By Paul Hollrah, Guest Blogger
Paul R. Hollrah
By far the most frequently asked question in America since August 28, 2008, the closing day of the 2008 Democratic National Convention, is this: “Does Barack Hussein Obama meet the constitutional qualifications to serve as President of the United States?” With every reason to believe that he does not, the second most-asked question has been, “How could every single member of Congress… all 535 of them… fail in their constitutional obligation to properly vet Obama’s qualifications before certifying the vote of the 2008 Electoral College?”
For the past two years Americans have been flooding congressional offices with demands for answers to these questions. And now we know. The answer to the first question is, “No, Obama is not eligible to serve as president because he is not a ‘natural born’ U.S. citizen.” The answer to the second question is, “The Jack Maskell Memorandum.”
But before we approach the question of who Jack Maskell might be, and the role he plays in what history will doubtless record as the greatest single crime of all time, let’s first review the facts surrounding Obama’s eligibility. Article II, Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution states that, “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.”
We know that Obama was not a citizen of the United States at the time the Constitution was adopted, we know that he was at least thirty-five years of age when he took office in January 2009, and we know that he had been a U.S. resident for at least fourteen years at the time he was nominated. But is he a “natural born” citizen? What is a “natural born” citizen, and how do we prevent someone who is not a natural born citizen from becoming president or vice president?
When the Founding Fathers met in Philadelphia in September 1787 to sign the final draft of the U.S. Constitution, the physical scars of the War of Independence from Great Britain were still visible all around them and a deep-seated animosity toward all things British colored every aspect of their daily lives. So is it even conceivable that, just five years and eleven months after Cornwallis surrendered at Yorktown, the Founders would have affixed their signatures to a document that would allow an individual with divided loyalties – e.g., an individual with dual US-British citizenship – to serve as president or vice president of the United States? Not likely.
That is precisely why the Framers found it necessary to include the words, “or a citizen of the United States, at the time of the adoption of this constitution…” At the time the Constitution was adopted, every citizen of the thirteen colonies was a British subject, or a citizen of some other country. And since the founders wished to exclude all those with dual citizenship (divided loyalties) from serving as president or vice president at any time in the future, they provided an exemption of limited duration for those who were officially U.S. residents at the time and who might wish to serve as president or vice president after reaching the age of thirty-five.
For example, George Washington was 57 years of age when he was inaugurated as our first president. But Washington, born and raised in Virginia, had been a British subject during all of his 57-plus years. Hence, as a means of qualifying a class of men for the presidency during the first thirty-five years of our nationhood, while preventing any man with dual or naturalized citizenship from ever serving as president, after a pool of “natural born” men had reached the age of thirty-five… limiting access to those offices only to those born to parents, both of whom were U.S. citizens… the founders included the words, “or a citizen of the United States, at the time of the adoption of this constitution…”
Few Americans, not even our distinguished members of Congress, have ever stopped to consider what those sixteen simple words mean, or, more importantly, who they exclude from presidential consideration. That is why, after sitting silently in their chairs while the names of 365 Obama electors were read from the Speaker’s rostrum, not a single member of Congress rose to object… preferring instead to hide behind the legal skirts of the Congressional Research Service (CRS) and their Legislative Attorney, Jack Maskell.
In the days immediately following Barack Obama’s unlikely election in November 2008, members of Congress began flooding the CRS with questions about Obama’s eligibility. Jack Maskell, a CRS Legislative Attorney drew the “short straw” and was assigned to provide members of Congress with legal cover. Maskell’s recently-discovered memorandum, dated April 3, 2009 and distributed to all members of Congress, contains the following words:
“Many of the inquiries have questioned why then-Senator, and now President, Obama has not had to produce an original, so-called ‘long’ version of a ‘birth certificate’ from the State of Hawaii, how federal candidates are ‘vetted’ for qualifications generally, and have asked for an assessment of the various allegations and claims of non-eligibility status…
“Concerning the production or release of an original birth certificate, it should be noted that there is no federal law, regulation, rule, guideline, or requirement that a candidate for federal office produce his or her original birth certificate, or a certified copy of the record of live birth, to any official of the United States government; nor is there a requirement for federal candidates to publicly release such personal record or documentation. Furthermore, there is no specific federal agency or office that ‘vets’ candidates for federal office as to qualifications or eligibility prior to return.”
