendment in the
Congress. I know from my years in the United States Senate that it is to men
like Congressman Bingham, who steered the Amendment through the House, and
Senator Howard, who introduced it in the Senate, that members of Congress
look when they seek the real meaning of what is being offered. And they vote
for or against a bill based on what the sponsors of that bill and those who
oppose it tell them it means."
As best as I can ascertain from the Constitution and its history, Barack
Obama is not eligible to be President of the United States.
That is my argument, Rep. Pelosi. Please tell us yours?
Author
Lawrence Sellin
<http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/members/35012/Lawrence%20Sellin/> Bio
Lawrence Sellin
<http://www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/members/35012/Lawrence%20Sellin/>
Most recent columns
Lawrence Sellin, Ph.D. is a recently retired colonel with 29 years of
service in the US Army Reserve. He is a veteran of Afghanistan and Iraq.
Lawrence Sellin, Ph.D. receives hate mail at
<mailto:[email protected][email protected]>
[email protected]
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
------------------------------------
--------------------------
Want to discuss this topic? Head on over to our discussion list,
[email protected].
--------------------------
Brooks Isoldi, editor
[email protected]
http://www.intellnet.org
Post message: [email protected]
Subscribe: [email protected]
Unsubscribe: [email protected]
*** FAIR USE NOTICE. This message contains copyrighted material whose use has
not been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. OSINT, as a part of
The Intelligence Network, is making it available without profit to OSINT
YahooGroups members who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the
included information in their efforts to advance the understanding of
intelligence and law enforcement organizations, their activities, methods,
techniques, human rights, civil liberties, social justice and other
intelligence related issues, for non-profit research and educational purposes
only. We believe that this constitutes a 'fair use' of the copyrighted material
as provided for in section 107 of the U.S. Copyright Law. If you wish to use
this copyrighted material for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use,'
you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.
For more information go to:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtmlYahoo! Groups Links
<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/osint/
<*> Your email settings:
Individual Email | Traditional
<*> To change settings online go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/osint/join
(Yahoo! ID required)
<*> To change settings via email:
[email protected]
[email protected]
<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[email protected]
<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