Clearly, Mr. Maskell overlooked the words of the 20th Amendment, which reads in part, “If a president shall not have been chosen before the time fixed for the beginning of his term, or if the President elect shall have failed to qualify, then the Vice President elect shall act as President until a President shall have qualified…”
When members of Congress swear that they will “support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic,” and that they will “bear true faith and allegiance to the same… so help me God,” they take upon themselves, by direct implication, the obligation to rule on the qualifications of those who emerge from the Electoral College as President and Vice President-elect… in spite of what Jack Maskell’s opinion might be.
Under the U.S. system for selecting our president and vice president, there are three distinct vetting opportunities. The first occurs when the political parties certify their candidates to the state election boards so that ballots can be printed. And although it is customary for the parties to certify the eligibility of their candidates under Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution, the Democratic Party made that certification in 2008 only to the State of Hawaii, which has a statutory requirement that such certification be made. The remaining 49 states received no such certification in support of the eligibility of Barack Obama and Joe Biden.
The second vetting opportunity occurs when the members of the Electoral College meet on the Monday after the second Wednesday in December. It is the obligation of all members of the Electoral College to cast their votes for individuals who are qualified, under Article II, Section 1. However, in spite of the clear knowledge that Obama had been born in 1961 with dual US-British citizenship, Democratic electors in December 2008 ignored that solemn responsibility.
The third and final vetting opportunity occurs during the first week in January following a presidential election when the Congress meets in joint session to certify the votes of the Electoral College. It is the third and final fail-safe vetting opportunity.
So the question arises, can the Congress simply ignore its obligation to fully vet those selected as president and vice president-elect by the Electoral College? The answer to that question, in spite of Jack Maskell’s advice to Congress, is a resounding “no.” As Edwin Viera, Jr., Ph.D., J.D., a leading authority on the Constitution, argues, “… the question of Obama’s eligibility vel non is not within the discretion of Congress to skirt or decide as its Members may deem politically or personally expedient… Even by unanimous vote, Congress cannot constitutionally dispense with the requirement that Obama must be ‘a natural born citizen,’ by simply assuming that he is such…”
But what if the members of Congress, on the advice of CRS counsel, fail in that responsibility? Dr. Viera argues that, if no objection is made on the basis that Obama is not a “natural born” citizen… “the matter cannot be said to have been settled to a ‘constitutional sufficiency’ (emphasis added),” because Congress has no power to simply waive the eligibility requirement… Maskell memorandum or no Maskell memorandum.
When we consider the difficulties involved in reversing the effects of two years or four years of an illegitimate presidency, it is difficult to imagine any single written document in recorded history that has had, or will have, the devastating effect on freedom and the rule of law that the Jack Maskell Memorandum will ultimately have. When Maskell drafted his memorandum and affixed his signature, it is unlikely that he had any concept of the terrible consequences of his words. If only he had folded it into a paper airplane and tossed it out the window…
To read previous posts by Paul Hollrah, click here.
UPDATE 2/17/11 at 5:26 p.m. Central: World Net Daily is reporting that the U.S. Supreme Court is set to hold a second conference on the matter of Barack Obama’s eligibility to serve as president March 4.
Beginning of history lesson for Paul H:
“Articles of Confederation
“ARTICLE I
“The Stile of this Confederacy shall be “The United States of America”.
“DONE at Philadelphia, in the State of Pennfylvania, the 9th day of July, in the Year of our Lord 1778, and in the third year of the independence of America.
“The aforefaid articles of confederation were finally ratified on the firft day of March 1781; the state of Maryland having, by their Members in Congrefs, on that day acceded thereto, and completed the fame.”
I hope this corrects the misconception that “the day before the Constitution was adopted, none of the residents of the thirteen colonies were U.S. citizens because the country didn’t exist.”
The U.S.A. was real — and it was spectacular!
End of history lesson.
Re: ” Obama NEVER published/supplied anything for anyone to as you REPEATEDLY state in your diatribes. They were posted without legitimate authority.”
Answer: Who says? Obama’s Certification of Live Birth was posted on his campaign web site, and the physical copy of it was given to both FactCheck and Politifact, who also posted copies. The Factcheck copy is a detailed image, showing both the front and back.
Re: “Nothing was confirmed by anyone in a definitive legitimate way. ”
Answer: You are either poorly informed or delusional.
Here is a photocopy of Obama’s official birth certificate. Notice the seal on the back. Yes, it is on Factcheck’s site, but the idea that they could forge such a detailed document and the seal is laughable.
http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/born_in_the_usa.html
Here is confirmation that it is the official and only birth certificate that Hawaii issues
(http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204619004574320190095246658.html)
Here is the first of the two confirmations by the officials in Hawaii.
http://www.kitv.com/r/17860890/detail.html
Notice where it says that there is an original birth certificate filed. Well, in 1961 foreign birth certificates, even those from other states, could not be filed in Hawaii. So the birth certificate in Obama’s files must be a Hawaii birth certificate.
Here is the second of the two confirmations by the officials in Hawaii.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2009-07-27-obama-hawaii_N.htm
Notice where it says that the document in the files VERIFIES that Obama was born in Hawaii. So, not only is there an official Hawaiian birth certificate in the files, but it says right on it that Obama was born in Hawaii. Hawaii has never allowed the Department of Health to issue a birth document of any kind that says on it that anyone was born in Hawaii unless there was proof that the child was born in Hawaii, and that is what the officials in Hawaii have confirmed twice.
And here is the confirmation by the governor of Hawaii, Linda Lingle, a Republican, that says that Obama was born in Hawaii, in Kapiolani Hospital
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/right-now/2010/05/hawaii_gov_lingle_answers_the.html
And here is the statement of a witness who recalls being told of Obama’s birth in Hawaii, in Kapiolani Hospital, in 1961:
http://www.buffalonews.com/incoming/article137495.ece
Re: ” Obummer would show the docs…”
Answer: Obama has shown the official birth certificate of Hawaii, which is the only birth certificate that Hawaii has sent out since 2001. Hawaii no longer sends out copies of the long-form birth certificate, and has not done so since 2001.
Re: “He is a foreigner in birth…”
Answer: Obama was born in Hawaii as his official birth certificate shows, and as the repeated confirmations of the Republican officials and Republican governor verify.
Re: So was “the COLB you claim proves Obummer is legitimate” being allegedly forged.
Answer; Only two guys who would not give their real names have claimed that it was forged. The McCain campaign looked into the allegation of forgery as it looked into the allegation of birth in Kenya, and found them both false.
Re: “You claim states’ rights are absolute! BS! Then why does the fed tell states that their FFA legislation is of no effect and fed gun laws still apply. ”
Answer: The difference is between a presidential executive order and a law. If there is a federal law, in some cases (not all by any means), it has more power than states laws. But a president’s executive order has no power over a state’s law AT ALL.
Re: “SHOW THE LONG FORM YOURSELF OBAMA!’
Answer: He does not have it because Hawaii did not send it to him. Hawaii has not sent out copies of the long-form birth certificate ever since the short-form birth certificate became the official birth certificate in 2001.
Re: ““What does this tell us? It tells us just how concerned the Founders were that a man with divided loyalties, a dual citizen, shouod ever become president.”
Observer has answered this well. In addition, there is reason to believe that the writers of the Constitution did not believe in divided loyalties. They were concerned about barring loyalties to foreign countries and that the president should have loyalty to the USA, but they apparently did not believe in divided loyalties.
They followed Blackstone, who wrote that the idea of a divided allegiance was absurd, that a person could have only one allegiance, and that was to the country that was the place of her or his birth. Madison confirmed this when he wrote that there was only one criterion of allegiance in the USA, the place of birth:
‘It is an established maxim, that birth is a criterion of allegiance. Birth, however, derives its force sometimes from place, and sometimes from parentage; but, in general, place is the most certain criterion; it is what applies in the United States.”
As you can see, parentage and place are criteria of allegiance, but place is the most certain and it is the only criterion that Madison says applies in the USA. This shows that Madison certainly did not think that two criteria had to apply, that a person required both citizen parents and birth in the country, since he says that only one of them apply. Moreover, even dual nationality does not affect the single criterion of allegiance, the place of birth.
In any case, there is no evidence that the writers of the Constitution followed Vattel on the two-parent theory. Vattel was not even mentioned in the Federalist papers. Believing that the writers of the Constitution thought that a Natural Born Citizen requires two citizen parents requires you to believe that they thought that a US-born child of US citizens should have more rights because she or he was more to be trusted than the US-born child of foreigners. The writers of the Constitution never said any such thing.
Re: “To Granite: You have quoted both Orrin Hatch and Lindsey Graham on their definition of a “natural born” citizen. I would suggest to you that, when they had a chance to vote on the question, they voted quite differently.’
Answer: They voted to confirm Obama’s election, like every other member of Congress.
Granite wrote: “In any case, there is no evidence that the writers of the Constitution followed Vattel on the two-parent theory.”
Right.
The English translation of Vattel that used the phrase “natural born citizens” was not even published until 1797, ten years after the Constitutional Convention, held in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, United States of America, not in the colony of Pennsylvania.
If the framers had desired to use Vattel’s definition, they would have had to write that no person except an indigene of the Unites States may be President.
Can’t find that in the Constitution.
Tucker Jenkins:
Barack Obama is not a “natural born” citizen precisely because his father was not an American citizen, but a Lou tribesman from Kenya. However, the place of his birth, as in the case of John McCain is seconday, if not irrelevant.
Barack Obama tells us that he was born in Hawaii on August 4, 1961 to an American mother, Stanley Ann Dunham, and to Barack Hussein Obama, Sr., a citizen of Kenya, a British colony. Let’s just accept that as true.
However, Part 2, Section 5(1) of the British Nationality Act of 1948, the controlling legal authority on British citizenship, reads, in part, as follows: “Subject to the provisions of this section, a person born after the commencement of this Act shall be a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies by descent if his father is a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies at the time of the birth…”
Obama’s father, a Kenyan, was a British subject at the time of his birth. Therefore, under British law, it is clear that Obama was born with dual US-British citizenship “by descent” from his Kenyan father and his American mother. However, following Kenya’s independence from Great Britain on December 12, 1963, Kenya’s newly-adopted Constitution went into effect.
Chapter VI, Section 87[3] of the Kenyan Constitution provides as follows: “(1) Every person who, having been born in Kenya, is on 11th December, 1963 a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies (Barack Obama, Sr,)… shall become a citizen of Kenya on 12th December 1963. Provided that a person shall not become a citizen of Kenya by virtue of this subsection if neither of his parents was born in Kenya. (Both of Obama’s paternal grandparents were born in Kenya.)
“(2) Every person who, having been born outside Kenya, is on 11th December, 1963 a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies (Barack Obama, Jr.)… shall, if his father becomes, or would but for his death have become a citizen of Kenya by virtue of subsection (1), become a citizen of Kenya on 12th December, 1963.”
In other words, on December 12, 1963, Obama lost his dual US-British citizenship and became, by automatic operation of Kenyan law, a dual citizen of the United States and Kenya. However, Kenyan dual citizenship had its limits. Chapter VI, Section 97 of the Kenyan Constitution provides as follows:
“(1) A person who, upon the attainment of the age of twenty-one years, is a citizen of Kenya and also a citizen of some country other than Kenya shall, subject to subsection (7), cease to be a citizen of Kenya upon the specified date unless he has renounced his citizenship of that other country, taken the oath of allegiance and, in the case of a person who was born outside Kenya, made and registered such declaration of his intentions concerning residence as may be prescribed by or under an Act of Parliament.”
Subsection (7), referenced above, gave the Kenyan parliament the option to provide a grace period during which dual citizens could make their election of nationality after reaching age twenty-one. Obama did not actively seek British or Kenyan citizenships; they were his by “automatic operation” of British and Kenyan law and “by descent” from his father. There is no evidence that he ever took steps to renounce either his British or his Kenyan citizenship.
The only way we will ever satisfy Granite and Observer on this issue is to allow the SCOTUS to sort it all out, but that will not happen because one person… Obama… will not allow it.
Obama is not a “natural born” citizen and cannot be President of the United States any more than I can become Pope of the Roman Catholic Church because I am not a Catholic. I can claim that I am the Pope, just as Obama claims to be POTUS, but he is not.
Who do we have to blame for this constitutional crisis? We have the Democrat Party and the Democrat electors to blame because they were so anxious to regain the power of the White House that they would have voted for a yellow dog if he had been on the ticket.
Shame on all of them.
Pingback: American Citizens’ Demand for Justice Against the Overthrow of the U.S. Constitution| The Post & Email
Pingback: Smoking gun - birth certificate is a fraud! - Page 79 - Christian Forums
Pingback: American Citizens’ Demand for Justice Against the Overthrow of the U.S. Constitution « THE WAKING GIANT
Pingback: Climbing the summit « bobsbox
Pingback: Jack Maskill is a Liar: More on the fraudulent Congressional Research Service Presidential Eligibility Memo
Pingback: The Greatest Fraud Perpetrated in American History! « A Nation ADrift-Why?